```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60897-60935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23099]

[[Page 60897]]

Vol. 79

Wednesday,

No. 195

October 8, 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; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 60898]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133; FRL-9916-90-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.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, 
Amino/Phenolic Resins Production and Polycarbonate Production source 
categories regulated under national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action 
addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and 
malfunction, and are adding standards for previously unregulated 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions sources for certain emission 
points. These changes include revisions made in response to comments 
received on the proposed rule. These final amendments also include 
clarifying provisions pertaining to open-ended valves and lines, adding 
monitoring requirements for pressure relief devices and adding 
requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results, as 
proposed. We estimate that these final amendments will reduce HAP 
emissions from these three source categories by a combined 137 tons per 
year.

DATES: This final action is effective on October 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (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 http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of 
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), 
Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room 
is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Mr. Nick Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (734) 214-4479; fax number: (734) 214-4053; 
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), OAQPS, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5416; fax number: (919) 541-0840; 
and 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), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20004; 
telephone number: (202) 564-0902; and email address: 
culpepper.tavara@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
abbreviations are used in this document.

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels
AMF Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
APPU amino/phenolic resin process unit
APR Amino/Phenolic Resins Production
CAA Clean Air Act
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
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
gal gallon
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HI hazard index
HON National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants 
from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
kg kilogram
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
Mg megagram
MIR maximum individual risk
MTVP maximum true vapor pressure
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
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
PC Polycarbonate Production
ppm parts per million
PRD pressure relief device
psia pounds per square inch absolute
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SBA Small Business Administration
SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compounds
WWW World Wide Web

    Background Information. On January 9, 2014, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Amino/
Phenolic Resins Production and Polycarbonate Production NESHAP based on 
our RTR. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for 
the rules. We summarize some of the comments we timely received 
regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. 
A summary of the public comments on the proposal not presented in the 
preamble and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133. A ``track changes'' version of the 
regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is 
available in the docket.
    Organization of This Document. We provide the following outline to 
assist in locating information in the preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production (AMF)
    C. Amino/Phenolic Resins Production (APR)
    D. Polycarbonate Production
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
    B. Amino/Phenolic Resins Production

[[Page 60899]]

    C. Polycarbonate Production
    D. What are the final rule amendments for all three source 
categories addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown 
and malfunction?
    E. What other changes have been made to all three NESHAP?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards 
for all three source categories?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the AMF source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the AMF Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the AMF Source Category
    C. Sections 112(d)(2) & (3) Amendments for the AMF Source 
Category
V. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the APR source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the APR Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the APR Source Category
    C. Sections 112(d)(2) & (3) Amendments for the APR Source 
Category
VI. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the PC source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the PC Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the PC Source Category
VII. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments 
that apply to all three source categories?
    A. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
    B. Pressure Relief Devices
    C. Open-Ended Valves and Lines
VIII. 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?
    F. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               NESHAP and Source Category                 NAICS \a\ Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generic Maximum Achievable       Acrylic and Modacrylic           325220
 Control Technology Standards.    Fibers Production.            (325222)
                                 Polycarbonate                    325211
                                  Production.                   (325211)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amino/Phenolic Resins            .......................          325211
 Production.                                                    (325211)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System 2012 (2007 in
  parenthesis)

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of these NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available 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, we will post a copy of the final action at: 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/gmact/gmactpg.html and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/amino/aminopg.html. Following publication in the Federal 
Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the final 
action and key technical documents at these same Web sites.
    Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites for the RTR 
source categories and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by December 8, 2014. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule ``[i]f the 
person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public 
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period 
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) 
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the 
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 
DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel 
for

[[Page 60900]]

the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

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, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, 
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For 
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the 
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems or techniques that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture or treat HAP when released from a 
process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point; and/or are design, 
equipment, work practice or operational standards.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements and may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA 
section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor, under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 79 FR 1676 (January 9, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this approach of 
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 
1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing 
technology-based standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then 
the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual 
risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production (AMF)

1. What is the AMF source category and how do the MACT standards 
promulgated on June 29, 1999, regulate its HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the AMF MACT standards on June 29, 1999 (64 FR 
34854). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. The 
AMF industry consists of facilities that produce acrylic and modacrylic 
fibers, which are manufactured fibers in which the fiber-forming 
substance is a long-chain synthetic polymer containing acrylonitrile 
units. The source category covered by this NESHAP currently includes 
one facility. 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.
2. What changes did we propose for the AMF source category in our 
January 9, 2014, proposal?
    On January 9, 2014, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the AMF MACT standards, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
YY, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed 
rule, we proposed:
     Revisions to address certain emission sources not 
previously regulated under the standards.
     Revisions to the leak detection and repair (LDAR) program 
requirements.
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during 
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM).
     Revisions to requirements related to performance test 
electronic reporting.
     Revisions to the provisions regarding open-ended lines.
     Revisions to the requirements related to pressure relief 
devices (PRDs) that release HAP emissions to the atmosphere instead of 
routing them to a control device, process, fuel gas system or drain 
system.

C. Amino/Phenolic Resins Production (APR)

1. What is the APR source category and how do the MACT standards 
promulgated on January 20, 2000, regulate its HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the APR MACT standards on January 20, 2000 (65 
FR 3276). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO. 
The APR industry consists of facilities that manufacture amino resins 
or phenolic resins. The source category covered by this NESHAP 
currently includes 19 facilities. Sources of HAP emissions from the 
production of APR include: (1) Reactor batch process vents; (2) non-
reactor batch process vents; (3) continuous process vents; (4) 
equipment leaks; (5) wastewater; (6) storage vessels; and (7) heat 
exchangers.
2. What changes did we propose for the APR source category in our 
January 9, 2014, proposal?
    On January 9, 2014, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the APR MACT standards, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
OOO, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed 
rule, we proposed:

[[Page 60901]]

     Revisions to address certain emission sources not 
previously regulated under the standards.
     Revisions to the storage vessel and continuous process 
vent standards.
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during 
periods of SSM.
     Revisions to requirements related to performance test 
electronic reporting.
     Revisions to the provisions regarding open-ended lines.
     Revisions to the requirements related to PRDs that release 
HAP emissions to the atmosphere rather than routing them to a control 
device, process, fuel gas system or drain system.

D. Polycarbonate Production

1. What is the PC source category and how do the MACT standards 
promulgated on June 29, 1999, regulate its HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the PC MACT standards on June 29, 1999 (64 FR 
34854). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. The 
PC industry consists of facilities that produce polycarbonates, a 
process that involves a polymerization reaction using either a solution 
or suspension process in either a batch or continuous mode. All 
production of polycarbonates 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. 
The source category covered by this NESHAP currently includes four 
facilities. Sources of HAP emissions from the production of PC include: 
(1) Storage vessels used to store methylene chloride and other organic 
solvents; (2) process vents on polymerization, polymer solution 
purification and solvent recovery equipment; (3) wastewater treatment 
systems; and (4) equipment leaks.
2. What changes did we propose for the PC source category in our 
January 9, 2014, proposal?
    On January 9, 2014, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the PC MACT standards, 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, 
that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed rule, we 
proposed:
     Revisions to the LDAR program requirements.
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during 
periods of SSM.
     Revisions to requirements related to performance test 
electronic reporting.
     Revisions to the provisions regarding open-ended lines.
