Vol. 79 Thursday, 

No. 6 January 9, 2014 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards; and Manufacture of 

Amino/Phenolic Resins; Proposed Rule 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1676 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133; FRL–9903–68– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR49 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology Standards; and 

Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

amendments, with regard to regulations 

applicable to three industrial source 

categories, to two national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP): NESHAP for Source 

Categories: Generic Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology 

Standards; and NESHAP: Manufacture 

of Amino/Phenolic Resins. The three 

source categories addressed in this 

action are Acrylic and Modacrylic 

Fibers Production, Polycarbonate 

Production and Amino/Phenolic Resins 

Production. For all three of these source 

categories, the EPA is proposing 

decisions concerning the residual risk 

and technology reviews. The EPA is also 

proposing amendments to correct and 

clarify regulatory provisions related to 

emissions during periods of startup, 

shutdown and malfunction; add 

provisions for affirmative defense; add 

requirements for electronic reporting of 

performance test results; clarify 

provisions pertaining to open-ended 

valves and lines; add monitoring 

requirements for pressure relief devices; 

and add standards for previously 

unregulated hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) emissions sources for certain 

emission points. We estimate that these 

proposed amendments will reduce HAP 

emissions from these three source 

categories by a combined 22 tons per 

year. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before March 10, 2014. A 

copy of comments on the information 

collection provisions should be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) on or before 

February 10, 2014. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

January 24, 2014, we will hold a public 

hearing on February 10, 2014. If a 

hearing is requested, the last day to preregister in advance to speak at the 

hearing will be February 3, 2014. 

Additionally, requests to speak will be 

taken the day of the hearing at the 

hearing registration desk, although 

preferences on speaking times may not 

be able to be fulfilled. If you require the 

service of a translator or special 

accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the 

time of registration. If no one contacts 

the EPA requesting a public hearing to 

be held concerning this proposed rule 

by January 24, 2014, a public hearing 

will not take place. For further 

information on the hearing, see section 

I.E of this preamble. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133, by one of 

the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0133. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0133. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West (Air 

Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0133. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0133. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at: 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

EPA Docket Center, 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 

1742. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

requested by January 24, 2014, it will be 

held on February 10, 2014, at the EPA’s 

Research Triangle Park Campus, 109 

T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. 

The hearing will convene at 10:00 a.m. 

(Eastern Standard Time) and end at 5:00 

p.m. (Eastern Standard Time). A lunch 

break will be held from 12:00 p.m. 

(Eastern Standard Time) until 1:00 p.m. 

(Eastern Standard Time). Please contact 

Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–0832 or 

at hunt.virginia@epa.gov to request a 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1677 

hearing, to determine if a hearing will 

be held and to register to speak at the 

hearing, if one is held. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. Nick Parsons, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (E143– 

01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–5372; fax number: 

(919) 541–0246; and email address: 

parsons.nick@epa.gov. For specific 

information regarding the risk modeling 

methodology, contact Mr. Mark Morris, 

Health and Environmental Impacts 

Division (C539–02), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

5416; fax number: (919) 541–0840; 

email address: morris.mark@epa.gov. 

For information about the applicability 

of these three NESHAP to a particular 

entity, contact Ms. Tavara Culpepper, 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance (OECA), telephone number: 

(202) 564–0902; email address: 

culpepper.tavara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use 

multiple acronyms and terms in this 

preamble. While this list may not be 

exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

preamble and for reference purposes, 

the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

ACGIH American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

ADAF age-dependent adjustment factors 

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels 

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the 

HEM-3 model 

AMF Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

APR Amino/Phenolic Resins 

BACT best available control technology 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalEPA California EPA 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EJ environmental justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

FR Federal Register 

GACT generally achievable control 

technology 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HCl hydrochloric acid 

HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 

1.1.0 

HI hazard index 

HON National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry 

HQ hazard quotient 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

km kilometer 

LAER lowest achievable emission rate 

LDAR leak detection and repair 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MACT Code Code within the NEI used to 

identify processes included in a source 

category 

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

NRC National Research Council 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OECA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PC Polycarbonate 

POM polycyclic organic matter 

ppm parts per million 

PRD pressure relief device 

RACT reasonably available control 

technology 

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

REL reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC reference concentration 

RfD reference dose 

RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SOCMI Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry 

SOP standard operating procedures 

SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TEQ toxic equivalency quotient 

TLV threshold limit value 

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index 

tpy tons per year 

TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 

Ecological Exposure model 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UF uncertainty factor 

mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

URE unit risk estimate 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

E. Public Hearing 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What are the source categories and how 

did the MACT standards regulate their 

HAP emissions? 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

III. Analytical Procedures 

A. How did we estimate post-MACT risks 

posed by the source categories? 

B. How did we consider the risk results in 

making decisions for this proposal? 

C. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the AMF Source Category 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant to 

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

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects? 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

V. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions 

for the APR Source Category 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant to 

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

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects? 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

VI. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the PC Source Category 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

B. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects? 

C. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

VII. What other actions are we proposing? 

A. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

B. Electronic Reporting 

C. Open-Ended Valves and Lines 

D. Flare Performance 

VIII. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

IX. Summary of Cost, Environmental and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

X. Request for Comments 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1678 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

XI. Submitting Data Corrections 

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

A red-line version of the regulatory language 

that incorporates the proposed changes 

in this action is available in the docket 

for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0133). 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to establish NESHAP for source 

categories and subcategories of both 

major sources and area sources of HAP 

that are listed for regulation under CAA 

section 112(c). For major sources of 

HAP, under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3), the EPA is required to set standards 

that reflect the emissions performance 

achieved by the maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) and by other 

measures used at sources in the subject 

source category. For area sources, under 

CAA section 112(d)(5) the EPA is 

allowed to instead adopt standards 

reflecting generally achievable control 

technology (GACT). Section 112(d)(6) of 

the CAA requires the EPA to review 

these NESHAP regulations for each 

covered source category and to revise 

them as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies) no less 

frequently than every 8 years. Section 

112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to 

assess, within 8 years of promulgation 

of the original NESHAP for major 

sources and area sources subject to 

MACT, the remaining risks due to 

emissions of HAP from these source 

categories and determine whether the 

emissions standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

Section 112(f)(5) provides that the EPA 

is not required to conduct this latter 

review for area sources subject to GACT. 

We refer to these reviews collectively as 

residual risk and technology reviews 

(RTRs). 

This action presents the results of, 

and proposed decisions based on, the 

EPA’s reviews of the following three 

source categories: Acrylic and 

Modacrylic Fibers Production (AMF), 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

(APR) and Polycarbonate Production 

(PC). As detailed below, the EPA is 

proposing amendments, based on the 

relevant RTR, to regulations applicable 

to each of these three source categories. 

In addition, we are also proposing 

amendments to the relevant regulations 

to address the following: Emissions 

during periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction; standards for previously 

unregulated HAP emissions sources; 

revisions to require monitoring of 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

service that release to the atmosphere; 

clarification of provisions pertaining to 

open-ended valves and lines; and 

revisions to require electronic reporting 

of performance test results. 

2. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action in Question 

With regard to the AMF source 

category, the EPA has determined that 

no amendments are needed for this 

source category based on the risk review 

under CAA section 112(f). However, 

based on the technology review under 

CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA is 

proposing to eliminate the less stringent 

of two currently available options for 

complying with leak detection and 

repair program requirements—while 

retaining the more stringent compliance 

requirement. In addition, under CAA 

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

proposing requirements to address 

certain emission points that were not 

previously regulated. 

With regard to the APR source 

category, the EPA has determined that 

no amendments are needed for this 

source category based on the risk and 

technology reviews under CAA sections 

112(d)(6) and 112(f). However, under 

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

is proposing requirements to address 

certain emission points that were not 

previously regulated. 

With regard to the PC source category, 

the EPA has determined that no 

amendments are needed for this source 

category based on the risk review under 

CAA section 112(f). However, based on 

the technology review under CAA 

section 112(d)(6), the EPA is proposing 

to eliminate the less stringent of two 

currently available options for 

complying with leak detection and 

repair program requirements—while 

retaining the more stringent compliance 

requirement. 

The EPA is also proposing revisions 

to all three source categories in four 

areas. First, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the standards so that they apply 

at all times, including during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM). Second, the EPA is proposing to 

require electronic reporting of 

performance test results. Third, the EPA 

is clarifying the provisions regarding 

open-ended lines by adding a definition 

for what constitutes a ‘‘sealed’’ openended line. Finally, the EPA is 

proposing to require monitoring of 

pressure relief devices (PRDs) in organic 

HAP service that release to the 

atmosphere, and that a pressure release 

from such a PRD is a violation. 

3. Costs and Emissions Reductions 

Table 1 below summarizes the 

estimated costs and potential emissions 

reductions for this action. See section IX 

of this preamble for further discussion 

of the costs and impacts. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ACRYLIC AND MODACRYLIC FIBERS

PRODUCTION, AMINO/PHENOLIC RESINS PRODUCTION AND POLYCARBONATE PRODUCTION NESHAP AMENDMENTS

Source category 

Number 

affected 

plants 

Capital costs 

($) 

Annualized 

costs 

($/yr) 

Emissions 

reductions 

(tpy) 

Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production ....................................................... 1 $38,000 $6,000 0.2 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production ................................................................. 18 1,500,000 400,000 20.1 

Polycarbonate Production ................................................................................ 4 67,000 9,400 2.1 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1679 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

Table 2 of this preamble lists the 

NESHAP and associated regulated 

industrial source categories that are the 

subject of this proposal. Table 2 is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities that this proposed action is 

likely to affect. The proposed standards, 

once finalized, will be directly 

applicable to the affected sources. 

Federal, state, local and tribal 

government entities would not be 

affected by this proposed action. As 

defined in the ‘‘Initial List of Categories 

of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ 

(see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992), the 

‘‘Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production’’ source category includes 

any facility engaged in manufacturing 

fibers in which the fiber-forming 

substance is any long-chain, synthetic 

polymer composed of at least 85 

percent, by weight, acrylonitrile units. 

As defined in the ‘‘Initial List of 

Categories of Sources Under Section 

112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990’’ (see 57 FR 

31576, July 16, 1992) and subsequently 

amended (see 65 FR 3276, January 20, 

2000), the ‘‘Amino/Phenolic Resins 

Production’’ source category includes 

any facility engaged in manufacturing 

amino resins or phenolic resins. As 

defined in the ‘‘Initial List of Categories 

of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ 

(see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992), the 

‘‘Polycarbonate Production’’ source 

category includes any facility which 

manufactures a special class of polyester 

formed from the dihydroxy compound 

and any carbonate diester or by ester 

interchange. 

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

NESHAP and source category NAICS Code a

Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards .. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production ................................. 325220 

(325222) 

Polycarbonate Production .......................................................... 325211 

(325211) 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 325211 

(325211) 

a North American Industry Classification System 2012 (2007 in parenthesis). 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal is available on the Internet 

through the EPA’s Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. 

Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, the EPA will post a copy 

of this proposed action on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/

t3pfpr.html. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. 

Following publication in the Federal 

Register, the EPA will post the Federal 

Register version of the proposal and key 

technical documents on the project Web 

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

gmact/gmactpg.html and http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/amino/

aminopg.html. Information on the 

overall residual risk and technology 

review program is available at the 

following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

D. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comments that includes information 

claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy 

of the comments that does not contain 

the information claimed as CBI for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Nick 

Parsons, c/o OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attn: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0133. 

E. Public Hearing 

If a hearing is held, it will provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 

present data, views or arguments 

concerning the proposed action. The 

EPA will make every effort to 

accommodate all speakers who arrive 

and register. Because this hearing, if 

held, will be at a U.S. governmental 

facility, individuals planning to attend 

the hearing should be prepared to show 

valid picture identification to the 

security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. In addition, you will 

need to obtain a property pass for any 

personal belongings you bring with you. 

Upon leaving the building, you will be 

required to return this property pass to 

the security desk. No large signs will be 

allowed in the building, cameras may 

only be used outside of the building and 

demonstrations will not be allowed on 

federal property for security reasons. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral comments 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. If a hearing is held 

on February 10, 2014, written comments 

on the proposed rule must be 

postmarked by March 10, 2014. 

Commenters should notify Ms. Virginia 

Hunt if they will need specific 

equipment, or if there are other special 

needs related to providing comments at 

the hearing. The EPA will provide 

equipment for commenters to show 

overhead slides or make computerized 

slide presentations if we receive special 

requests in advance. Oral testimony will 

be limited to 5 minutes for each 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1680 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

commenter. The EPA encourages 

commenters to provide the EPA with a 

copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email or CD) or in 

hard copy form. Verbatim transcripts of 

the hearings and written statements will 

be included in the docket for the 

rulemaking. The EPA will make every 

effort to follow the schedule as closely 

as possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearing to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. Information regarding the 

hearing (including information as to 

whether or not one will be held) will be 

available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

oarpg/t3main.html. Again, all requests 

for a public hearing to be held must be 

received by January 24, 2014. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of HAP from stationary 

sources. In the first stage, after the EPA 

has identified categories of sources 

emitting one or more of the HAP listed 

in CAA section 112(b), CAA section 

112(d) requires us to promulgate 

technology-based NESHAP for those 

sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that 

emit or have the potential to emit 10 

tons per year (tpy) or more of a single 

HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAPs. For major 

sources, the technology-based NESHAP 

must reflect the maximum degree of 

emissions reductions of HAPs 

achievable (after considering cost, 

energy requirements and non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts) and 

are commonly referred to as MACT 

standards. 

MACT standards must require the 

maximum degree of emissions reduction 

achievable through the application of 

measures, processes, methods, systems 

or techniques, including, but not limited 

to, measures that: (1) Reduce the volume 

of or eliminate pollutants through 

process changes, substitution of 

materials or other modifications; (2) 

enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; (3) capture or treat 

pollutants when released from a 

process, stack, storage or fugitive 

emission point; (4) are design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards (including requirements for 

operator training or certification); or (5) 

are a combination of the above. CAA 

section 112(d)(2)(A)–(E). The MACT 

standards may take the form of design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards where the EPA first 

determines that either: (1) a pollutant 

cannot be emitted through a conveyance 

designed and constructed to emit or 

capture the pollutants or that any 

requirement for, or use of, such a 

conveyance would be inconsistent with 

law; or (2) the application of 

measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations. CAA section 

112(h)(1)–(2). 

The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum 

control level allowed for MACT 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 

on cost considerations. For new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emissions control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT 

floor for existing sources can be less 

stringent than floors for new sources but 

not less stringent than the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, the EPA must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor 

based on considerations of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 

The EPA is then required to review 

these technology-based standards and 

revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 

less frequently than every eight years. 

CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting 

this review, the EPA is not required to 

recalculate the MACT floor. Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, 

Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 

2013). 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on reducing any remaining (i.e., 

‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA 

section 112(f). This provision requires, 

first, that the EPA prepare a Report to 

Congress discussing (among other 

things) methods of calculating the risks 

posed (or potentially posed) by sources 

after implementation of the MACT 

standards, the public health significance 

of those risks and the EPA’s 

recommendations as to legislation 

regarding such remaining risk. The EPA 

prepared and submitted the Residual 

Risk Report to Congress, EPA–453/R– 

99–001 (Risk Report) in March 1999. 

Congress did not act in response, 

thereby triggering the EPA’s obligation 

under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze 

and address residual risk. 

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

the EPA to determine for source 

categories subject to MACT standards 

whether the emission standards provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the 

CAA expressly preserves the EPA’s use 

of the two-step process for developing 

standards to address any residual risk 

and the agency’s interpretation of 

‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in 

the National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene 

Emissions from Maleic Anhydride 

Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, 

Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene 

Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product 

Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 

FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The 

EPA notified Congress in the Risk 

Report that the agency intended to use 

the Benzene NESHAP approach in 

making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. 

ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted 

this approach in its residual risk 

determinations and in a challenge to the 

risk review for the Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing source 

category, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit upheld as reasonable the EPA’s 

interpretation that subsection 112(f)(2) 

incorporates the approach established in 

the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. 

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

2008)(‘‘[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) 

expressly incorporates the EPA’s 

interpretation of the Clean Air Act from 

the Benzene standard, complete with a 

citation to the Federal Register.’’); see 

also A Legislative History of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990, vol. 1, p. 

877 (Senate debate on Conference 

Report). 

The first step in the process of 

evaluating residual risk is the 

determination of acceptable risk. If risks 

are unacceptable, the EPA cannot 

consider cost in identifying the 

emissions standards necessary to bring 

risks to an acceptable level. The second 

step is the determination of whether 

standards must be further revised in 

order to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. The 

ample margin of safety is the level at 

which the standards must be set, unless 

an even more stringent standard is 

necessary to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1681 

1 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined as 

any significant and widespread adverse effect, 

which may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, 

aquatic life or natural resources, including adverse 

impacts on populations of endangered or threatened 

species or significant degradation of environmental 

qualities over broad areas. CAA section 112(a)(7). 

1. Step 1-Determination of Acceptability 

The agency in the Benzene NESHAP 

concluded that ‘‘the acceptability of risk 

under section 112 is best judged on the 

basis of a broad set of health risk 

measures and information’’ and that the 

‘‘judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor.’’ Id. at 

38046. The determination of what 

represents an ‘‘acceptable’’ risk is based 

on a judgment of ‘‘what risks are 

acceptable in the world in which we 

live’’ (Risk Report at 178, quoting NRDC 

v. EPA, 824 F. 2d 1146, 1165 (DC Cir. 

1987) (en banc) (‘‘Vinyl Chloride’’), 

recognizing that our world is not riskfree. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated 

that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if 

the risk to [the maximum exposed] 

individual is no higher than 

approximately one in 10 thousand, that 

risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 

FR 38045. We discussed the maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk (or 

maximum individual risk (MIR)) as 

being ‘‘the estimated risk that a person 

living near a plant would have if he or 

she were exposed to the maximum 

pollutant concentrations for 70 years.’’ 

Id. We explained that this measure of 

risk ‘‘is an estimate of the upper bound 

of risk based on conservative 

assumptions, such as continuous 

exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 

years.’’ Id. We acknowledged that 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk ‘‘does not necessarily reflect the 

true risk, but displays a conservative 

risk level which is an upper-bound that 

is unlikely to be exceeded.’’ Id. 

Understanding that there are both 

benefits and limitations to using the 

MIR as a metric for determining 

acceptability, we acknowledged in the 

Benzene NESHAP that ‘‘consideration of 

maximum individual risk * * * must 

take into account the strengths and 

weaknesses of this measure of risk.’’ Id. 

Consequently, the presumptive risk 

level of 100-in-1 million (1-in-10 

thousand) provides a benchmark for 

judging the acceptability of maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk, but does 

not constitute a rigid line for making 

that determination. Further, in the 

Benzene NESHAP, we noted that: 

[p]articular attention will also be accorded to 

the weight of evidence presented in the risk 

assessment of potential carcinogenicity or 

other health effects of a pollutant. While the 

same numerical risk may be estimated for an 

exposure to a pollutant judged to be a known 

human carcinogen, and to a pollutant 

considered a possible human carcinogen 

based on limited animal test data, the same 

weight cannot be accorded to both estimates. 

In considering the potential public health 

effects of the two pollutants, the Agency’s 

judgment on acceptability, including the 

MIR, will be influenced by the greater weight 

of evidence for the known human 

carcinogen. 

Id. at 38046. The agency also explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP that: 

[i]n establishing a presumption for MIR, 

rather than a rigid line for acceptability, the 

Agency intends to weigh it with a series of 

other health measures and factors. These 

include the overall incidence of cancer or 

other serious health effects within the 

exposed population, the numbers of persons 

exposed within each individual lifetime risk 

range and associated incidence within, 

typically, a 50 km exposure radius around 

facilities, the science policy assumptions and 

estimation uncertainties associated with the 

risk measures, weight of the scientific 

evidence for human health effects, other 

quantified or unquantified health effects, 

effects due to co-location of facilities, and coemission of pollutants. 

Id. at 38045. In some cases, these health 

measures and factors taken together may 

provide a more realistic description of 

the magnitude of risk in the exposed 

population than that provided by 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk alone. 

As noted earlier, in NRDC v. EPA, the 

court held that section 112(f)(2) 

‘‘incorporates the EPA’s interpretation 

of the Clean Air Act from the Benzene 

Standard.’’ The court further held that 

Congress’ incorporation of the Benzene 

approach applies equally to carcinogens 

and non-carcinogens. 529 F.3d at 1081– 

82. Accordingly, we also consider noncancer risk metrics in our determination 

of risk acceptability and ample margin 

of safety. 

2. Step 2—Determination of Ample 

Margin of Safety 

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires the 

EPA to determine, for source categories 

subject to MACT standards, whether 

those standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, 

‘‘the second step of the inquiry, 

determining an ‘ample margin of safety,’ 

again includes consideration of all of 

the health factors, and whether to 

reduce the risks even further . . . . 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the agency will establish the standard at 

a level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health, as 

required by section 112.’’ 54 FR 38046. 

According to CAA section 

112(f)(2)(A), if the MACT standards for 

HAP ‘‘classified as a known, probable, 

or possible human carcinogen do not 

reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 

the individual most exposed to 

emissions from a source in the category 

or subcategory to less than one in one 

million,’’ the EPA must promulgate 

residual risk standards for the source 

category (or subcategory), as necessary 

to provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. In doing so, the 

EPA may adopt standards equal to 

existing MACT standards if the EPA 

determines that the existing standards 

(i.e. the MACT standards) are 

sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 

529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008) (‘‘If 

EPA determines that the existing 

technology-based standards provide an 

’ample margin of safety,’ then the 

Agency is free to readopt those 

standards during the residual risk 

rulemaking.’’) The EPA must also adopt 

more stringent standards, if necessary, 

to prevent an adverse environmental 

effect,1 but must consider cost, energy, 

safety and other relevant factors in 

doing so. 

The CAA does not specifically define 

the terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ 

‘‘acceptable level’’ and ‘‘ample margin 

of safety.’’ In the Benzene NESHAP, 54 

FR 38044–38045, we stated as an overall 

objective: 

In protecting public health with an ample 

margin of safety under section 112, EPA 

strives to provide maximum feasible 

protection against risks to health from 

hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the 

greatest number of persons possible to an 

individual lifetime risk level no higher than 

approximately 1-in-1 million and (2) limiting 

to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 

thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million] the 

estimated risk that a person living near a 

plant would have if he or she were exposed 

to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 

70 years. 

The agency further stated that ‘‘[t]he 

EPA also considers incidence (the 

number of persons estimated to suffer 

cancer or other serious health effects as 

a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be 

an important measure of the health risk 

to the exposed population. Incidence 

measures the extent of health risks to 

the exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence 

of cancer or other serious health effects 

in the exposed population.’’ Id. at 

38045. 

In the ample margin of safety decision 

process, the agency again considers all 

of the health risks and other health 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1682 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

information considered in the first step, 

including the incremental risk reduction 

associated with standards more 

stringent than the MACT standard or a 

more stringent standard that EPA has 

determined is necessary to ensure risk is 

acceptable. In the ample margin of 

safety analysis, the agency considers 

additional factors, including costs and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and any other relevant factors. 

Considering all of these factors, the 

agency will establish the standard at a 

level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health, as 

required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 

38046. 

B. What are the source categories and 

how did the MACT standards regulate 

their HAP emissions? 

1. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production Source Category 

The NESHAP for Acrylic and 

Modacrylic Fibers Production (‘‘AMF 

MACT standards’’), with the exception 

of wastewater processes, were 

promulgated on June 29, 1999 (64 FR 

34854), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart YY. The provisions for 

wastewater were promulgated 

separately on November 22, 1999 (64 FR 

63695), and also codified at 40 CFR part 

63, subpart YY. The AMF MACT 

standards were established in a 

consolidated rulemaking for certain 

small source categories consisting of 

five or fewer major sources. The 

standards for these source categories 

were developed under the EPA’s 

Generic MACT program. 

Acrylic and modacrylic fibers are 

manufactured fibers in which the fiberforming substance is a long-chain 

synthetic polymer containing 

acrylonitrile units. The fiber-forming 

substance in acrylic fibers is composed 

of at least 85 percent acrylonitrile units 

by weight, whereas modacrylic fibers 

are less than 85 but at least 35 percent 

acrylonitrile units by weight. These 

acrylic and modacrylic fibers have been 

used in textiles (including apparel, 

carpet, awnings, tents, sandbags and 

auto upholstery) and in industrial 

applications like concrete 

reinforcements and industrial filters. 

These fibers are also used as carbon 

fiber precursors. Carbon fibers 

developed from acrylic fibers have high 

tensile strength and are used in 

aerospace applications, such as aircraft 

airframes and engine structures, as well 

as other applications where light weight 

and high strength are needed, including 

racing car bodies, golf club shafts, 

bicycle frames, fishing rods, automobile 

springs, sailboat masts and many other 

items. 

The production of AMF involves a 

polymerization reaction process using 

either a solution or suspension process 

in either a batch or continuous mode. 

The resulting polymer (called ‘‘spin 

dope’’) is spun into fibers using either 

wet or dry spinning techniques. The 

spun fibers are then treated to remove 

excess solvent and to improve fiber 

characteristics through processes such 

as washing, stretching, crimping and 

drying. 

Sources of HAP emissions from the 

production of AMF include: (1) Storage 

vessels used to store acrylonitrile 

monomer and co-monomers; (2) process 

vents on reactors, vessels and storage 

vessels used for acrylic polymerization, 

monomer recovery, fiber spinning and 

solvent recovery operations; (3) fugitive 

emissions from AMF spinning lines; (4) 

wastewater treatment systems; and (5) 

equipment leaks. In the production of 

AMF, HAP are used primarily as raw 

materials or reaction inhibitors in the 

polymerization reaction process. The 

AMF MACT standards include emission 

limits for existing and new fiber 

spinning lines using spin dope from a 

suspension polymerization process, new 

sources using a solution polymerization 

process and for process vents at all 

facilities. The AMF MACT standards 

include a combination of equipment 

standards and work practices for 

equipment leaks and wastewater, and a 

combination of equipment standards 

and emission limits for storage vessels. 

To meet the requirements of the AMF 

MACT standards, the emissions from 

storage vessels are typically controlled 

either by floating roofs or fixed roofs 

that route emissions through a closed 

vent system to a combustion or recovery 

device. Emissions from wastewater are 

generally controlled by equipment 

modifications (e.g., covers on surface 

impoundments, containers and drain 

systems) and pretreatment to remove 

HAP and biodegradation or 

pretreatment and discharge to a publicly 

owned treatment works for 

biodegradation. Emissions from 

equipment leaks are typically reduced 

by leak detection and repair (LDAR) 

work practice programs. Controls for 

process vents include combustion or 

recovery devices, and controls for fiber 

spinning lines include enclosure of the 

spinning and washing areas with 

venting to a combustion or recovery 

device. 

We identified one major source 

currently operating that is subject to the 

AMF MACT standards. Acrylonitrile 

accounts for the majority of the HAP 

emissions from the AMF processes at 

this facility (approximately 32 tpy and 

over 99 percent of the total HAP 

emissions by mass). The only other HAP 

reported by this facility is hydroquinone 

(approximately 3 lbs/yr). As we have 

stated previously, other organic HAP, 

where present, would only be associated 

with those pollutant streams containing 

acrylonitrile, and where sources control 

acrylonitrile emissions, comparable 

levels of control will be achieved for 

other organic HAP emitted from AMF 

facilities. See NESHAP: Generic 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (Generic MACT); Final 

Rule, Process Wastewater Provisions; 

Proposed Rule, 64 FR 34854, 34858 

(June 29, 1999). The same is true here— 

hydroquinone is emitted only from 

equipment leaks, and equipment leaks 

are already subject to control through 

the LDAR program in the rule. 

We estimate that the actual emissions 

levels for all emission sources are 

representative of the MACT-allowable 

levels (i.e., the maximum emission 

levels allowed if in compliance with the 

MACT standards), as we are not aware 

of any situations in which the facility is 

conducting additional work practices or 

operating a control device such that it 

achieves a greater emission reduction 

than required. For more detail about this 

estimate of the ratio of actual-to-MACTallowable emissions and the estimation 

of the MACT-allowable emission levels 

(and associated risks and impacts), see 

the memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Acrylic and 

Modacrylic Fibers, Amino/Phenolic 

Resins, and Polycarbonate Production 

Source Categories, available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0133). 

2. Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

The NESHAP for the Manufacture of 

Amino/Phenolic Resins (‘‘APR MACT 

standards’’; also referred to as Group III 

Polymers and Resins) were promulgated 

on January 20, 2000 (65 FR 3275), and 

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

OOO. The APR MACT standards apply 

to major sources and regulate HAP 

emissions resulting from the 

manufacture of amino resins or phenolic 

resins. These two products can broadly 

be classified as formaldehyde-based 

thermosetting resins. An amino resin is 

a resin produced through the reaction of 

formaldehyde, or a formaldehydecontaining solution, with one or more 

compounds that contain an amino 

group; these compounds include 

melamine, urea and urea derivatives. A 

phenolic resin is a resin that is a 

condensation product of formaldehyde 

and phenol, or a formaldehyde 

substitute and/or a phenol substitute. 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1683 

Substitutes for formaldehyde include 

acetaldehyde or furfuraldehyde. 

Substitutes for phenol include other 

phenolic-starting compounds such as 

cresols, xylenols, p-tert-butylphenol, pphenylphenol and nonylphenol. 

Formaldehyde, phenol, acetaldehyde 

and cresols are HAP, but the other 

reactants are not. Amino/phenolic 

resins are used in the manufacture of 

plywood, particle board, adhesives, 

wood furniture and plastic parts. 

Generally, the production of APR 

entails four processes: (1) Raw material 

(i.e., solvent and catalyst) storage and 

refining; (2) polymer formation in a 

reactor; (3) material recovery; and (4) 

finishing (e.g., cooling, filtering, drying 

or pulverizing). 

Sources of HAP emissions from the 

production of APR include reactor batch 

process vents, non-reactor batch process 

vents, continuous process vents, 

equipment leaks, wastewater, storage 

vessels and heat exchangers. In the 

production of APR, HAP are used 

primarily as reactants or extraction 

solvents. The APR MACT standards 

include a combination of equipment 

standards and emission limits for the 

various emission sources. 

To meet the requirements of the APR 

MACT standards, the typical control 

techniques used to reduce emissions 

include LDAR programs for heat 

exchangers and other equipment. 

Boilers, combustion and recovery 

devices may be used to control 

emissions from batch process vents. 

We identified 18 currently-operating 

facilities subject to the APR MACT 

standards. Methanol, formaldehyde and 

phenol account for the majority of the 

HAP emissions from the APR 

production processes at these facilities 

(approximately 357 tpy and 96 percent 

of the total HAP emissions by mass). A 

variety of other chemicals are used in 

the production of APR, and these 

facilities also reported emissions of 23 

other HAP. Emissions of three persistent 

bioaccumulative HAP (PB–HAP) are 

reported in the data set for this source 

category, including lead compounds, 

cadmium compounds, and polycyclic 

organic matter (POM) (which includes 

polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)). 

We estimate that the actual emissions 

levels for all sources are representative 

of the MACT-allowable levels (i.e., the 

maximum emission levels allowed if in 

compliance with the MACT standards), 

as we are not aware of any situations in 

which facilities are conducting 

additional work practices or operating a 

control device such that it achieves a 

greater emission reduction than 

required, except batch process vents. As 

it is possible that the capture systems 

and control devices used at some 

facilities achieve greater emission 

reductions than what is required by the 

NESHAP for batch process vents, the 

MACT-allowable level for organic HAP 

emissions from reactor batch process 

vents could be up to 3.4 times the actual 

emissions and the MACT-allowable 

level for organic HAP emissions from 

non-reactor batch process vents could 

be up to 1.6 times the actual emissions 

for some facilities in this source 

category. For more detail about this 

estimate of the ratio of actual-to-MACTallowable emissions and the estimation 

of MACT-allowable emission levels (and 

associated risks and impacts), see the 

memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Acrylic and 

Modacrylic Fibers, Amino/Phenolic 

Resins, and Polycarbonate Production 

Source Categories, available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0133). 

3. Polycarbonate Production Source 

Category 

The NESHAP for Polycarbonate 

Production (‘‘PC MACT standards’’), 

with the exception of wastewater 

processes, were promulgated on June 

29, 1999 (64 FR 34854), and codified at 

40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. The 

provisions for wastewater were 

promulgated separately on November 

22, 1999 (64 FR 63695), and also 

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. 