     Revisions to the requirements related to PRDs that release 
HAP emissions to the atmosphere rather than routing them to a control 
device, process, fuel gas system or drain system.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the AMF, APR and PC source categories 
and amends the AMF, APR and PC MACT standards based on those 
determinations. This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP 
such as setting emission standards to address certain emission sources 
not previously regulated; eliminating the exemption for periods of SSM, 
so that the emission standards in each rule apply at all times; 
requiring electronic reporting of performance test results; clarifying 
the provisions regarding open-ended lines by adding a definition for 
what constitutes a ``sealed'' open-ended line; requiring monitoring of 
PRDs in organic HAP service that release to the atmosphere rather than 
routing emissions to a control device, process, fuel gas system or 
drain system; and providing that releases of HAP emissions to the 
atmosphere from such PRDs are prohibited.

A. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production

1. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
AMF source category?
    For the AMF source category, we have determined that the current 
MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, and prevent adverse 
environmental effects. Therefore, as we proposed, it is not necessary 
to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).
2. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the AMF source category?
    We have determined that there have been developments in practices, 
processes and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standard for this source category. Therefore, to satisfy the 
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6) and as we proposed, we are 
revising the MACT standards to require facilities to comply with the 
LDAR requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, rather than subpart 
TT, with the exception of connectors in gas and vapor service and in 
light liquid service. We are retaining the option for facilities to 
comply with either subpart TT or subpart UU for these components. For 
storage vessels, process vents, spinning line fugitive emissions and 
wastewater, we have determined that, as we proposed, there are no 
viable developments in HAP emission reduction practices, processes or 
control technologies to apply, considering the technical feasibility, 
estimated costs, energy implications, non-air environmental impacts and 
emission reductions of the options identified.
3. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to sections 112(d)(2) & 
(3) for the AMF source category?
    Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and as we proposed, we 
are establishing standards for previously unregulated HAP emissions 
from spinning lines that use a spin dope produced from a solution 
polymerization process at existing facilities. The standard being 
finalized is an emission limit of 20 kilograms (kg) of organic HAP per 
megagram (Mg) (40 pounds (lb) of organic HAP per ton) of acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber produced, which represents the MACT floor level of 
control.

B. Amino/Phenolic Resins Production

1. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
APR source category?
    For the APR source category, we have determined that the current 
MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse 
environmental effects. Therefore, as we proposed, it is not necessary 
to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).
2. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the APR source category?
    We have determined that there have been developments in practices, 
processes and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standard for this source category. Therefore, to satisfy the 
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), we are revising the 
applicability of the APR new source MACT standards as we proposed to 
include smaller capacity storage vessels and/or storage vessels 
containing liquids with lower vapor pressures. Emissions reduction of 
95 percent is now required for storage vessels of capacities greater 
than or equal to 20,000 gallons (gal), but less than 40,000 gal if the 
maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) is 1.9 pounds per square inch 
absolute (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 is also still required for 
storage

[[Page 60902]]

vessels of 90,000 gal or greater, if the MTVP is 0.15 psia or greater, 
as was previously required for storage vessels at new sources in the 
APR source category. For equipment leaks, continuous process vents, 
batch process vents, wastewater and heat exchange systems, we have 
determined that, as we proposed, there are no viable developments in 
HAP emission reduction practices, processes or control technologies to 
apply to the emission sources in these source categories, considering 
the technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, non-
air environmental impacts and emission reductions of the options 
identified.
3. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to sections 112(d)(2) & 
(3) for the APR source category?
    Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), we are establishing 
standards for previously unregulated HAP emissions from storage vessels 
and continuous process vents at existing facilities. For storage 
vessels, the standard being finalized is the same as what we proposed 
and requires 95 percent emissions reduction 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, 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, and for storage vessels of 
90,000 gal or greater, if the MTVP is 0.15 psia or greater, which 
represents a beyond-the-floor level of control. For continuous process 
vents, the standard being finalized establishes an emission limit of 
0.95 kg of organic HAP per Mg (1.9 lb organic HAP per ton) of resin 
produced, which represents the MACT floor level of control. However, 
the calculation of the MACT floor has been revised since proposal.

C. Polycarbonate Production

1. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
PC source category?
    For the PC source category, we have determined that the current 
MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse 
environmental effects. Therefore, as we proposed, it is not necessary 
to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).
2. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the PC source category?
    We have determined that there have been developments in practices, 
processes and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standard for this source category. Therefore, to satisfy the 
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6) and as we proposed, we are 
revising the MACT standards to require facilities to comply with the 
LDAR requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, rather than subpart 
TT, with the exception of connectors in gas and vapor service and in 
light liquid service. We are retaining the option for facilities to 
comply with either subpart TT or subpart UU for these components. For 
storage vessels, process vents and wastewater treatment systems, we 
have determined that, as we proposed, there are no viable developments 
in HAP emission reduction practices, processes or control technologies 
to apply to the emission sources in these source categories, 
considering the technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy 
implications, non-air environmental impacts and emission reductions of 
the options identified.

D. What are the final rule amendments for all three source categories 
addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and 
malfunction?

    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010), the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated 
portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations 
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the 
court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 
CFR 63.6(h)(1) holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emission 
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM 
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 
standards apply continuously.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in these rules. Consistent 
with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards in these rules apply at all 
times. We are also finalizing several revisions to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart YY and Table 1 to subpart OOO (the General Provisions 
applicability table), as is explained in more detail below. For 
example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General 
Provisions' requirement that sources develop an SSM plan. We have also 
eliminated and revised certain NESHAP recordkeeping and reporting that 
is related to the eliminated SSM exemption, as described in detail in 
the proposed rule and summarized again here.
    In establishing the standards in these final rule amendments, the 
EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the 
reasons explained below, has not established alternate standards for 
these periods for the AMF, APR and PC MACT standards. 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 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, malfunctions are 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. 
See 40 CFR 63.2. The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring 
emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into 
development of CAA section 112 standards. Under section 112, emission 
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level 
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and, for existing 
sources, generally must be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in 
the category. There is nothing in section

[[Page 60903]]

112 that directs the EPA to consider malfunctions in determining the 
level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when setting emission 
standards. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions 
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of '' sources 
``says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be 
calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 
1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in 
setting emission standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the EPA 
to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction should 
not be treated in the same manner as the type of variation in 
performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A 
malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or 
usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider 
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards 
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types 
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the source 
categories amended with this action, and 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 data-gathering 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-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification 
in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions during a 
malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any 
other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution 
control device with 99 percent removal goes off-line as a result of a 
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse 
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that 
would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99 percent 
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The 
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher 
than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day 
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source 
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for 
malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and 
significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret 
section 112 to avoid such a result. 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 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 standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that enforcement action 
against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, 
the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action 
and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is 
appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. 
Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can 
consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative 
penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and in particular, 
section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations.
    In several prior CAA section 112 rules and in the proposed rule, 
the EPA had included an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 
violations caused by malfunctions in an effort to create a system that 
incorporates some flexibility, recognizing that there is 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 
entirely beyond the control of the source. Although the EPA recognized 
that its case-by-case enforcement discretion provides sufficient 
flexibility in these circumstances, it included the affirmative defense 
to provide a more formalized approach and more regulatory clarity. See 
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 
(holding that an informal case-by-case enforcement discretion approach 
is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 
(9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more formalized approach to consideration 
of ``upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.''). Under the 
EPA's regulatory affirmative defense provisions, if a source could 
demonstrate in a judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met 
the requirements of the affirmative defense in the regulation, civil 
penalties would not be assessed. Recently, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an affirmative 
defense in one of the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 
No. 10-1371 (D.C. Cir. April 18, 2014) 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 
(vacating affirmative defense provisions in CAA section 112 rule 
establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). The court 
found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an affirmative defense 
for private civil suits and held that under the CAA, the authority to 
determine civil penalty amounts in such cases lies exclusively with the 
courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the Court found: ``As the language 
of the statute makes clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case 
basis, whether civil penalties are `appropriate.' '' See NRDC, 2014 
U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 at *21 (``[U]nder this statute, deciding whether 
penalties are `appropriate' in a given private civil suit is a job for 
the courts, not EPA.'').\2\ In

[[Page 60904]]

light of NRDC, the EPA is not including a regulatory affirmative 
defense provision in the final rule. As explained above, if a source is 
unable to comply with emission standards as a result of a malfunction, 
the EPA may use its case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide 
flexibility, as appropriate. Further, as the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recognized, in an EPA or 
citizen enforcement action, the court has the discretion to consider 
any defense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate. Cf. 
NRDC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 at *24. (Arguments that violations were 
caused by unavoidable technology failure can be made to the courts in 
future civil cases when the issue arises). The same is true for the 
presiding officer in EPA administrative enforcement actions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The court's reasoning in NRDC focuses on civil judicial 
actions. The court noted that ``EPA's ability to determine whether 
penalties should be assessed for Clean Air Act violations extends 
only to administrative penalties, not to civil penalties imposed by 
a court.'' Id.
    \3\ Although the NRDC case does not address the EPA's authority 
to establish an affirmative defense to penalties that is available 
in administrative enforcement actions, the EPA is not including such 
an affirmative defense in the final rule. As explained above, such 
an affirmative defense is not necessary. Moreover, assessment of 
penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in administrative 
proceedings and judicial proceedings should be consistent. CF. CAA 
section 113(e) (requiring both the Administrator and the court to 
take specified criteria into account when assessing penalties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Refer to the explanations below and section VII of this preamble 
and the comment summary and response document, available in the docket 
for this action, for further discussion regarding SSM-related changes 
made to the AMF, APR and PC MACT standards.
1. General Duty
    For the APR MACT standards, we are revising 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 removing this requirement at 40 
CFR 63.1108(a)(5). For the AMF, APR and PC MACT standards, we are 
instead adding 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 promulgating 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 revising 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 revising 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 removing 
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 
removing the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject 
to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a 
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample 
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and thus the SSM plan 
requirements are no longer necessary.
3. Compliance With Standards
    For the APR MACT standards, we are revising 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 revising 
standards in this rule to apply at all times.
4. Performance Testing
    For the APR MACT standards, we are revising 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 revising this 
requirement at 40 CFR 63.1108(b)(4)(ii). The EPA is instead adding a 
performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.1108(b)(4)(ii) and 
63.1413(a)(2). The performance testing requirements we are adding 
differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in 
several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that 
precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered 
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The revised 
performance testing provisions do not allow performance testing during 
periods of startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance 
tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during 
malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are not 
representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is adding 
language that requires the owner or operator to record the process 
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such 
conditions represent normal operation. 40 CFR 63.7(e) requires that the 
owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records ``as 
may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test'' 
available to the Administrator upon request, but does not specifically 
require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is 
adding to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit 
the requirement to record the information.
5. Monitoring
    For the APR MACT standards, we are revising the General Provisions 
applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart OOO) entries 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 adding 
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction to 40 CFR 63.1111(c)(1) 
and

[[Page 60905]]

63.1416(b). The EPA is applying the requirement 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 adding 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 quantity 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 product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available or engineering judgment based 
on known process parameters. The EPA is requiring 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 revising 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.'' 
40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for SSM. 
Similarly, for the AMF and PC source categories, we are also removing 
this requirement at 40 CFR 63.1111(b). To replace the General 
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is adding 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 
promulgating language that requires sources that fail to meet an 
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning 
such events in the semi-annual periodic report already required under 
these rules. We are promulgating that the report must contain the 
number, date, time, duration and cause of such events (including 
unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or 
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is promulgating 
this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to 
determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the 
failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may 
document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions 
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans will no longer be required. The final amendments 
therefore eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that 
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format 
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no 
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise 
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    For the APR MACT standards, we are revising 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 will no longer be required.

E. What other changes have been made to all three NESHAP?

1. Pressure Relief Devices
    PRDs are designed to remain closed during normal operation and only 
release as the result of unplanned and/or unpredictable events. A 
release from a PRD usually occurs during an over pressurization of the 
system. In some source configurations, emissions from PRDs are captured 
and routed to a control device, process, fuel gas system or drain 
system, and, therefore, do not result in a net increase of HAP 
emissions from the source than would otherwise be the case if the 
source met all other applicable HAP emission limits. However, emissions 
vented to the atmosphere by PRDs in organic HAP service contain HAP 
that are otherwise regulated under the MACT standards that apply to 
these source categories, and if such releases to the atmosphere occur 
there will be a net increase in source HAP emissions even if the source 
otherwise complies with all other applicable HAP limits.
    The original MACT standards for these source categories regulated 
PRDs through equipment leak provisions that applied only after the 
pressure release occurred. In addition, the rules followed the EPA's 
former practice of exempting SSM events from otherwise applicable 
emission standards. Consequently, the original MACT standards did not 
restrict emissions of organic HAP from PRDs to the atmosphere as a 
result of malfunction but instead treated them the same as all 
malfunctions through the SSM exemption provision.
    In Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the court 
determined that the SSM exemption violated the CAA. See section III.D 
of this preamble for additional discussion. To ensure these NESHAP are 
consistent with that decision, the final rule revisions remove the 
malfunction exemptions in each of the MACT standards and provide that 
emissions of organic HAP may not be discharged to the atmosphere from 
PRDs in organic HAP service. The prohibition does not apply to PRD 
releases of HAP that are captured and routed to a control device, 
process, fuel gas system or drain system.
    To ensure compliance with this amendment, we are also requiring 
that sources subject to these three MACT standards monitor PRDs in 
organic HAP service that release to the atmosphere by using a device or 
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. Owners or operators 
are required to keep records and report any pressure release and the 
amount of organic HAP released to the atmosphere with the next periodic 
report. As with the prohibition, this monitoring requirement does not 
apply to PRDs for which HAP releases are captured and routed to a 
control device, process, fuel gas system or drain system.
    Pressure release events from PRDs in organic HAP service to the 
atmosphere have the potential to emit large quantities of uncontrolled 
and unmeasured HAP. Where a pressure release occurs, it is important to 
identify and mitigate it as quickly as possible. As defined in the MACT 
standards, PRDs are valves used only to release unplanned, nonroutine 
discharges. A PRD discharge results from an operator error, a 
malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or other 
unexpected cause that requires immediate venting of gas from process 
equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. Even 
so,

[[Page 60906]]

to the extent that there are atmospheric HAP emissions from PRDs, we 
are required to follow the Sierra Club ruling to address those 
emissions in these rules, and we can no longer exempt them as 
permitted, uncontrolled and unmeasured malfunction emissions as we did 
under the previous MACT standards. This concern is not present in the 
case of PRDs for which HAP releases are captured and routed to a 
control device, process, fuel gas system or drain system, since in 
these situations there is no additional uncontrolled and unmeasured HAP 
emission occurring beyond that which is already subject to control or 
monitoring of the process unit. We recognize that HAP releases to the 
atmosphere from PRDs sometimes occur in order to protect systems from 
failures that could endanger worker safety and the systems that the 
PRDs are designed to protect. In the event that a source fails to 
comply with the applicable CAA section 112 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 standard was, in 
fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable'' and was not 
instead ``caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.'' 