Along with the AMF and other source 

categories, the PC source category 

standards were established in a 

consolidated rulemaking for certain 

small source categories consisting of 

five or fewer major sources. The 

standards for these source categories 

were developed under the EPA’s 

Generic MACT program. 

Polycarbonates are thermoplastic 

polymers that can be either transparent 

or opaque, are heat resistant and are 

scratch and impact resistant. These 

properties make PC useful in a variety 

of applications, including as a dielectric 

in capacitors, car headlights, water 

bottles, sports helmets, compact discs 

and DVDs, eyewear lenses, medical 

devices, toys and other products. 

The production of PC involves a 

polymerization reaction process using 

either a solution or suspension process 

in either a batch or continuous mode. 

All production of PC in the United 

States is currently based on the 

polymerization reaction of bisphenols 

with phosgene in the presence of 

catalysts, solvents (mainly methylene 

chloride) and other additives. After the 

reaction, the resulting polymer is 

purified and sent to a recovery process 

to remove remaining methylene 

chloride. The resin is dried and stored 

in silos. 

All phosgene used as a feedstock for 

the production of PC is produced onsite 

to reduce potential hazards associated 

with transporting and storing this 

material. The phosgene is fed directly 

from dedicated phosgene production 

equipment to PC polymerization process 

equipment. Consequently, phosgene 

production is integrated with the 

production of PC; the production of PC 

cannot occur without the other process 

operating. Since dedicated phosgene 

production units are integral to the PC 

production process, the EPA considers 

such phosgene production units to be 

part of the PC source category (63 FR 

55178, October 18, 1998). 

Sources of HAP emissions from the 

production of PC include storage vessels 

used to store methylene chloride and 

other organic solvents; process vents on 

polymerization, polymer solution 

purification and solvent recovery 

equipment; wastewater treatment 

systems; and equipment leaks. In the 

production of PC, HAP are used as 

monomers, co-monomers and solvents 

in the polymerization reaction. The PC 

MACT standards include emission 

limits for continuous process vents. The 

PC MACT standards include a 

combination of equipment standards 

and work practices for equipment leaks 

and wastewater and a combination of 

equipment standards and emission 

limits for storage vessels. 

To meet the requirements of the PC 

MACT standards, the typical control 

devices used to reduce emissions from 

storage vessels are fixed roofs with 

emissions routed through a closed vent 

system to a combustion or recovery 

device. Emissions from wastewater are 

generally controlled by equipment 

modifications (e.g., covers on surface 

impoundments, containers and drain 

systems) and treatment to remove the 

HAP, including steam stripping 

followed by recovery or combustion of 

the stripped HAP. Emissions from 

equipment leaks are typically reduced 

by leak detection and repair work 

practice programs. Controls for 

continuous and batch process vents 

include combustion or recovery devices. 

We identified four currently-operating 

facilities subject to the PC MACT 

standards. Methylene chloride, ethyl 

chloride and triethylamine account for 

the majority of the HAP emissions from 

the PC production processes at these 

facilities (approximately 330 tpy and 

over 99 percent of the total HAP 

emissions by mass). Phosgene and 

chlorobenzene emissions were also 

reported from the PC production 

processes at these facilities. 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1684 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

We estimate that the actual emissions 

levels for all sources are representative 

of the MACT-allowable levels (i.e., the 

maximum emission levels allowed if in 

compliance with the MACT standards), 

as we are not aware of any situations in 

which facilities are conducting 

additional work practices or operating a 

control device such that it achieves a 

greater emission reduction than 

required, except storage vessels. As it is 

possible that the capture systems and 

control devices used at some facilities 

achieve greater HAP emission 

reductions than what is required by the 

NESHAP for some storage vessels, 

depending on the vessel capacity and 

vapor pressure of the stored material, 

the MACT-allowable level of HAP 

emissions could be up to 2.5 times the 

actual emissions for storage vessels in 

this source category. For more detail 

about this estimate of the ratio of actual 

to MACT-allowable emissions and the 

estimation of the MACT-allowable 

emission levels (and associated risks 

and impacts), see the memorandum, 

MACT Allowable Emissions and Risks 

for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers, 

Amino/Phenolic Resins, and 

Polycarbonate Production Source 

Categories, available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133). 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

To perform the risk assessments for 

these source categories, we developed 

data sets for the APR and PC source 

categories based on information in the 

2005 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) (available at http://www.epa.gov/

ttnchie1/net/2005inventory.html). The 

NEI is a database that contains 

information about sources that emit 

criteria air pollutants, their precursors 

and HAP. The database includes 

estimates of annual air pollutant 

emissions from point, nonpoint and 

mobile sources in the 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and 

the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this 

information and releases an updated 

version of the NEI database every 3 

years. We reviewed the NEI data and 

made adjustments where necessary to 

ensure the proper facilities were 

included and to ensure the proper 

processes were allocated to each source 

category. We also reviewed the 

emissions and other data to identify 

data anomalies that could affect risk 

estimates, such as whether a pollutant 

was expected to be emitted from 

facilities in a source category or whether 

an emission point was located within a 

facility’s fenceline. The NEI data were 

also reviewed by industry trade groups, 

including the American Chemistry 

Council and the Society of Chemical 

Manufacturers and Affiliates, as well as 

several state air agencies. Where the 

EPA received new information from the 

industry and air agency review, 

including updated emissions data and 

process information, facility closure 

information and information that some 

facilities were not subject to the APR or 

PC MACT standards, we revised the NEI 

data where we concluded the comments 

supported such adjustment. We used 

this reviewed and revised data set to 

conduct the risk assessment and other 

analyses for each source category. Due 

to the conservative nature of our 

emissions estimates, as described in the 

emissions data memo cited below, we 

believe that the data set provides a 

conservative estimate for use in 

assessing the risk from these source 

categories. Further details on the 

changes made to the 2005 NEI data can 

be found in the memorandum, 

Emissions Data and Acute Risk Factor 

Used in Residual Risk Modeling: Acrylic 

and Modacrylic Fibers, Amino/Phenolic 

Resins, and Polycarbonate Production, 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133). 

To perform the risk assessment for the 

AMF source category, we developed a 

data set based on information submitted 

to the EPA for this purpose by the one 

operating facility in the source category. 

On February 23, 2012, the EPA visited 

this facility, Cytec Carbon Fibers, LLC, 

located in Piedmont, South Carolina. 

The purpose of this visit was to better 

understand the acrylic fiber production 

processes, the controls in place to 

reduce HAP emissions and the 

characteristics of the emission points at 

this facility. As part of this visit, the 

EPA requested that facility personnel 

examine the 2008 NEI HAP inventory 

data that the EPA had for the facility. 

The EPA provided this data to the 

facility prior to the site visit to give the 

facility the opportunity to correct or 

update the data. After review of the 

data, the facility submitted updated 

information, and the updated data 

formed the basis for the data set used for 

modeling. 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

To conduct the technology review, we 

reviewed information developed since 

these rules were originally promulgated 

in 1999 and 2000. Since those rules 

have been promulgated, the EPA has 

developed other air toxics regulations 

for a number of other source categories 

that emit organic HAP from the same 

type of emission sources that are present 

in the three source categories included 

in this technology review. In these other 

air toxic regulatory actions, we 

consistently evaluated any new 

practices, processes and control 

techniques. For this technology review, 

we took into account the regulatory 

requirements and/or technical analyses 

associated with these other regulatory 

actions to identify any practices, 

processes and control techniques 

considered in these efforts that could 

possibly be applied to the source 

categories addressed in this action. 

We also downloaded from the 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT)/best available control 

technology (BACT)/lowest achievable 

emission rate (LAER) Clearinghouse for 

processes in the AMF, APR and PC 

source categories with permits dating 

back to the promulgation dates of each 

MACT regulation. Finally, we 

conducted an online search of all 

relevant publications, journals, permits 

and other documents to identify any 

new practices, processes or control 

technologies for HAP emissions sources 

since the dates of promulgation of the 

standards. 

To evaluate unregulated emission 

points at facilities regulated by the APR 

MACT standards, we relied on existing 

data submitted to the EPA during 

development of the existing APR MACT 

standards. To evaluate unregulated 

emission points for the AMF MACT 

standards, we relied primarily on data 

submitted to the EPA by the one 

operating facility in the source category, 

along with information gathered during 

the EPA’s visit to the facility. 

III. Analytical Procedures 

In this section, we describe the 

analyses performed to support the 

proposed decisions for the RTR and 

other issues addressed in this proposal. 

A. How did we estimate post-MACT 

risks posed by the source categories? 

The EPA conducted risk assessments 

that provided estimates of the MIR 

posed by the HAP emissions from each 

source in each source category, the 

hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures 

to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard 

quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to 

HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessments 

also provided estimates of the 

distribution of cancer risks within the 

exposed populations, cancer incidence 

and an evaluation of the potential for 

adverse environmental effects for each 

source category. The risk assessment 

consisted of eight primary steps, as 

discussed below. The docket for this 

rulemaking contains the following 

documents which provide more 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1685 

2U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review 

(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review 

by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case 

Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 

Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010. 

3This metric comes from the Benzene NESHAP. 

See 54 FR 38046. 

4U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air 

Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, 

November 9, 2005). 

5A census block is generally the smallest 

geographic area for which census statistics are 

tabulated. 

information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Acrylic and 

Modacrylic Fibers Production Source 

Category, Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Amino/Phenolic 

Resins Production Source Category, and 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Polycarbonate Production Source 

Category. The methods used to assess 

risks (as described in the eight primary 

steps below) are consistent with those 

peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 

and described in their peer review 

report issued in 2010 2; they are also 

consistent with the key 

recommendations contained in that 

report. 

1. How did we estimate actual 

emissions and identify the emissions 

release characteristics? 

As discussed in section II.C of this 

preamble, we created the preliminary 

data sets for the APR and PC source 

categories using data in the 2005 NEI, 

supplemented by data collected from 

industry, industry trade associations 

and state air agencies (when available). 

For the AMF source category, we used 

data collected from the one facility 

subject to the AMF MACT standards. 

2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? 

The available emissions data in the 

MACT dataset include estimates of the 

mass of HAP emitted during the 

specified annual time period. In some 

cases, these ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are 

lower than the emission levels required 

to comply with the MACT standards. 

The emissions level allowed to be 

emitted by the MACT standards is 

referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ 

emissions level. We discussed the use of 

both MACT-allowable and actual 

emissions in the final Coke Oven 

Batteries residual risk rule (70 FR 

19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the 

proposed and final Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP residual risk rules (71 FR 

34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, 

December 21, 2006, respectively). In 

those previous actions, we noted that 

assessing the risks at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable 

since these risks reflect the maximum 

level facilities could emit and still 

comply with national emission 

standards. We also explained that it is 

reasonable to consider actual emissions, 

where such data are available, in both 

steps of the risk analysis, in accordance 

with the Benzene NESHAP approach. 

(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) 

As described above, the actual 

emissions data were compiled based on 

the NEI and information gathered from 

facilities through industrial trade 

associations and state air agencies for 

the APR and PC source categories and 

through the one facility subject to the 

AMF MACT standards. To estimate 

emissions at the MACT-allowable level, 

we developed a ratio of MACTallowable to actual emissions for each 

emissions source type in each source 

category, based on the level of control 

required by the MACT standards 

compared to the level of reported actual 

emissions and available information on 

the level of control achieved by the 

emissions controls in use. For example, 

if there was information to suggest 

several facilities in a source category 

were controlling storage tank emissions 

by 98 percent while the MACT 

standards required only 92-percent 

control, we would estimate that MACTallowable emissions from these 

emission points could be as much as 

four times higher (8-percent allowable 

emissions compared with 2 percent 

actually emitted), and the ratio of 

MACT-allowable to actual would be 4:1 

for this emission point type at the 

facilities in this source category. After 

developing these ratios for each 

emission point type in each source 

category, we next applied these ratios 

on a facility-by-facility basis to the 

maximum chronic risk values from the 

inhalation risk assessment to obtain 

facility-specific maximum risk values 

based on MACT-allowable emissions. 

Further explanation of this evaluation is 

provided in the technical document, 

MACT Allowable Emissions and Risks 

for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers, 

Amino/Phenolic Resins, and 

Polycarbonate Production Source 

Categories, available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133). 

3. How did we conduct dispersion 

modeling, determine inhalation 

exposures and estimate individual and 

population inhalation risks? 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risks from the source categories 

addressed in this proposal were 

estimated using the Human Exposure 

Model (Community and Sector HEM–3 

version 1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs 

three primary risk assessment activities: 

(1) Conducting dispersion modeling to 

estimate the concentrations of HAP in 

ambient air; (2) estimating long-term 

and short-term inhalation exposures to 

individuals residing within 50 

kilometers (km) of the modeled 

sources 3; and (3) estimating individual 

and population-level inhalation risks 

using the exposure estimates and 

quantitative dose-response information. 

The air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model (AERMOD) is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing 

pollutant concentrations from industrial 

facilities.4 To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 

year of hourly surface and upper air 

observations for 189 meteorological 

stations, selected to provide coverage of 

the United States and Puerto Rico. A 

second library of United States Census 

Bureau census block 5 internal point 

locations and populations provides the 

basis of human exposure calculations 

(U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for 

each census block, the census library 

includes the elevation and controlling 

hill height, which are also used in 

dispersion calculations. A third library 

of pollutant unit risk factors and other 

health benchmarks is used to estimate 

health risks. These risk factors and 

health benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by the EPA for HAP and 

other toxic air pollutants. These values 

are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 

discussed in more detail later in this 

section. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentration of each HAP emitted by 

each source for which we have 

emissions data in the source category. 

The air concentrations at each nearby 

census block centroid were used as a 

surrogate for the chronic inhalation 

exposure concentration for all the 

people who reside in that census block. 

We calculated the MIR for each facility 

as the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 

7 days per week and 52 weeks per year 

for a 70-year period) exposure to the 

maximum concentration at the centroid 

of inhabited census blocks. Individual 

cancer risks were calculated by 

multiplying the estimated lifetime 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1686 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_

id=13142. 

7U.S. EPA, 2006. Performing risk assessments 

that include carcinogens described in the 

Supplemental Guidance as having a mutagenic 

mode of action. Science Policy Council Cancer 

Guidelines Implementation Workgroup 

Communication II: Memorandum from W.H. 

Farland dated June 14, 2006. http://epa.gov/osa/

spc/pdfs/CGIWGCommunication_II.pdf. 

8U.S. EPA, 2005. Supplemental Guidance for 

Assessing Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/ 

630/R–03/003F. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/

childrens_supplement_final.pdf. 

9Only one of these mutagenic compounds, 

benzo[a]pyrene, is emitted by any of the sources 

covered by this proposal. 

10U.S. EPA, 2005. Science Policy Council Cancer 

Guidelines Implementation Workgroup 

Communication I: Memorandum from W.H. Farland 

dated October 4, 2005, to Science Policy Council. 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/canguid1.pdf. 

11These classifications also coincide with the 

terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and 

possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the 

terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 

(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the 

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was 

recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer 

review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment 

(NATA) entitled, NATA—Evaluating the Nationalscale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB 

Advisory, available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/

214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/

ecadv02001.pdf. 

exposure to the ambient concentration 

of each of the HAP (in micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk 

estimate (URE). The URE is an upper 

bound estimate of an individual’s 

probability of contracting cancer over a 

lifetime of exposure to a concentration 

of 1 microgram of the pollutant per 

cubic meter of air. For residual risk 

assessments, we generally use URE 

values from the EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS). For 

carcinogenic pollutants without EPA 

IRIS values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using California EPA (CalEPA) 

URE values, where available. In cases 

where new, scientifically credible dose 

response values have been developed in 

a manner consistent with the EPA 

guidelines and have undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by 

the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in 

addition to, other values, if appropriate. 

With regard to formaldehyde (one of 

the primary HAP emitted by facilities in 

the APR source category), the EPA 

determined in 2004 that the Chemical 

Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT) 

cancer dose-response value for 

formaldehyde (5.5 × 10¥9 per mg/m3) 

was based on better science than the 

IRIS cancer dose-response value (1.3 × 

10¥5 per mg/m3). Thus, we switched at 

that time from using the IRIS value to 

the CIIT value in risk assessments 

supporting regulatory actions. Based on 

subsequent published research, 

however, the EPA changed its 

determination regarding the CIIT model 

and, in 2010, the EPA returned to using 

the 1991 IRIS value. The EPA has been 

working on revising the formaldehyde 

IRIS assessment, and the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) completed 

its review of the EPA’s draft in April of 

2011.6 The EPA is reviewing the public 

comments and the NAS independent 

scientific peer review. The EPA will 

follow the NAS Report 

recommendations and will present 

results obtained by implementing the 

biologically-based dose-response 

(BBDR) model for formaldehyde. The 

EPA will compare these estimates with 

those currently presented in the 

External Review draft of the assessment 

and will discuss their strengths and 

weaknesses. As recommended by the 

NAS committee, appropriate sensitivity 

and uncertainty analyses will be an 

integral component of implementing the 

BBDR model. The draft IRIS assessment 

will be revised in response to the NAS 

peer review, and public comments and 

the final assessment will be posted on 

the IRIS database. In the interim, we 

will present findings using the 1991 

IRIS value as a primary estimate, and 

may also consider other information as 

the science evolves. As noted above and 

described in the risk assessment, the 

IRIS URE for formaldehyde is 1.3 × 10¥5

mg/m3, whereas, the CIIT URE for 

formaldehyde is 5.5 × 10¥9 mg/m3. 

We note here that several carcinogens 

have a mutagenic mode of action.7 Of 

these compounds, POM is emitted by 

facilities in the APR source category. 

For these compounds, the agedependent adjustment factors (ADAF) 

described in the EPA’s Supplemental 

Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility 

from Early-Life Exposure to 

Carcinogens 8 were applied. This 

adjustment has the effect of increasing 

the estimated lifetime risks for these 

pollutants by a factor of 1.6.9 In 

addition, the EPA expresses 

carcinogenic potency for compounds in 

the POM group in terms of 

benzo[a]pyrene equivalence, based on 

evidence that carcinogenic POM have 

the same mutagenic mechanism of 

action as does benzo[a]pyrene. For this 

reason, the EPA’s Science Policy 

Council 10 recommends applying the 

Supplemental Guidance to all 

carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons for which risk estimates 

are based on relative potency. 

Accordingly, we have applied the ADAF 

to benzo[a]pyrene equivalent portion of 

all POM mixtures. 

The EPA estimated incremental 

individual lifetime cancer risks 

associated with emissions from the 

facilities in the source categories as the 

sum of the risks for each of the 

carcinogenic HAP (including those 

classified as carcinogenic to humans, 

likely to be carcinogenic to humans and 

suggestive evidence of carcinogenic 

potential 11) emitted by the modeled 

sources. Cancer incidence and the 

distribution of individual cancer risks 

for the population within 50 km of any 

source were also estimated for the 

source categories as part of these 

assessments by summing individual 

risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent 

with both the analysis supporting the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) 

and the limitations of Gaussian 

dispersion models, including AERMOD. 

To assess the risk of non-cancer 

health effects from chronic exposures, 

we summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ 

system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific 

HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated 

exposure divided by the chronic 

reference level, which is a value 

selected from one of several sources. 

First, the chronic reference level can be 

the EPA reference concentration (RfC) 

(http://www.epa.gov/riskassessment/

glossary.htm), defined as ‘‘an estimate 

(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an 

order of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime.’’ Alternatively, in 

cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS 

database is not available or where the 

EPA determines that using a value other 

than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic 

reference level can be a value from the 

following prioritized sources: (1) The 

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry Minimum Risk Level 

(http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/

index.asp), which is defined as ‘‘an 

estimate of daily human exposure to a 

hazardous substance that is likely to be 

without an appreciable risk of adverse 

non-cancer health effects (other than 

cancer) over a specified duration of 

exposure’’; (2) the CalEPA Chronic 

Reference Exposure Level (REL) 

(http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_

spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf), which is 

defined as ‘‘the concentration level (that 

is expressed in units of micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) for inhalation 

exposure and in a dose expressed in 

units of milligram per kilogram-day 

(mg/kg-day) for oral exposures), at or 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1687 

12NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for 

Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 

Chemicals, page 2. 

13ERP Committee Procedures and 

Responsibilities. November 1 2006. American 

Industrial Hygiene Association. 

below which no adverse health effects 

are anticipated for a specified exposure 

duration’’; or (3), as noted above, a 

scientifically credible dose-response 

value that has been developed in a 

manner consistent with the EPA 

guidelines and has undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by 

the EPA, in place of or in concert with 

other values. 

The EPA also evaluated screening 

estimates of acute exposures and risks 

for each of the HAP at the point of 

highest off-site exposure for each facility 

(i.e., not just the census block 

centroids), assuming that a person is 

located at this spot at a time when both 

the peak (hourly) emission rates and 

worst-case dispersion conditions occur. 

The acute HQ is the estimated acute 

exposure divided by the acute doseresponse value. In each case, the EPA 

calculated acute HQ values using best 

available, short-term dose-response 

values. These acute dose-response 

values, which are described below, 

include the acute REL, acute exposure 

guideline levels (AEGL) and emergency 

response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 

1-hour exposure durations. As 

discussed below, we used conservative 

assumptions for emission rates, 

meteorology and exposure location for 

our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 

Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 

Determination of Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, 

an acute REL value (http://

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) 

is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.’’ Id. at page 2. Acute 

REL values are based on the most 

sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect 

reported in the peer-reviewed medical 

and toxicological literature. Acute REL 

values are designed to protect the most 

sensitive individuals in the population 

through the inclusion of margins of 

safety. Because margins of safety are 

incorporated to address data gaps and 

uncertainties, exceeding the REL value 

does not automatically indicate an 

adverse health impact. 

AEGL values were derived in 

response to recommendations from the 

National Research Council (NRC). As 

described in Standing Operating 

Procedures (SOP) of the National 

Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances (http://www.epa.gov/

opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),12 ‘‘the 

NRC’s previous name for acute exposure 

levels—community emergency exposure 

levels—was replaced by the term AEGL 

to reflect the broad application of these 

values to planning, response and 

prevention in the community, the 

workplace, transportation, the military 

and the remediation of Superfund 

sites.’’ Id. at 2. This document also 

states that AEGL values ‘‘represent 

threshold exposure limits for the general 

public and are applicable to emergency 

exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 

eight hours.’’ Id. at 2. 

The document lays out the purpose 

and objectives of AEGL by stating that 

‘‘the primary purpose of the AEGL 

program and the National Advisory 

Committee for Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances is to develop guideline 

levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term 

exposures to airborne concentrations of 

acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ 

Id. at 21. In detailing the intended 

application of AEGL values, the 

document states that ‘‘[i]t is anticipated 

that the AEGL values will be used for 

regulatory and nonregulatory purposes 

by U.S. Federal and state agencies, and 

possibly the international community in 

conjunction with chemical emergency 

response, planning and prevention 

programs. More specifically, the AEGL 

values will be used for conducting 

various risk assessments to aid in the 

development of emergency 

preparedness and prevention plans, as 

well as real-time emergency response 

actions, for accidental chemical releases 

at fixed facilities and from transport 

carriers.’’ Id. at 31. 

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically 

defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 

(expressed as ppm (parts per million) or 

mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of 

a substance above which it is predicted 

that the general population, including 

susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

Id. at 3. The document also notes that, 

‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL– 

1 represent exposure levels that can 

produce mild and progressively 

increasing but transient and 

nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory 

irritation or certain asymptomatic, 

nonsensory effects.’’ Id. Similarly, the 

document defines AEGL–2 values as 

‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed 

as parts per million or milligrams per 

cubic meter) of a substance above which 

it is predicted that the general 

population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience 

irreversible or other serious, long-lasting 

adverse health effects or an impaired 

ability to escape.’’ Id. 

ERPG values are derived for use in 

emergency response, as described in the 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association’s ERP Committee document 

entitled, ERPGS Procedures and 

Responsibilities (http://sp4m.aiha.org/

insideaiha/GuidelineDevelopment/

ERPG/Documents/ERP-SOPs2006.pdf), 

which states that, ‘‘Emergency Response 

Planning Guidelines were developed for 

emergency planning and are intended as 

health based guideline concentrations 

for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 13 Id. 

at 1. The ERPG–1 value is defined as 

‘‘the maximum airborne concentration 

below which it is believed that nearly 

all individuals could be exposed for up 

to 1 hour without experiencing other 

than mild transient adverse health 

effects or without perceiving a clearly 

defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. 

Similarly, the ERPG–2 value is defined 

as ‘‘the maximum airborne 

concentration below which it is 

believed that nearly all individuals 

could be exposed for up to one hour 

without experiencing or developing 

irreversible or other serious health 

effects or symptoms which could impair 

an individual’s ability to take protective 

action.’’ Id. at 1. 

As can be seen from the definitions 

above, the AEGL and ERPG values 

include the similarly-defined severity 

levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a 

severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has 

not been developed because the types of 

effects for these chemicals are not 

consistent with the AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

definitions; in these instances, we 

compare higher severity level AEGL–2 

or ERPG–2 values to our modeled 

exposure levels to screen for potential 

acute concerns. When AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

values are available, they are used in 

our acute risk assessments. 

Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure 

durations are typically lower than their 

corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 

values. Even though their definitions are 

slightly different, AEGL–1 values are 

often the same as the corresponding 

ERPG–1 values, and AEGL–2 values are 

often equal to ERPG–2 values. 

Maximum HQ values from our acute 

screening risk assessments typically 

result when basing them on the acute 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1688 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

14See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/

field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the 

source of these data. 

15The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment 

Methodologies is available at: http://

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

16U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific 

Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical 

Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference 

Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 

EPA/600/R–09/061, and available online at http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. 

REL value for a particular pollutant. In 

cases where our maximum acute HQ 

value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ 

value based on the next highest acute 

dose-response value (usually the AEGL– 

1 and/or the ERPG–1 value). 

To develop screening estimates of 

acute exposures in the absence of hourly 

emissions data, generally we first 

develop estimates of maximum hourly 

emissions rates by multiplying the 

average actual annual hourly emissions 

rates by a default factor to cover 

routinely variable emissions. We choose 

the factor to use partially based on 

process knowledge and engineering 

judgment. The factor chosen also 

reflects a Texas study of short-term 

emissions variability, which showed 

that most peak emission events in a 

heavily-industrialized four-county area 

(Harris, Galveston, Chambers and 

Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than 

twice the annual average hourly 

emissions rate. The highest peak 

emissions event was 74 times the 

annual average hourly emissions rate, 

and the 99th percentile ratio of peak 

hourly emissions rate to the annual 

average hourly emissions rate was 9.14

Considering this analysis, to account for 

more than 99 percent of the peak hourly 

emissions, we apply a conservative 

screening multiplication factor of 10 to 

the average annual hourly emissions 

rate in our acute exposure screening 

assessments as our default approach. 

However, we use a factor other than 10 

if we have information that indicates 

that a different factor is appropriate for 

a particular source category. For these 

source categories, a factor of 10 was 

applied to all emissions, with one 

exception. A factor of two was applied 

for emissions from equipment leaks for 

all three source categories. A further 

discussion of why these factors were 

chosen can be found in the 

memorandum, Emissions Data and 

Acute Risk Factor Used in Residual Risk 

Modeling: Acrylic and Modacrylic 

Fibers, Amino/Phenolic Resins, and 

Polycarbonate Production, available in 

the docket for this action (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0133). 

As part of our acute risk assessment 

process, for cases where acute HQ 

values from the screening step were less 

than or equal to 1 (even under the 

conservative assumptions of the 

screening analysis), acute impacts were 

deemed negligible and no further 

analysis was performed. In cases where 

an acute HQ from the screening step 

was greater than 1, additional sitespecific data were considered to 

develop a more refined estimate of the 

potential for acute impacts of concern. 

For these source categories, the data 

refinements employed consisted of 

using a peak-to-mean hourly emissions 

ratio based on source category-specific 

knowledge or data (rather than the 

default factor of 10) and using the sitespecific facility layout to distinguish 

facility property from an area where the 

public could be exposed. These 

refinements are discussed more fully in 

the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production Source Category, Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

Source Category, and Draft Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Polycarbonate 

Production Source Category, which are 

available in the docket for this action. 

Ideally, we would prefer to have 

continuous measurements over time to 

see how the emissions vary by each 

hour over an entire year. Having a 

frequency distribution of hourly 

emissions rates over a year would allow 

us to perform a probabilistic analysis to 

estimate potential threshold 

exceedances and their frequency of 

occurrence. Such an evaluation could 

include a more complete statistical 

treatment of the key parameters and 

elements adopted in this screening 

analysis. Recognizing that this level of 

data is rarely available, we instead rely 

on the multiplier approach. 

To better characterize the potential 

health risks associated with estimated 

acute exposures to HAP, and in 

response to a key recommendation from 

the SAB’s peer review of the EPA’s RTR 

risk assessment methodologies,15 we 

generally examine a wider range of 

available acute health metrics (e.g., 

RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our 

chronic risk assessments. This is in 

response to the SAB’s acknowledgement 

that there are generally more data gaps 

and inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. In some cases, when 

Reference Value Arrays 16 for HAP have 

been developed, we consider additional 

acute values (i.e., occupational and 

international values) to provide a more 

complete risk characterization. As a 

result, for most chemicals, the 

15-minute occupational ceiling values 

are set at levels higher than a one-hour 

AEGL–1, making comparisons to them 

irrelevant unless the AEGL–1 or ERPG– 

1 levels are exceeded (U.S. EPA 2009). 

Such is not the case when comparing 

the available acute inhalation health 

effect reference values for formaldehyde 

(U.S. EPA 2009). See section V.B.2 of 

this preamble for additional information 

on the acute dose-response values for 

formaldehyde. 

4. How did we conduct the 

multipathway exposure and risk 

screening? 

The EPA conducted a screening 

analysis examining the potential for 

significant human health risks due to 

exposures via routes other than 

inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first 

determined whether any sources in the 

source categories emitted any hazardous 

air pollutants known to be persistent 

and bioaccumulative in the 

environment (PB–HAP). The PB–HAP 

compounds or compound classes are 

identified for the screening from the 

EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment 

Library (available at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_

vol1.html). 

For the AMF and PC source 

categories, we did not identify 

emissions of any PB–HAP. Because we 

did not identify PB–HAP emissions, no 

further evaluation of multipathway risk 

was conducted for these source 

categories. 

For the APR source category, we 

identified emissions of lead compounds 

(1 facility), cadmium compounds (2 

facilities) and POM (analyzed as 

benzo(a)pyrene toxic equivalency 

quotient (TEQ)) (2 facilities). Because 

one or more of these PB–HAP are 

emitted by at least one facility in the 

APR source category, we proceeded to 

the second step of the evaluation. In this 

step, we determined whether the 

facility-specific emissions rates of each 

of the emitted PB–HAP were large 

enough to create the potential for 

significant non-inhalation human health 

risks under reasonable worst-case 

conditions. To facilitate this step, we 

developed emissions rate thresholds for 

each PB–HAP using a hypothetical 

upper-end screening exposure scenario 

developed for use in conjunction with 

the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 

Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) 

model. We conducted a sensitivity 

analysis on the screening scenario to 

ensure that its key design parameters 

would represent the upper end of the 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1689 

17The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable 

measure of determining whether there is an adverse 

environmental effect since it was established 

considering ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, 

vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, 

weather, visibility and climate, damage to and 

deterioration of property, and hazards to 

transportation, as well as effects on economic 

values and on personal comfort and well-being.’’ 

range of possible values, such that it 

would represent a conservative but not 

impossible scenario. The facilityspecific emissions rates of each of the 

PB–HAP were compared to the emission 

rate threshold values for each of the PB– 

HAP identified to assess the potential 

for significant human health risks via 

non-inhalation pathways. We call this 

application of the TRIM.FaTE model the 

Tier I TRIM-Screen. 

For the purpose of developing 

emissions rates for our Tier I TRIMScreen, we derived emission levels for 

each PB–HAP (other than lead) at which 

the maximum excess lifetime cancer 

risk would be 1-in-1 million or, for HAP 

that cause non-cancer health effects, the 

maximum hazard quotient would be 1. 

If the emissions rate of any PB–HAP 

exceeds the Tier I screening emissions 

rate for any facility, we conduct a Tier 

II multipathway screen. In the Tier II 

screen, the location of each facility that 

exceeds the Tier I emission rate is used 

to refine the assumptions associated 

with the environmental scenario while 

maintaining the exposure scenario 

assumptions. We then adjust the riskbased Tier I screening level for each PB– 

HAP for each facility based on an 

understanding of how exposure 

concentrations estimated for the 

screening scenario change with 

meteorology and environmental 

assumptions. PB–HAP emissions that do 

not exceed these new Tier II screening 

levels are considered to pose no 

unacceptable risks. When facilities 

exceed the Tier II screening levels, it 

does not mean that multipathway 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility based on 

the results of the screen. These facilities 

may be further evaluated for 

multipathway risks using the 

TRIM.FaTE model. 