40 CFR 63.1101 and 63.1402 (definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that enforcement action 
against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, 
the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action 
and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is 
appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. 
Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can 
consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative 
penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and in particular, 
section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations.
    Some sources are configured such that PRDs can be effectively used 
to address safety issues without consequently adding HAP emissions to 
the atmosphere beyond those that are otherwise allowed under applicable 
limits. We also recognize, however, that it is not always technically 
possible to route emissions from all PRDs to a control device, process, 
fuel gas system or drain system. With respect to these PRDs that vent 
to the atmosphere, instead, we have provided a balanced approach 
designed to minimize emissions while recognizing that these events may 
be unavoidable even in a well-designed and maintained (if, albeit, 
uncontrolled with respect to PRDs) system.
    For purposes of estimating the costs of the new requirement to 
monitor HAP releases to the atmosphere from PRDs, we assumed that 
operators would install electronic indicators on each PRD in organic 
HAP service that vents to the atmosphere (rather than to a control 
device, process, fuel gas system or drain system) to identify and 
record the time and duration of each pressure release. However, we are 
allowing owners or operators to use a range of methods to satisfy these 
requirements, including the use of a parameter monitoring system (that 
may already be in place) on the process system or piping that is 
sufficient to notify operators immediately that a release is occurring, 
as well as recording the time and duration of the pressure 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, $60,000 and $7,200 per year for the 
AMF, APR and PC source categories, respectively.
2. 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 
40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. The APR MACT standards at 40 CFR 63.1410 
also require that equipment leaks be controlled according to subpart 
UU. For open-ended valves and lines, subpart UU requires 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 UU, 
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 amending 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 clarify what is meant by ``seal.'' This amendment 
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.
3. Submission of Performance Test Data to the EPA
    As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA is taking a 
step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data 
accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and operators 
of AMF, APR and PC facilities to submit electronic copies of certain 
required performance test reports.
    Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic 
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an 
electronic performance test report tool called the Electronic Reporting 
Tool (ERT). The ERT will generate an electronic report package which 
will be submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can be found 
at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be 
accessed through the CDX Web site: (http://www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will 
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that 
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 
believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the 
performance test submittal process.

[[Page 60907]]

Additionally, this rulemaking benefits industry by reducing 
recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are submitted 
to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept in hard copy.
    State, local and tribal agencies may benefit from more streamlined 
and accurate review of performance test data that will become available 
to the public through WebFIRE. Additionally, performance test data will 
become available to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data 
publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more 
thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using 
direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided 
software, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 
control strategy development and other air pollution control 
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance 
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA 
significant time, money and effort while improving the quality of 
emission inventories and, air quality regulations.

F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards for all 
three source categories?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on October 8, 2014.
    The compliance date for existing AMF, APR and PC sources to comply 
with the revised SSM requirements (other than PRD monitoring) is the 
effective date of the standard, October 8, 2014. We are finalizing 
these compliance dates because these requirements should be immediately 
implementable by the facilities upon the next occurrence of a 
malfunction or a performance test that is required to be submitted to 
the ERT. Available information suggests that the facilities should 
already be able to comply with the existing standards during periods of 
startup and shutdown.
    The compliance date for AMF, APR and PC sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before January 9, 2014, to comply 
with the PRD monitoring requirements is 3 years from the effective date 
of the promulgated standards, October 9, 2017. This time is needed 
regardless of whether an owner or operator of a facility chooses to 
comply with the PRD monitoring provisions by installing PRD release 
indicator systems and alarms, employing parameter monitoring or by 
routing releases to a control device, process, fuel gas system or drain 
system. This time period will allow facilities to research equipment 
and vendors, purchase, install, test and properly operate any necessary 
equipment by the compliance date.
    The compliance date for existing AMF, APR and PC sources to comply 
with the operating and pressure release management requirements for 
PRDs, along with the other SSM-related revisions, is the effective date 
of the promulgated standards, October 8, 2014. We are finalizing 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.
    The compliance date for the one existing AMF source to comply with 
the new solution polymerization spinning line requirements is the 
effective date of the promulgated standards, October 8, 2014. This 
facility is already complying with these requirements and no additional 
time to come into compliance is warranted.
    The compliance date for existing APR sources to comply with the new 
MACT standards applicable to continuous process vents and storage 
vessels is 3 years from the effective date of the promulgated 
standards, October 9, 2017. This time period will allow facilities to 
purchase, install and test any necessary equipment.
    The compliance date for existing AMF and PC sources to comply with 
the revised equipment leak standards is 1 year from the effective date 
of the promulgated standards, October 8, 2015. Our data indicate that 
the one AMF facility and some of the PC facilities are currently 
complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT requirements and will need 
time to purchase, install and test any necessary equipment and modify 
their existing LDAR programs.
    New sources that commenced or commence construction or 
reconstruction after January 9, 2014, must comply with the all of the 
revised standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, 
October 8, 2014, or upon startup, whichever is later.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the AMF source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and finalized for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final 
decisions and amendments and a summary of key comments and responses. 
For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and 
the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response 
document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the AMF Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the AMF 
source category?
    For the AMF source category, 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 
target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) value was 0.1 and the 
estimated maximum off-facility site acute HQ value was 0.08, based on 
the actual emissions level and the AEGL-1 value for acrylonitrile. The 
total estimated national cancer incidence from the one AMF facility 
based on actual emission levels was 0.006 excess cancer cases per year 
or one case in every 170 years. The EPA proposed that no amendments 
were needed for this source category based on the risk review under CAA 
section 112(f). See 79 FR 1697-1700 (January 9, 2014).
2. How did the risk review change for the AMF source category?
    For the AMF source category, the risk review has not changed since 
proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    For the AMF source category, the comments received on the proposed 
risk review were generally supportive. A summary of these comments and 
our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the risk review?
    The results of the risk assessment for the AMF source category did 
not change from proposal and, therefore, they did not affect our 
determinations regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety. 
The full results of the risk assessment for the AMF source category can 
be found in the risk assessment documentation available in the docket 
for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for the source categories 
addressed in this final rule. Although uncertainty exists, we believe 
that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, 
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A discussion of the

[[Page 60908]]

uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates and dose-response relationships is 
provided in the preamble to the proposed rule. See 79 FR 1684 (January 
9, 2014).
    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 risk 
acceptability and ample margin of safety determination. Considering all 
of these factors, the EPA has determined that the risks from the AMF 
source category are acceptable and 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.

B. Technology Review for the AMF Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the AMF 
source category?
    For the AMF source category, the EPA proposed to eliminate the less 
stringent of two currently available options for complying with LDAR 
program requirements, while retaining the more stringent compliance 
requirement. The AMF MACT standards previously required compliance with 
either subpart TT or subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63 to control emissions 
from equipment leaks. As part of the technology review for the AMF 
source category, we proposed 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 proposed to 
retain the option to comply with either subpart TT or subpart UU for 
those components. See 79 FR 1700-1701.