In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead 

compounds, rather than developing a 

screening emissions rate for them, we 

compared maximum estimated chronic 

inhalation exposures with the level of 

the current National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead. 

Values below the level of the primary 

(health-based) lead NAAQS were 

considered to have a low potential for 

multi-pathway risk. 

For further information on the 

multipathway analysis approach, see 

the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production Source Category, Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

Source Category, and Draft Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Polycarbonate 

Production Source Category, which are 

available in the docket for this action. 

5. How did we assess risks considering 

emissions control options? 

In addition to assessing baseline 

inhalation risks and screening for 

potential multipathway risks, we also 

estimated risks considering the potential 

emissions reductions that would be 

achieved by the control options under 

consideration. In these cases, the 

expected emissions reductions were 

applied to the specific HAP and 

emissions points in the source category 

dataset to develop corresponding 

estimates of risk and incremental risk 

reductions. 

6. How did we conduct the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment? 

a. Adverse Environmental Effect 

The EPA has developed a screening 

approach to examine the potential for 

adverse environmental effects as 

required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of 

the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA 

defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ 

as ‘‘any significant and widespread 

adverse effect, which may reasonably be 

anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or 

other natural resources, including 

adverse impacts on populations of 

endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of 

environmental quality over broad 

areas.’’ 

b. Environmental HAP 

The EPA focuses on seven HAP, 

which we refer to as ‘‘environmental 

HAP,’’ in its screening analysis: five 

persistent bioaccumulative HAP (PB– 

HAP) and two acid gases. The five PB– 

HAP are cadmium, dioxins/furans, 

polycyclic organic matter (POM), 

mercury (both inorganic mercury and 

methyl mercury) and lead. The two acid 

gases are hydrogen chloride (HCl) and 

hydrogen fluoride (HF). The rationale 

for including these seven HAP in the 

environmental risk screening analysis is 

presented below. 

HAP that persist and bioaccumulate 

are of particular environmental concern 

because they accumulate in the soil, 

sediment and water. The PB–HAP are 

taken up, through sediment, soil, water, 

and/or ingestion of other organisms, by 

plants or animals (e.g., small fish) at the 

bottom of the food chain. As larger and 

larger predators consume these 

organisms, concentrations of the PB– 

HAP in the animal tissues increases as 

does the potential for adverse effects. 

The five PB–HAP we evaluate as part of 

our screening analysis account for 99.8 

percent of all PB–HAP emissions (on a 

mass basis from the 2005 NEI). 

In addition to accounting for almost 

all of the mass of PB–HAP emitted, we 

note that the TRIM.Fate model that we 

use to evaluate multipathway risk 

allows us to estimate concentrations of 

cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, 

POM and mercury in soil, sediment and 

water. For lead, we currently do not 

have the ability to calculate these 

concentrations using the TRIM.Fate 

model. Therefore, to evaluate the 

potential for adverse environmental 

effects from lead, we compare the HEM 

modeled inhalation exposures from the 

source category emissions of lead with 

the level of the secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for lead.17 We consider values below the 

level of the secondary lead NAAQS to 

be unlikely to cause adverse 

environmental effects. 

Due to their well-documented 

potential to cause direct damage to 

terrestrial plants, we include two acid 

gases, HCl and HF, in the environmental 

screening analysis. According to the 

2005 NEI, HCl and HF account for about 

99 percent (on a mass basis) of the total 

acid gas HAP emitted by stationary 

sources. In addition to the potential to 

cause direct damage to plants, high 

concentrations of HF in the air have 

been linked to fluorosis in livestock. Air 

concentrations of these HAP are already 

calculated as part of the human 

multipathway exposure and risk 

screening analysis using the HEM3– 

AERMOD air dispersion model, and we 

are able to use the air dispersion 

modeling to estimate the potential for an 

adverse environmental effect. 

The EPA acknowledges that other 

HAP beyond the seven HAP discussed 

above may have the potential to cause 

adverse environmental effects. 

Therefore, the EPA may include other 

relevant HAP in its environmental risk 

screening in the future, as modeling 

science and resources allow. The EPA 

invites comment on the extent to which 

other HAP emitted by the source 

category may cause adverse 

environmental effects. Such information 

should include references to peerreviewed ecological effects benchmarks 

that are of sufficient quality for making 

regulatory decisions, as well as 

information on the presence of 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1690 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

organisms located near facilities within 

the source category that such 

benchmarks indicate could be adversely 

affected. 

c. Ecological Assessment Endpoints and 

Benchmarks for PB–HAP 

An important consideration in the 

development of the EPA’s screening 

methodology is the selection of 

ecological assessment endpoints and 

benchmarks. Ecological assessment 

endpoints are defined by the ecological 

entity (e.g., aquatic communities 

including fish and plankton) and its 

attributes (e.g., frequency of mortality). 

Ecological assessment endpoints can be 

established for organisms, populations, 

communities or assemblages, and 

ecosystems. 

For PB–HAP except for lead, we 

evaluated the following communitylevel ecological assessment endpoints to 

screen for organisms directly exposed to 

HAP in soils, sediment and water: 

• Local terrestrial communities (i.e., 

soil invertebrates, plants) and 

populations of small birds and 

mammals that consume soil 

invertebrates exposed to PB–HAP in the 

surface soil. 

• Local benthic (i.e., bottom sediment 

dwelling insects, amphipods, isopods 

and crayfish) communities exposed to 

PB–HAP in sediment in nearby water 

bodies. 

• Local aquatic (water-column) 

communities (including fish and 

plankton) exposed to PB–HAP in nearby 

surface waters. 

For PB–HAP, we also evaluated the 

following population-level ecological 

assessment endpoint to screen for 

indirect HAP exposures of top 

consumers via the bioaccumulation of 

HAP in food chains: 

• Piscivorous (i.e., fish-eating) 

wildlife consuming PB–HAPcontaminated fish from nearby water 

bodies. 

For cadmium compounds, dioxins/

furans, POM and mercury, we identified 

the available ecological benchmarks for 

each assessment endpoint. An 

ecological benchmark represents a 

concentration of HAP (e.g., 0.77 ug of 

HAP per liter of water) that has been 

linked to a particular environmental 

effect level (e.g., a no-observed-adverseeffect level (NOAEL)) through scientific 

study. For PB–HAP we identified, 

where possible, ecological benchmarks 

at the following effect levels: 

Probable effect levels (PEL): Level 

above which adverse effects are 

expected to occur frequently. 

Lowest-observed-adverse-effect level 

(LOAEL): The lowest exposure level 

tested at which there are biologically 

significant increases in frequency or 

severity of adverse effects. 

No-observed-adverse-effect levels 

(NOAEL): The highest exposure level 

tested at which there are no biologically 

significant increases in the frequency or 

severity of adverse effect. 

We established a hierarchy of 

preferred benchmark sources to allow 

selection of benchmarks for each 

environmental HAP at each ecological 

assessment endpoint. In general, the 

EPA sources that are used at a 

programmatic level (e.g., Office of 

Water, Superfund Program) were used, 

if available. If not, the EPA benchmarks 

used in regional programs (e.g., 

Superfund) were used. If benchmarks 

were not available at a programmatic or 

regional level, we used benchmarks 

developed by other federal agencies 

(e.g., NOAA) or state agencies. 

Benchmarks for all effect levels are 

not available for all PB–HAP and 

assessment endpoints. In cases where 

multiple effect levels were available for 

a particular PB–HAP and assessment 

endpoint, we use all of the available 

effect levels to help us to determine 

whether ecological risks exist and, if so, 

whether the risks could be considered 

significant and widespread. 

d. Ecological Assessment Endpoints and 

Benchmarks for Acid Gases 

The environmental screening analysis 

also evaluated potential damage and 

reduced productivity of plants due to 

direct exposure to acid gases in the air. 

For acid gases, we evaluated the 

following ecological assessment 

endpoint: 

• Local terrestrial plant communities 

with foliage exposed to acidic gaseous 

HAP in the air. 

The selection of ecological 

benchmarks for the effects of acid gases 

on plants followed the same approach 

as for PB–HAP (i.e., we examine all of 

the available benchmarks). For HCl, the 

EPA identified chronic benchmark 

concentrations. We note that the 

benchmark for chronic HCl exposure to 

plants is greater than the reference 

concentration for chronic inhalation 

exposure for human health. This means 

that where EPA includes regulatory 

requirements to prevent an exceedance 

of the reference concentration for 

human health, additional analyses for 

adverse environmental effects of HCL 

would not be necessary. 

For HF, EPA identified chronic 

benchmark concentrations for plants 

and evaluated chronic exposures to 

plants in the screening analysis. High 

concentrations of HF in the air have also 

been linked to fluorosis in livestock. 

However, the HF concentrations at 

which fluorosis in livestock occur are 

higher than those at which plant 

damage begins. Therefore, the 

benchmarks for plants are protective of 

both plants and livestock. 

e. Screening Methodology 

For the environmental risk screening 

analysis, EPA first determined whether 

any facilities in the AMF, APR and PC 

source categories emitted any of the 

seven environmental HAP. For the AMF 

and PC source categories, we did not 

identify emissions of any of the seven 

environmental HAP included in the 

screen. Because we did not identify 

environmental HAP emissions, no 

further evaluation of environmental risk 

was conducted for those source 

categories. For the APR source category, 

we identified emissions of lead 

compounds (1 facility), cadmium 

compounds (2 facilities) and POM 

(analyzed as benzo(a)pyrene TEQ) (2 

facilities). 

Because one or more of the seven 

environmental HAP evaluated are 

emitted by at least one facility in the 

APR source category, we proceeded to 

the second step of the evaluation. 

f. PB–HAP Methodology 

For cadmium, mercury, POM and 

dioxins/furans, the environmental 

screening analysis consists of two tiers, 

and lead is analyzed differently as 

discussed earlier. In the first tier, we 

determined whether the maximum 

facility-specific emission rates of each of 

the emitted environmental HAP were 

large enough to create the potential for 

adverse environmental effects under 

reasonable worst-case environmental 

conditions. These are the same 

environmental conditions used in the 

human multipathway exposure and risk 

screening analysis. 

To facilitate this step, TRIM.FaTE was 

run for each PB–HAP under 

hypothetical environmental conditions 

designed to provide conservatively high 

HAP concentrations. The model was set 

to maximize runoff from terrestrial 

parcels into the modeled lake, which in 

turn, maximized the chemical 

concentrations in the water, the 

sediments, and the fish. The resulting 

media concentrations were then used to 

back-calculate a screening threshold 

emission rate that corresponded to the 

relevant exposure benchmark 

concentration value for each assessment 

endpoint. To assess emissions from a 

facility, the reported emission rate for 

each PB–HAP was compared to the 

screening threshold emission rate for 

that PB–HAP for each assessment 

endpoint. If emissions from a facility do 

not exceed the Tier I threshold, the 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1691 

facility ‘‘passes’’ the screen, and 

therefore, is not evaluated further under 

the screening approach. If emissions 

from a facility exceed the Tier I 

threshold, we evaluate the facility 

further in Tier II. 

In Tier II of the environmental 

screening analysis, the screening 

emission thresholds are adjusted to 

account for local meteorology and the 

actual location of lakes in the vicinity of 

facilities that did not pass the Tier I 

screen. The modeling domain for each 

facility in the Tier II analysis consists of 

eight octants. Each octant contains 5 

modeled soil concentrations at various 

distances from the facility (5 soil 

concentrations × 8 octants = total of 40 

soil concentrations per facility) and 1 

lake with modeled concentrations for 

water, sediment and fish tissue. In the 

Tier II environmental risk screening 

analysis, the 40 soil concentration 

points are averaged to obtain an average 

soil concentration for each facility for 

each PB–HAP. For the water, sediment 

and fish tissue concentrations, the 

highest value for each facility for each 

pollutant is used. If emission 

concentrations from a facility do not 

exceed the Tier II threshold, the facility 

passes the screen, and typically is not 

evaluated further. If emissions from a 

facility exceed the Tier II threshold, the 

facility does not pass the screen and, 

therefore, may have the potential to 

cause adverse environmental effects. 

Such facilities are evaluated further to 

investigate factors such as the 

magnitude and characteristics of the 

area of exceedance. 

g. Acid Gas Methodology 

The environmental screening analysis 

evaluates the potential phytotoxicity 

and reduced productivity of plants due 

to chronic exposure to acid gases. The 

environmental risk screening 

methodology for acid gases is a singletier screen that compares the average 

off-site ambient air concentration over 

the modeling domain to ecological 

benchmarks for each of the acid gases. 

Because air concentrations are 

compared directly to the ecological 

benchmarks, emission-based thresholds 

are not calculated for acid gases as they 

are in the ecological risk screening 

methodology for PB–HAPs. 

For purposes of ecological risk 

screening, EPA identifies a potential for 

adverse environmental effects to plant 

communities from exposure to acid 

gases when the average concentration of 

the HAP around a facility exceeds the 

LOAEL ecological benchmark. In such 

cases, we further investigate factors 

such as the magnitude and 

characteristics of the area of exceedance 

(e.g., land use of exceedance area, size 

of exceedance area) to determine if there 

is an adverse environmental effect. 

For further information on the 

environmental screening analysis 

approach, see the Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Acrylic and 

Modacrylic Fibers Production Source 

Category, Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Amino/Phenolic 

Resins Production Source Category, and 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Polycarbonate Production Source 

Category, which are available in the 

docket for this action. 

7. How did we conduct facility-wide 

assessments? 

To put the source category risks in 

context, we typically examine the risks 

from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the 

facility includes all HAP-emitting 

operations within a contiguous area and 

under common control. In other words, 

we examine the HAP emissions not only 

from the source category emission 

points of interest, but also emissions of 

HAP from all other emissions sources at 

the facility for which we have data. The 

emissions data for generating these 

‘‘facility-wide’’ risks were obtained from 

the 2005 NEI for the APR and PC source 

categories, and from the 2008 NEI for 

the AMF source category. We analyzed 

risks due to the inhalation of HAP that 

are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the 

populations residing within 50 km of 

each facility, consistent with the 

methods used for the source category 

analysis described above. For these 

facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled 

source category risks were compared to 

the facility-wide risks to determine the 

portion of facility-wide risks that could 

be attributed to each of the three source 

categories addressed in this proposal. 

The Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production Source Category, Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

Source Category, and Draft Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Polycarbonate 

Production Source Category, available 

through the docket for this action, 

provide the methodology and results of 

the facility-wide analyses, including all 

facility-wide risks and the percentage of 

source category contribution to facilitywide risks. 

8. How did we consider uncertainties in 

risk assessment? 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we 

concluded that risk estimation 

uncertainty should be considered in our 

decision-making under the ample 

margin of safety framework. Uncertainty 

and the potential for bias are inherent in 

all risk assessments, including those 

performed for this proposal. Although 

uncertainty exists, we believe that our 

approach, which used conservative 

tools and assumptions, ensures that our 

decisions are health protective and 

environmentally protective. A brief 

discussion of the uncertainties in the 

emissions datasets, dispersion 

modeling, inhalation exposure estimates 

and dose-response relationships follows 

below. A more thorough discussion of 

these uncertainties is included in the 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production Source Category, Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

Source Category, and Draft Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Polycarbonate 

Production Source Category, which are 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133). 

a. Uncertainties in the Emissions 

Datasets 

Although the development of the RTR 

datasets involved quality assurance/

quality control processes, the accuracy 

of emissions values will vary depending 

on the source of the data, the degree to 

which data are incomplete or missing, 

the degree to which assumptions made 

to complete the datasets are accurate, 

errors in emissions estimates and other 

factors. The emission estimates 

considered in this analysis generally are 

annual totals for certain years, and they 

do not reflect short-term fluctuations 

during the course of a year or variations 

from year to year. The estimates of peak 

hourly emissions rates for the acute 

effects screening assessment were based 

on an emission adjustment factor 

applied to the average annual hourly 

emissions rates, which are intended to 

account for emission fluctuations due to 

normal facility operations. 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

We recognize there is uncertainty in 

ambient concentration estimates 

associated with any model, including 

the EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a 

model to estimate ambient pollutant 

concentrations, the user chooses certain 

options to apply. For RTR assessments, 

we select some model options that have 

the potential to overestimate ambient air 

concentrations (e.g., not including 

plume depletion or pollutant 

transformation). We select other model 

options that have the potential to 

underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not 

including building downwash). Other 

options that we select have the potential 

to either under- or overestimate ambient 

levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1692 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

18Short-term mobility is movement from one 

microenvironment to another over the course of 

hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement 

from one residence to another over the course of a 

lifetime. 

19U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January 

2001; page 85.) 

locations). On balance, considering the 

directional nature of the uncertainties 

commonly present in ambient 

concentrations estimated by dispersion 

models, the approach we apply in the 

RTR assessments should yield unbiased 

estimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

The EPA did not include the effects 

of human mobility on exposures in the 

assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility 

between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.18 The 

approach of not considering short or 

long-term population mobility does not 

bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR 

(by definition), nor does it affect the 

estimate of cancer incidence because the 

total population number remains the 

same. It does, however, affect the shape 

of the distribution of individual risks 

across the affected population, shifting 

it toward higher estimated individual 

risks at the upper end and reducing the 

number of people estimated to be at 

lower risks, thereby increasing the 

estimated number of people at specific 

high risk levels (e.g., 1-in-10 thousand 

or 1-in-1 million). 

In addition, the assessment predicted 

the chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

farther from the facility and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact, but is an unbiased estimate of 

average risk and incidence. We reduce 

this uncertainty by analyzing large 

census blocks near facilities using aerial 

imagery and adjusting the location of 

the block centroid to better represent the 

population in the block, as well as 

adding additional receptors where the 

block population is not well represented 

by a single location. 

In addition, the assessment predicted 

the chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

farther from the facility and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact, but is an unbiased estimate of 

average risk and incidence. We reduce 

this uncertainty by analyzing large 

census blocks near facilities using aerial 

imagery and adjusting the location of 

the block centroid to better represent the 

population in the block, as well as 

adding additional receptors where the 

block population is not well represented 

by a single location. 

The assessment evaluates the cancer 

inhalation risks associated with 

pollutant exposures over a 70-year 

period, which is the assumed lifetime of 

an individual. In reality, both the length 

of time that modeled emissions sources 

at facilities actually operate (i.e., more 

or less than 70 years) and the domestic 

growth or decline of the modeled 

industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in 

the number or size of domestic 

facilities) will influence the future risks 

posed by a given source or source 

category. Depending on the 

characteristics of the industry, these 

factors will, in most cases, result in an 

overestimate both in individual risk 

levels and in the total estimated number 

of cancer cases. However, in the 

unlikely scenario where a facility 

maintains, or even increases, its 

emissions levels over a period of more 

than 70 years, residents live beyond 70 

years at the same location, and the 

residents spend most of their days at 

that location, then the cancer inhalation 

risks could potentially be 

underestimated. However, annual 

cancer incidence estimates from 

exposures to emissions from these 

sources would not be affected by the 

length of time an emissions source 

operates. 

The exposure estimates used in these 

analyses assume chronic exposures to 

ambient (outdoor) levels of pollutants. 

Because most people spend the majority 

of their time indoors, actual exposures 

may not be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants 

modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor 

levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or 

larger particles, indoor levels are 

typically lower. This factor has the 

potential to result in an overstatement of 

25 to 30 percent of exposures.19

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that should be highlighted. 

The accuracy of an acute inhalation 

exposure assessment depends on the 

simultaneous occurrence of 

independent factors that may vary 

greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, 

meteorology and human activity 

patterns. In this assessment, we assume 

that individuals remain for 1 hour at the 

point of maximum ambient 

concentration as determined by the cooccurrence of peak emissions and worstcase meteorological conditions. These 

assumptions would tend to be worstcase actual exposures as it is unlikely 

that a person would be located at the 

point of maximum exposure during the 

time of worst-case impact. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the dose-response 

values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures 

and non-cancer effects from both 

chronic and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties may be considered 

quantitatively, and others generally are 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note 

as a preface to this discussion a point on 

dose-response uncertainty that is 

brought out in the EPA’s 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary 

goal of EPA actions is protection of 

human health; accordingly, as an 

Agency policy, risk assessment 

procedures, including default options 

that are used in the absence of scientific 

data to the contrary, should be health 

protective’’ (EPA 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines, pages 1–7). This is the 

approach followed here as summarized 

in the next several paragraphs. A 

complete detailed discussion of 

uncertainties and variability in doseresponse relationships is given in the 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production Source Category, Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

Source Category, and Draft Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Polycarbonate 

Production Source Category, which are 

available in the docket for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk. That is, they 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1693 

20 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/

help_gloss.htm). 21An exception to this is the URE for benzene, 

which is considered to cover a range of values, each 

end of which is considered to be equally plausible, 

and which is based on maximum likelihood 

estimates. 22According to the NRC report, Science and 

Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) 

‘‘[Default] options are generic approaches, based on 

general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, 

that are applied to various elements of the risk 

assessment process when the correct scientific 

model is unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC 

report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: 

Managing the Process, defined default option as 

‘‘the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment 

policy that appears to be the best choice in the 

absence of data to the contrary’’ (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). 

Therefore, default options are not rules that bind 

the agency; rather, the agency may depart from 

them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific 

substance when it believes this to be appropriate. 

In keeping with the EPA’s goal of protecting public 

health and the environment, default assumptions 

are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not 

underestimated (although defaults are not intended 

to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA 2004, An 

examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles 

and Practices, EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit).20 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could be 

greater.21 When developing an upper 

bound estimate of risk and to provide 

risk values that do not underestimate 

risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on 

the side of ensuring adequate health 

protection, the EPA typically uses the 

upper bound estimates rather than 

lower bound or central tendency 

estimates in our risk assessments, an 

approach that may have limitations for 

other uses (e.g., priority-setting or 

expected benefits analysis). 

Chronic non-cancer RfC and reference 

dose (RfD) values represent chronic 

exposure levels that are intended to be 

health-protective levels. Specifically, 

these values provide an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order 

of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure (RfC) or a daily oral 

exposure (RfD) to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 

To derive values that are intended to be 

‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the 

methodology relies upon an uncertainty 

factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 

1994) which considers uncertainty, 

variability and gaps in the available 

data. The UF are applied to derive 

reference values that are intended to 

protect against appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects. The UF are 

commonly default values,22 e.g., factors 

of 10 or 3, used in the absence of 

compound-specific data; where data are 

available, UF may also be developed 

using compound-specific information. 

When data are limited, more 

assumptions are needed and more UF 

are used. Thus, there may be a greater 

tendency to overestimate risk in the 

sense that further study might support 

development of reference values that are 

higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer 

default assumptions are needed. 

However, for some pollutants, it is 

possible that risks may be 

underestimated. 

While collectively termed ‘‘UF,’’ these 

factors account for a number of different 

quantitative considerations when using 

observed animal (usually rodent) or 

human toxicity data in the development 

of the RfC. The UF are intended to 

account for: (1) Variation in 

susceptibility among the members of the 

human population (i.e., inter-individual 

variability); (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from experimental animal 

data to humans (i.e., interspecies 

differences); (3) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from data obtained in a 

study with less-than-lifetime exposure 

(i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 

chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in 

extrapolating the observed data to 

obtain an estimate of the exposure 

associated with no adverse effects; and 

(5) uncertainty when the database is 

incomplete or there are problems with 

the applicability of available studies. 

Many of the UF used to account for 

variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute reference values 

are quite similar to those developed for 

chronic durations, but they more often 

use individual UF values that may be 

less than 10. The UF are applied based 

on chemical-specific or health effectspecific information (e.g., simple 

irritation effects do not vary appreciably 

between human individuals, hence a 

value of 3 is typically used), or based on 

the purpose for the reference value (see 

the following paragraph). The UF 

applied in acute reference value 

derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity 

among humans; (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed 

adverse effect (exposure) level to no 

observed adverse effect (exposure) level 

adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in 

accounting for an incomplete database 

on toxic effects of potential concern. 

Additional adjustments are often 

applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one 

exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to 

derive an acute reference value at 

another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). 

Not all acute reference values are 

developed for the same purpose and 

care must be taken when interpreting 

the results of an acute assessment of 

human health effects relative to the 

reference value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of shortterm dose-response values at different 

levels of severity should be factored into 

the risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

Although every effort is made to 

identify appropriate human health effect 

dose-response assessment values for all 

pollutants emitted by the sources in this 

risk assessment, some HAP emitted by 

these source categories are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, 

these pollutants cannot be included in 

the quantitative risk assessment, which 

could result in quantitative estimates 

understating HAP risk. To help to 

alleviate this potential underestimate, 

where we conclude similarity with a 

HAP for which a dose-response 

assessment value is available, we use 

that value as a surrogate for the 

assessment of the HAP for which no 

value is available. To the extent use of 

surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we 

may identify a need to increase priority 

for new IRIS assessment of that 

substance. We additionally note that, 

generally speaking, HAP of greatest 

concern due to environmental 

exposures and hazard are those for 

which dose-response assessments have 

been performed, reducing the likelihood 

of understating risk. Further, HAP not 

included in the quantitative assessment 

are assessed qualitatively and 

considered in the risk characterization 

that informs the risk management 

decisions, including with regard to 

consideration of HAP reductions 

achieved by various control options. 

For a group of compounds that are 

unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we 

conservatively use the most protective 

reference value of an individual 

compound in that group to estimate 

risk. Similarly, for an individual 

compound in a group (e.g., ethylene 

glycol diethyl ether) that does not have 

a specified reference value, we also 

apply the most protective reference 

value from the other compounds in the 

group to estimate risk. 

e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway 

Screening Assessment 

For each source category, we 

generally rely on site-specific levels of 

PB–HAP emissions to determine 

whether a refined assessment of the 

impacts from multipathway exposures 

is necessary. This determination is 

based on the results of a two-tiered 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1694 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

23 In the context of this discussion, the term 

‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk 

encompasses both variability in the range of 

expected inputs and screening results due to 

existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well 

as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate 

the true result. 

24 In the context of this discussion, the term 

‘‘uncertainty,’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk 

assessment, encompasses both variability in the 

range of expected inputs and screening results due 

to existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as 

well as uncertainty in being able to accurately 

estimate the true result. 

screening analysis that relies on the 

outputs from models that estimate 

environmental pollutant concentrations 

and human exposures for four PB–HAP. 

Two important types of uncertainty 

associated with the use of these models 

in RTR risk assessments and inherent to 

any assessment that relies on 

environmental modeling are model 

uncertainty and input uncertainty.23

Model uncertainty concerns whether 

the selected models are appropriate for 

the assessment being conducted and 

whether they adequately represent the 

actual processes that might occur for 

that situation. An example of model 

uncertainty is the question of whether 

the model adequately describes the 

movement of a pollutant through the 

soil. This type of uncertainty is difficult 

to quantify. However, based on feedback 

received from previous EPA Science 

Advisory Board reviews and other 

reviews, we are confident that the 

models used in the screen are 

appropriate and state-of-the-art for the 

multipathway risk assessments 

conducted in support of RTR. 

Input uncertainty is concerned with 

how accurately the models have been 

configured and parameterized for the 

assessment at hand. For Tier I of the 

multipathway screen, we configured the 

models to avoid underestimating 

exposure and risk. This was 

accomplished by selecting upper-end 

values from nationally-representative 

data sets for the more influential 

parameters in the environmental model, 

including selection and spatial 

configuration of the area of interest, lake 

location and size, meteorology, surface 

water and soil characteristics and 

structure of the aquatic food web. We 

also assume an ingestion exposure 

scenario and values for human exposure 

factors that represent reasonable 

maximum exposures. 

In Tier II of the multipathway 

assessment, we refine the model inputs 

to account for meteorological patterns in 

the vicinity of the facility versus using 

upper-end national values and we 

identify the actual location of lakes near 

the facility rather than the default lake 

location that we apply in Tier I. By 

refining the screening approach in Tier 

II to account for local geographical and 

meteorological data, we decrease the 

likelihood that concentrations in 

environmental media are overestimated, 

thereby increasing the usefulness of the 

screen. The assumptions and the 

associated uncertainties regarding the 

selected ingestion exposure scenario are 

the same for Tier I and Tier II. 

For both Tiers I and II of the 

multipathway assessment, our approach 

to addressing model input uncertainty is 

generally cautious. We choose model 

inputs from the upper end of the range 

of possible values for the influential 

parameters used in the models, and we 

assume that the exposed individual 

exhibits ingestion behavior that would 

lead to a high total exposure. This 

approach reduces the likelihood of not 

identifying high risks for adverse 

impacts. 

Despite the uncertainties, when 

individual pollutants or facilities do 

screen out, we are confident that the 

potential for adverse multipathway 

impacts on human health is very low. 

On the other hand, when individual 

pollutants or facilities do not screen out, 

it does not mean that multipathway 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility and that 

a refined multipathway analysis for the 

site might be necessary to obtain a more 

accurate risk characterization for the 

source category. 

For further information on 

uncertainties and the Tier I and II 

screening methods, refer to the risk 

document Appendix 4, ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for TRIM-Based 

Multipathway Tiered Screening 

Methodology for RTR.’’ 

f. Uncertainties in the Environmental 

Risk Screening Assessment 

For each source category, we 

generally rely on site-specific levels of 

environmental HAP emissions to 

perform an environmental screening 

assessment. The environmental 

screening assessment is based on the 

outputs from models that estimate 

environmental HAP concentrations. The 

same models, specifically the 

TRIM.FaTE multipathway model and 

the AERMOD air dispersion model, are 

used to estimate environmental HAP 

concentrations for both the human 

multipathway screening analysis and for 

the environmental screening analysis. 

Therefore, both screening assessments 

have similar modeling uncertainties. 

Two important types of uncertainty 

associated with the use of these models 

in RTR environmental screening 

assessments—and inherent to any 

assessment that relies on environmental 

modeling—are model uncertainty and 

input uncertainty.24

Model uncertainty concerns whether 

the selected models are appropriate for 

the assessment being conducted and 

whether they adequately represent the 

movement and accumulation of 

environmental HAP emissions in the 

environment. For example, does the 

model adequately describe the 

movement of a pollutant through the 

soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult 

to quantify. However, based on feedback 

received from previous EPA Science 

Advisory Board reviews and other 

reviews, we are confident that the 

models used in the screen are 

appropriate and state-of-the-art for the 

environmental risk assessments 

conducted in support of our RTR 

analyses. 

Input uncertainty is concerned with 

how accurately the models have been 

configured and parameterized for the 

assessment at hand. For Tier I of the 

environmental screen for PB–HAP, we 

configured the models to avoid 

underestimating exposure and risk to 

reduce the likelihood that the results 

indicate the risks are lower than they 

actually are. This was accomplished by 

selecting upper-end values from 

nationally-representative data sets for 

the more influential parameters in the 

environmental model, including 

selection and spatial configuration of 

the area of interest, the location and size 

of any bodies of water, meteorology, 

surface water and soil characteristics 

and structure of the aquatic food web. 

In Tier I, we used the maximum facilityspecific emissions for the PB–HAP 

(other than lead, which was evaluated 

by comparison to the secondary lead 

NAAQS) that were included in the 

environmental screening assessment 

and each of the media when comparing 

to ecological benchmarks. This is 

consistent with the conservative design 

of Tier I of the screen. In Tier II of the 

environmental screening analysis for 

PB–HAP, we refine the model inputs to 

account for meteorological patterns in 

the vicinity of the facility versus using 

upper-end national values, and we 

identify the locations of water bodies 

near the facility location. By refining the 

screening approach in Tier II to account 

for local geographical and 

meteorological data, we decrease the 

likelihood that concentrations in 

environmental media are overestimated, 

thereby increasing the usefulness of the 

screen. To better represent widespread 

impacts, the modeled soil 

concentrations are averaged in Tier II to 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1695 

25Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one 

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated 

risk were an individual exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

obtain one average soil concentration 

value for each facility and for each PB– 

HAP. For PB–HAP concentrations in 

water, sediment and fish tissue, the 

highest value for each facility for each 

pollutant is used. 

For the environmental screening 

assessment for acid gases, we employ a 

single-tiered approach. We use the 

modeled air concentrations and 

compare those with ecological 

benchmarks. 