2. How did the technology review change for the AMF source category?
    For the AMF source category, the technology review has not changed 
since proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    For the AMF source category, the comments received on the proposed 
technology review were generally supportive. A summary of these 
comments and our responses can be found in the comment summary and 
response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0133).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    The results of the technology review for the AMF source category 
did not change from proposal. Therefore the EPA is requiring AMF 
facilities to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU rather than 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart TT, with the exception of connectors in gas and vapor 
service and in light liquid service. Facilities continue to have the 
option to comply with either subpart TT or subpart UU for those 
components.

C. Sections 112(d)(2) & (3) Amendments for the AMF Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to sections 112(d)(2) & (3) for the AMF 
source category?
    For the AMF source category, the EPA identified the absence of an 
emissions limit for spinning lines that use a spin dope produced from a 
solution polymerization process at existing AMF facilities. Pursuant to 
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), we proposed to establish an emissions 
limit of 20 kg organic HAP-Mg (40 lb organic HAP-ton) of acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber produced for this emission point, which represented 
the MACT floor emissions limit. See 79 FR 1697.
2. How do the final amendments pursuant to sections 112(d)(2) & (3) 
differ from the proposal for the AMF source category?
    For the AMF source category, the emissions limit for spinning lines 
that use a spin dope produced from a solution polymerization process at 
existing AMF facilities has not changed since proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the amendments proposed pursuant 
to sections 112(d)(2) & (3) for the AMF source category, and what are 
our responses?
    For the AMF source category, the comments received on the proposed 
emissions limit for spinning lines that use a spin dope produced from a 
solution polymerization process at existing AMF facilities were 
generally supportive. A summary of these comments and our responses can 
be found in the comment summary and response document available in the 
docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the final 
amendments pursuant to sections 112(d)(2) & (3) for the AMF source 
category?
    The analysis of the emissions limit for spinning lines that use a 
spin dope produced from a solution polymerization process at existing 
AMF facilities did not change from proposal. Therefore, the EPA is 
establishing an emissions limit at the MACT floor for this emission 
point: 20 kg organic HAP-Mg (40 lb organic HAP-ton) of acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber produced.

V. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the 
APR source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and finalized for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final 
decisions and amendments and a summary of key comments and responses. 
For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and 
the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response 
document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the APR Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the APR 
source category?
    For the APR source category, 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 was 0.2 and the estimated maximum off-facility site acute hazard 
quotient (HQ) value was 10, based on the actual emissions level and the 
reference exposure level (REL) value for formaldehyde. The total 
estimated national cancer incidence from APR facilities based on actual 
emission levels was 0.001 excess cancer cases per year or one case in 
every 1,000 years. The EPA proposed that no amendments were needed for 
this source category based on the risk review under CAA section 112(f). 
See 79 FR 1703-1706.
2. How did the risk review change for the APR source category?
    For the APR source category, we received information indicating 
that an additional facility should have been included in the risk 
assessment for this source category. Using information submitted by 
this facility, we revised the risk assessment for this source category. 
The MIR increased from 9- to 20-in-1 million, the annual cancer 
incidence increased from 0.001 to 0.002

[[Page 60909]]

cases per year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value increased 
from 0.2 to 0.4, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value stayed the 
same at 10, based on the REL value for formaldehyde. Table 2 provides 
an overall summary of the revised inhalation risk assessment results 
for the APR source category.

                                                     Table 2--APR Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                   risk (in 1 million) \2\    Population      Annual              TOSHI \3\
   Number of    ---------------------------- at risk >=1-     cancer    ----------------------------
 facilities \1\     Actual       Allowable       in-1        incidence      Actual       Allowable        Maximum off-site acute  non-cancer HQ \4\
                   emissions     emissions      million     (cases per     emissions     emissions
                     level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            19            20            20        15,000         0.002           0.4           0.4   HQREL = 10 formaldehyde.
                                                                                                     HQAEGL	1 = 0.6 formaldehyde.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the APR source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The 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.

3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    For the APR source category, the comments received on the proposed 
risk review were generally supportive. A summary of these comments and 
our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the risk review?
    The results of the revised risk assessment did not significantly 
change the maximum risk levels to the most exposed individual for this 
source category and did not affect our determinations regarding risk 
acceptability and ample margin of safety. The full results of the 
revised risk assessment for this source category can be found in the 
risk assessment documentation available in the docket for this action 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for the source categories 
addressed in this final rule. Although uncertainty exists, we believe 
that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, 
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A discussion of the 
uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates and dose-response relationships is 
provided in the preamble to the proposed rule. See 79 FR 1684.
    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 risk 
acceptability and ample margin of safety determination. Considering all 
of these factors, the EPA has determined that the risks from the APR 
source category are acceptable and 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.

B. Technology Review for the APR Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the APR 
source category?
    For the APR source category, the EPA proposed to change the 
thresholds at which emission controls are required for storage vessels 
at new sources to be consistent with other storage vessel standards 
already required for the chemical industry regulated by the Hazardous 
Organic NESHAP for Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry 
(HON). We proposed to revise the applicability of the APR new source 
MACT standards to include smaller capacity storage vessels and/or 
storage vessels containing liquids with lower vapor pressures. An 
emissions reduction of 95 percent was proposed 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 was proposed to still 
be required for storage vessels of 90,000 gal or greater, if the MTVP 
is 0.15 psia or greater, as was previously required for storage vessels 
at new sources in the APR source category. See 79 FR 1706-1707.
2. How did the technology review change for the APR source category?
    For the APR source category, the technology review has not changed 
since proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    For the APR source category, the comments received on the proposed 
technology review were generally supportive. A summary of these 
comments and our responses can be found in the comment summary and 
response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0133).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    The results of the technology review for the APR source category 
did not change from proposal. Therefore the EPA is changing the 
thresholds at which emission controls are required for storage vessels 
at new sources to be consistent with other storage vessel standards 
already required for the chemical industry regulated by the HON. An 
emissions reduction of 95 percent is now required 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 is still required for 
storage vessels of 90,000 gal or greater, if the MTVP is 0.15 psia or 
greater, as was previously required for

[[Page 60910]]

storage vessels at new sources in the APR source category.

C. Sections 112(d)(2) & (3) Amendments for the APR Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to sections 112(d)(2) & (3) for the APR 
source category?
    For the APR source category, the EPA identified the absence of an 
emissions limit for storage vessels and continuous process vents at 
existing APR facilities. Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), 
for storage vessels, we proposed thresholds at which emission controls 
are required consistent with other storage vessel standards already 
required for the chemical industry regulated by the HON. An emissions 
reduction of 95 percent was proposed 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, 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, and for storage vessels of 90,000 gal or greater 
if the MTVP is 0.15 psia or greater. This represented a beyond-the-
floor level of control for storage vessels at existing facilities.
    Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), for continuous process 
vents, we proposed that existing facilities reduce organic HAP 
emissions 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. 
This represented the MACT floor level of control for continuous process 
vents at existing facilities. See 79 FR 1701-1703.
2. How did the final amendments pursuant to sections 112(d)(2) & (3) 
differ from the proposal for the APR source category?
    For the APR source category, the emissions limit for storage 
vessels at existing APR facilities has not changed since proposal. 
However, the emissions limit for continuous process vents at existing 
APR facilities has been revised to establish an emission limit of 0.95 
kg organic HAP/Mg (1.9 lb organic HAP/ton) of resin produced for 
continuous process vents.
3. What key comments did we receive on the amendments proposed pursuant 
to sections 112(d)(2) & (3) for the APR source category, and what are 
our responses?
    The following is a summary of the significant comments received on 
the proposed APR emissions limits and our responses to these comments. 
The complete list of the comments received and our responses to those 
comments can be found in the comment summary and response document 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
    Comment: One commenter states that when the EPA developed subpart 
OOO, the EPA declined to require controls for spray dryer continuous 
process vents for existing sources based on only one of three 
facilities with these process vents having emissions controls. The 
commenter notes the EPA concluded the MACT floor and existing source 
standard was no control, and control was only required for continuous 
process vents at new sources. The commenter notes that the EPA is now 
proposing standards for existing continuous process vents and states 
that the RTR process does not allow for the EPA to reconsider aspects 
of previously issued MACT standards unrelated to ``development in 
practices, processes and control technologies.'' The commenter states 
that the EPA can't merely change its mind about what standards are 
required to comply with CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), nor is it 
obligated to recalculate a MACT floor based on subsequent performance.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that we lack the authority to revise 
improperly set MACT floors. In Medical Waste Institute v. EPA, 645 F. 
3d 420, 425-27 (D.C. Cir. 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit Court held that the EPA may 
permissibly amend improper MACT determinations, including amendments to 
improperly promulgated floor determinations, using its authority under 
section 112(d)(2) and (3). The ``no control'' floor for HAP emitted 
from continuous process vents at existing APR sources is not proper. 
National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 633-34; see also Medical Waste Institute, 
645 F. 3d at 426 (resetting MACT floor, based on post-compliance data, 
permissible when the originally-established floor was improperly 
established, and permissibility of the EPA's action does not turn on 
whether the prior standard was remanded or vacated). Similarly, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
Court's December 9, 2011, decision in Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA 
(D.C. Cir. No. 10-1358) confirms that the EPA is not constrained by CAA 
section 112(d)(6), and it may reassess its standards more often, 
including revising existing floors if need be. A full discussion of our 
consideration of this issue and basis for determining that the MACT 
floor was improperly set is contained the preamble to the proposed rule 
at 79 FR 1703 (January 9, 2014).
    Comment: One commenter states that based on its knowledge of the 
industry, Georgia Pacific and Tembec are the only companies that 
currently manufacture APR and operate APR spray dryer continuous 
process vents, but it appears that the original MACT floor 
determination and the proposed provisions did not include two other 
Georgia Pacific facilities with continuous process vents. The commenter 
believes the EPA should revise its MACT floor analyses to include these 
facilities. The commenter further requests that if the EPA regulates 
emissions from spray dryer continuous process vents, that it establish 
an uncontrolled production-based emission limit. The commenter also 
requests that in establishing this limit, the EPA allow the calculation 
of uncontrolled production-based emissions rates that are based on the 
last 5 years of production, which would account for variability in the 
drying of multiple resin types.
    Response: The EPA has reviewed the new data submitted by the 
commenter and used these data to determine the revised MACT floor for 
continuous process vents at existing sources. In reviewing the data, 
the EPA determined that a production-based emission limit of 0.95 kg 
organic HAP/Mg (1.9 lb organic HAP/ton) of resin produced was 
appropriate, as discussed in section IV.C.4.b of this preamble. In 
setting this limit, the EPA used emissions data from the previous 5 
years submitted by all four affected facilities, which incorporates 
sufficient variability in the drying of multiple resin types. For 
further details on how the MACT floor was recalculated, see the 
technical memorandum titled, MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor for 
Existing Unregulated Emission Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins 
Production Source Category, available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the final 
amendments pursuant to sections 112(d)(2) & (3) for the APR source 
category?
a. Storage Vessels
    The analysis of the emissions limit for storage vessels at existing 
APR facilities has not changed since proposal. Therefore, the EPA is 
establishing an emissions limit for storage vessels consistent with 
other storage vessel standards already required for the chemical 
industry regulated by the HON. An emissions reduction of 95 percent is 
required for storage vessels of

[[Page 60911]]

capacities greater than or equal to 20,000 gal, but less than 40,000 
gal if the MTVP is 1.9 psia or greater, 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, and for storage vessels of 
90,000 gal or greater if the MTVP is 0.15 psia or greater.
b. Continuous Process Vents
    The analysis of the emissions limit for continuous process vents at 
existing APR facilities has been revised to reflect new data submitted 
by industry during the comment period. As part of their comments, 
Georgia Pacific identified two additional facilities as having 
continuous process vents, bringing the total to four facilities in the 
APR source category that have continuous process vents (Tembec in 
Toledo, OH, and Georgia Pacific facilities in Crossett, AR, 
Taylorsville, MS, and Conway, NC). All but one of the continuous 
process vents at these facilities come from dryers on the amino/
phenolic resin process unit (APPU). Based on historical emissions and 
production information submitted by these facilities, we have 
determined that the MACT floor for continuous process vents is an 
emission limit of 0.95 kg organic HAP/Mg (1.9 lb organic HAP/ton) of 
resin produced. For further details on how the MACT floor was 
calculated for continuous process vents, see the technical memorandum 
titled, MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor for Existing Unregulated 
Emission Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source 
Category, available in the docket for this action.
    As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we considered control 
options more stringent than the MACT floor and identified one such 
option. For the beyond-the-floor option, we evaluated the impact of 
requiring a 98-percent emissions reduction, assuming that a 
regenerative thermal oxidizer would be used to achieve this increased 
level of control.
    Table 3 presents the impacts for the MACT floor and the beyond-the-
floor option considered. As seen in Table 3, the MACT floor level of 
control is expected to reduce HAP emissions by approximately 135 tpy 
and have a cost effectiveness of $6,400/ton of HAP removed. For the 
beyond-the-floor option, we estimated the capital costs to be 
approximately $9 million, and the total annualized costs are estimated 
to be approximately $3 million. The estimated HAP emissions reduction 
is approximately 181 tpy, and the incremental cost effectiveness 
between the MACT floor and the beyond-the-floor option is approximately 
$74,000/ton.
    For further details on the assumptions and methodologies used in 
this analysis, see the technical memorandum titled, National Impacts 
Associated with the Final NESHAP for Existing Amino and Phenolic Resins 
Continuous Process Vents, available in the docket for this action.
    While, as discussed in section V.A above, 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 the beyond-the-floor 
option for continuous process vents would not reduce the MIR or the 
maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI for the source category because 
neither the MIR nor the non-cancer TOSHI is caused by emissions from 
continuous process vents.

           Table 3--Nationwide Emissions Reduction and Cost Impacts of Control Options for Continuous Process Vents at Existing APR Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Cost         Incremental cost
           Regulatory options              HAP emissions     Capital cost  (million $)      Annual cost  ($/yr)     effectiveness  ($/ effectiveness  ($/
                                          reduction  (tpy)                                                          ton HAP  removed)  ton  HAP removed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (MACT floor)..................                135  3.6 million...............  860,000...................              6,400  .................
Beyond-the-floor.......................                181  8.8 million...............  3.1 million...............             17,000             74,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, we do not believe the costs of the beyond-
the-floor option are reasonable, given the level of HAP emissions 
reduction that would be achieved with this control option. Therefore, 
we are revising the APR MACT standards to require the MACT floor level 
of control for continuous process vents at existing APR sources.

VI. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the PC source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and finalized for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final 
decisions and amendments and a summary of key comments and responses. 
For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and 
the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response 
document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the PC Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the PC source 
category?
    For the PC source category, 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 was 0.04 and the estimated maximum off-facility site acute 
HQ value was 2, based on the actual emissions level and the REL value 
for triethylamine. The total estimated national cancer incidence from 
PC facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.00008 excess cancer 
cases per year or one case in every 13,000 years. The EPA proposed that 
no amendments were needed for this source category based on the risk 
review under CAA section 112(f). See 79 FR 1707-1709.