For both Tiers I and II of the 

environmental screening assessment, 

our approach to addressing model input 

uncertainty is generally cautious. We 

choose model inputs from the upper 

end of the range of possible values for 

the influential parameters used in the 

models, and we assume that the 

exposed individual exhibits ingestion 

behavior that would lead to a high total 

exposure. This approach reduces the 

likelihood of not identifying potential 

risks for adverse environmental impacts. 

Uncertainty also exists in the 

ecological benchmarks for the 

environmental risk screening analysis. 

We established a hierarchy of preferred 

benchmark sources to allow selection of 

benchmarks for each environmental 

HAP at each ecological assessment 

endpoint. In general, EPA benchmarks 

used at a programmatic level (e.g., 

Office of Water, Superfund Program) 

were used if available. If not, we used 

EPA benchmarks used in regional 

programs (e.g., Superfund). If 

benchmarks were not available at a 

programmatic or regional level, we used 

benchmarks developed by other 

agencies (e.g., NOAA) or by state 

agencies. 

In all cases (except for lead, which 

was evaluated through a comparison to 

the NAAQS), we searched for 

benchmarks at the following three effect 

levels, as described in Section III.A.6 of 

this preamble: 

1. A no-effect level (i.e., NOAEL). 

2. Threshold-effect level (i.e., 

LOAEL). 

3. Probable effect level (i.e., PEL). 

For some ecological assessment 

endpoint/environmental HAP 

combinations, we could identify 

benchmarks for all three effect levels, 

but for most, we could not. In one case, 

where different agencies derived 

significantly different numbers to 

represent a threshold for effect, we 

included both. In several cases, only a 

single benchmark was available. In 

cases where multiple effect levels were 

available for a particular PB–HAP and 

assessment endpoint, we used all of the 

available effect levels to help us to 

determine whether risk exists and if the 

risks could be considered significant 

and widespread. 

The EPA evaluated the following 

seven HAP in the environmental risk 

screening assessment: Cadmium, 

dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 

inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), 

lead compounds, HCl and HF. These 

seven HAP represent pollutants that can 

cause adverse impacts for plants and 

animals either through direct exposure 

to HAP in the air or through exposure 

to HAP that is deposited from the air 

onto soils and surface waters. These 

seven HAP also represent those HAP for 

which we can conduct a meaningful 

environmental risk screening 

assessment. For other HAP not included 

in our screening assessment, we may 

not have appropriate multipathway 

models that allow us to predict the 

concentration of that pollutant. The EPA 

acknowledges that other HAP beyond 

the seven HAP that we are evaluating 

may have the potential to cause adverse 

environmental effects and, therefore, the 

EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in 

the future, as modeling science and 

resources allow. 

Further information on uncertainties 

and the Tier I and II environmental 

screening methods is provided in 

Appendix 5 of the document ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for TRIM-Based 

Multipathway Tiered Screening 

Methodology for RTR: Summary of 

Approach and Evaluation.’’ Also, see 

the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production Source Category, Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

Source Category, and Draft Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Polycarbonate 

Production Source Category, available 

in the docket for this action. 

B. How did we consider the risk results 

in making decisions for this proposal? 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

preamble, in evaluating and developing 

standards under section 112(f)(2), we 

apply a two-step process to address 

residual risk. In the first step, the EPA 

determines whether risks are acceptable. 

This determination ‘‘considers all health 

information, including risk estimation 

uncertainty, and includes a presumptive 

level on maximum individual lifetime 

[cancer] risk (MIR) 25 of approximately 

[1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 

million].’’ 54 FR 38045. If risks are 

unacceptable, the EPA must determine 

the emissions standards necessary to 

bring risks to an acceptable level 

without considering costs. In the second 

step of the process, the EPA considers 

whether the emissions standards 

provide an ample margin of safety ‘‘in 

consideration of all health information, 

including the number of persons at risk 

levels higher than approximately 1-in-1 

million, as well as other relevant factors, 

including costs and economic impacts, 

technological feasibility, and other 

factors relevant to each particular 

decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate 

tighter emission standards if necessary 

to provide an ample margin of safety. 

In past residual risk actions, the EPA 

considered a number of human health 

risk metrics associated with emissions 

from the categories under review, 

including the MIR, the number of 

persons in various risk ranges, cancer 

incidence, the maximum non-cancer HI 

and the maximum acute non-cancer 

hazard. See, e.g., 72 FR 25138, May 3, 

2007; 71 FR 42724, July 27, 2006. The 

EPA considered this health information 

for both actual and allowable emissions. 

See, e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010; 

75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010; 76 FR 

29032, May 19, 2011. The EPA also 

discussed risk estimation uncertainties 

and considered the uncertainties in the 

determination of acceptable risk and 

ample margin of safety in these past 

actions. The EPA considered this same 

type of information in support of this 

Federal Register proposed rule. 

The agency is considering these 

various measures of health information 

to inform our determinations of risk 

acceptability and ample margin of safety 

under CAA section 112(f). As explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step 

judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor’’ and thus 

‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the 

acceptability of risk under [previous] 

section 112 is best judged on the basis 

of a broad set of health risk measures 

and information.’’ 54 FR 38046. 

Similarly, with regard to the ample 

margin of safety determination, ‘‘the 

Agency again considers all of the health 

risk and other health information 

considered in the first step. Beyond that 

information, additional factors relating 

to the appropriate level of control will 

also be considered, including cost and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. 

The Benzene NESHAP approach 

provides flexibility regarding factors the 

EPA may consider in making 

determinations and how the EPA may 

weigh those factors for each source 

category. In responding to comment on 

our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA explained that: 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1696 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

26EPA’s responses to this and all other key 

recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR 

risk assessment methodologies (which is available 

at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memo 

to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup 

entitled, EPA’s Actions in Response to the Key 

Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk 

Assessment Methodologies. 

‘‘[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator 

permits consideration of multiple measures 

of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure 

be considered, but also incidence, the 

presence of non-cancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this 

way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as the 

impact on the general public. These factors 

can then be weighed in each individual case. 

This approach complies with the Vinyl 

Chloride mandate that the Administrator 

ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the 

public by employing [her] expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, which 

did not exclude the use of any particular 

measure of public health risk from the EPA’s 

consideration with respect to CAA section 

112 regulations, and thereby implicitly 

permits consideration of any and all 

measures of health risk which the 

Administrator, in [her] judgment, believes are 

appropriate to determining what will ‘protect 

the public health’.’’ 

54 FR 38057. Thus, the level of the MIR 

is only one factor to be weighed in 

determining acceptability of risks. The 

Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an 

MIR of approximately one in 10 

thousand should ordinarily be the upper 

end of the range of acceptability. As 

risks increase above this benchmark, 

they become presumptively less 

acceptable under CAA section 112, and 

would be weighed with the other health 

risk measures and information in 

making an overall judgment on 

acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, 

in a particular case, that a risk that 

includes MIR less than the 

presumptively acceptable level is 

unacceptable in the light of other health 

risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. Similarly, 

with regard to the ample margin of 

safety analysis, the EPA stated in the 

Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA believes 

the relative weight of the many factors 

that can be considered in selecting an 

ample margin of safety can only be 

determined for each specific source 

category. This occurs mainly because 

technological and economic factors 

(along with the health-related factors) 

vary from source category to source 

category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also 

consider the uncertainties associated 

with the various risk analyses, as 

discussed earlier in this preamble, in 

our determinations of acceptability and 

ample margin of safety. 

The EPA notes that it has not 

considered certain health information to 

date in making residual risk 

determinations. At this time, we do not 

attempt to quantify those HAP risks that 

may be associated with emissions from 

other facilities that do not include the 

source categories in question, mobile 

source emissions, natural source 

emissions, persistent environmental 

pollution or atmospheric transformation 

in the vicinity of the sources in these 

categories. 

The agency understands the potential 

importance of considering an 

individual’s total exposure to HAP in 

addition to considering exposure to 

HAP emissions from the source category 

and facility. We recognize that such 

consideration may be particularly 

important when assessing non-cancer 

risks, where pollutant-specific exposure 

health reference levels (e.g., RfCs) are 

based on the assumption that thresholds 

exist for adverse health effects. For 

example, the agency recognizes that, 

although exposures attributable to 

emissions from a source category or 

facility alone may not indicate the 

potential for increased risk of adverse 

non-cancer health effects in a 

population, the exposures resulting 

from emissions from the facility in 

combination with emissions from all of 

the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to 

which an individual is exposed may be 

sufficient to result in increased risk of 

adverse non-cancer health effects. In 

May 2010, the SAB advised the EPA 

‘‘that RTR assessments will be most 

useful to decision makers and 

communities if results are presented in 

the broader context of aggregate and 

cumulative risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from 

other sources in the area.’’ 26

In response to the SAB 

recommendations, the EPA is 

incorporating cumulative risk analyses 

into its RTR risk assessments, including 

those reflected in today’s proposal. The 

agency is: (1) Conducting facility-wide 

assessments, which include source 

category emission points as well as 

other emission points within the 

facilities; (2) considering overlapping 

sources in the same category; and (3) for 

some persistent and bioaccumulative 

pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route 

of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk 

assessments have always considered 

aggregate cancer risk from all 

carcinogens and aggregate non-cancer 

hazard indices from all non-carcinogens 

affecting the same target organ system. 

Although we are interested in placing 

source category and facility-wide HAP 

risks in the context of total HAP risks 

from all sources combined in the 

vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of 

doing so. Because of the contribution to 

total HAP risk from emissions sources 

other than those that we have studied in 

depth during this RTR review, such 

estimates of total HAP risks would have 

significantly greater associated 

uncertainties than the source category or 

facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate 

or cumulative assessments would 

compound those uncertainties, making 

the assessments too unreliable. 

C. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

Our technology review focused on the 

identification and evaluation of 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies that have 

occurred since the MACT standards 

were promulgated. Where we identified 

such developments, in order to inform 

our decision of whether it is 

‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions 

standards, we analyzed the technical 

feasibility of applying these 

developments, and the estimated costs, 

energy implications, non-air 

environmental impacts, as well as 

considering the emissions reductions. 

We also considered the appropriateness 

of applying controls to new sources 

versus retrofitting existing sources. 

Based on our analyses of the available 

data and information, we identified 

potential developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies. For 

this exercise, we considered any of the 

following to be a ‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the original MACT standards. 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that were identified and considered 

during development of the original 

MACT standards) that could result in 

additional emissions reduction. 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified or 

considered during development of the 

original MACT standards. 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the original MACT 

standards. 

• Any significant changes in the cost 

(including cost effectiveness) of 

applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during the 

development of the original MACT 

standards). 

We reviewed a variety of data sources 

in our investigation of potential 

practices, processes or controls to 

consider. Among the sources we 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1697 

27Note that these uncontrolled emissions were 

included in the risk assessment for the AMF source 

category. 

reviewed were the NESHAP for various 

industries that were promulgated since 

the MACT standards being reviewed in 

this action. We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and/or technical analyses 

associated with these regulatory actions 

to identify any practices, processes and 

control technologies considered in these 

efforts that could be applied to 

emissions sources in the AMF, APR and 

PC source categories, as well as the 

costs, non-air impacts and energy 

implications associated with the use of 

these technologies. 

We also consulted the EPA’s RACT/

BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), 

which is a central database of air 

pollution control technology 

information that was established by the 

EPA to promote the sharing of 

information among permitting agencies 

and to aid in identifying future possible 

control technology options that might 

apply broadly to numerous sources 

within a category or apply only on a 

source-by-source basis. 

Finally, we reviewed information 

from other sources, such as state and/or 

local permitting agency databases and 

industry-supported databases. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the AMF Source Category 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant 

to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

112(d)(3)? 

We identified the absence of an 

emissions limit for a potentially 

significant emission source within the 

provisions of the AMF MACT standards. 

Specifically, there are no emissions 

standards or other requirements for 

spinning lines that use a spin dope 

produced from a solution 

polymerization process at existing 

facilities.27 As this process is a 

significant source of emissions for the 

one facility in the source category, we 

are proposing to set standards for this 

process under CAA section 112(d)(2) 

and (3) in this action. 

Since there is only one facility in the 

source category, the current emissions 

level of the spinning line at this affected 

source at this facility represents the 

MACT floor. As part of our beyond-thefloor analysis, we considered control 

options for the spinning line more 

stringent than the MACT floor. We 

identified two beyond-the-floor options: 

(1) A scrubber operating at 85 percent 

control efficiency; and (2) a regenerative 

thermal oxidizer operating at 95 percent 

control efficiency. Based on the 

emission stream flow rate and emissions 

information provided by the one facility 

in this source category, the capital costs 

of the scrubber option are estimated to 

be approximately $2.6 million, and the 

total annualized costs are estimated to 

be approximately $622,000. The capital 

costs of the thermal oxidizer option are 

estimated to be approximately $3.4 

million and the total annualized costs 

are estimated to be approximately $1.5 

million. 

The estimated HAP emissions 

reduction from the scrubber option is 

approximately 27 tpy. The cost 

effectiveness for the scrubber option is 

approximately $23,000/ton. The 

estimated HAP emissions reduction 

from the thermal oxidizer option is 

approximately 30 tpy. The cost 

effectiveness for the thermal oxidizer 

option is approximately $50,000/ton. 

The incremental cost effectiveness 

between the 85 percent control option 

and the 95 percent control option is 

approximately $280,000/ton of HAP 

emission reduction. Table 3 summarizes 

the cost and emission reduction impacts 

of the proposed options. 

For further details on the assumptions 

and methodologies used in this analysis, 

see the technical memorandum titled 

MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor 

Analyses for Unregulated Emission 

Sources in the Acrylic and Modacrylic 

Fibers and Amino and Phenolic Resins 

Production Source Categories, available 

in the docket for this action. 

As discussed in section IV.C below, 

neither of these options are needed in 

order to support the EPA’s finding 

under CAA section 112(f) that the AMF 

MACT standards already protect public 

health with an ample margin of safety. 

While we do not factor quantified risk 

reductions into CAA section 112(d)(2) 

beyond-the-floor analyses, for 

informational purposes we note that the 

scrubber option would reduce the MIR 

for the source category from 20 to 3 and 

reduce the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from 0.1 to 0.02. The 

thermal oxidizer option would reduce 

the MIR for the source category from 20 

to 1 and reduce the maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI from 0.1 to 0.01. 

TABLE 3—AMF SOLUTION POLYMERIZATION SPINNING LINE OPTIONS IMPACTS

Regulatory alternatives 

HAP emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Capital cost 

($ million) 

Annual cost 

($ million/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton 

HAP removed) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton 

HAP removed) 

1 Baseline (MACT floor) ............................................ 0 0 0 .......................... ..........................

2 Scrubber (Beyond-the-floor) ................................... 27 2.6 0.6 23,000 23,000 

3 Thermal Oxidizer (Beyond-the-floor) ...................... 30 3.4 1.5 50,000 280,000 

We believe that the costs of these 

beyond-the-floor options are not 

reasonable, given the level of HAP 

emission reduction they would achieve. 

Therefore, we are proposing an emission 

standard that reflects the MACT floor. 

We determined the MACT floor using 

the emissions and production data 

provided by the facility and calculated 

production-based emission rates for 

several years of production. Taking into 

account expected variability in the 

production-based emission rates, we 

calculated the MACT floor emission rate 

to be 20 kg organic HAP/Mg (40 lb 

organic HAP/ton) of acrylic and 

modacrylic fiber produced. 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 4 provides an overall summary 

of the inhalation risk assessment results 

for the AMF source category. 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1698 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—AMF INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum 

individual 

cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk ≥ 1-in-1 

million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute non-cancer 

HQ 4

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

1 ................... 20 20 81,000 0.006 0.1 0.1 HQAEGL–1 = 0.08 acrylonitrile. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

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

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values 

shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next lowest 

available acute dose-response value. See section III.A.3 of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values. 

The inhalation risk modeling was 

performed using actual emissions level 

data. As shown in Table 4, the results 

of the inhalation risk assessment 

indicated the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 

20-in-1 million, the estimated maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is 0.1 

and the estimated maximum off-facility 

site acute HQ value is 0.08, based on the 

actual emissions level and the AEGL–1 

value for acrylonitrile. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from this facility based on actual 

emission levels is 0.006 excess cancer 

cases per year or one case in every 170 

years. 

Based on our analysis, we estimate 

that actual emissions approximate 

emissions allowable under the MACT 

standards, as we are not aware of any 

situations in which the facility is 

conducting additional work practices or 

operating a control device such that it 

achieves a greater emission reduction 

than required. Therefore, the risk results 

for MACT-allowable emissions are 

approximately equal to those for actual 

emissions. For more detail about this 

estimate of the ratio of actual to MACTallowable emissions and the estimation 

of MACT-allowable emission levels (and 

associated risks and impacts), see the 

memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Acrylic and 

Modacrylic Fibers, Amino/Phenolic 

Resins, and Polycarbonate Production 

Source Categories, available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0133). 

2. Acute Risk Results 

We estimate that the maximum offfacility site acute HQ value is 0.08, 

based on the actual emissions level and 

the AEGL–1 value for acrylonitrile. 

3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results 

There were no reported emissions of 

PB–HAP, indicating low potential for 

human health multipathway risks as a 

result of PB–HAP emissions from this 

source category. 

4. Environmental Risk Screening Results 

The emissions data for the AMF 

source category indicate that sources 

within this source category do not emit 

any of the seven pollutants that we 

identified as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ as 

discussed earlier in this preamble. 

Based on the processes and materials 

used in the source category, we do not 

expect any of the seven environmental 

HAP to be emitted. Also, we are 

unaware of any adverse environmental 

effect caused by emissions of HAP that 

are emitted by this source category. 

Therefore, we do not expect an adverse 

environmental effect as a result of HAP 

emissions from this source category. 

5. Facility-Wide Risk Results 

Table 5 presents the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment for the 

AMF source category. This assessment 

was conducted based on actual emission 

levels. For detailed facility-specific 

results, see Appendix 4 of the Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production Source Category in the 

docket for this action. 

TABLE 5—AMF FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Cancer Risk 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) .................................................................................................... 20 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more ....................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the AMF source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risks of 

100-in-1 million or more ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the AMF source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risk of 

1-in-1 million or more ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Chronic Non-cancer Risk 

Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI ................................................................................................................................. 0.1 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1 .............................................................................. 0 

Number of facilities at which the AMF source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum non-cancer 

TOSHI of 1 or more ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at the single AMF facility is 

estimated to be 20-in-1 million, based 

on actual emissions. The facility-wide 

maximum individual chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be 0.1 based on actual emissions. 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1699 

6. What demographic groups might 

benefit from this regulation? 

To examine the potential for any 

environmental justice (EJ) issues that 

might be associated with the source 

category, we performed a demographic 

analysis of the population close to the 

facility. In this analysis, we evaluated 

the distribution of HAP-related cancer 

and non-cancer risks from the AMF 

source category across different social, 

demographic and economic groups 

within the populations living near 

facilities identified as having the highest 

risks. The methodology and the results 

of the demographic analyses are 

included in a technical report, 

Environmental Justice Review: Amino/

Phenolic Resins, Acrylic and Modacrylic 

Fibers Production, and Polycarbonate 

Production, available in the docket for 

this action. 

The results of the demographic 

analysis are summarized in Table 6 

below. These results, for various 

demographic groups, are based on the 

estimated risks from actual emissions 

levels for the population living within 

50 km of the facilities. 

TABLE 6—AMF DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Nationwide 

Population 

with Cancer 

risk at or 

above 1-in-1 

million 

Population 

with chronic 

hazard index 

above 1 

Total Population ........................................................................................................................... 312,861,256 81,000 0 

Race by Percent 

White ............................................................................................................................................ 72 63 0 

All Other Races ........................................................................................................................... 28 37 0 

Race by Percent 

White ............................................................................................................................................ 72 63 0 

African American ......................................................................................................................... 13 30 0 

Native American .......................................................................................................................... 1 0.4 0 

Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................................... 14 7 0 

Ethnicity by Percent 

Hispanic ....................................................................................................................................... 17 6 0 

Non-Hispanic ............................................................................................................................... 83 94 0 

Income by Percent 

Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... 14 14 0 

Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... 86 86 0 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without High School Diploma ................................................................................. 10 17 0

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................................... 90 83 0 

The results of the AMF source 

category demographic analysis indicate 

that emissions from the source category 

expose approximately 81,000 people to 

a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million 

and approximately 0 people to a chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1. The 

demographic results for the population 

potentially impacted by AMF emissions 

indicate that the minority and African 

American percentages are higher than 

the national percentages for these 

categories (37 percent minority 

compared to 28 percent nationwide, and 

30 percent African American compared 

to 13 percent nationwide). Furthermore, 

the demographic results for the 

population potentially impacted by 

these source category emissions indicate 

that the percentage of people over 25 

and without a high school diploma is 

also slightly higher than the nationwide 

percentage (17 percent compared to 15 

percent nationwide). The other 

demographic percentages for the people 

exposed to a risk greater than or equal 

to 1-in-1 million as a result of AMF 

emissions are essentially the same or 

lower than the respective nationwide 

percentages. 

Implementation of the provisions 

included in this proposal are not 

expected to reduce the number of 

people estimated to have a cancer risk 

greater than 1-in-1 million due to HAP 

emissions from these sources (81,000 

people). This is because the proposed 

emission rate for spinning lines that use 

spin dope produced from a solution 

polymerization process is equal to the 

MACT floor for the one facility in the 

AMF source category, which will not 

result in any quantifiable emission 

reductions. 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in section III.B of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR; the 

number of persons in various risk 

ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

non-cancer HI; the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the extent of non-cancer 

risks; the potential for adverse 

environmental effects; distribution of 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). For the 

AMF source category, the risk analysis 

we performed indicates that the cancer 

risks to the individual most exposed 

could be up to 20-in-1 million due to 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1700 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

both actual and allowable emissions. 

This value is considerably less than 100- 

in-1 million, which is the presumptive 

level of acceptability. The risk analysis 

also shows low cancer incidence (1 in 

every 170 years), low potential for 

human health multipathway effects 

because no PB–HAP are emitted from 

this source category, and that chronic 

non-cancer health impacts are unlikely. 

We estimate that the worst-case acute 

HQ value is 0.08 for acrylonitrile, based 

on an AEGL–1. As described earlier in 

this preamble, the acute assessment 

includes some conservative 

assumptions and some uncertainties. 

Considering the improbable assumption 

that worst-case meteorological 

conditions are present at the same time 

that maximum hourly emissions of 

acrylonitrile exceed the average hourly 

emission rate by a factor of 10 at most 

emission points simultaneously, 

coincident with individuals being in the 

location of maximum impact, and 

considering the low acute HQ values 

based on the AEGL–1 dose-response 

value, we believe that it is unlikely that 

HAP emissions from this source 

category would result in adverse acute 

health effects. Further discussion on 

these assumptions can be found in the 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production Source Category, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

Our additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed that the maximum 

facility-wide cancer risk is 20-in-1 

million and that the maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI is estimated to be 

0.1. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.A.8 of 

this preamble, and we are proposing 

that the risks from the AMF source 

category are acceptable. 

2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis 

Although we are proposing to 

determine that the risks from the AMF 

source category are acceptable, risk 

estimates for 81,000 individuals in the 

exposed population are above 1-in-1 

million. Consequently, we considered 

whether the AMF MACT standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. In this analysis, 

we investigated available emissions 

control options that might reduce the 

risk associated with emissions from the 

source category and considered this 

information along with all of the health 

risks and other health information 

considered in the risk acceptability 

determination. 

For the AMF source category, we did 

not identify any further control options 

for storage vessels, process vents, 

spinning lines or wastewater beyond 

what is currently required in the rule or 

is being proposed in this action (see 

section IV.A of this preamble for our 

proposed actions related to spinning 

lines that use a spin dope produced 

from a polymerization process). For 

equipment leaks, as discussed in section 

IV.D of this preamble, we identified an 

emission control option of requiring 

compliance with subpart UU rather than 

subpart TT, and either including or not 

including the connector LDAR 

requirements of subpart UU. We 

estimate that less than 1 percent of the 

emissions and associated risk at the 

MACT-allowable levels could be 

attributed to equipment leaks. We 

estimate the HAP reduction resulting 

from compliance with subpart UU 

without the subpart UU connector 

monitoring requirements would be 0.2 

tpy from the baseline MACT-allowable 

emissions level, with a cost 

effectiveness of $1,500/ton HAP 

reduction. We estimate the HAP 

reduction resulting from compliance 

with subpart UU including the subpart 

UU connector monitoring requirements 

would be 0.5 tpy from the baseline 

MACT-allowable emissions level, with a 

cost effectiveness of $14,000/ton HAP 

reduction. Neither of these additional 

control options for equipment leaks 

would achieve a reduction in the 

maximum individual cancer risks or any 

of the other health risk metrics. Due to 

the minimal reductions in HAP 

emissions and risk, along with the costs 

associated with these options, we are 

proposing that additional HAP 

emissions controls for AMF production 

equipment leaks are not necessary to 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA weighed all health risk 

measures and information considered in 

the risk acceptability determination, 

along with additional factors relating to 

the appropriate level of control, 

including the costs and economic 

impacts of emissions controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and other relevant factors in making our 

ample margin of safety determination. 

Considering all of these factors, the EPA 

is proposing to determine that the 

current MACT standards in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart YY for the AMF source 

category provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. 

3. Adverse Environmental Effects 

We did not identify emissions of the 

seven environmental HAP included in 

our environmental risk screening, and 

are unaware of any adverse 

environmental effects caused by other 

HAP emitted by this source category. 

Therefore, we do not expect there to be 

an adverse environmental effect as a 

result of HAP emissions from this 

source category. Accordingly, we are 

proposing to determine that it is not 

necessary to set a more stringent 

standard to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

In the period of time since the AMF 

MACT standards were promulgated, the 

EPA has developed air toxics 

regulations for numerous source 

categories that emit organic HAP from 

the same type of emissions sources that 

are present in the AMF source category. 

We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and technical analyses for 

these regulations for new practices, 

processes and control techniques. We 

also conducted a search of the BACT/

RACT/LAER clearinghouse for controls 

for VOC- and HAP-emitting processes in 

the Polymers and Resins and the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) 

categories with permits dating back to 

1997. 

The AMF MACT standards currently 

require compliance with either subpart 

TT or subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63 to 

control emissions from equipment leaks. 

While many provisions of these two 

rules are the same or similar, subpart 

UU requires the use of a lower leak 

definition for valves in gas and vapor 

service and in light liquid service, 

pumps in light liquid service, and 

connectors in gas and vapor service and 

in light liquid service. Specifically, 

subpart UU lowers the leak definition 

for valves from 10,000 ppm (in subpart 

TT) to 500 ppm, lowers the leak 

definition for pump seals from 10,000 

ppm (in subpart TT) to 1,000 ppm, and 

requires instrument monitoring of 

connectors with a leak definition of 500 

ppm, as opposed to sensory monitoring 

(in subpart TT). We identified the more 

stringent leak definitions of subpart UU 

as a development in practices, processes 

or control technologies for LDAR 

programs. We also note that the one 

facility in this source category is 

complying with subpart TT. 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1701 

Since the one facility in this source 

category is currently complying with 

subpart TT, we analyzed the costs and 

emission reductions associated with 

switching from a subpart TT LDAR 

program to a subpart UU LDAR 

program, both including and not 

including the subpart UU connector 

monitoring requirements, which can be 

an expensive component of an LDAR 

program. The estimated costs and 

emissions reductions associated with 

these options are shown in Table 7. For 

Option 1 (subpart UU without connector 

monitoring), we estimated the capital 

costs to be approximately $1,400, and 

the total annualized costs are estimated 

to be approximately $220. The 

estimated HAP emissions reduction is 

approximately 0.2 tpy, and the cost 

effectiveness is approximately $1,500/

ton. For Option 2 (subpart UU with 

connector monitoring), we estimated the 

capital costs to be approximately 

$19,000, and the total annualized costs 

are estimated to be approximately 

$7,600. The estimated HAP emissions 

reduction is approximately 0.5 tpy, and 

the cost effectiveness is approximately 

$14,000/ton. The incremental cost 

effectiveness between Option 1 and 

Option 2 is approximately $19,000. 

While, as discussed in section IV.C 

above, the equipment leaks control 

options are not needed to support the 

EPA’s finding under CAA section 112(f) 

that the AMF MACT standards already 

protect public health with an ample 

margin of safety, and while we do not 

factor quantified risk reductions into 

CAA section 112(d)(6) technology 

review analyses, for informational 

purposes we note that neither Option 1 

nor Option 2 of the technology review 

for equipment leaks would reduce the 

MIR or the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source category. 

TABLE 7—AMF EQUIPMENT LEAK OPTIONS IMPACTS

Regulatory alternatives 

HAP 

emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Capital cost 

($) 

Annual cost 

($/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Option 1: Subpart UU, no connector monitoring ................. 0.2 1,400 220 1,500 

Option 2: Subpart UU with connector monitoring ................ 0.5 19,000 7,600 14,000 19,000 

Based on this analysis, we believe the 

costs of Option 1 are reasonable, given 

the level of HAP emissions reduction 

that would be achieved with this control 

option. We believe the costs of Option 

2 are not reasonable, given the level of 

HAP emission reduction that control 

option would achieve. Therefore, we are 

proposing to revise the AMF MACT 

standards to require facilities to comply 

with subpart UU rather than subpart TT, 

with the exception of connectors in gas 

and vapor service and in light liquid 

service. We are proposing to retain the 

option to comply with either subpart TT 

or subpart UU for these components. 

For storage vessels, process vents, 

spinning line fugitive emissions and 

wastewater, beyond what is currently 

required in the rule or is being proposed 

in this action, we did not identify: any 

add-on control technology or other 

equipment that was not identified and 

considered during MACT development; 

any improvements in add-on control 

technology or other equipment (that was 

identified and considered during MACT 

development) that could result in 

significant additional HAP emission 

reduction; any work practice or 

operational procedure that was not 

identified and considered during MACT 

development; any process change or 

pollution prevention alternative that 

could be broadly applied that was not 

identified and considered during MACT 

development; or any significant changes 

in the cost (including cost effectiveness) 

of applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during MACT 

development). 

For more detailed information on the 

results of the EPA’s technology review, 

see the memorandum, Developments in 

Practices, Processes, and Control 

Technologies for the Acrylic and 

Modacrylic Fibers Source Category, 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133). 

V. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the APR Source Category 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant 

to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

112(d)(3)? 

We identified the absence of a limit 

for two potentially significant emission 

sources within the provisions of the 

APR MACT standards. These two 

emissions sources are storage vessels 

and continuous process vents at existing 

facilities. 

1. Storage Vessels 

Currently, storage vessels at existing 

facilities in the APR source category are 

unregulated by the APR MACT 

standards. Under CAA section 112(d)(2) 

and (3), we are proposing that the 

MACT floor level of control is to either 

maintain and operate a storage vessel 

with an internal or an external floating 

roof, or use a fixed roof tank with 

emissions vented through a closed vent 

system to any combination of control 

devices that achieve a 95-percent 

emissions reduction or reduce 

emissions to specified control device 

outlet concentrations. These 

requirements would apply to storage 

vessels having a capacity of 50,000 

gallons or greater and a vapor pressure 

of 2.45 psia or greater, or a capacity of 

90,000 gallons or greater and a vapor 

pressure of 0.15 psia or greater. We 

determined that this level of control 

represents the MACT floor using 

available data from the original 

development of the APR MACT 

standards, as well as from title V 

permits for facilities in the source 

category. 

As part of our beyond-the-floor 

analysis, we considered control options 

more stringent than the MACT floor. We 

identified two beyond-the-floor options. 

For Option 1, we evaluated revising the 

applicability of the MACT floor to 

include smaller capacity storage vessels 

and/or storage vessels containing 

liquids with lower vapor pressures, 

such that these additional storage 

vessels would be subject to the MACT 

floor control requirements for storage 

vessels. We evaluated the impacts of 

changing these thresholds to be 

consistent with other storage vessel 

standards already required for the 

chemical industry regulated by the 

HON. Specifically, as shown in Table 8, 

under this option, we evaluated 

requiring the MACT floor level of 

emissions control for storage vessels of 

capacities greater than or equal to 

20,000 gal, but less than 40,000 gal if the 

MTVP is 1.9 psia or greater, and for 

storage vessels of capacities greater than 

or equal to 40,000 gal, but less than 

90,000 gal if the MTVP is 0.75 psia or 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1702 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

greater. Control would also be required 

for storage vessels of 90,000 gal or 

greater, if the MTVP is 0.15 psia or 

greater, as required under the MACT 

floor, but which is not a requirement of 

the HON. Since available data for this 

source category indicates most APR 

storage vessels have fixed-roofs, under 

Option 2, we considered the impacts of 

requiring a 98-percent emissions 

reduction for storage vessels meeting the 

capacity and vapor pressure thresholds 

under Option 1, assuming emissions 

would be vented through a closed vent 

system to a regenerative thermal 

oxidizer (RTO) to attain this increased 

level of control. 

Table 9 presents the impacts for the 

MACT floor and the two beyond-thefloor options considered. Our analysis 

indicates that all existing storage vessels 

exceeding the MACT floor capacity and 

vapor pressure thresholds are already 

controlled at the 95-percent level; 

therefore, we expect no costs of 

additional emissions reductions 

associated with the MACT floor level of 

control. Available data also indicates 

that there may be no existing storage 

vessels meeting the size and vapor 

pressure thresholds of Option 1 that are 

not already controlled at the 95-percent 

level. In this case, we would expect no 

costs or additional emissions reductions 

associated with Option 1. However, in 

order to show the maximum potential 

impacts from this option, we used an 

analysis of an APR model plant, which 

assumes that one tank is already 

meeting the control requirements of the 

MACT floor and that one additional 

tank would require control under 

Option 1. In this analysis, we assumed 

that the additional tank would be 

controlled with the same control device 

as the controlled tank but would require 

ductwork to route emissions there. 

Since our data indicates that six 

facilities report emissions from storage 

vessels, we assumed that just these six 

facilities would be impacted by Option 

1. As seen in Table 9 of this preamble, 

for Option 1, we estimated the 

nationwide capital costs to be 

approximately $67,000, and the total 

nationwide annualized costs are 

estimated to be approximately $15,000. 

The estimated HAP emissions reduction 

is approximately 6.3 tpy. For Option 2, 

we estimated the nationwide capital 

costs to be approximately $5.2 million 

and the nationwide total annualized 

costs are estimated to be approximately 

$1.6 million. The estimated nationwide 

HAP emissions reduction is 

approximately 7.0 tpy, and the 

incremental cost effectiveness between 

Option 1 and Option 2 is approximately 

$2.3 million/ton. We solicit comment on 

the sizes of storage vessels and the 

vapor pressures of the contents of these 

storage vessels at APR facilities. 

For further details on the assumptions 

and methodologies used in this analysis, 

see the technical memorandum titled 

MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor 

Analyses for Unregulated Emission 

Sources in the Acrylic and Modacrylic 

Fibers and Amino and Phenolic Resins 

Production Source Categories, available 

in the docket for this action. 

While, as discussed in section V.B 

below, the storage vessel control options 

are not needed to support the EPA’s 

finding under CAA section 112(f) that 

the APR MACT standards already 

protect public health with an ample 

margin of safety, and while we do not 

factor quantified risk reductions into 

CAA section 112(d)(2) beyond-the-floor 

analyses, for informational purposes we 

note that neither Option 1 nor Option 2 

for storage vessels would reduce the 

MIR for the source category because the 

MIR is not caused by emissions from 

storage vessels. However, the maximum 

non-cancer TOSHI is due to emissions 

from storage vessels. Assuming the 

storage vessel emissions contributing to 

this TOSHI are from an uncontrolled 

storage vessel, under both Options 1 and 

2, the TOSHI would be reduced to less 

than the risk caused by other emission 

point types. The maximum TOSHI at 

the MACT-allowable level would be 

reduced from 0.7 to 0.07 with either 

storage vessel control option. 

TABLE 8—STORAGE TANK SIZE AND VAPOR PRESSURE THRESHOLDS CONSIDERED UNDER THE MACT FLOOR AND

BEYOND-THE-FLOOR ANALYSES

Regulatory alternatives 

Size and vapor pressure thresholds for control 

Size 

(gallons) 

Vapor pressure 

(psia) 

MACT Floor .......................................................... 50,000 ≤ capacity .......................................................................................

90,000 ≤ capacity .......................................................................................

≥2.45 

≥0.15 

Options 1 and 2 .................................................... 20,000 ≤ capacity < 40,000 ........................................................................ ≥1.9 

40,000 ≤ capacity < 90,000 ........................................................................ ≥0.75 

90,000 ≤ capacity ....................................................................................... ≥0.15 

TABLE 9—NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR STORAGE VESSELS AT

EXISTING APR FACILITIES

Regulatory alternatives 

HAP emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Capital cost 

($) 

Annual cost 

($/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Baseline (MACT floor) ............................................... 0 0 0 ............................ ............................

Option 1 (Beyond-the-floor)1 ...................................... 6 .3 67,000 15,000 2,400 2,400 

Option 2 (Beyond-the-floor) ....................................... 7 .0 5,200,000 1,600,000 230,000 2,200,000 

1The potential costs and emissions reductions of Option 1 regulatory alternatives are presented here based on a model facility with a single 

additional storage tank above the thresholds at which control would be required. However, available data indicate that there may be no existing 

facilities with uncontrolled tanks above the thresholds at which control would be required. In this case, there would be no costs or emissions reductions associated with these regulatory alternatives. 

Based on this analysis, we believe that 

the costs of Option 1 are reasonable, 

given the level of HAP emissions 

reduction this option would achieve. 

We believe that the costs of Option 2 are 

not reasonable, given the level of HAP 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1703 

emissions reduction this option would 

achieve. Therefore, we are proposing to 

revise the APR MACT standards to 

require the MACT floor level of control 

for storage vessels at existing affected 

sources with the specified capacities 

and vapor pressures for Option 1. 

2. Continuous Process Vents 

The EPA has identified the presence 

of uncontrolled continuous process 

vents at the two facilities in the APR 

source category (Georgia Pacific in 

Crossett, AR, and BTL Specialty Resins 

in Toledo, OH). Under CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3), we are proposing that 

the MACT floor level of control is to 

reduce organic HAP either by 85 percent 

or to a concentration of 20 parts per 

million by volume (ppmv), when using 

a combustion control device, or to a 

concentration of 50 ppmv when using a 

non-combustion control device. We 

determined that this level of control 

represents the MACT floor using 

available data from the original 

development of the APR MACT 

standards, as well as from title V 

permits for facilities in the source 

category. 

As part of our beyond-the-floor 

analysis, we considered control options 

more stringent than the MACT floor and 

identified two such options. For Option 

1, we evaluated the impacts of requiring 

a 95-percent emissions reduction, 

assuming that a scrubber would be used 

to achieve this increased level of 

control. For Option 2 we evaluated the 

impacts of requiring a 98-percent 

emissions reduction, assuming either a 

recuperative thermal oxidizer or a 

regenerative thermal oxidizer would be 

used to achieve this increased control 

level. 

Table 10 presents the impacts for the 

MACT floor and the two beyond-thefloor options considered. As seen in 

Table 10, the MACT floor level of 

control is expected to reduce HAP 

emissions by approximately 20.1 tpy 

and have a cost effectiveness of $16,900/ 

ton of HAP removed. For Option 1, we 

estimated the capital costs to be 

approximately $1.3 million, and the 

total annualized costs are estimated to 

be approximately $390,000. The 

estimated HAP emissions reduction is 

approximately 22.5 tpy, and the 

incremental cost effectiveness between 

the MACT floor and Option 1 is 

approximately $19,500/ton. For Option 

2, we estimated the capital costs to be 

approximately $3.7 million, and the 

total annualized costs are estimated to 

be approximately $1.2 million. The 

estimated HAP emissions reduction is 

approximately 23.2 tpy, and the 

incremental cost effectiveness between 

Option 1 and Option 2 is approximately 

$1.1 million/ton. We solicit comment on 

the emissions and emissions release 

parameters from continuous process 

vents at existing APR facilities. 

For further details on the assumptions 

and methodologies used in this analysis, 

see the technical memorandum titled 

MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor 

Analyses for Unregulated Emission 

Sources in the Acrylic and Modacrylic 

Fibers and Amino and Phenolic Resins 

Production Source Categories, available 

in the docket for this action. 

While, as discussed in section V.B 

below, the continuous process vent 

control options are not needed to 

support the EPA’s finding under CAA 

section 112(f) that the APR MACT 

standards already protect public health 

with an ample margin of safety, and 

while we do not factor quantified risk 

reductions into CAA section 112(d)(2) 

beyond-the-floor analyses, for 

informational purposes we note that 

neither Option 1 nor Option 2 for 

continuous process vents would reduce 

the MIR or the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source category 

because neither the MIR nor the noncancer TOSHI is not caused by 

emissions from continuous process 

vents. 

TABLE 10—NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR CONTINUOUS PROCESS

VENTS AT EXISTING APR FACILITIES

Regulatory alternatives 

HAP 

emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Capital cost 

(million $) 

Annual cost 

($/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Baseline (MACT floor) ................................................. 20.1 1.1 340,000 16,900 ............................

Option 1 (Beyond-the-floor) ......................................... 22.5 1.3 390,000 17,200 19,500 

Option 2 (Beyond-the-floor) ......................................... 23.2 3.7 1,200,000 51,000 1,100,000 

Based on this analysis, we do not 

believe the costs of the either beyondthe-floor option are reasonable, given 

the level of HAP emissions reduction 

that would be achieved with these 

control options. Therefore, we are 

proposing to revise the APR MACT 

standards to require the MACT floor 

level of control for continuous process 

vents. 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 11—provides an overall 

summary of the inhalation risk 

assessment results for the APR source 

category. 

TABLE 11—APR INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer 

risk (in 1 million) 2

Population at 

risk ≥ 1-in-1 

million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

Actual non-cancer HQ 4

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

18 ................. 9 10 6,300 0.001 0.2 0.7 HQREL = 10 formaldehyde 

HQAEGL–1 = 0.5 formaldehyde 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1704 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

28NIOSH Occupational Safety and Health 

Guideline for Formaldehyde; http://www.cdc.gov/

niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0293.pdf. 

29WHO (2000). Chapter 5.8 Formaldehyde, in Air 

Quality Guidelines for Europe, second edition. 

World Health Organization Regional Publications, 

European Series, No. 91. Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Available on-line at http://www.euro.who.int/data/ 

assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf. 

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

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

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. See section III.A.3 of this preamble for explanation of acute doseresponse values. 

The inhalation risk modeling was 

performed using actual emissions level 

data. As shown in Table 11, the results 

of the inhalation risk assessment 

indicated the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 9- 

in-1 million, the estimated maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is 0.2 

and the estimated maximum off-facility 

site acute HQ value is 10, based on the 

actual emissions level and the REL 

value for formaldehyde. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from these facilities based on actual 

emission levels is 0.001 excess cancer 

cases per year or one case in every 1,000 

years. 

Based on our analysis, we estimate 

that the MACT-allowable emissions 

levels of organic HAP could be up to 3.4 

times the actual emissions for reactor 

batch process vents in this source 

category. Because it was not possible to 

determine whether an emission point 

was a reactor batch process vent or a 

non-reactor batch process vent in the 

NEI data available for this source 

category, we applied the 3.4 factor to all 

organic HAP emissions associated with 

point (rather than fugitive) sources to be 

conservative. The maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk associated with 

emissions from point sources is 

estimated to be 3-in-1 million at actual 

emissions levels. Applying the 3.4 factor 

to this value results in a MACTallowable cancer risk of 10-in-1 million. 

The maximum TOSHI associated with 

emissions from point sources is 

estimated to be 0.2 based on actual 

emissions levels, and application of the 

3.4 factor results in a TOSHI at the 

MACT-allowable emissions level of 

approximately 0.7. For more detail 

about this estimate of the ratio of actual 

to MACT-allowable emissions and the 

estimation of MACT-allowable emission 

levels (and associated risks and 

impacts), see the memorandum, MACT 

Allowable Emissions and Risks for the 

Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers, Amino/ 

Phenolic Resins, and Polycarbonate 

Production Source Categories, available 

in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0133). 

2. Acute Risk Results 

We estimate that the maximum offfacility site acute HQ value is 10, based 

on the actual emissions level and the 

REL value for formaldehyde. The worstcase maximum estimated 1-hour 

exposure to formaldehyde outside the 

facility fence line is 0.6 mg/m3. This 

estimated worst-case exposure exceeds 

the 1-hour REL by a factor of 10 (HQREL

= 10) and is below the 1-hour AEGL–1 

(HQAEGL–1 = 0.5). This exposure 

estimate does not exceed the AEGL–1, 

but does exceed the workplace ceiling 

level guideline for the formaldehyde 

value developed by the National 

Institutes for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) 28 ‘‘for any 15 minute 

period in a work day’’ (NIOSH RELceiling value of 0.12 mg/m3; HQNIOSH = 

5). The estimate is also above the value 

developed by the American Conference 

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

(ACGIH) as ‘‘not to be exceeded at any 

time’’ (ACGIH TLV-ceiling value of 0.37 

mg/m3; HQACGIH = 2). Additionally, the 

estimated maximum acute exposure 

exceeds the Air Quality Guideline value 

that was developed by the World Health 

Organization 29 for 30-minute exposures 

(0.1 mg/m3; HQWHO = 6). We solicit 

comment on the use of the occupational 

values described above in the 

interpretation of these worst-case acute 

screening exposure estimates for the 

APR source category. 

3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results 

Emissions of three PB–HAP are 

reported in the data set for this source 

category, including lead compounds (1 

facility), cadmium compounds (2 

facilities) and POM (analyzed as 

benzo(a)pyrene TEQ) (2 facilities). 

Reported emissions of cadmium 

compounds and POM are lower than the 

multipathway screening levels for those 

PB–HAP, indicating low potential for 

multipathway risks. Lead is a PB–HAP, 

but the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) value (which was 

used for the chronic non-cancer risk 

assessment) takes into account airrelated multipathway exposures, so a 

separate multipathway screening value 

was not developed. Results of the 

analysis for lead indicate that the 

maximum HEM modeled annual off-site 

ambient lead concentration was less 

than 1 percent of the NAAQS for lead, 

and if the annual emissions occurred 

during a 3-month period (which is 

highly unlikely) the maximum 3-month 

rolling average concentrations would 

still be less than 1 percent of the 

NAAQS, indicating low potential for 

multipathway risks from lead emissions 

from these facilities. Emissions of lead 

from this source category were limited 

to 0.03 lb/yr from a single facility. 

4. Environmental Risk Screening Results 

As described in section III.A.6, we 

conducted an environmental risk 

screening assessment for the APR source 

category. In the Tier I screening analysis 

for the PB–HAP other than lead emitted 

by some sources in the category (POM 

and cadmium), none of the individual 

modeled concentrations for any facility 

in the source category exceeds any of 

the ecological benchmarks (either the 

LOAEL or NOAEL). Therefore, we did 

not conduct a Tier II assessment. For 

lead compounds, we did not estimate 

any exceedances of the secondary lead 

NAAQS. Acid gas emissions were not 

identified from any source in the 

category. Based on our screening 

analysis, we did not identify an adverse 

environmental effect as defined in CAA 

section 112(a)(7) from HAP emissions 

from this source category. 

5. Facility-Wide Risk Results 

Table 12 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment for the 

APR source category. This assessment 

was conducted based on actual emission 

levels. For detailed facility-specific 

results, see Appendix 4 of the Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

Source Category in the docket for this 

action. 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1705 

TABLE 12—APR FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed ............................................................................................................................................................ 18 

Cancer Risk: 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ....................................................................................... 9 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more .......................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the APR source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer 

risks of 100-in-1 million or more ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

Number of facilities at which the APR source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer 

risk of 1-in-1 million or more ................................................................................................................................................... 7 

Chronic Non-cancer Risk: 

Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI .................................................................................................................... 0 .2 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1 ................................................................. 0 

Number of facilities at which the APR source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more .................................................................................................................................................... 0 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the APR MACT 

standards is estimated to be 9-in-1 

million, based on actual emissions. 

There are 10 facilities with facility-wide 

MIR of 1-in-1 million or greater, and 7 

of these facilities have APR production 

operations that contribute greater than 

50 percent to the facility-wide risks. 

The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic non-cancer TOSHI is 

estimated to be 0.2 based on actual 

emissions. 

6. What demographic groups might 

benefit from this regulation? 

To determine whether or not to 

conduct a demographics analysis, we 

look at a combination of factors 

including the MIR, non-cancer TOSHI, 

population around the facilities in the 

source category, and other relevant 

factors. For the APR source category, 

our analyses show that actual emissions 

from the APR source category result in 

no individuals being exposed to cancer 

risk greater than 9-in-1 million or a noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. In 

addition, we estimate the cancer 

incidence for the source category to be 

0.001 cases per year. Therefore, we did 

not conduct an assessment of risks to 

individual demographic groups for this 

rulemaking. However, we did conduct a 

proximity analysis, which identifies any 

overrepresentation of minority, low 

income or indigenous populations near 

facilities in the source category. The 

results of this analysis are presented in 

the section of this preamble entitled 

‘‘Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations.’’ 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in section III.B of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR; the 

number of persons in various risk 

ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

non-cancer HI; the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the extent of non-cancer 

risks; the potential for adverse 

environmental effects; distribution of 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). For the 

APR source category, the risk analysis 

we performed indicates that the cancer 

risks to the individual most exposed 

could be up to 9-in-1 million due to 

actual emissions and up to 10-in-1 

million due to allowable emissions. 

These values are considerably less than 

100-in-1 million, which is the 

presumptive level of acceptability. The 

risk analysis also shows low cancer 

incidence (1 in every 1,000 years), low 

potential for human health 

multipathway effects, and that chronic 

non-cancer health impacts are unlikely. 

We estimate that the worst-case acute 

HQ could exceed 1 for one HAP, 

formaldehyde, with a potential 

maximum HQ up to 10 based on the 

acute REL for formaldehyde. Three of 

the 18 facilities in this source category 

had an estimated HQ greater than 1. The 

maximum HQ based on an AEGL–1 is 

0.5, based on the AEGL–1 for 

formaldehyde. As described earlier in 

this preamble, the acute assessment 

includes some conservative 

assumptions and some uncertainties. 

Considering the improbable assumption 

that worst-case meteorological 

conditions are present at the same time 

that maximum hourly emissions of 

formaldehyde exceed the average hourly 

emission rate by a factor of 10 at most 

emission points simultaneously, 

coincident with individuals being in the 

location of maximum impact, and 

considering the low acute HQ values 

based on the AEGL–1 collectively with 

the REL value, we believe that it is 

unlikely that HAP emissions from this 

source category would result in adverse 

acute health effects. Further discussion 

on these assumptions can be found in 

the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

Source Category, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

Our screening level evaluation of the 

potential health risks associated with 

emissions of PB–HAP indicates low 

potential for adverse multipathway 

impacts due to emissions of the PB– 

HAP associated with the source 

category. The Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Amino/Phenolic 

Resins Production Source Category in 

the docket also discusses the screening 

level evaluation. 

Our additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed that the maximum 

facility-wide cancer risk is 9-in-1 

million. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be 0.2. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.A.8 of 

this preamble, and we are proposing to 

determine that the risks from the APR 

source category are acceptable. 

2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis 

Although we are proposing to 

determine that the risks from the APR 

source category are acceptable, risk 

estimates for 6,300 individuals in the 

exposed population are above 1-in-1 

million. Consequently, we considered 

whether the APR MACT standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. In this analysis, 

we investigated available emissions 

control options that might reduce the 

risk associated with emissions from the 

source category and considered this 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1706 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

information along with all of the health 

risks and other health information 

considered in the risk acceptability 

determination. 

For the APR source category, we did 

not identify any further control options 

for equipment leaks, storage vessels, 

continuous process vents, batch process 

vents or heat exchange systems beyond 

what is currently required in the rule or 

what we considered for proposal in this 

action (see section V.A of this preamble 

for our proposed actions related to 

storage vessels and continuous process 

vents). 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA weighed all health risk 

measures and information considered in 

the risk acceptability determination, 

along with additional factors relating to 

the appropriate level of control, 

including the costs and economic 

impacts of emissions controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and other relevant factors in making our 

ample margin of safety determination. 

Considering all of these factors, the EPA 

is proposing to determine that the 

current MACT standards in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart OOO for the APR source 

category provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. 

3. Adverse Environmental Effects 

Based on the results of our 

environmental risk screening 

assessment, we do not expect there to be 

an adverse environmental effect as a 

result of HAP emissions from the APR 

source category. We are proposing to 

determine that it is not necessary to set 

a more stringent standard to prevent, 

taking into consideration costs, energy, 

safety, and other relevant factors, an 

adverse environmental effect. 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

In the period of time since the APR 

MACT standards were promulgated, the 

EPA has developed air toxics 

regulations for numerous source 

categories that emit organic HAP from 

the same type of emissions sources that 

are present in the APR source category. 

We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and technical analyses for 

these regulations for new practices, 

processes, and control techniques. We 

also conducted a search of the BACT/

RACT/LAER clearinghouse for controls 

for VOC- and HAP-emitting processes in 

the Polymers and Resins and the SOCMI 

categories with permits dating back to 

1997. 

For storage vessels located at new 

sources, we identified two potential 

developments in existing practices and 

control techniques not currently 

required by the APR MACT standards. 

The current requirements for storage 

vessels at a new source are to maintain 

and operate either an internal or an 

external floating roof, or use a fixed roof 

tank with emissions vented through a 

closed vent system to any combination 

of control devices that achieve a 95 

percent emissions reduction or reduce 

emissions to specified control device 

outlet concentrations. These 

requirements apply to storage vessels 

having a capacity of 50,000 gallons or 

greater and a vapor pressure of 2.45 psia 

or greater, or a capacity of 90,000 

gallons or greater and a vapor pressure 

of 0.15 psia or greater. As in the 

identified beyond-the-floor options for 

existing storage vessels in the APR 

source category, we evaluated revising 

the applicability of the APR new source 

MACT requirements to include smaller 

capacity storage vessels and/or storage 

vessels containing liquids with lower 

vapor pressures (Option 1), and under 

Option 2 we considered the impacts of 

requiring a 98 percent emissions 

reduction for storage vessels meeting the 

capacity and vapor pressure thresholds 

of Option 1. Under Options 1 and 2, we 

evaluated the impacts of changing the 

thresholds at which emissions controls 

are required to be consistent with other 

storage vessel standards already 

required for the chemical industry 

regulated by the HON. Specifically, as 

shown in Table 13, under this option, 

we evaluated requiring the new source 

level of emissions control for storage 

vessels of capacities greater than or 

equal to 20,000 gal, but less than 40,000 

gal if the MTVP is 1.9 psia or greater, 

and for storage vessels of capacities 

greater than or equal to 40,000 gal, but 

less than 90,000 gal if the MTVP is 0.75 

psia or greater. Control would still be 

required for storage vessels of 90,000 gal 

or greater, if the MTVP is 0.15 psia or 

greater, as currently required for storage 

vessels at new sources in the APR 

source category, but which is not a 

requirement of the HON. Since available 

data for the source category indicates 

most APR storage vessels have fixedroofs, under Option 2, we considered 

the impacts of requiring a 98 percent 

emissions reduction for storage vessels 

meeting the capacity and vapor pressure 

thresholds under Option 1, assuming a 

RTO would be used to attain this 

increased level of control. 

Table 14 presents the impacts of the 

options considered for storage vessels at 

a new source in the APR source category 

under the technology review. Since 

there are currently no new sources in 

the APR source category, this analysis 

was conducted based on a single model 

APR facility. As seen by the incremental 

cost effectiveness column in Table 14 of 

this preamble, for Option 1, we 

estimated the capital costs to be 

approximately $11,000, and the total 

annualized costs are estimated to be 

approximately $2,500. The estimated 

HAP emissions reduction is 

approximately 1.1 tpy, and the cost 

effectiveness is approximately $2,400/

ton. For Option 2, we estimated the 

capital costs to be approximately 

$590,000, and the total annualized costs 

are estimated to be approximately 

$170,000. The estimated HAP emissions 

reduction is approximately 1.2 tpy, and 

the incremental cost effectiveness 

between Option 1 and Option 2 is 

approximately $1.43 million/ton. 

TABLE 13—STORAGE TANK SIZE AND VAPOR PRESSURE THRESHOLDS CONSIDERED UNDER THE TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

FOR NEW SOURCES

Regulatory alternatives 

Size and vapor pressure thresholds for control 

Size (gallons) Vapor pressure 

(psia) 

Current MACT Requirements ............................... 50,000 ≤ capacity .......................................................................................

90,000 ≤ capacity .......................................................................................

≥2.45 

≥0.15 

Options 1 and 2 .................................................... 20,000 ≤ capacity <40,000 ......................................................................... ≥1.9 

40,000 ≤ capacity <90,000 ......................................................................... ≥0.75 

90,000 ≤ capacity ....................................................................................... ≥0.15 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1707 

TABLE 14—FACILITY EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR STORAGE VESSELS AT A

MODEL NEW APR FACILITY

Regulatory alternatives 

HAP 

emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Capital cost 

($) 

Annual cost 

($/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Option 1 ....................................................................... 1.05 11,200 2,500 2,370 

Option 2 ....................................................................... 1.17 590,000 171,000 146,000 1,430,000 

Based on this analysis, we believe the 

costs of Option 1 are reasonable, given 

the level of HAP emissions reduction 

that would be achieved with these 

control options. We believe that the 

costs of Option 2 are not reasonable, 

given the level of HAP emission 

reduction they would achieve. 

Therefore, we are proposing to revise 

the APR MACT standards to require the 

current level of control for storage 

vessels at new sources with the 

specified capacities and vapor pressures 

for Option 1. 

For equipment leaks, continuous 

process vents, batch process vents and 

heat exchange systems, beyond what is 

currently required in the rule or is being 

proposed in this action, we did not 

identify: any add-on control technology 

or other equipment that was not 

identified and considered during MACT 

development; any improvements in addon control technology or other 

equipment (that was identified and 

considered during MACT development) 

that could result in significant 

additional HAP emission reduction; any 

work practice or operational procedure 

that was not identified and considered 

during MACT development; any process 

change or pollution prevention 

alternative that could be broadly 

applied that was not identified and 

considered during MACT development; 

or any significant changes in the cost 

(including cost effectiveness) of 

applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during MACT 

development). 

For more detailed information on the 

results of the EPA’s technology review, 

see the memorandum, Developments in 

Practices, Processes, and Control 

Technologies for the Amino/Phenolic 

Resins Production Source Category 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133). 

VI. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the PC Source Category 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 15 provides an overall summary 

of the inhalation risk assessment results 

for the source category. 

TABLE 15—PC INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities 1

Maximum 

individual 

cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk ≥ 1-in-1 

million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

non-cancer HQ 4

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

4 .................................. 0.3 0.3 0 0.00008 0.04 0.04 HQREL = 2 

triethylamine. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

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

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values 

shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next lowest 

available acute dose-response value. See section III.A.3 of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values. 

The inhalation risk modeling was 

performed using actual emissions level 

data. As shown in Table 15, the results 

of the inhalation risk assessment 

indicated the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 

0.3-in-1 million, the estimated 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value is 0.04 and the estimated 

maximum off-facility site acute HQ 

value is 2, based on the actual emissions 

level and the REL value for 

triethylamine. The total estimated 

national cancer incidence from these 

facilities based on actual emission levels 

is 0.00008 excess cancer cases per year 

or one case in every 13,000 years. 

Based on our analysis, we estimate 

that the MACT-allowable emissions 

level for organic HAP emissions from 

certain storage vessels could be up to 

2.5 times the actual emissions from this 

source category. However, as we 

estimate that storage vessel emissions 

contribute only 5 percent to the total 

organic HAP emissions for the source 

category, the application of the factor of 

2.5 to the organic HAP emissions from 

these sources resulted in essentially no 

increase in cancer risks, as the risk 

increase is so small that when the risk 

value is rounded to one significant digit, 

there is no change. Therefore, the cancer 

risk results for MACT-allowable 

emissions are approximately equal to 

those for actual emissions. For more 

detail about this estimate of the ratio of 

actual to MACT-allowable emissions 

and the estimation of MACT-allowable 

emission levels (and associated risks 

and impacts), see the memorandum, 

MACT Allowable Emissions and Risks 

for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers, 

Amino/Phenolic Resins, and 

Polycarbonate Production Source 

Categories, in the docket for this action. 

2. Acute Risk Results 

We estimate that the maximum offfacility site acute HQ value is 2, based 

on the actual emissions level and the 

REL value for triethylamine. 

3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results 

There were no reported emissions of 

PB–HAP, indicating low potential for 

human health multipathway risks as a 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1708 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

result of PB–HAP emissions from this 

source category. 

4. Environmental Risk Screening Results 

The emissions data for the PC source 

category indicate that sources within 

this source category do not emit any of 

the seven pollutants that we identified 

as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ as discussed 

earlier in this preamble. Based on the 

processes and materials used in the 

source category, we do not expect any 

of the seven environmental HAP to be 

emitted. Also, we are unaware of any 

adverse environmental effect caused by 

emissions of HAP that are emitted by 

this source category. Therefore, we do 

not expect an adverse environmental 

effect as a result of HAP emissions from 

this source category. 

5. Facility-Wide Risk Results 

Table 16 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment for the PC 

source category. This assessment was 

conducted based on actual emission 

levels. For detailed facility-specific 

results, see Appendix 4 of the Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Polycarbonate Production Source 

Category in the docket for this action. 

TABLE 16—PC FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 

Cancer Risk: 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ......................................................................................... 20 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more ............................................ 0 

Number of facilities at which the PC source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer 

risks of 100-in-1 million or more ............................................................................................................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the PC source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer 

risk of 1-in-1 million or more ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 

Chronic Non-cancer Risk: 

Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI ...................................................................................................................... 2 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1 ................................................................... 1 

Number of facilities at which the PC source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum non-cancer TOSHI of 1 or more ............................................................................................................................................................ 0 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the PC MACT 

standards is estimated to be 20-in-1 

million, based on actual emissions. Of 

the 4 facilities included in this analysis, 

none have a facility-wide MIR of 100-in1 million. There are 2 facilities with 

facility-wide MIR of 1-in-1 million or 

greater. Neither of these facilities have 

PC production operations that 

contribute greater than 50 percent to the 

facility-wide risks. 

The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic non-cancer TOSHI is 

estimated to be 2 based on actual 

emissions. Of the 4 facilities included in 

this analysis, one has facility-wide 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

values greater than or equal to 1. 

6. What demographic groups might 

benefit from this regulation? 

To determine whether or not to 

conduct a demographics analysis, we 

look at a combination of factors 

including the MIR, non-cancer TOSHI, 

population around the facilities in the 

source category, and other relevant 

factors. For the PC source category, our 

analyses show that actual emissions 

from the PC source category result in no 

individuals being exposed to cancer risk 

greater than 1-in-1 million or a noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. Therefore, 

we did not conduct an assessment of 

risks to individual demographic groups 

for this rulemaking. However, we did 

conduct a proximity analysis, which 

identifies any overrepresentation of 

minority, low income or indigenous 

populations near facilities in the source 

category. The results of this analysis are 

presented in the section of this 

preamble entitled ‘‘Executive Order 

12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations.’’ 

B. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in section III.B of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR; the 

number of persons in various risk 

ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

non-cancer HI; the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the extent of non-cancer 

risks; the potential for adverse 

environmental effects; distribution of 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). For the PC 

source category, the risk analysis we 

performed indicates that the cancer 

risks to the individual most exposed 

could be up to 0.3-in-1 million due to 

both actual and allowable emissions. 

This value is considerably less than 100- 

in-1 million, which is the presumptive 

level of acceptability. The risk analysis 

also shows low cancer incidence (1 in 

every 13,000 years), low potential for 

human health multipathway effects 

because no PB–HAP are emitted from 

this source category, and that chronic 

non-cancer health impacts are unlikely. 

We estimate that the worst-case acute 

HQ could exceed 1 for one HAP, 

triethylamine, with a potential 

maximum HQ up to 2 based on the 

acute REL for triethylamine. One of the 

4 facilities in this source category had 

an estimated HQ greater than 1. As 

described earlier in this preamble, the 

acute assessment includes some 

conservative assumptions and some 

uncertainties. Considering the 

improbable assumption that worst-case 

meteorological conditions are present at 

the same time that maximum hourly 

emissions formaldehyde exceed the 

average hourly emission rate by a factor 

of 10 at most emission points 

simultaneously, and coincident with 

individuals being in the location of 

maximum impact, we believe that it is 

unlikely that HAP emissions from this 

source category would result in adverse 

acute health effects. Further discussion 

on these assumptions can be found in 

the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Polycarbonate Production Source 

Category, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

Our additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed that the maximum 

facility-wide cancer risk is 20-in-1 

million and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be 2. The 

source category contributes less than 1 

percent to the maximum facility-wide 

cancer risk and less than 1 percent to 

the maximum facility-wide TOSHI. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.A.8 of 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1709 

this preamble, and we are proposing to 

determine that the risks from the PC 

source category are acceptable. 