2. How did the risk review change for the PC source category?
    For the PC source category, the risk review has not changed since 
proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    For the PC source category, the comments received on the proposed 
risk review were generally supportive. A summary of these comments and 
our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the risk review?
    The results of the risk assessment for the PC source category did 
not change

[[Page 60912]]

from proposal and therefore they did not affect our determinations 
regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety. The full 
results of the risk assessment for the PC source category can be found 
in the risk assessment documentation available in the docket for this 
action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for the source categories 
addressed in this final rule. Although uncertainty exists, we believe 
that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, 
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A discussion of the 
uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates and dose-response relationships is 
provided in the preamble to the proposed rule. See 79 FR 1684.
    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 risk 
acceptability and ample margin of safety determination. Considering all 
of these factors, the EPA has determined that the risks from the PC 
source category are acceptable and 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.

B. Technology Review for the PC Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the PC 
source category?
    For the PC source category, the EPA proposed to eliminate the less 
stringent of two currently available options for complying with LDAR 
program requirements--while retaining the more stringent compliance 
requirement. The PC MACT standards previously required compliance with 
either subpart TT or subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63 to control emissions 
from equipment leaks. As part of the technology review for the PC 
source category, we proposed 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 proposed to 
retain the option to comply with either subpart TT or subpart UU for 
those components. See 79 FR 1709-1710.
2. How did the technology review change for the PC source category?
    For the PC source category, the technology review has not changed 
since proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    For the PC source category, the comments received on the proposed 
technology review were generally supportive. A summary of these 
comments and our responses can be found in the comment summary and 
response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0133).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    The results of the technology review for the PC source category did 
not change from proposal. Therefore the EPA is requiring PC facilities 
to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU rather than 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TT, with the exception of connectors in gas and vapor service 
and in light liquid service. Facilities continue to have the option to 
comply with either subpart TT or subpart UU for those components.

VII. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments that 
apply to all three source categories?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and finalized for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final 
decisions and amendments and a summary of key comments and responses. 
For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and 
the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response 
document available in the docket.

A. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction

1. What did we propose for SSM?
    We proposed to eliminate the SSM exemption from all three source 
categories and that the existing or revised standards would apply at 
all times. We took into account startup and shutdown periods and did 
not propose alternate standards for those periods because facilities in 
these source categories did not indicate that they would be unable to 
comply with the standards during these times and our assessment of the 
control technology used confirms that the standards can be met during 
periods of startup and shutdown. We also proposed to add provisions for 
an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission 
standards in these rules that are caused by malfunctions. See 79 FR 
1710-1713.
2. How did the SSM provisions change?
    For the SSM provisions, we are still removing the SSM exemption and 
requiring that the existing standards apply at all times. In addition, 
we have added language to the AMF and PC MACT standards to clarify that 
excused excursions are not allowed. However, we are not finalizing the 
proposed affirmative defense provisions.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are 
our responses?
    The following is a summary of the significant comments received on 
the proposed SSM provisions and our responses to these comments. The 
complete list of the comments received and our responses to those 
comments can be found in the comment summary and response document 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
    Comment: Several commenters state that the proposal to eliminate 
the SSM provisions in the proposed subparts is not based on an accurate 
reading of the decision of the DC Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 
F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The commenters state that the EPA's 
proposal for the standards to apply at all times is not consistent with 
Sierra Club v. EPA, as the court did not hold that the EPA is 
prohibited from setting separate standards for periods of SSM that are 
different than the emission limits during normal operations but held 
that the standards for those periods must be developed according to the 
section 112(d) MACT process and must be proven to be achievable under 
section 112(d). The commenters add that there is ample precedent for 
the EPA applying a different standard during SSM events, and such a 
standard could include a design, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standard under section 112(h).
    One of the commenters notes that the definitions of ``emission 
limitation'' and ``emission standard'' have included provisions to 
limit ``quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants 
on a continuous basis'' since 1977, and since that time the EPA has not 
required sources to meet NSPS emission limits under CAA section 111 
established for normal operations during SSM events. The commenter adds 
that Congress enacted the ``continuous basis'' language in section 
302(k) knowing the EPA's emission standards under section 111 exempted 
SSM periods, and there is nothing in the

[[Page 60913]]

legislative history of the 1977 or 1990 amendments to the CAA that 
suggests Congress intended to overturn that practice. The commenter 
noted that case law has affirmed the appropriateness of including 
special SSM provisions in standards issued under section 111.
    Response: The EPA does not claim that the Sierra Club case or the 
CAA constrains its authority to prescribe different standards for 
periods of startup or shutdown or for periods of malfunction. However, 
as explained in the preamble to the proposed and final rules, the EPA 
has determined that CAA section 112 does not require that emissions 
that occur during periods of malfunction be factored into development 
of section 112 standards. The EPA's rationale for this view is 
explained in detail in the preamble as well.
    At proposal, we explained that the DC Court had recently vacated 
the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1) that 
are part of the CAA section 112 General Provisions. Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) cert. denied, 130 S. Ct 1735 (2010). We 
further explained that, when incorporated into section 112(d) 
regulations for specific source categories, these two provisions exempt 
sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable MACT 
standards during periods of SSM. We also explained that because these 
source categories rely on the General Provisions for SSM provisions, we 
were proposing to set standards that apply at all times, including 
during malfunctions. The EPA does not claim that the Sierra Club case 
constrains its authority to prescribe unique standards for SSM periods. 
Rather, the EPA's view is that this decision calls into question the 
legality of source category-specific SSM exemptions in rules 
promulgated pursuant to section 112.
    Further, in Medical Waste Institute v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 425-27 
(D.C. Cir. 2011), the DC Circuit Court held that the EPA may 
permissibly amend improper MACT determinations, including amendments to 
improperly promulgated floor determinations, using its authority under 
section 112(d)(2) and (3). The absence of standards for HAP emitted 
during SSM is not proper. National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 633-34; see also 
Medical Waste Institute, 645 F. 3d at 426 (resetting MACT floor, based 
on post-compliance data, permissible when the originally-established 
floor was improperly established, and permissibility of the EPA's 
action does not turn on whether the prior standard was remanded or 
vacated). Similarly, the DC Circuit Court's December 9, 2011, decision 
in Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1358) confirms that 
the EPA is not constrained by CAA section 112(d)(6), and it may 
reassess its standards more often, including revising existing floors 
if need be. The commenters are, thus, incorrect that CAA section 
112(d)(6) provides the exclusive authority to address standards that 
apply during SSM events. Here, the EPA adopted no MACT standard at all 
for HAP emitted during SSM, an approach soundly rejected by the DC 
Circuit Court in National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 633-34. Consequently, we 
have revised the standards so the emission limits of the rule apply at 
all times, including during periods of SSM. We believe this approach 
reasonably accommodates the requirements of the CAA and the Court's 
reasoning in Sierra Club.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters' suggestion that the existence of 
an SSM exemption in rules implementing CAA section 111 in 1977 when 
Congress enacted the ``continuous basis'' language in the definition of 
``emission standard'' is evidence that Congress approved of that 
regulatory SSM exemption. Commenters fail to cite legislative history 
or any other evidence supporting that Congress was aware or approved of 
that exemption and the Sierra Club decision makes clear that such 
exemptions are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
    Comment: One commenter states that the EPA has not justified adding 
new ``general duty'' language to the standards and should delete the 
new provisions. The commenter also states that the EPA lacks the 
authority to replace the previous reference to the General Provisions 
with somewhat different language in the individual subparts because 
these changes are not being proposed under 112(d)(6) or 112(f).