2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis 

The PC source category emits HAP 

which are known, probable or possible 

carcinogens. The EPA evaluated the 

emissions of these HAP and estimates 

that the cancer risks to the individual 

most exposed are less than 1-in-1 

million, based on actual and MACTallowable emissions. Our analysis also 

indicates that chronic non-cancer risks 

are low, based on actual and MACTallowable emissions. We estimate that 

emissions from the PC source category 

would result in a maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI less than 1 for the 

individual most exposed. While the 

assessment for acute impacts suggests 

that short-term triethylamine 

concentrations at one facility could 

exceed the REL, we believe it unlikely 

that acute impacts would occur due to 

the conservative assumptions and 

uncertainties associated with the acute 

analysis. These assumptions include 

having worst-case meteorological 

conditions present at the same time that 

maximum hourly emissions of 

triethylamine exceed the average hourly 

emission rate by a factor of 10, 

coincident with individuals being in the 

location of maximum impact. 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA weighed all health risk 

measures and information considered in 

the risk acceptability determination, 

along with additional factors relating to 

the appropriate level of control, 

including the costs and economic 

impacts of emissions controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and other relevant factors in making our 

ample margin of safety determination. 

Considering all of these factors, the EPA 

is proposing to determine that the 

current MACT standards in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart YY for the PC source 

category provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. 

3. Adverse Environmental Effects 

We did not identify emissions of the 

seven environmental HAP included in 

our environmental risk screening, and 

are unaware of any adverse 

environmental effects caused by other 

HAP emitted by this source category. 

Therefore, we do not expect there to be 

an adverse environmental effect as a 

result of HAP emissions from this 

source category, and we are proposing 

to determine that it is not necessary to 

set a more stringent standard to prevent, 

taking into consideration costs, energy, 

safety, and other relevant factors, an 

adverse environmental effect. 

C. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

In the period of time since the PC 

MACT standards were promulgated, the 

EPA has developed air toxics 

regulations for numerous source 

categories that emit organic HAP from 

the same type of emissions sources that 

are present in the PC source category. 

We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and technical analyses for 

these regulations for new practices, 

processes, and control techniques. We 

also conducted a search of the BACT/

RACT/LAER clearinghouse for controls 

for VOC- and HAP-emitting processes in 

the Polymers and Resins and the SOCMI 

categories with permits dating back to 

1997. 

The PC MACT standards currently 

require compliance with either subpart 

TT or subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63 to 

control emissions from equipment leaks. 

While many of the provisions of these 

two rules are the same or similar, 

subpart UU requires the use of a lower 

leak definition for valves in gas and 

vapor service and in light liquid service, 

pumps in light liquid service, and 

connectors in gas and vapor service and 

in light liquid service. Specifically, 

subpart UU lowers the leak definition 

for valves from 10,000 ppm (in subpart 

TT) to 500 ppm, lowers the leak 

definition for pump seals from 10,000 

ppm (in subpart TT) to 1,000 ppm, and 

requires instrument monitoring of 

connectors with a leak definition of 500 

ppm, as opposed to sensory monitoring 

(in subpart TT). We identified the more 

stringent leak definitions of subpart UU 

as a development in practices, processes 

or control technologies for LDAR 

programs. 

Assuming that each of the four PC 

sources currently comply with subpart 

TT, we analyzed the costs and emission 

reductions associated with switching 

from a subpart TT LDAR program to a 

subpart UU LDAR program, both 

including and not including the subpart 

UU connector monitoring requirements, 

which can be an expensive component 

of an LDAR program. The estimated 

costs and emissions reductions 

associated with these options are shown 

in Table 17. For Option 1 (subpart UU 

without connector monitoring), we 

estimated the capital costs to be 

approximately $16,000, and the total 

annualized costs are estimated to be 

approximately $2,200. The estimated 

HAP emissions reduction is 

approximately 2.1 tpy, and the cost 

effectiveness is approximately $1,000/

ton. For Option 2 (subpart UU with 

connector monitoring), we estimated the 

capital costs to be approximately 

$93,000, and the total annualized costs 

are estimated to be approximately 

$32,000. The estimated HAP emissions 

reduction is approximately 4.4 tpy, and 

the cost effectiveness is approximately 

$7,400/ton. The incremental cost 

effectiveness between Option 1 and 

Option 2 is approximately $13,000. 

While, as discussed in section VI.B 

above, the equipment leaks control 

options are not needed to support the 

EPA’s finding under CAA section 112(f) 

that the PC MACT standards already 

protect public health with an ample 

margin of safety, and while we do not 

factor quantified risk reductions into 

CAA section 112(d)(6) technology 

review analyses, for informational 

purposes we note that neither Option 1 

nor Option 2 for equipment leaks would 

reduce the MIR for the source category 

because the MIR is not caused by 

emissions from equipment leaks. 

However, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI is due to emissions from 

equipment leaks. At the MACTallowable emissions level, under Option 

1, the TOSHI would be reduced from 

0.04 to 0.03, and under Option 2, the 

TOSHI would be reduced to 0.02. 

TABLE 17—PC EQUIPMENT LEAK OPTIONS IMPACTS

Regulatory alternatives 

HAP 

emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Capital cost 

($) 

Annual cost 

($/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Option 1: Subpart UU, no connector monitoring ......... 2.1 16,000 2,200 1,000 

Option 2: Subpart UU with connector monitoring ........ 4.4 93,000 32,000 7,400 13,000 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1710 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Based on this analysis, we believe the 

costs of Option 1 are reasonable, given 

the level of HAP emissions reduction 

that would be achieved with this control 

option. We believe the costs of Option 

2 are not reasonable, given the level of 

HAP emission reduction that control 

option would achieve. Therefore, we are 

proposing to revise the PC MACT 

standards to require facilities to comply 

with subpart UU rather than subpart TT, 

with the exception of connectors in gas 

and vapor service and in light liquid 

service. We are proposing to retain the 

option to comply with either subpart TT 

or subpart UU for these components. 

For storage vessels, process vents and 

wastewater treatment systems, beyond 

what is currently required in the rule or 

is being proposed in this action, we did 

not identify: Any add-on control 

technology or other equipment that was 

not identified and considered during 

MACT development; any improvements 

in add-on control technology or other 

equipment (that was identified and 

considered during MACT development) 

that could result in significant 

additional HAP emission reduction; any 

work practice or operational procedure 

that was not identified and considered 

during MACT development; any process 

change or pollution prevention 

alternative that could be broadly 

applied that was not identified and 

considered during MACT development; 

or any significant changes in the cost 

(including cost effectiveness) of 

applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during MACT 

development). 

For more detailed information on the 

results of the EPA’s technology review, 

see the memorandum, Developments in 

Practices, Processes, and Control 

Technologies for the Polycarbonate 

Production Source Category, available 

in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0133). 

VII. What other actions are we 

proposing? 

In addition to the proposed changes to 

the standards described above, we 

reviewed the MACT standards to 

determine whether we should make 

additional amendments. From this 

review we have identified four 

additional revisions. First, we are 

proposing revisions to the SSM 

provisions of the MACT rule in order to 

ensure that they are consistent with the 

court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 

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

vacated two provisions that exempted 

sources from the requirement to comply 

with otherwise applicable section 

112(d) emission standards during 

periods of SSM. As part of these SSM 

revisions, we are proposing to require 

monitoring of PRD in organic HAP 

service that release to the atmosphere. 

Second, we are proposing revisions to 

require electronic reporting of emissions 

test results. Third, we are proposing to 

add a definition of ‘‘seal’’ to all three 

rules. Finally, we are seeking comments 

on the performance of flares in these 

source categories. We present details 

and the rationale for the proposed 

changes related to these issues in the 

following sections. 

A. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

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

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

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

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

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

We are proposing the elimination of 

the SSM exemption in the rules 

regulating each of the three source 

categories addressed by this rule. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we 

are proposing that the standards in these 

rules apply at all times. We are also 

proposing several revisions to Subpart 

YY and Table 1 to Subpart OOO (the 

General Provisions applicability table), 

as is explained in more detail below. 

For example, we are proposing to 

eliminate the incorporation of the 

General Provisions’ requirement that the 

source develop an SSM plan. We also 

are proposing to eliminate and revise 

certain recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM 

exemption, as further described below. 

The EPA has attempted to ensure that 

the provisions we are proposing to 

eliminate are inappropriate, 

unnecessary or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether we have successfully done so. 

In proposing the standards in these 

rules, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and has 

not proposed alternate standards for 

those periods because facilities in these 

source categories have not indicated 

that they will be unable to comply with 

the standards during these times. 

Emission reductions for process vents 

and transfer operations are typically 

achieved by routing vapors to a control 

device such as a thermal oxidizer or 

carbon adsorber. It is common practice 

to start a control device prior to startup 

of the emissions source it is controlling, 

so the control device would be 

operating before emissions are routed to 

it. We expect control devices would be 

operating during startup and shutdown 

events in a manner consistent with 

normal operating periods, and that these 

control devices will be operated to 

maintain and meet the monitoring 

parameter operating limits set during 

the performance test. We do not expect 

startup and shutdown events to affect 

emissions from equipment leaks, 

wastewater sources (e.g., surface 

impoundments, oil-water separators, 

organic-water separators) or storage 

tanks. Leak detection programs 

associated with equipment leaks are in 

place to detect leaks, and therefore, it is 

inconsequential whether the process is 

operating under normal operating 

conditions or is in startup or shutdown. 

Wastewater emissions are also not 

expected to be significantly affected by 

startup or shutdown events. Working 

and breathing losses from storage tanks 

are the same regardless of whether the 

process is operating under normal 

operating conditions or if it is in a 

startup or shutdown event. 

Periods of startup, normal operations 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

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

has determined that CAA section 112 

does not require that emissions that 

occur during periods of malfunction be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 112 standards. Under section 

112, emissions standards for new 

sources must be no less stringent than 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the bestcontrolled similar source and for 

existing sources generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission 

limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing 12 percent of sources in the 

category. There is nothing in CAA 

section 112 that directs the agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the bestperforming or best-controlled sources 

when setting emission standards. 

Moreover, while the EPA accounts for 

variability in setting emissions 

standards consistent with the section 

112 case law, nothing in that case law 

requires the agency to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1711 

Section 112 of the CAA uses the concept 

of ‘‘best-controlled’’ and ‘‘bestperforming’’ unit in defining the level of 

stringency that section 112 performance 

standards must meet. Applying the 

concept of ‘‘best-controlled’’ or ‘‘bestperforming’’ to a unit that is 

malfunctioning presents significant 

difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden 

and unexpected events. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

would be difficult, if not impossible, 

given the myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the 

difficulties associated with predicting or 

accounting for the frequency, degree 

and duration of various malfunctions 

that might occur. As such, the 

performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) 

(‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude 

in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. 

We generally defer to an agency’s 

decision to proceed on the basis of 

imperfect scientific information, rather 

than to ‘‘invest the resources to conduct 

the perfect study.’’). See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, the goal of a 

best controlled or best performing 

source is to operate in such a way as to 

avoid malfunctions of the source, and 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are significantly less 

stringent than levels that are achieved 

by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112(d) 

standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ 

and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless 

operation.’’ See 40 CFR 63.2, definition 

of malfunction. 

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause a 

violation of an emission standard. See, 

e.g., State Implementation Plans: 

Response to Petition for Rulemaking; 

Findings of Excess Emissions During 

Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction; Proposed rule, 78 FR 

12460 (Feb. 22, 2013); State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown 

(September 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

Maintenance, and Malfunctions 

(February 15, 1983). The EPA is 

therefore proposing to add an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

violations of emission standards in 

these rules that are caused by 

malfunctions. (See proposed 40 CFR 

63.1100(h) and 40 CFR 63.1400(l) 

defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to mean, 

in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or defense put 

forward by a defendant, regarding 

which the defendant has the burden of 

proof, and the merits of which are 

independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding). 

We also are proposing other 

regulatory provisions to specify the 

elements that are necessary to establish 

this affirmative defense; the source must 

prove by a preponderance of evidence 

that it has met all of the elements set 

forth in proposed 40 CFR 63.1100(h) 

and 40 CFR 63.1400(l). (See 40 CFR 

22.24). The proposed criteria are 

designed in part to ensure that the 

affirmative defense is available only 

where the event that causes a violation 

of the emission standard meets the 

narrow definition of malfunction in 40 

CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonably preventable and not caused 

by poor maintenance and/or careless 

operation). For example, to successfully 

assert the proposed affirmative defense, 

the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the 

violation ‘‘[w]as caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner . . . .’’ The 

proposed criteria also are designed to 

ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with proposed 40 CFR 

63.1108(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 

63.1400(k)(4) and to prevent future 

malfunctions. For example, under the 

proposed criteria, the source must prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that 

‘‘[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as 

possible when a violation occurred...’’ 

and that ‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken 

to minimize the impact of the violation 

on ambient air quality, the environment 

and human health . . . .’’ Under the 

proposal, in any judicial or 

administrative proceeding, the 

Administrator may challenge the 

assertion of the affirmative defense and, 

if the respondent has not met its burden 

of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate 

penalties may be assessed in accordance 

with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 

CFR 22.27). 

The EPA is proposing to include an 

affirmative defense in an attempt to 

balance a tension, inherent in many 

types of air regulation, to ensure 

adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite 

the most diligent of efforts, emission 

standards may be violated under 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that ‘‘limit the 

quantity, rate, or concentration of 

emissions of air pollutants on a 

continuous basis.’’ CAA section 302(k), 

42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ‘‘emission 

limitation’’ and ‘‘emission standard’’). 

See, generally, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 

F.3d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, 

the EPA is required to ensure that 

emissions standards are continuous. 

The affirmative defense for malfunction 

events meets this requirement by 

ensuring that even where there is a 

malfunction, the emission standard is 

still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently 

upheld the EPA’s view that an 

affirmative defense provision is 

consistent with section 113(e) of the 

CAA. Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. 

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

Cir. Mar. 25, 2013) (upholding the EPA’s 

approval of affirmative defense 

provisions in a CAA State 

Implementation Plan). While 

‘‘continuous’’ standards are required, 

there is also case law indicating that in 

many situations it is appropriate for the 

EPA to account for the practical realities 

of technology. For example, in Essex 

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

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

acknowledged that in setting standards 

under CAA section 111 ‘‘variant 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1712 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

provisions’’ such as provisions allowing 

for upsets during startup, shutdown and 

equipment malfunction ‘‘appear 

necessary to preserve the reasonableness 

of the standards as a whole and that the 

record does not support the ‘never to be 

exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’ 

See also, Portland Cement Association 

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

1973). Though these earlier cases may 

no longer represent binding precedent 

in light of the CAA 1977 amendments 

and intervening case law such as Sierra 

Club v. EPA, they nevertheless support 

the EPA’s view that a system that 

incorporates some level of flexibility is 

reasonable and appropriate. 

The affirmative defense simply 

provides for a defense to civil penalties 

for violations that are proven to be 

beyond the control of the source. 

Through the proposed incorporation of 

an affirmative defense, the EPA is 

proposing to formalize its approach to 

malfunctions. In a Clean Water Act 

setting, the Ninth Circuit required this 

type of formalized approach when 

regulating ‘‘upsets beyond the control of 

the permit holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. 

EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 

1977). See also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. 

Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 

2012) (rejecting industry argument that 

reliance on the affirmative defense was 

not adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser 

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

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

informal approach is adequate). The 

proposed affirmative defense provisions 

would give the EPA the flexibility to 

both ensure that its emission standards 

are ‘‘continuous,’’ as required by 42 

U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for 

unplanned upsets and, thus, support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a 

whole. 

The EPA is proposing the affirmative 

defense applicable to malfunctions 

under the delegation of general 

regulatory authority set out in section 

301(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

7601(a)(1), in order to balance this 

tension between provisions of the CAA 

and the practical reality, as case law 

recognizes, that technology sometimes 

fails. See generally, Citizens to Save 

Spencer County v. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 873 

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

authority to harmonize inconsistent 

guidelines related to the 

implementation of federal 

preconstruction review requirements). 

1. General Duty 

For the APR MACT standards, we are 

proposing to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart OOO) entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the explanation 

in column 3. 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) 

describes the general duty to minimize 

emissions. Some of the language in that 

section is no longer necessary or 

appropriate in light of the elimination of 

the SSM exemption. Similarly, for the 

AMF and PC source categories, we are 

also proposing to remove this 

requirement at 40 CFR 63.1108(a)(5). 

For the AMF, APR and PC MACT 

standards, we are proposing instead to 

add general duty regulatory text at 40 

CFR 63.1108(a)(4)(ii) and 63.1400(k)(4) 

that reflects the general duty to 

minimize emissions while eliminating 

the reference to periods covered by an 

SSM exemption. The current language 

in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes 

what the general duty entails during 

periods of SSM. With the elimination of 

the SSM exemption, there is no need to 

differentiate between normal operations, 

startup and shutdown, and malfunction 

events in describing the general duty. 

Therefore the language the EPA is 

proposing for 40 CFR 63.1108(a)(4)(ii) 

and 63.1400(k)(4) does not include that 

language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). 

For the APR MACT standards, we are 

also proposing to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart OOO) entry for 40 CFR 

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

the second column to a ‘‘no.’’ 40 CFR 

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

are not necessary with the elimination 

of the SSM exemption or are redundant 

with the general duty requirement being 

added at 40 CFR 63.1400(k)(4). 

2. SSM Plan 

For the APR MACT standards, we are 

proposing to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart OOO) entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in the 

second column to a ‘‘no.’’ Similarly, for 

the AMF and PC source categories, we 

are also proposing to remove this 

requirement at 40 CFR 63.1111(a). 

Generally, these paragraphs require 

development of an SSM plan and 

specify SSM recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements related to the 

SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is 

proposing to remove the SSM 

exemptions. Therefore, affected units 

will be subject to an emission standard 

during such events. The applicability of 

a standard during such events will 

ensure that sources have ample 

incentive to plan for and achieve 

compliance and thus the SSM plan 

requirements are no longer necessary. 

3. Compliance With Standards 

For the APR MACT standards, we are 

proposing to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart OOO) entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in the 

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

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

sources from non-opacity standards 

during periods of SSM. As discussed 

above, the court in Sierra Club vacated 

the exemptions contained in this 

provision and held that the CAA 

requires that some section 112 standard 

apply continuously. Consistent with 

Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to 

revise standards in this rule to apply at 

all times. 

4. Performance Testing 

For the APR MACT standards, we are 

proposing to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart OOO) entry for 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in the 

second column to a ‘‘no.’’ 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing 

requirements. Similarly, for the AMF 

and PC source categories, we are also 

proposing to revise this requirement at 

40 CFR 63.1108(b)(4)(ii). 

For the AMF, APR and PC MACT 

standards, the EPA is instead proposing 

to add a performance testing 

requirement at 40 CFR 1108(b)(4)(ii) and 

63.1413(a)(2). The performance testing 

requirements we are proposing to add 

differ from the General Provisions 

performance testing provisions in 

several respects. The regulatory text 

does not include the language in 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM 

exemption and language that precluded 

startup and shutdown periods from 

being considered ‘‘representative’’ for 

purposes of performance testing. The 

proposed performance testing 

provisions do not allow performance 

testing during periods of startup or 

shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 

performance tests conducted under this 

subpart should not be conducted during 

malfunctions because conditions during 

malfunctions are not representative of 

normal operating conditions. The EPA 

is proposing to add language that 

requires the owner or operator to record 

the process information that is 

necessary to document operating 

conditions during the test and include 

in such record an explanation to 

support that such conditions represent 

normal operation. Currently, 40 CFR 

63.7(e) requires that the owner or 

operator make available to the 

Administrator such records ‘‘as may be 

necessary to determine the condition of 

the performance test’’ available to the 

Administrator upon request, but does 

not specifically require the information 

to be recorded. The regulatory text the 

EPA is proposing to add to this 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1713 

provision builds on that requirement 

and makes explicit the requirement to 

record the information. 

5. Monitoring 

For the APR MACT standards, we are 

proposing to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart OOO) entry for 40 CFR 

63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the 

‘‘yes’’ in the second column to a ‘‘no.’’ 

The cross-references to the general duty 

and SSM plan requirements in those 

subparagraphs are not necessary in light 

of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 

that require good air pollution control 

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

out the requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). 

6. Recordkeeping 

For the AMF, APR and PC MACT 

standards, the EPA is proposing to add 

recordkeeping requirements during a 

malfunction to 40 CFR 63.1111(c)(1) and 

63.1416(b). The EPA is proposing that 

this requirement apply to any failure to 

meet an applicable standard and is 

requiring that the source record the 

date, time, and duration of the failure 

rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA 

is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 

63.1111(c)(1) and 63.1416(b) a 

requirement that sources keep records 

that include a list of the affected source 

or equipment and actions taken to 

minimize emissions, an estimate of the 

volume of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the standard for which the 

source failed to meet the standard and 

a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. Examples of 

such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance 

calculations, measurements when 

available, or engineering judgment 

based on known process parameters. 

The EPA is proposing to require that 

sources keep records of this information 

to ensure that there is adequate 

information to allow the EPA to 

determine the severity of any failure to 

meet a standard, and to provide data 

that may document how the source met 

the general duty to minimize emissions 

when the source has failed to meet an 

applicable standard. 

7. Reporting 

For the APR MACT standards, we are 

proposing to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart OOO) entry for 40 CFR 

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

second column to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting 

requirements for startups, shutdowns, 

and malfunctions. Similarly, for the 

AMF and PC source categories, we are 

also proposing to remove this 

requirement at 40 CFR 63.1111(b). 

For the AMF, APR and PC MACT 

standards, to replace the General 

Provisions reporting requirement, the 

EPA is proposing to add reporting 

requirements to 40 CFR 63.1111(c)(2) 

and 63.1417(g). The replacement 

language differs from the General 

Provisions requirement in that it 

eliminates periodic SSM reports as a 

stand-alone report. We are proposing 

language that requires sources that fail 

to meet an applicable standard at any 

time to report the information 

concerning such events in the semiannual periodic report already required 

under this rule. We are proposing that 

the report must contain the number, 

date, time, duration, and the cause of 

such events (including unknown cause, 

if applicable), a list of the affected 

source or equipment, an estimate of the 

volume of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over any emission limit, and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

Examples of such methods would 

include product-loss calculations, mass 

balance calculations, measurements 

when available, or engineering 

judgment based on known process 

parameters. The EPA is proposing this 

requirement to ensure that there is 

adequate information to determine 

compliance, to allow the EPA to 

determine the severity of the failure to 

meet an applicable standard, and to 

provide data that may document how 

the source met the general duty to 

minimize emissions during a failure to 

meet an applicable standard. 

We will no longer require owners or 

operators to determine whether actions 

taken to correct a malfunction are 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans would no longer be required. The 

proposed amendments therefore 

eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 

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

description of the previously required 

SSM report format and submittal 

schedule from this section. These 

specifications are no longer necessary 

because the events will be reported in 

otherwise required reports with similar 

format and submittal requirements. 

We note that reporting a failure to 

meet an applicable standard could 

include malfunction events for which a 

source may choose to submit 

documentation to support an assertion 

of affirmative defense, consistent with 

the affirmative defense provisions we 

are proposing today. If a source provides 

all the material proposed in 40 CFR 

63.1100(h) and 63.1400(l) to support an 

affirmative defense, the source need not 

submit the same information two times 

in the same report. While assertion of an 

affirmative defense is not mandatory 

and would occur only if a source 

chooses to take advantage of the 

affirmative defense, the proposed 

affirmative defense also requires 

additional reporting that goes beyond 

these routine requirements related to a 

failure to meet an applicable standard 

for a reason other than a malfunction. 

For the APR MACT standards, we are 

proposing to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 

Subpart OOO) entry for 40 CFR 

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

the second column to a ‘‘no.’’ 40 CFR 

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

report for startups, shutdown, and 

malfunctions when a source failed to 

meet an applicable standard but did not 

follow the SSM plan. We will no longer 

require owners or operators to report 

when actions taken during a startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction were not 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans would no longer be required. 

8. Pressure Relief Devices 

For the AMF, PC and APR MACT 

standards, we are proposing, as part of 

our revisions to address periods of SSM 

in response to the 2008 Sierra Club 

ruling, to specify that PRD in organic 

HAP service may not release to the 

atmosphere. To ensure compliance with 

this requirement, we are further 

proposing to require facility owners or 

operators in these three source 

categories to employ monitoring capable 

of (1) immediately alerting an operator 

when there is an atmospheric release 

from a PRD in organic HAP service and 

(2) recording the time and duration of 

each pressure release. Owners or 

operators would be required to report 

any pressure release and an estimate of 

the amount of organic HAP released to 

the atmosphere with the next periodic 

report. 

We believe that PRD releases that are 

vented directly to the atmosphere are 

caused by malfunctions. Emissions 

vented to the atmosphere by PRDs may 

contain HAP that are otherwise 

regulated under the MACT standards. In 

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

Cir. 2008), the court determined that 

standards under CAA section 112(d) 

must provide for compliance at all 

times. Therefore, the proposed rule 

revisions provide that a pressure release 

from a PRD in organic HAP service, 

unless routed to a control device or 

process, is a violation of the emission 

standard. As with any malfunction 

event, an owner or operator may assert 

an affirmative defense against civil 

penalties for a malfunction causing a 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1714 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

pressure release from a PRD in organic 

HAP service to the atmosphere. 

Pressure release events from PRDs in 

organic HAP service to the atmosphere 

have the potential to emit large 

quantities of HAP. Where a release 

occurs, it is important to identify and 

mitigate it as quickly as possible. 

Therefore, we are proposing to require 

that sources monitor PRDs in organic 

HAP service using a device or system 

that is capable of identifying and 

recording the time and duration of each 

pressure release and of notifying 

operators that a release has occurred. 

For purposes of estimating the costs of 

this requirement, we assumed that 

operators would install electronic 

indicators on each PRD in organic HAP 

service that vents to the atmosphere to 

identify and record the time and 

duration of each pressure release. 

However, owners or operators could use 

a range of methods to satisfy these 

requirements, including the use of a 

parameter monitoring system that may 

already have been in place on the 

process operating pressure that is 

sufficient to notify operators 

immediately that a pressure release is 

occurring, as well as recording the time 

and duration of that release. 

Based on our cost assumptions that 

the most expensive approach would be 

used, the nationwide capital cost of 

installing these monitors is $37,000, 

$400,000 and $51,000 for the AMF, APR 

and PC source categories, respectively. 

The total annualized cost of installing 

and operating these monitors is $5,300, 

$56,000 and $7,200 per year for the 

AMF, APR and PC source categories, 

respectively. 

B. Electronic Reporting 

In this proposal, the EPA is describing 

a process to increase the ease and 

efficiency of performance test data 

submittal while improving data 

accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing that owners or operators of 

AMF, APR and PC facilities submit 

electronic copies of required 

performance test and performance 

evaluation reports by direct computerto-computer electronic transfer using 

EPA-provided software. These 

provisions are being proposed in 40 CFR 

63.1110(a)(9) (for the AMF and PC 

MACT standards) and 40 CFR 

63.1417(h)(9) (for the APR MACT 

standards). The direct computer-tocomputer electronic transfer is 

accomplished through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The Central 

Data Exchange is EPA’s portal for 

submittal of electronic data. The EPAprovided software is called the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) which 

is used to generate electronic reports of 

performance tests and evaluations. The 

ERT generates an electronic report 

package which will be submitted using 

CEDRI. The submitted report package 

will be stored in the CDX archive (the 

official copy of record) and the EPA’s 

public database called WebFIRE. All 

stakeholders will have access to all 

reports and data in WebFIRE and 

accessing these reports and data will be 

very straightforward and easy (see the 

WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval 

link at http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/

index.cfm?action=fire.searchERT

Submission). A description and 

instructions for use of the ERT can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/

ert/index.html and CEDRI can be 

accessed through the CDX Web site 

(www.epa.gov/cdx). A description of the 

WebFIRE database is available at: http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/

index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to the EPA 

applies only to those performance tests 

(and/or performance evaluations) 

conducted using test methods that are 

supported by the ERT. The ERT 

supports most of the commonly used 

EPA reference methods. A listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported 

by the ERT is available at: http://

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

We believe that industry would 

benefit from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Specifically, 

by using this approach, industry will 

save time in the performance test 

submittal process. Additionally, the 

standardized format that the ERT uses 

allows sources to create a more 

complete test report resulting in less 

time spent on data backfilling if a source 

failed to include all data elements 

required to be submitted. Also, through 

this proposal, industry may only need to 

submit a report once to meet the 

requirements of the applicable subpart 

because stakeholders can readily access 

these reports from the WebFIRE 

database. This also benefits industry by 

cutting back on recordkeeping costs as 

the performance test reports that are 

submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are 

no longer required to be retained in hard 

copy, thereby reducing staff time 

needed to coordinate these records. 

Since the EPA will already have 

performance test data in hand, another 

benefit to industry is that fewer or less 

substantial data collection requests in 

conjunction with prospective required 

residual risk assessments or technology 

reviews will be needed. This would 

result in a decrease in staff time needed 

to respond to data collection requests. 

State, local and tribal air pollution 

control agencies (S/L/Ts) may also 

benefit from having electronic versions 

of the reports they are now receiving. 

For example, S/L/Ts may be able to 

conduct a more streamlined and 

accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. For example, the 

ERT would allow for an electronic 

review process, rather than a manual 

data assessment, therefore, making 

review and evaluation of the source 

provided data and calculations easier 

and more efficient. In addition, the 

public stands to benefit from electronic 

reporting of emissions data because the 

electronic data will be easier for the 

public to access. How the air emissions 

data are collected, accessed and 

reviewed will be more transparent for 

all stakeholders. 

One major advantage of the proposed 

submittal of performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. The ERT clearly 

states what testing information would 

be required by the test method and has 

the ability to house additional data 

elements that might be required by a 

delegated authority. 

In addition, the EPA must have 

performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 

standards, as well as for many other 

purposes, including compliance 

determinations, emission factor 

development and annual emission rate 

determinations. In conducting these 

required reviews, the EPA has found it 

ineffective and time consuming, not 

only for us, but also for regulatory 

agencies and source owners or 

operators, to locate, collect and submit 

performance test data. In recent years, 

stack testing firms have typically 

collected performance test data in 

electronic format, making it possible to 

move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. 

A common complaint heard from 

industry and regulators is that emission 

factors are outdated or not 

representative of a particular source 

category. With timely receipt and 

incorporation of data from most 

performance tests, the EPA would be 

able to ensure that emission factors, 

when updated, represent the most 

current range of operational practices. 

Finally, another benefit of the proposed 

data submittal to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data would 

greatly improve the overall quality of 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1715 

existing and new emissions factors by 

supplementing the pool of emissions 

test data for establishing emissions 

factors. 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would save industry, state, 

local, and tribal agencies and the EPA 

significant time, money and effort while 

also improving the quality of emission 

inventories and air quality regulations. 

C. Open-Ended Valves and Lines 

The AMF MACT standards at 40 CFR 

63.1103(b)(3) and the PC MACT 

standards at 40 CFR 63.1103(d)(3) 

require an owner or operator to control 

emissions from equipment leaks 

according to the requirements of either 

40 CFR part 63, subpart TT or subpart 

UU. The APR MACT standards at 40 

CFR 63.1410 require that equipment 

leaks be controlled according to subpart 

UU and do not provide an option to 

comply with subpart TT. For openended valves and lines, both subpart TT 

and subpart UU require that the open 

end be equipped with a cap, blind 

flange, plug or second valve that ‘‘shall 

seal the open end at all times.’’ 

However, neither subpart (nor the AMF, 

APR or PC MACT standards) define 

‘‘seal’’ or explain in practical and 

enforceable terms what constitutes a 

sealed open-ended valve or line. This 

has led to uncertainty on the part of the 

owner or operator as to whether 

compliance is being achieved. 

Inspections under the EPA’s Air Toxics 

LDAR initiative have provided evidence 

that while certain open-ended lines may 

be equipped with a cap, blind flange, 

plug or second valve, they are not 

operating in a ‘‘sealed’’ manner as the 

EPA interprets that term. 

In response to this uncertainty, we are 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 

63.1103(b)(2) (for the AMF MACT 

standards), 40 CFR 63.1402(b) (for the 

APR MACT standards) and 40 CFR 

63.1103(d)(2) (for the PC MACT 

standards) to add a definition of ‘‘seal.’’ 

This proposed definition clarifies that, 

for the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.1033(b) of 

subpart UU, open-ended valves and 

lines are ‘‘sealed’’ by the cap, blind 

flange, plug, or second valve when there 

are no detectable emissions from the 

open-ended valve or line at or above an 

instrument reading of 500 ppm. We 

solicit comments on this approach to 

reducing the compliance uncertainty 

associated with open-ended valves and 

lines and our proposed definition of 

‘‘seal.’’ 

D. Flare Performance 

In addition to our proposed actions 

under CAA sections 112(d) and (f) for 

the AMF, PC and APR source categories, 

we are seeking comments on the 

performance of flares to control HAP 

emissions in these source categories, as 

governed by the EPA’s General 

Provisions at 40 CFR 63.11(b). This is an 

issue that the EPA has recently begun 

studying. In April 2012, the EPA 

conducted an external peer review of a 

draft technical report, ‘‘Parameters for 

Properly Designed and Operated Flares’’ 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/flare/

2012flaretechreport.pdf) (‘‘draft flare 

technical report’’). In this report, the 

EPA evaluated test data and identified 

a variety of parameters that may affect 

flare performance and that could be 

monitored to help assure good 

combustion efficiency. Based on 

feedback received from the external adhoc peer review panel, the EPA has 

since undertaken an initiative to go back 

and re-evaluate parameters that may 

affect overall flare performance at 

source categories known to use flares for 

controlling HAP emissions (e.g., 

petroleum refining). 

Currently, AMF, PC and APR sources 

may choose to use a flare to reduce 

emissions from storage vessels and 

process vents to comply with the MACT 

standards, but are not required to do so. 

Our records indicate the use of flares in 

only the APR and PC source categories. 

However, we do not have specific flare 

performance data for the AMF, PC and 

APR source categories. Therefore, we 

are not at this time prepared to propose 

any changes to the currently applicable 

regulations pertaining to the 

performance of flares in the AMF, PC 

and APR source categories, but we may 

revisit the issue in future notices. We 

solicit comments and additional 

information on flare performance 

specifically for the AMF, PC and APR 

source categories. Examples of 

information requested for these source 

categories include: Prevalence of flaring; 

number and types of flares used; waste 

gas characteristics such as flow rate, 

composition and heat content; assist gas 

characteristics such as target assist gas 

to waste gas ratios and minimum assist 

gas flow rates; use of flare gas recovery 

and other flare minimization practices; 

and existing flare monitoring systems. 

VIII. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

Under CAA section 112(d), for the 

three source categories being addressed 

in this action, the proposed compliance 

date for new and existing sources for the 

revised SSM requirements (other than 

PRD monitoring for existing sources) 

and electronic reporting requirements is 

the effective date of the final 

amendments. We are proposing these 

compliance dates because these 

requirements should be immediately 

implementable by the facilities upon the 

next occurrence of a malfunction or the 

performance of a performance test that 

is required to be submitted to the ERT. 

Available information suggests that the 

facilities should already be able to 

comply with the existing standards 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

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

existing sources subject to the AMF, 

APR and PC MACT standards, the 

proposed compliance date for PRD 

monitoring is 3 years from the effective 

date of the final amendments. This time 

is needed regardless of whether an 

owner or operator of a facility chooses 

to comply with the PRD monitoring 

provisions by installing PRD release 

indicator systems and alarms, 

employing parameter monitoring, or by 

routing releases to a control device. This 

time period will allow facilities to 

research equipment and vendors, 

purchase, install, test and properly 

operate any necessary equipment by the 

compliance date. For new sources 

subject to the AMF, APR and PC MACT 

standards, the proposed compliance 

date for PRD monitoring, along with the 

other SSM-related revisions, is the 

effective date of the final amendments. 

For both new and existing sources 

subject to the AMF, APR and PC MACT 

standards, the proposed compliance 

date for the operating and pressure 

release management requirements for 

PRDs, along with the other SSM-related 

revisions, is the effective date of the 

final amendments. We are proposing 

these compliance dates because these 

requirements are the same as those 

contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

UU, with which facilities are already 

complying as part of the existing MACT 

standards. 

For the one existing source subject to 

the AMF MACT standards, the proposed 

compliance date for the new solution 

polymerization spinning line 

requirements is the effective date of the 

final amendments. We believe this 

facility is already complying with these 

requirements and no additional time to 

come into compliance is warranted. 

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

existing sources subject to the APR 

MACT standards, the proposed 

compliance date for the new MACT 

standards applicable to continuous 

process vents is 3 years from the 

effective date of the final amendments. 

This time period will allow facilities to 

purchase, install and test any necessary 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1716 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

equipment. For existing APR sources 

subject to the new MACT standards 

applicable to storage vessels, the 

proposed compliance date is the 

effective date of the final amendments. 

As we stated previously, our analysis 

indicates that all storage vessels are 

currently controlled to the proposed 

level of control and no additional time 

to come into compliance is warranted. 

For new sources subject to the APR 

MACT standards, the proposed 

compliance date for the revised storage 

vessel requirements is the effective date 

of the final amendments. 

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

existing sources subject to the AMF and 

PC MACT standards, the proposed 

compliance date for the revised 

equipment leak standards is 1 year from 

the effective date of the final 

amendments. Our data indicate that the 

one AMF facility and some of the PC 

facilities are currently complying with 

subpart TT requirements and will need 

time to purchase, install and test any 

necessary equipment and modify their 

existing LDAR programs. For new 

sources subject to AMF and PC MACT 

standards, the proposed compliance 

date for the revised equipment leak 

standards is the effective date of the 

final amendments. 

IX. Summary of Cost, Environmental 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

We anticipate that each facility in 

these three source categories will be 

affected by these proposed amendments. 

We estimate there is one existing facility 

subject to the AMF MACT standards, 18 

existing facilities subject to the APR 

MACT standards and 4 existing 

facilities subject to the PC MACT 

standards. We do not know of any new 

facilities that are expected to be 

constructed in the foreseeable future in 

any of these source categories. 

Therefore, our impact analysis is 

focused on the existing sources affected 

by the MACT standards for these three 

source categories. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

1. AMF Source Category 

For equipment leaks, we are 

proposing to eliminate the option of 

complying with subpart TT and allow 

facilities to comply with only subpart 

UU, except for connectors in gas and 

vapor service and in light liquid service. 

We are proposing to retain the option to 

comply with subpart TT or subpart UU 

for these components. We estimate the 

HAP emission reductions for the one 

facility in the AMF source category to be 

0.2 tpy. 

We are proposing an emission rate for 

spinning lines that use spin dope 

produced from a solution 

polymerization process equal to the 

MACT floor for this facility, which will 

not result in any quantifiable emission 

reductions. 

For the proposed revisions to the 

MACT standards regarding SSM, 

including monitoring of PRDs in organic 

HAP service, while these changes may 

result in fewer emissions during these 

periods or less frequent periods of 

startup, shutdown or malfunction, these 

possible emission reductions are 

difficult to quantify and are not 

included in our assessment of air 

quality impacts. 

Therefore, the total HAP emission 

reductions for the proposed standards 

for the AMF source category are 0.2 tpy. 

2. APR Source Category 

Two facilities in the APR source 

category have uncontrolled continuous 

process vents. We are proposing 

standards that will require 85 percent 

control of HAP emissions from these 

process vents. The estimated HAP 

emission reductions for these two 

facilities are 20.1 tpy. 

We are proposing to implement 

emission standards for storage vessels at 

existing facilities. However, our data 

indicate that all storage vessels subject 

to the proposed standards are already in 

compliance, and no quantifiable 

emission reductions are expected. 

For the proposed revisions to the 

MACT standards regarding SSM, 

including monitoring of PRDs in organic 

HAP service, while these changes may 

result in fewer emissions during these 

periods or less frequent periods of 

startup, shutdown or malfunction, these 

possible emission reductions are 

difficult to quantify and are not 

included in our assessment of air 

quality impacts. 

Therefore, the total HAP emission 

reductions for the proposed standards 

for the APR source category are 20.1 tpy. 

3. PC Source Category 

For equipment leaks, we are 

proposing to eliminate the option of 

complying with subpart TT and allow 

facilities to comply with only subpart 

UU, except for connectors in gas and 

vapor service and in light liquid service. 

We are proposing to retain the option to 

comply with subpart TT or subpart UU 

for these components. We estimated the 

HAP emission reductions for the four 

facilities in the PC source category to be 

2.1 tpy. 

For the proposed revisions to the 

MACT standards regarding SSM, 

including installation and operation of 

monitors on PRDs, while these changes 

may result in fewer emissions during 

these periods or less frequent periods of 

startup, shutdown or malfunction, these 

possible emission reductions are 

difficult to quantify and are not 

included in our assessment of air 

quality impacts. 

Therefore, the total HAP emission 

reductions for the proposed standards 

for the PC source category are 2.1 tpy. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

1. AMF Source Category 

For equipment leaks, we are 

proposing to eliminate the option of 

complying with subpart TT and allow 

facilities to comply with only subpart 

UU, except for connectors in gas and 

vapor service and in light liquid service. 

We are proposing to retain the option to 

comply with subpart TT or subpart UU 

for these components. We estimated the 

capital costs for the one facility in the 

AMF source category to be $1,400 and 

the annualized costs to be $220. 

We are proposing an emission rate for 

spinning lines that use spin dope 

produced from a solution 

polymerization process equal to the 

MACT floor for this facility. Thus, we 

do not expect any quantifiable capital or 

annual costs for this proposed standard. 

For the proposed requirements to 

install and operate monitors on PRDs, 

we estimate the capital costs to be 

$37,000 and the annualized costs to be 

$5,300. 

Therefore, the total capital costs for 

the AMF source category are 

approximately $38,000, and the total 

annualized costs are approximately 

$6,000. 

2. APR Source Category 

Two facilities in the APR source 

category have uncontrolled continuous 

process vents. We are proposing 

standards that will require 85 percent 

control of HAP emissions from these 

process vents. The estimated capital 

costs for these two facilities are $1.1 

million and the annualized costs are 

$340,000. 

We are proposing to implement 

emission standards for storage vessels at 

existing facilities. However, our data 

indicate that all storage vessels subject 

to the proposed standards are already in 

compliance, and no capital or annual 

costs are expected. 

For the proposed requirements to 

install and operate monitors on PRDs, 

we estimate the capital costs to be 

$400,000 and the annualized costs to be 

$56,000. 

Therefore, the total capital costs for 

the APR source category are 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1717 

approximately $1.5 million, and the 

total annualized costs are approximately 

$400,000. 

3. PC Source Category 

For equipment leaks, we are 

proposing to eliminate the option of 

complying with subpart TT and allow 

facilities to comply with only subpart 

UU, except for connectors in gas and 

vapor service and in light liquid service. 

We are proposing to retain the option to 

comply with subpart TT or subpart UU 

for these components. We estimated the 

capital costs to be $16,000 and the 

annualized costs to be $2,200. 

For the proposed requirements to 

install and operate monitors on PRDs, 

we estimate the capital costs to be 

$51,000 and the annualized costs to be 

$7,200. 

Therefore, the total capital costs for 

the PC source category are 

approximately $67,000, and the total 

annualized costs are approximately 

$9,400. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

We estimate that there will be no 

more than a 0.5 percent price change 

and a similar reduction in output 

associated with the proposal. This is 

based on the costs of the rule and 

responsiveness of producers and 

consumers based on supply and 

demand elasticities for the industries 

affected by this proposal. The impacts to 

affected firms will be low because the 

annual compliance costs are quite small 

when compared to the annual revenues 

for the affected parent firms (much less 

than 1 percent for each). The impacts to 

affected consumers should also be quite 

small. Thus, there will not be any 

significant impacts on affected firms 

and their consumers as a result of this 

proposal. 

E. What are the benefits? 

Because this rulemaking is not likely 

to have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more, we have not 

conducted a regulatory impact analysis 

or a benefits analysis. However, the 

estimated reductions in HAP emissions 

that will be achieved by this proposed 

rule will provide benefits to public 

health. The proposed standards will 

result in significant reductions in the 

actual and allowable emissions of HAP 

and will reduce the actual and potential 

cancer risks and non-cancer health 

effects due to emissions of HAP from 

these source categories. We have not 

quantified the monetary benefits 

associated with these reductions. 

X. Request for Comments 

We solicit comments on all aspects of 

this proposed action. In addition to 

general comments on this proposed 

action, we are also interested in 

additional data that may improve the 

risk assessments and other analyses. We 

are specifically interested in receiving 

any improvements to the data used in 

the site-specific emissions profiles used 

for risk modeling. Such data should 

include supporting documentation in 

sufficient detail to allow 

characterization of the quality and 

representativeness of the data or 

information. Section XI of this preamble 

provides more information on 

submitting data. 

XI. Submitting Data Corrections 

The site-specific emissions profiles 

used in the source category risk and 

demographic analyses and instructions 

are available on the RTR Web page at: 

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

rtrpg.html. The data files include 

detailed information for each HAP 

emissions release point for the facilities 

in the source category. 

If you believe that the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern and provide any 

‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. To 

submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR page, 

complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. 

2. Fill in the commenter information 

fields for each suggested revision (i.e., 

commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter email address, 

commenter phone number and revision 

comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any 

suggested emissions revisions (e.g., 

performance test reports, material 

balance calculations, etc.). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133 (through one 

of the methods described in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a single facility or multiple facilities, 

you need only submit one file for all 

facilities. The file should contain all 

suggested changes for all sources at that 

facility. We request that all data revision 

comments be submitted in the form of 

updated Microsoft® Excel files that are 

generated by the Microsoft® Access file. 

These files are provided on the RTR 

Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

XII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

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

3501, et seq. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) documents prepared by 

the EPA for these rules have been 

assigned EPA ICR number 1871.07 

(AMF and PC MACT standards) and 

1869.08 (APR MACT standards). 

The information requirements are 

based on notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to 

national emissions standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

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

All information submitted to the EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to agency 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B. 

To provide the public with an 

estimate of the relative magnitude of the 

burden associated with an assertion of 

the affirmative defense position adopted 

by a source, the EPA has provided 

administrative adjustments to this ICR 

to show what the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and 

records for any individual incident, 

including the root cause analysis, totals 

$2,375 annually per MACT standard 

and is based on the time and effort 

required of a source to review relevant 

data, interview plant employees and 

document the events surrounding a 

malfunction that has caused a violation 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1718 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

of an emissions limit. The estimate also 

includes time to produce and retain the 

record and reports for submission to the 

EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative 

estimate of this burden because these 

costs are only incurred if there has been 

a violation and a source chooses to take 

advantage of the affirmative defense. 

Given the variety of circumstances 

under which malfunctions could occur, 

as well as differences among sources’ 

operation and maintenance practices, 

we cannot reliably predict the severity 

and frequency of malfunction-related 

excess emissions events for a particular 

source. It is important to note that the 

EPA has no basis currently for 

estimating the number of malfunctions 

that would qualify for an affirmative 

defense. Current historical records 

would be an inappropriate basis, as 

source owners or operators previously 

operated their facilities in recognition 

that they were exempt from the 

requirement to comply with emissions 

standards during malfunctions. Of the 

number of excess emissions events 

reported by source operators, only a 

small number would be expected to 

result from a malfunction (based on the 

definition above), and only a subset of 

excess emissions caused by 

malfunctions would result in the source 

choosing to assert the affirmative 

defense. Thus, we believe the number of 

instances in which source operators 

might be expected to avail themselves of 

the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small. We expect to gather 

information on such events in the future 

and will revise this estimate as better 

information becomes available. 

1. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production MACT Standards 

The ICR document prepared by the 

EPA for the amendments to the AMF 

MACT standards we are proposing 

today has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 1871.07. Burden changes 

associated with these proposed 

amendments would result from new 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with 

requirements for spinning lines that use 

spin dope produced from a solution 

polymerization process, the PRD 

monitoring requirements and 

affirmative defense provisions for all 

facilities subject to the AMF MACT 

standards. 

We estimate 1 regulated facility is 

currently subject to the AMF 

requirements in subpart YY. The annual 

monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards) for these 

amendments to subpart YY is estimated 

to be 54 labor hours at a cost of $3,000 

per year. There is no estimated change 

in annual burden to the federal 

government for these amendments. 

2. Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

MACT Standards 

The ICR document prepared by the 

EPA for the amendments to the APR 

MACT standards we are proposing 

today has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 1869.08. Burden changes 

associated with these proposed 

amendments would result from new 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the PRD 

monitoring requirements and 

affirmative defense provisions for all 

facilities subject to the APR MACT 

standards. In addition, we estimate that 

two facilities will be subject to 

recordkeeping, reporting and 

monitoring requirements associated 

with the control of certain continuous 

process vents. 

We estimate 18 regulated facilities are 

currently subject to subpart OOO. The 

annual monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards) for these 

amendments to subpart OOO is 

estimated to be 1,178 labor hours at a 

cost of $66,500 per year. There is no 

estimated change in annual burden to 

the federal government for these 

amendments. 

3. Polycarbonate Production MACT 

Standards 

The ICR document prepared by the 

EPA for the amendments to the PC 

MACT standards we are proposing 

today has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 1871.07. Burden changes 

associated with these proposed 

amendments would result from new 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the PRD 

monitoring requirements and 

affirmative defense provisions for all 

facilities subject to the MACT standards. 

We estimate 4 regulated facilities are 

currently subject to the PC requirements 

in subpart YY. The annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) for these amendments to 

subpart YY is estimated to be 216 labor 

hours at a cost of $12,000 per year. 

There is no estimated change in annual 

burden to the federal government for 

these amendments. 

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 

the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this proposed 

rule for where to submit comments to 

the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Office for EPA. Since OMB is required 

to make a decision concerning the ICR 

between 30 and 60 days after January 9, 

2014, a comment to OMB is best assured 

of having its full effect if OMB receives 

it by February 10, 2014. The final rule 

will respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. According to the SBA small 

business standards definitions, for the 

APR source category, which has the 

NAICS code of 325211 (i.e., Plastics 

Material and Resin Manufacturing), the 

SBA small business size standard is 750 

employees. For the PC source category, 

which has the NAICS code of 325211 

(i.e., Plastics Material and Resin 

Manufacturing), the SBA small business 

size standard is 750 employees. For the 

AMF source category, which has the 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1719 

NAICS code of 325222 (i.e., 

Noncellulosic Organic Fiber 

Manufacturing), the SBA small business 

size standard is 1,000 employees. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. There 

are no affected small businesses in the 

APR, AMF and PC source categories. All 

of the companies affected by this rule 

are generally large integrated 

corporations that are not considered to 

be small entities per the definitions 

provided in this section. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local 

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. The 

total annualized cost of this rule is 

estimated to be no more than $420,000 

in any one year. Thus, this proposed 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments nor does it 

impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action will 

not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on state or local 

governments, nor will it preempt state 

law, and none of the facilities subject to 

this action are owned or operated by 

state or local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, the 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

this proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). There are no AMF, 

PC or APR facilities owned or operated 

by Indian tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

The EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the EPA does 

not believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action increases the level 

of environmental protection for all 

affected populations and would not 

cause increases in emissions or 

emissions-related health risks. The 

EPA’s risk assessments (included in the 

docket for this proposed rule) 

demonstrate that the existing 

regulations are associated with an 

acceptable level of risk and provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent adverse 

environmental effects. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure to HAP emitted by 

AMF, PC or APR production facilities. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

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

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities, unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve new technical standards. 

Therefore the EPA did not consider the 

use of any VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low income or indigenous 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority, low income or indigenous 

populations. 

To gain a better understanding of the 

source categories and near source 

populations, the EPA conducted a 

proximity analysis of the facilities in the 

APR and PC source categories to 

identify any overrepresentation of 

minority, low income or indigenous 

populations. This analysis only gives 

some indication of the prevalence of 

sub-populations that may be exposed to 

air pollution from the sources; it does 

not identify the demographic 

characteristics of the most highly 

affected individuals or communities, 

nor does it quantify the level of risk 

faced by those individuals or 

communities. More information on the 

source categories’ risk can be found in 

sections V and VI of this preamble. The 

complete demographic analysis results 

and the details concerning their 

development are presented in the 

memorandum entitled Environmental 

Justice Review: Amino/Phenolic Resins, 

Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production, and Polycarbonate 

Production, available in the docket for 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1720 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0133). 

For the APR source category, the 

proximity analysis revealed that 

‘‘African American’’ and ‘‘Below the 

Poverty Line’’ demographic categories 

are above 20 percent of their 

corresponding national averages. The 

ratio of African Americans living within 

3 miles of any source affected by this 

rule is 62 percent higher than the 

national average (21 percent versus 13 

percent) and the ratio of people living 

below the poverty line living within 3 

miles of any source affected by this rule 

is 43 percent higher than the national 

average (20 percent versus 14 percent). 

However, as noted previously, risks 

from this source category were found to 

be acceptable for all populations. 

For the PC source category, the 

proximity analysis revealed that several 

demographic categories are above 20 

percent of their corresponding national 

averages, including ‘‘Other or 

Multiracial,’’ ‘‘Hispanic,’’ ‘‘Age 0–4,’’ 

‘‘Age 0–17,’’ and ‘‘No High School 

Diploma.’’ Within 3 miles of any source 

affected by this rule, the ratio of Other 

or Multiracial people living is 21 

percent higher than the national average 

(17 percent versus 14 percent), the ratio 

of Hispanic people is 135 percent higher 

than the national average (40 percent 

versus 17 percent), the ratio of people 

aged 0–4 is 29 percent higher than the 

national average (9 percent versus 7 

percent), the ratio of people aged 0–17 

is 25 percent higher than the national 

average (30 percent versus 24 percent), 

and the ratio of people with no high 

school diploma is 40 percent higher 

than the national average (14 percent 

versus 10 percent). However, as noted 

previously, risks from this source 

category were found to be acceptable for 

all populations. Additionally, the 

proposed changes to the standard 

increase the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

by reducing emissions from equipment 

leaks. 

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: December 11, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to amend Title 

40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart YY—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories: Generic 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology Standards 

■ 2. Section 63.1100 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (d) introductory text; and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (h). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1100 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * Paragraphs (d)(3), (4), and 

(5) of this section discuss compliance 

for those process units operated as 

flexible operation units. 

* * * * * 

(h) Affirmative defense for violation of 

emission standards during malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in this subpart, the 

owner or operator of an acrylic and 

modacrylic fiber production affected 

source or polycarbonate production 

affected source may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

violations of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 

CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed if the owner or operator fails to 

meet their burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(1) Assertion of affirmative defense. 

To establish the affirmative defense in 

any action to enforce such a standard, 

the owner or operator must timely meet 

the reporting requirements in paragraph 

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

a preponderance of evidence that: 

(i) The violation: 

(A) Was caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Was not part of a recurring pattern 

indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount, and 

duration of the violation (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable; and 

(iv) If the violation resulted from a 

bypass of control equipment or a 

process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the violation on 

ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the violation were documented by 

properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the violation resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of any emissions that were the 

result of the malfunction. 

(2) Report. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall submit a written report to the 

Administrator, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that 

explains how it has met the 

requirements set forth in paragraph 

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

defense report shall be included in the 

first periodic compliance report, 

deviation report, or excess emission 

report otherwise required after the 

initial occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard (which may be the 

end of any applicable averaging period). 

If such compliance report, deviation 

report, or excess emission report is due 

less than 45 days after the initial 

occurrence of the violation, the 

affirmative defense report may be 

included in the second compliance 

report, deviation report, or excess 

emission report due after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard. 

■ 3. Section 63.1101 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order the terms 

‘‘Affirmative defense,’’ ‘‘Pressure 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1721 

release,’’ and ‘‘Pressure relief device or 

valve’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.1101 Definitions. 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

Pressure release means the emission 

of materials resulting from the system 

pressure being greater than the set 

pressure of the pressure relief device. 

This release can be one release or a 

series of releases over a short time 

period due to a malfunction in the 

process. 

Pressure relief device or valve means 

a safety device used to prevent 

operating pressures from exceeding the 

maximum allowable working pressure 

of the process equipment. A common 

pressure relief device is a spring-loaded 

pressure relief valve. Devices that are 

actuated either by a pressure of less than 

or equal to 2.5 pounds per square inch 

gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure 

relief devices. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.1102 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (a) introductory text; and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (b). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1102 Compliance schedule. 

(a) * * * Affected sources, as defined 

in § 63.1103(a)(1)(i) for acetyl resins 

production, § 63.1103(b)(1)(i) for acrylic 

and modacrylic fiber production, 

§ 63.1103(c)(1)(i) for hydrogen fluoride 

production, § 63.1103(d)(1)(i) for 

polycarbonate production, 

§ 63.1103(e)(1)(i) for ethylene 

production, § 63.1103(f)(1)(i) for carbon 

black production, § 63.1103(g)(1)(i) for 

cyanide chemicals manufacturing, or 

§ 63.1103(h)(1)(i) for spandex 

production shall comply with the 

appropriate provisions of this subpart 

and the subparts referenced by this 

subpart according to the schedule in 

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as 

appropriate, except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(b) All acrylic and modacrylic fiber 

production affected sources and 

polycarbonate production affected 

sources that commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before January 9, 

2014, shall be in compliance with the 

pressure relief device monitoring 

requirements of § 63.1107(e)(3) upon 

initial startup or 3 years after the 

effective date of the final amendments, 

whichever is later, and the equipment 

leaks requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart UU upon initial startup or 1 

year after the effective date of the final 

amendments, whichever is later. New 

acrylic and modacrylic fiber production 

affected sources and polycarbonate 

production affected sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction after January 9, 2014, 

shall be in compliance with the pressure 

relief device monitoring requirements of 

§ 63.1107(e)(3) upon initial startup or by 

the effective date of the final 

amendments, whichever is later. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.1103 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii); 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(2), adding in 

alphabetical order the term ‘‘Seal’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), under Table 

2, revising entries 4, 5, 6, and 7 and 

adding entry 11; 

■ d. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), under Table 

3, revising entry 3 and adding entry 4; 

■ e. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii); 

■ f. In paragraph (d)(2), adding in 

alphabetical order the term ‘‘Seal’’; and 

■ g. In paragraph (d)(3), under Table 5, 

revising entry 6 and adding entry 10, 

and under Table 6, revising entry 5 and 

adding entry 6. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1103 Source category-specific 

applicability, definitions, and requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Compliance schedule. The 

compliance schedule, for affected 

sources as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(i) 

of this section, is specified in § 63.1102. 

(2) Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Seal means, for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 

§ 63.1033(b), that instrument monitoring 

of the open-ended valve or line 

conducted according to the method 

specified in § 63.1023(b) and, as 

applicable, § 63.1023(c), indicates no 

readings of 500 parts per million or 

greater. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

TABLE 2 TO § 63.1103(B)(3)(I)—WHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE AN ACRYLIC AND MODACRYLIC

FIBER PRODUCTION EXISTING OR NEW AFFECTED SOURCE AND AM COMPLYING WITH PARAGRAPH (B)(3)(I) OF THIS

SECTION? 

If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . . 

*******

4. A fiber spinning line that 

is a new or reconstructed 

source.

The lines use a spin dope 

produced from either a 

suspension polymerization process or solution 

polymerization process.

a. Reduce acrylonitrile emissions by 85 weight-percent or more. (For example, you 

may enclose the spinning and washing areas of the spinning line (as specified in 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section) and vent through a closed vent system and use 

any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart SS, as 

specified in § 63.982(a), of this part.); or 

b. Reduce acrylonitrile emissions from the spinning line to less than or equal to 

0.25 kilograms of acrylonitrile per megagram (0.5 pounds of acrylonitrile per ton) 

of acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced; or 

c. Reduce the acrylonitrile concentration of the spin dope to less than 100 ppmw. 

5. A fiber spinning line that 

is an existing source.

The spinning line uses a 

spin dope produced from 

a solution polymerization 

process.

Reduce organic HAP emissions from the spinning line to less than or equal to 20 

kilograms of organic HAP per megagram (40 pounds of organic HAP per ton) of 

acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced. 

6. A fiber spinning line that 

is an existing source.

The spinning line uses a 

spin dope produced from 

a suspension polymerization process.

a. Reduce the acrylonitrile concentration of the spin dope to less than 100 ppmw b; 

or 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1722 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2 TO § 63.1103(B)(3)(I)—WHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE AN ACRYLIC AND MODACRYLIC

FIBER PRODUCTION EXISTING OR NEW AFFECTED SOURCE AND AM COMPLYING WITH PARAGRAPH (B)(3)(I) OF THIS

SECTION?—Continued 

If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . . 

b. Reduce acrylonitrile emissions from the spinning line to less than or equal to 

0.25 kilograms of acrylonitrile per megagram of acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced. 

7. Equipment as defined 

under § 63.1101 (with the 

differences for pressure 

relief devices described in 

item 11 below).

It contains or contacts ≥10 

weight-percent acrylonitrile,c and operates 

≥300 hours per year.

For connectors in gas and vapor service and in light liquid service, comply with either § 63.1008 of subpart TT (national emission standards for equipment leaks 

(control level 1)) of this part, or § 63.1027 of subpart UU (national emission 

standards for equipment leaks (control level 2)) of this part. For all other applicable equipment, comply with the requirements of subpart UU of this part, except 

§ 63.1030. 

* * * * * * * 

11. Pressure relief devices .. The pressure relief device 

is in organic HAP service.

Comply with § 63.1107(e). 

* * * * * (ii) * * * 

TABLE 3 TO § 63.1103(B)(3)(II)—WHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE AN ACRYLIC AND MODACRYLIC

FIBER PRODUCTION EXISTING OR NEW AFFECTED SOURCE AND AM COMPLYING WITH PARAGRAPH (B)(3)(II) OF THIS

SECTION? 

If you own or operate . . . Then you must control total organic HAP emissions from the affected 

source by . . . 

*******

3. Equipment as defined under § 63.1101 and it contains or contacts 

>10 weight-percent acrylonitrile,a and operates >300 hours per year 

(with the differences for pressure relief devices described in item 4 

below).

For connectors in gas and vapor service and in light liquid service, 

comply with either § 63.1008 of subpart TT (national emission standards for equipment leaks (control level 1)) of this part, or § 63.1027 

of subpart UU (national emission standards for equipment leaks 

(control level 2)) of this part. For all other applicable equipment, 

comply with subpart UU of this part, except § 63.1030. 

4. A pressure relief device in organic HAP service ................................. Complying with § 63.1107(e). 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Compliance schedule. The 

compliance schedule, for affected 

sources as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) 

of this section, is specified in § 63.1102. 

(2) * * * 

Seal means, for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 

§ 63.1033(b), that instrument monitoring 

of the open-ended valve or line 

conducted according to the method 

specified in § 63.1023(b) and, as 

applicable, § 63.1023(c), indicates no 

readings of 500 parts per million or 

greater. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 5 TO § 63.1103(D)—WHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE A POLYCARBONATE PRODUCTION

EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCE? 

If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . . 

*******

6. Equipment as defined 

under § 63.1101 (with the 

differences for pressure 

relief devices described in 

item 10 below).

The equipment contains or 

contacts ≥5 weight-percent total organic HAP,e

and operates ≥300 hours 

per year.

For connectors in gas and vapor service and in light liquid service, comply with either § 63.1008 of subpart TT (national emission standards for equipment leaks 

(control level 1)) of this part, or § 63.1027 of subpart UU (national emission 

standards for equipment leaks (control level 2)) of this part. For all other applicable equipment, comply with the requirements of subpart UU of this part, except 

§ 63.1030. 

* * * * * * * 

10. Pressure relief devices .. The pressure relief device 

is in organic HAP service.

Comply with § 63.1107(e). 

* * * * * 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1723 

TABLE 6 TO § 63.1103(D)—WHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE A POLYCARBONATE PRODUCTION NEW

AFFECTED SOURCE? 

If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . . 

*******

5. Equipment as defined 

under § 63.1101 (with the 

differences for pressure 

relief devices described in 

item 6 below).

The equipment contains or 

contacts ≥5 weight-percent total organic HAP,e

and operates ≥300 hours 

per year.

For connectors in gas and vapor service and in light liquid service, comply with either § 63.1008 of subpart TT (national emission standards for equipment leaks 

(control level 1)) of this part, or § 63.1027 of subpart UU ((national emission 

standards for equipment leaks (control level 2)) of this part. For all other applicable equipment, comply with the requirements of subpart UU of this part, except 

§ 63.1030. 

6. Pressure relief devices .... The pressure relief device 

is in organic HAP service.

Comply with § 63.1107(e). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.1104 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1104 Process vents from continuous 

unit operations: applicability assessment 

procedures and methods. 

* * * * * 

(c) Applicability assessment 

requirement. The TOC or organic HAP 

concentrations, process vent volumetric 

flow rates, process vent heating values, 

process vent TOC or organic HAP 

emission rates, halogenated process vent 

determinations, process vent TRE index 

values, and engineering assessments for 

process vent control applicability 

assessment requirements are to be 

determined during maximum 

representative operating conditions for 

the process, except as provided in 

paragraph (d) of this section, or unless 

the Administrator specifies or approves 

alternate operating conditions. For 

acrylic and modacrylic fiber production 

affected sources and polycarbonate 

production affected sources, operations 

during periods of malfunction shall not 

constitute representative conditions for 

the purpose of an applicability test. For 

all other affected sources, operations 

during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction shall not constitute 

representative conditions for the 

purpose of an applicability test. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.1107 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading; and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (e), (f) and (g). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1107 Equipment leaks. 

* * * * * 

(e) Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. For acrylic and modacrylic 

fiber production affected sources and 

polycarbonate production affected 

sources, except as specified in 

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

owner or operator must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

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

relief devices in organic HAP gas or 

vapor service. Except as specified in 

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

owner or operator of an acrylic and 

modacrylic fiber production affected 

source or polycarbonate production 

affected source must also comply with 

the requirements specified in paragraph 

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

relief devices in organic HAP service. 

(1) Operating requirements. Except 

during a pressure release event, operate 

each pressure relief device in organic 

HAP gas or vapor service with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background as detected by 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. 

(2) Pressure release requirements. For 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

gas or vapor service, comply with 

paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, 

as applicable. 

(i) If the pressure relief device does 

not consist of or include a rupture disk, 

conduct instrument monitoring, as 

detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar 

days after the pressure relief device 

returns to organic HAP service 

following a pressure release to verify 

that the pressure relief device is 

operating with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background. 

After 5 calendar days, an instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater is a violation. 

(ii) If the pressure relief device 

consists of or includes a rupture disk, 

install a replacement disk as soon as 

practicable after a pressure release, but 

no later than 5 calendar days after the 

pressure release. The owner or operator 

must also conduct instrument 

monitoring, as detected by Method 21 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no later 

than 5 calendar days after the pressure 

relief device returns to organic HAP 

service following a pressure release to 

verify that the pressure relief device is 

operating with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background. 

After 5 calendar days, an instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater is a violation. 

(3) Pressure release management. 

Except as specified in paragraph (e)(4) 

of this section, the owner or operator 

must comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) 

of this section for all pressure relief 

devices in organic HAP service. Any 

pressure release from such a pressure 

relief device is a violation. 

(i) The owner or operator must equip 

each pressure relief device in organic 

HAP service with a device(s) or 

parameter monitoring system that is 

capable of identifying and recording the 

time and duration of each pressure 

release and of notifying operators 

immediately that a pressure release is 

occurring. Examples of these types of 

devices and systems include, but are not 

limited to, a rupture disk indicator, 

magnetic sensor, motion detector on the 

pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, 

or pressure monitor. Regardless of the 

methodology chosen, when the device 

or monitoring system indicates that a 

pressure release has occurred, it shall be 

directly enforceable as a release from 

the pressure relief device. If this 

instrument is capable of measuring the 

concentration of leaks through the 

pressure relief device, then the owner or 

operator may use this instrument to 

meet the requirements of paragraph 

(e)(2) of this section. 

(ii) If any pressure relief device in 

organic HAP service releases to 

atmosphere as a result of a pressure 

release event, the owner or operator 

must calculate the quantity of organic 

HAP released during each pressure 

release event and report this quantity as 

required in paragraph (g) of this section. 

Calculations may be based on data from 

the pressure relief device monitoring 

alone or in combination with process 

parameter monitoring data and process 

knowledge. 

(4) Pressure relief devices routed to a 

control device or process. If a pressure 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1724 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

relief device in organic HAP service is 

designed and operated to route all 

pressure releases through a closed vent 

system to a control device or process, 

the owner or operator is not required to 

comply with paragraphs (e)(1), (2), or (3) 

(if applicable) of this section. Both the 

closed vent system and control device 

(if applicable) must meet the 

requirements of § 63.1034 of this part. 

(f) Recordkeeping requirements. For 

acrylic and modacrylic fiber production 

affected sources and polycarbonate 

production affected sources, for 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

service, keep records of the information 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) 

of this section, as applicable. 

(1) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices that the owner or 

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

the provisions in paragraph (e)(4) of this 

section. 

(2) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices subject to the 

provisions in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section. 

(3) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices equipped with 

rupture disks, under the provisions in 

paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(4) The dates and results of the 

monitoring following a pressure release 

for each pressure relief device subject to 

the provisions in paragraph (e)(1) and 

(2) of this section. The results shall 

include: 

(i) The background level measured 

during each compliance test. 

(ii) The maximum instrument reading 

measured at each piece of equipment 

during each compliance test. 

(5) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section, keep 

records of each pressure release to the 

atmosphere, including the following 

information: 

(i) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

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

pressure release. 

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of 

total HAP emitted during the pressure 

release and the calculations used for 

determining this quantity. 

(iv) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(v) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

(g) Periodic reports. For owners or 

operators of an acrylic and modacrylic 

fiber production affected source or 

polycarbonate production affected 

source subject to paragraph (e) of this 

section, Periodic Reports must include 

the information specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1) through (3) of this section for 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

service. 

(1) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

paragraph (e) of this section, report 

confirmation that all monitoring to 

show compliance was conducted within 

the reporting period. 

(2) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP gas or vapor service subject 

to paragraph (e)(2) of this section, report 

any instrument reading of 500 ppm 

above background or greater, more than 

5 days after the relief device returns to 

organic HAP gas or vapor service after 

a pressure release. 

(3) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section, report 

each pressure release to the atmosphere, 

including the following information: 

(i) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

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

pressure release. 

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of 

total HAP emitted during the pressure 

release and the method used for 

determining this quantity. 

(iv) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(v) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

■ 8. Section 63.1108 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(4); 

■ c. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (a)(5); 

■ d. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (b)(2) introductory text; and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1108 Compliance with standards and 

operation and maintenance requirements. 

(a) Requirements. The requirements of 

paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (5) of this 

section apply to all affected sources 

except acrylic and modacrylic fiber 

production affected sources and 

polycarbonate production affected 

sources. The requirements of paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section apply only to 

acrylic and modacrylic fiber production 

affected sources and polycarbonate 

production affected sources. The 

requirements of paragraphs (a)(3), (6), 

and (7) of this section apply to all 

affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(4)(i) For acrylic and modacrylic fiber 

production affected sources and 

polycarbonate production affected 

sources, the emission limitations and 

established parameter ranges of this part 

shall apply at all times except during 

periods of non-operation of the affected 

source (or specific portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which this subpart applies. Equipment 

leak requirements shall apply at all 

times except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or 

specific portion thereof) in which the 

lines are drained and depressurized 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which the equipment leak requirements 

apply. 

(ii) General duty. At all times, the 

owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the owner operator to make any further 

efforts to reduce emissions if levels 

required by the applicable standard 

have been achieved. Determination of 

whether a source is operating in 

compliance with operation and 

maintenance requirements will be based 

on information available to the 

Administrator, which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

(5) During startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions when the emission 

standards of this subpart and the 

subparts referenced by this subpart do 

not apply pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) of this section, the owner or 

operator shall implement, to the extent 

reasonably available, measures to 

prevent or minimize excess emissions. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Parameter monitoring: Excursions. 

An excursion is not a violation in cases 

where continuous monitoring is 

required and the excursion does not 

count toward the number of excused 

excursions (as described in 

§ 63.998(b)(6)(ii)), if the conditions of 

paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section 

are met, except that the conditions of 

paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section do not 

apply for acrylic and modacrylic fiber 

production affected sources and 

polycarbonate production affected 

sources. * * * 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Performance test. The 

Administrator may determine 

compliance with emission limitations of 

this subpart based on, but not limited to, 

the results of performance tests 

conducted according to the procedures 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1725 

specified in § 63.997, unless otherwise 

specified in this subpart or a subpart 

referenced by this subpart. For acrylic 

and modacrylic fiber production 

affected sources and polycarbonate 

production affected sources, 

performance tests shall be conducted 

under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative 

performance of the affected source for 

the period being tested. Representative 

conditions exclude periods of startup 

and shutdown unless specified by the 

Administrator or an applicable subpart. 

The owner/operator may not conduct 

performance tests during periods of 

malfunction. The owner operator must 

record the process information that is 

necessary to document operating 

conditions during the test and include 

in such record an explanation to 

support that such conditions represent 

normal operation. Upon request, the 

owner or operator shall make available 

to the Administrator such records as 

may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.1110 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (a) introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(7); 

■ c. Adding paragraph (a)(9); 

■ d. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (d)(1) introductory text; and 

■ e. Adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1110 Reporting requirements. 

(a) * * * Each owner or operator of 

an acrylic and modacrylic fiber 

production affected source or 

polycarbonate production affected 

source subject to this subpart shall 

submit the reports listed in paragraph 

(a)(9) of this section, as applicable. 

* * * * * 

(7) Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction Reports described in 

§ 63.1111 (except for acrylic and 

modacrylic fiber production affected 

sources and polycarbonate production 

affected sources). 

* * * * * 

(9) Electronic reporting. Within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 63.2), 

the owner or operator must submit the 

results of the performance tests, 

including any associated fuel analyses, 

required by this subpart according to the 

methods specified in paragraph (a)(9)(i) 

or (ii) of this section. 

(i) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPAprovided software, the owner or 

operator shall submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software, 

unless otherwise approved by the 

Administrator. Owners or operators, 

who claim that some of the information 

being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI), 

must submit a complete file using EPAprovided software that includes 

information claimed to be CBI on a 

compact disc, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

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

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software. 

(ii) For any performance test 

conducted using test methods that are 

not compatible with the EPA-provided 

software, the owner or operator shall 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * For pressure relief devices 

subject to the requirements of 

§ 63.1107(e)(3), the owner or operator of 

an acrylic and modacrylic fiber 

production affected source or 

polycarbonate production affected 

source shall submit the information 

listed in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this 

section in the Notification of 

Compliance Status within 150 days after 

the first applicable compliance date for 

pressure relief device monitoring. 

* * * * * 

(iii) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service, a description of 

the device or monitoring system to be 

implemented, including the pressure 

relief devices and process parameters to 

be monitored (if applicable), and a 

description of the alarms or other 

methods by which operators will be 

notified of a pressure release. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 63.1111 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ c. Removing reserved paragraph (b)(3); 

and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (c). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1111 Startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

(a) Startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan. The requirements of 

this paragraph (a) apply to all affected 

sources except for acrylic and 

modacrylic fiber production affected 

sources and polycarbonate production 

affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(b) Startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction reporting requirements. 

The requirements of the paragraph (b) 

apply to all affected sources except for 

acrylic and modacrylic fiber production 

affected sources and polycarbonate 

production affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(c) Malfunction recordkeeping and 

reporting. The requirements of this 

paragraph (c) apply only to acrylic and 

modacrylic fiber production affected 

sources and polycarbonate production 

affected sources. 

(1) Records of malfunctions. The 

owner or operator shall keep the records 

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

(iii) of this section. 

(i) In the event that an affected unit 

fails to meet an applicable standard, 

record the number of failures. For each 

failure record the date, time, and 

duration of each failure. 

(ii) For each failure to meet an 

applicable standard, record and retain a 

list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the volume of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

(iii) Record actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1108(a)(4)(ii), and any corrective 

actions taken to return the affected unit 

to its normal or usual manner of 

operation. 

(2) Reports of malfunctions. If a 

source fails to meet an applicable 

standard, report such events in the 

Periodic Report. Report the number of 

failures to meet an applicable standard. 

For each instance, report the date, time 

and duration of each failure. For each 

failure the report must include a list of 

the affected sources or equipment, an 

estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over any emission 

limit, and a description of the method 

used to estimate the emissions. 

Subpart OOO—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Manufacture of Amino/

Phenolic Resins 

■ 11. Section 63.1400 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (k); and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (l). 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1726 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1400 Applicability and designation of 

affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(k) Applicability of this subpart. (1) 

The emission limitations set forth in 

this subpart and the emission 

limitations referred to in this subpart 

shall apply at all times except during 

periods of non-operation of the affected 

source (or specific portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which this subpart applies. 

(2) The emission limitations set forth 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, as 

referred to in § 63.1410, shall apply at 

all times except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or 

specific portion thereof) in which the 

lines are drained and depressurized 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which § 63.1410 applies. 

(3) The owner or operator shall not 

shut down items of equipment that are 

required or utilized for compliance with 

this subpart during times when 

emissions are being routed to such items 

of equipment if the shutdown would 

contravene requirements of this subpart 

applicable to such items of equipment. 

(4) General duty. At all times, the 

owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the owner operator to make any further 

efforts to reduce emissions if levels 

required by the applicable standard 

have been achieved. Determination of 

whether a source is operating in 

compliance with operation and 

maintenance requirements will be based 

on information available to the 

Administrator, which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

(l) Affirmative defense for violation of 

emission standards during malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in this subpart, the 

owner or operator may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for violations of such 

standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed 

if the owner or operator fails to meet 

their burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(1) Assertion of affirmative defense. 

To establish the affirmative defense in 

any action to enforce such a standard, 

the owner or operator must timely meet 

the reporting requirements in paragraph 

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

a preponderance of evidence that: 

(i) The violation: 

(A) Was caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Was not part of a recurring pattern 

indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount, and 

duration of the violation (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable; and 

(iv) If the violation resulted from a 

bypass of control equipment or a 

process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the violation on 

ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the violation were documented by 

properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the violation resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of any emissions that were the 

result of the malfunction. 

(2) Report. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall submit a written report to the 

Administrator, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that 

explains how it has met the 

requirements set forth in paragraph 

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

defense report shall be included in the 

first periodic compliance report, 

deviation report, or excess emission 

report otherwise required after the 

initial occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard (which may be the 

end of any applicable averaging period). 

If such compliance report, deviation 

report, or excess emission report is due 

less than 45 days after the initial 

occurrence of the violation, the 

affirmative defense report may be 

included in the second compliance 

report, deviation report, or excess 

emission report due after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard. 

■ 12. Section 63.1401 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1401 Compliance schedule. 

(a) New affected sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction after December 14, 1998, 

shall be in compliance with this subpart 

(except § 63.1411(c)) upon initial startup or January 20, 2000, whichever is 

later. New affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after December 14, 1998, 

but on or before January 9, 2014, shall 

be in compliance with the pressure 

relief device monitoring requirements of 

§ 63.1411(c) by 3 years after the effective 

date of the final amendments. New 

affected sources that commence 

construction or reconstruction after 

January 9, 2014, shall be in compliance 

with the pressure relief device 

monitoring requirements of § 63.1411(c) 

upon initial startup or by the effective 

date of the final amendments, 

whichever is later. 

(b) Existing affected sources shall be 

in compliance with this subpart (except 

§§ 63.1404, 63.1405, and 63.1411(c)) no 

later than 3 years after January 20, 2000. 

Existing affected sources shall be in 

compliance with the storage vessel 

requirements of § 63.1404 by the 

effective date of the final amendments. 

Existing affected sources shall be in 

compliance with the continuous process 

vent requirements of § 63.1405 and the 

pressure relief device monitoring 

requirements of § 63.1411(c) by 3 years 

after the effective date of the final 

amendments. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 63.1402 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), adding in 

alphabetical order the terms ‘‘Pressure 

release (§ 63.161)’’ and ‘‘Pressure relief 

device or valve (§ 63.161)’’ and 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1727 

removing the term ‘‘Start-up, shutdown, 

and malfunction plan (§ 63.101)’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b), adding in 

alphabetical order the terms 

‘‘Affirmative defense’’ and ‘‘Seal’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1402 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

Seal means, for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 

§ 63.1033(b), that instrument monitoring 

of the open-ended valve or line 

conducted according to the method 

specified in § 63.1023(b) and, as 

applicable, § 63.1023(c), indicates no 

readings of 500 parts per million or 

greater. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 63.1404 is amended by 

revising the first sentence of paragraph 

(a) introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 63.1404 Storage vessel provisions. 

(a) Emission standards. For each 

storage vessel located at a new or 

existing affected source that has a 

capacity of greater than or equal to 

20,000 gallons, but less than 40,000 

gallons, and vapor pressure of 1.9 

pounds per square inch absolute (psia) 

or greater; has a capacity of greater than 

or equal to 40,000 gallons, but less than 

90,000 gallons, and vapor pressure of 

0.75 psia or greater; or has a capacity of 

90,000 gallons or greater and vapor 

pressure of 0.15 psia or greater, the 

owner or operator shall comply with 

either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this 

section. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Section 63.1405 is amended by 

revising the first sentence of paragraph 

(a) introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 63.1405 Continuous process vent 

provisions. 

(a) Emission standards. For each 

continuous process vent located at a 

new or existing affected source with a 

Total Resource Effectiveness (TRE) 

index value, as determined following 

the procedures specified in § 63.1412(j), 

less than or equal to 1.2, the owner or 

operator shall comply with either 

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Section 63.1410 is amended by 

revising the first sentence of the 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 63.1410 Equipment leak provisions. 

The owner or operator of each 

affected source shall comply with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

UU (national emission standards for 

equipment leaks (control level 2)) for all 

equipment, as defined under § 63.1402, 

that contains or contacts 5 weightpercent HAP or greater and operates 300 

hours per year or more, except 

§ 63.1030. * * * 

■ 17. Add § 63.1411 to read as follows: 

§ 63.1411 Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. 

Except as specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section, the owner or operator must 

comply with the requirements specified 

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

for pressure relief devices in organic 

HAP gas or vapor service. Except as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section, the owner or operator must also 

comply with the requirements specified 

in paragraph (c) of this section for all 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

service. 

(a) Operating requirements. Except 

during a pressure release event, operate 

each pressure relief device in organic 

HAP gas or vapor service with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background as detected by 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. 

(b) Pressure release requirements. For 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

gas or vapor service, comply with 

paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(1) If the pressure relief device does 

not consist of or include a rupture disk, 

conduct instrument monitoring, as 

detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar 

days after the pressure relief device 

returns to organic HAP service 

following a pressure release to verify 

that the pressure relief device is 

operating with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background. 

After 5 calendar days, an instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater is a violation. 

(2) If the pressure relief device 

consists of or includes a rupture disk, 

install a replacement disk as soon as 

practicable after a pressure release, but 

no later than 5 calendar days after the 

pressure release. The owner or operator 

must also conduct instrument 

monitoring, as detected by Method 21 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no later 

than 5 calendar days after the pressure 

relief device returns to organic HAP 

service following a pressure release to 

verify that the pressure relief device is 

operating with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background. 

After 5 calendar days, an instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater is a violation. 

(c) Pressure release management. 

Except as specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section, the owner or operator must 

comply with the requirements specified 

in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 

section for all pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service. Any pressure 

release from such a pressure relief 

device is a violation. 

(1) The owner or operator must equip 

each pressure relief device in organic 

HAP service with a device(s) or 

parameter monitoring system that is 

capable of identifying and recording the 

time and duration of each pressure 

release and of notifying operators 

immediately that a pressure release is 

occurring. The device or monitoring 

system may be either specific to the 

pressure relief device itself or on an 

associated process system or piping 

sufficient to indicate a pressure release 

to the atmosphere. Examples of these 

types of devices and systems include, 

but are not limited to, a rupture disk 

indicator, magnetic sensor, motion 

detector on the pressure relief valve 

stem, flow monitor, or pressure monitor. 

Regardless of the methodology chosen, 

when the device or monitoring system 

indicates that a pressure release has 

occurred, it shall be directly enforceable 

as a release from the pressure relief 

device. If this instrument is capable of 

measuring the concentration of leaks 

through the pressure relief device, then 

the owner or operator may use this 

instrument to meet the requirements of 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(2) If any pressure relief device in 

organic HAP service releases to 

atmosphere as a result of a pressure 

release event, the owner or operator 

must calculate the quantity of organic 

HAP released during each pressure 

release event and report this quantity as 

required in § 63.1417(f)(13)(iii). 

Calculations may be based on data from 

the pressure relief device monitoring 

alone or in combination with process 

parameter monitoring data and process 

knowledge. 

(d) Pressure relief devices routed to a 

control device or process. If a pressure 

relief device in organic HAP service is 

designed and operated to route all 

pressure releases through a closed vent 

system to a control device or process, 

the owner or operator is not required to 

comply with paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) (if 

applicable) of this section. Both the 

closed vent system and control device 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1728 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(if applicable) must meet the 

requirements of § 63.1034 of this part. 

■ 18. Section 63.1412 is amended by 

revising the last sentence of paragraph 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1412 Continuous process vent 

applicability assessment procedures and 

methods. 

* * * * * 

(c) Applicability assessment 

requirement. * * * Operations during 

periods of malfunction shall not 

constitute representative conditions for 

the purpose of an applicability test. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Section 63.1413 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (h)(4) 

introductory text; and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (h)(5) and 

(h)(6). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1413 Compliance demonstration 

procedures. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Performance tests. Performance 

tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator 

specifies to the owner or operator based 

on representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested and in accordance with the 

General Provisions at § 63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), 

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

exceptions specified in paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section. Representative 

conditions exclude periods of startup 

and shutdown unless specified by the 

Administrator or an applicable subpart. 

The owner/operator may not conduct 

performance tests during periods of 

malfunction. The owner operator must 

record the process information that is 

necessary to document operating 

conditions during the test and include 

in such record an explanation to 

support that such conditions represent 

normal operation. Upon request, the 

owner or operator shall make available 

to the Administrator such records as 

may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests. Data 

shall be reduced in accordance with the 

EPA approved methods specified in this 

subpart or, if other test methods are 

used, the data and methods shall be 

validated according to the protocol in 

Method 301 of appendix A of this part. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) Deviation from the emission 

standard. If monitoring data are 

insufficient, as described in paragraphs 

(h)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, 

there has been a deviation from the 

emission standard. 

* * * * * 

(5) Situations that are not deviations. 

If any of the situations listed in 

paragraphs (h)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section 

occur, such situations shall not be 

considered to be deviations. 

(i) Monitoring data cannot be 

collected during monitoring device 

calibration check or monitoring device 

malfunction; or 

(ii) Monitoring data are not collected 

during periods of nonoperation of the 

affected source or portion thereof 

(resulting in cessation of the emissions 

to which the monitoring applies). 

(6) Periods not considered to be part 

of the period of control or recovery 

device operation. The periods listed in 

paragraphs (h)(6)(i) and (ii) of this 

section are not considered to be part of 

the period of control or recovery device 

operation for purposes of determining 

averages or periods of control device or 

control technology operation. 

(i) Monitoring system breakdowns, 

repairs, calibration checks, and zero 

(low-level) and high-level adjustments; 

or 

(ii) Periods of nonoperation of the 

affected source (or portion thereof), 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which the monitoring applies. 

■ 20. Section 63.1415 is amended by 

revising the second sentence of 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1415 Monitoring requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) * * * The plan shall require 

determination of gas stream flow by a 

method which will at least provide a 

value for either a representative or the 

highest gas stream flow anticipated in 

the scrubber during representative 

operating conditions other than 

malfunctions. * * * 

■ 21. Section 63.1416 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(4); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (g)(5); 

■ c. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(1)(i); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii); 

■ e. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(1)(iii); 

■ f. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (h)(2)(iii); and 

■ g. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1416 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Malfunction records. Records shall 

be kept as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) In the event that an affected unit 

fails to meet an applicable standard, 

record the number of failures. For each 

failure record the date, time, and 

duration of each failure. 

(2) For each failure to meet an 

applicable standard, record and retain a 

list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the volume of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

(3) Record actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1420(h)(4), and any corrective 

actions taken to return the affected unit 

to its normal or usual manner of 

operation. 

(c) * * * 

(4) Monitoring data recorded during 

periods identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) 

and (ii) of this section shall not be 

included in any average computed 

under this subpart. Records shall be 

kept of the times and durations of all 

such periods and any other periods 

during process or control device or 

recovery device or control technology 

operation when monitors are not 

operating: 

(i) Monitoring system breakdowns, 

repairs, calibration checks, and zero 

(low-level) and high-level adjustments; 

and 

(ii) Periods of non-operation of the 

affected source (or portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which the monitoring applies. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(5) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service, keep records of the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(g)(5)(i) through (v) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(i) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices that the owner or 

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

the provisions in § 63.1411(d). 

(ii) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices subject to the 

provisions in § 63.1411(a). 

(iii) A list of identification numbers 

for pressure relief devices equipped 

with rupture disks, under the provisions 

in § 63.1411(b)(2). 

(iv) The dates and results of the 

monitoring following a pressure release 

for each pressure relief device subject to 

the provisions in § 63.1411(a) and (b). 

The results shall include: 

(A) The background level measured 

during each compliance test. 

(B) The maximum instrument reading 

measured at each piece of equipment 

during each compliance test. 

(v) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1729 

§ 63.1411(c), keep records of each 

pressure release to the atmosphere, 

including the following information: 

(A) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

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

pressure release. 

(C) An estimate of the quantity of total 

HAP emitted during the pressure release 

and the calculations used for 

determining this quantity. 

(D) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(E) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unrealistic or impossible 

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

temperature reading of ¥200 °C on a 

boiler) and will alert the operator by 

alarm or other means. * * * 

(ii) The monitoring system generates, 

updated at least hourly throughout each 

operating day, a running average of the 

parameter values that have been 

obtained during that operating day or 

block, and the capability to observe this 

running average is readily available onsite to the Administrator during the 

operating day. The owner or operator 

shall record the occurrence of any 

period meeting the criteria in 

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

section. All instances in an operating 

day or block constitute a single 

occurrence: 

(A) The running average is above the 

maximum or below the minimum 

established limits; and 

(B) The running average is based on 

at least six 1-hour average values. 

(iii) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unchanging data during 

periods of operation, except in 

circumstances where the presence of 

unchanging data is the expected 

operating condition based on past 

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

and will alert the operator by alarm or 

other means. * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) * * * For any calendar week, if 

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

through (iv) of this section does not 

result in retention of a record of at least 

one occurrence or measured parameter 

value, the owner or operator shall 

record and retain at least one value 

during a period of operation. 

(iv) For purposes of paragraph (h)(2) 

of this section, a deviation means that 

the daily average, batch cycle daily 

average, or block average value of 

monitoring data for a parameter is 

greater than the maximum, or less than 

the minimum established value. 

■ 22. Section 63.1417 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (d); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(d)(9); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (d)(11)(ii); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory 

text; 

■ e. Adding paragraph (e)(10); 

■ f. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (f)(1); 

■ g. Adding paragraph (f)(13); 

■ h. Revising paragraph (g); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (h) introductory 

text; and 

■ j. Adding paragraph (h)(8). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1417 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Precompliance Report. Owners or 

operators of affected sources requesting 

an extension for compliance; requesting 

approval to use alternative monitoring 

parameters, alternative continuous 

monitoring and recordkeeping, or 

alternative controls; requesting approval 

to use engineering assessment to 

estimate organic HAP emissions from a 

batch emissions episode as described in 

§ 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to 

establish parameter monitoring levels 

according to the procedures contained 

in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing 

parameter monitoring levels based on a 

design evaluation as specified in 

§ 63.1413(a)(3); or following the 

procedures in § 63.1413(e)(2), shall 

submit a Precompliance Report 

according to the schedule described in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(11) * * * 

(ii) Supplements to the Precompliance 

Report may be submitted to request 

approval to use alternative monitoring 

parameters, as specified in paragraph (j) 

of this section; to use alternative 

continuous monitoring and 

recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph 

(k) of this section; to use alternative 

controls, as specified in paragraph (d)(5) 

of this section; to use engineering 

assessment to estimate organic HAP 

emissions from a batch emissions 

episode, as specified in paragraph (d)(6) 

of this section; or to establish parameter 

monitoring levels according to the 

procedures contained in 

§ 63.1413(a)(4)(ii) or (a)(3), as specified 

in paragraph (d)(7) of this section. 

(e) Notification of Compliance Status. 

For existing and new affected sources, a 

Notification of Compliance Status shall 

be submitted within 150 days after the 

compliance dates specified in § 63.1401. 

For equipment leaks, the Notification of 

Compliance Status shall contain the 

information specified in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart UU. For storage vessels, 

continuous process vents, batch process 

vents, and aggregate batch vent streams, 

the Notification of Compliance Status 

shall contain the information listed in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (9) of this 

section. For pressure relief devices 

subject to the requirements of 

§ 63.1411(c), the owner or operator shall 

submit the information listed in 

paragraph (e)(10) of this section in the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

within 150 days after the first applicable 

compliance date for pressure relief 

device monitoring. 

* * * * * 

(10) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service, a description of 

the device or monitoring system to be 

implemented, including the pressure 

relief devices and process parameters to 

be monitored (if applicable), and a 

description of the alarms or other 

methods by which operators will be 

notified of a pressure release. 

(f) * * * 

(1) Except as specified in paragraph 

(f)(12) of this section, a report 

containing the information in paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section or containing the 

information in paragraphs (f)(3) through 

(11) and (13) of this section, as 

appropriate, shall be submitted 

semiannually no later than 60 days after 

the end of each 180 day period. * * * 

* * * * * 

(13) For pressure relief devices, 

Periodic Reports must include the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(f)(13)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

§ 63.1411, report confirmation that all 

monitoring to show compliance was 

conducted within the reporting period. 

(ii) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP gas or vapor service subject 

to § 63.1411(b), report any instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater, more than 5 days after the 

relief device returns to organic HAP gas 

or vapor service after a pressure release. 

(iii) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

§ 63.1411(c), report each pressure 

release to the atmosphere, including the 

following information: 

(A) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

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

pressure release. 

(C) An estimate of the quantity of total 

HAP emitted during the pressure release 

and the method used for determining 

this quantity. 

(D) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1730 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(E) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

(g) Reports of malfunctions. If a 

source fails to meet an applicable 

standard, report such events in the 

Periodic Report. Report the number of 

failures to meet an applicable standard. 

For each instance, report the date, time 

and duration of each failure. For each 

failure the report must include a list of 

the affected sources or equipment, an 

estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over any emission 

limit, and a description of the method 

used to estimate the emissions. 

(h) Other reports. Other reports shall 

be submitted as specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (8) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(8) Electronic reporting. Within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 63.2), 

the owner or operator must submit the 

results of the performance tests, 

including any associated fuel analyses, 

required by this subpart according to the 

methods specified in paragraph (h)(8)(i) 

or (ii) of this section. 

(i) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPAprovided software, the owner or 

operator shall submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software, 

unless otherwise approved by the 

Administrator. Owners or operators, 

who claim that some of the information 

being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI), 

must submit a complete file using EPAprovided software that includes 

information claimed to be CBI on a 

compact disc, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

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

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software. 

(ii) For any performance test 

conducted using test methods that are 

not compatible with the EPA-provided 

software, the owner or operator shall 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Table 1 to subpart OOO is 

amended by: 

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

(a)(8) and 63.1(a)(9); 

■ b. Adding entries 63.1(a)(6) and 

63.1(a)(7)–63.1(a)(9); 

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

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

■ d. Adding entry 63.6(e)(3); 

■ e. Removing entries 63.6(e)(3)(i), 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

■ f. Revising entries 63.6(f)(1), 

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

63.8(c)(1)(iii), and 63.10(d)(5); and 

■ g. Removing footnote (a). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

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

SOURCES

Reference Applies to subpart 

OOO Explanation 

*******

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

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

*******

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

*******

63.6(e) ................................................... Yes ............................ Except as otherwise specified in this table. 

63.6(e)(1)(i) ........................................... No .............................. See § 63.1400(k)(4) for general duty requirement. 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

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

* * * * * * * 

63.7(e)(1) ............................................... No .............................. See § 63.1413(a)(2). 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

* * * * * * * 

63.10(d)(5) ............................................. No .............................. See § 63.1417(g) for malfunction reporting requirements. 

*******

■ 24. Table 5 to subpart OOO is 

amended by: 

■ a. Removing entry 63.1417(g); and 

■ b. Adding entry 63.1417(h)(8). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1731 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART OOO OF PART 63—REPORTS REQUIRED BY THIS SUBPART

Reference Description of report Due date 

*******

63.1417(h)(8) ................................. Electronic reporting ........................ Within 60 days after completing performance test. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–30132 Filed 1–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2