    Response: The EPA disagrees that it lacks the authority to make the 
changes proposed. We have eliminated the SSM exemptions in these three 
NESHAP, consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA. As noted previously, the 
EPA relies on the CAA and Sierra Club for the elimination of the SSM 
exemption. The EPA is not limited to adopting such changes by CAA 
sections 112(d)(6) or (f)(2), but retains ongoing authority to revise 
its prior adopted section 112(d)(2) and (3)-based standards whenever 
the agency identifies a flaw in such standards that renders them 
insufficient to meet the requirements of section 112(d)(2). See Medical 
Waste Institute v. EPA. The EPA explained in the proposal that we were 
adding language to this regulation to replace General Provision 
requirements that reference vacated SSM provisions (77 FR 1288, 1299, 
1302). The General Provisions ``general duty'' language that was 
previously referenced by these NESHAP includes language that is no 
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM 
exemption, so the EPA has modified the general duty requirements that 
were contained in 40 CFR 63.6(e) and placed them, modified, in 40 CFR 
63.1108(a)(4)(ii) and 63.1400(k)(4). The revised general duty 
requirement language 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 promulgating does 
not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    Comment: One commenter states that the past history of the SSM 
exemption and compliance problems for these source categories 
demonstrates a need for strong and more frequent monitoring, testing, 
and reporting requirements and enforcement provisions. The commenter 
declares that the EPA must implement enforcement provisions that 
prevent and remedy emission spikes, malfunctions, and other violations 
in a way that will be enforceable by citizens in the Title V permits 
for these source categories. The commenter further states that the EPA 
should review the proposed monitoring requirements and ensure they are 
stringent enough to enable easy assessment of whether a facility is in 
full compliance with the standards within a short period of time of any 
violation.
    Response: We believe that the removal of the SSM exemption will 
reduce compliance problems that may have been associated with the 
exemption and excess emission spikes, as facilities have an incentive 
to avoid the related violations and penalties, without the need to 
institute more frequent monitoring, testing, and reporting 
requirements. We further believe that the monitoring requirements 
included in these rules are sufficient to ensure compliance with the 
standards regardless of whether or when a violation occurs. Under the 
provisions of 40 CFR 63.15, the public can request access to reports 
submitted to the regulatory agency whenever they choose, with the 
exception of information protected through 40 CFR

[[Page 60914]]

part 2 (e.g., confidential business information). In addition, as 
discussed in section 4 below, we are promulgating requirements for 
electronic reporting of emissions test data that will improve public 
access to emissions information.
    Comment: One commenter states that additional requirements are 
needed for times of malfunctions, including requirements for automatic 
shut-off of malfunctioning equipment, requirements to assign 
responsibility to the plant manager or high-up staff member which 
allows only that person to restart the equipment, and requirements that 
corrective actions be taken immediately. The commenter also states that 
for a facility that has had one or more malfunction, exceedance, or 
other violation in the prior month, the facility must obtain written 
authorization from the EPA to restart the equipment, and the EPA should 
only authorize the restart after making a public determination that the 
facility has instituted the corrective measures the EPA requires. The 
commenter further asserts that for a facility with 4 or more 
exceedances or malfunctions in the same quarter, the EPA must require 
automatic shutdown of the operation for a period of time to conduct and 
publish a full investigation and ensure correction of the problem(s).
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the suggested 
additional requirements regarding malfunctions are necessary. The EPA 
believes that the monitoring requirements of the final rule are 
sufficient to ensure compliance with the emission standards, and that 
it is not necessary to prescribe when or who may restart equipment that 
has malfunctioned. With respect to the commenter's suggested reporting 
requirements, the reporting requirements in the final rules already 
require malfunction reporting. Any such reports submitted to the EPA 
are publicly available subject to the requirements of CAA section 
114(c).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for SSM?
    The EPA has determined not to finalize the proposed regulatory 
affirmative defense provisions due to a recent ruling by the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which 
vacated an affirmative defense in one of the EPA's Section 112(d) 
regulations. NRDC v. EPA, No. 10-1371 (D.C. Cir. April 18, 2014) 2014 
U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 (vacating affirmative defense provisions in 
Section 112(d) rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement 
kilns). For further discussion of the EPA's decision to not include the 
affirmative defense provisions in the final rule, see section III.D of 
this preamble.
    The EPA has also clarified in the AMF and PC MACT standards that 
the excused excursion provisions referenced in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
SS do not apply. An excursion occurs when the value for a monitored 
parameter falls outside the established range for that parameter. The 
provisions of subpart SS allow for each control device or recovery 
device to have one excursion for each semiannual period excused. The 
excused excursions were originally put in place to account for 
unanticipated operating parameter fluctuations. In keeping with the 
Sierra Club decision that emission standards or limitations must be 
continuous in nature, we have removed the provisions that would allow 
for one violation of the operating conditions for each control or 
recovery device to be excused each reporting period.

B. Pressure Relief Devices

1. What did we propose for PRDs?
    For all three source categories, we proposed that a pressure 
release of HAP emissions from a PRD in organic HAP service, unless 
routed to a control device or process, would be a violation. We also 
proposed 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, unless routed to a control 
device, process, fuel gas system or drain system. See 79 FR 1713-1714.
2. How did the PRD requirements change?
    We have clarified that a pressure release of HAP emissions to the 
atmosphere from a PRD in organic HAP service is prohibited, unless the 
PRD is designed and operated to route all pressure releases to a 
control device, process, fuel gas system or drain system. We also made 
other minor technical corrections, such as clarifying that the delay of 
repair provisions for PRDs after pressure releases still apply, and 
exempting PRDs that route to a fuel gas system or drain system from the 
PRD monitoring requirements and pressure release prohibition, similar 
to the provisions previously contained in subpart UU.
3. What key comments did we receive on the PRD requirements, and what 
are our responses?
    The following is a summary of the significant comments received on 
the proposed PRD requirements and our responses to these comments. The 
complete list of the comments received and our responses to those 
comments can be found in the comment summary and response document 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
    Comment: Several commenters urge the EPA to withdraw the proposed 
amendment that states PRD releases are violations of the standards. At 
a minimum, one commenter states that the word ``prohibited'' should be 
used rather than ``violation.'' Another commenter suggests this be 
rephrased to ``potential malfunction'' rather than ``violation.'' 
Several commenters state that at most, considering Sierra Club v. EPA, 
the EPA should establish work practices or emissions limits for PRDs. 
Several other commenters state that emissions from PRD release events 
should not be viewed differently than normal process emissions and that 
PRD releases should only be prohibited if they result in emissions that 
exceed the relevant standards in the rule. Another commenter adds that 
the provisions that claim releases are violations are inconsistent with 
CAA section 112(r)(7), which allows for the promulgation of release 
prevention, detection and correction requirements and with Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for PRDs in its 
Process Safety Management regulations.
    Response: The EPA partially agrees with the commenter and has 
revised the final PRD provisions to state that emissions of organic HAP 
from PRDs to the atmosphere are ``prohibited,'' rather than being a 
``violation.'' We disagree, however, with the commenters that the PRD 
provisions should be withdrawn or weakened in some way. While several 
commenters have suggested replacing the PRD release prohibition with a 
work practice standard, it is the EPA's position that separate 
standards for periods of malfunction are not appropriate in light of 
the 2008 Sierra Club ruling. In order for our treatment of malfunction-
caused emission releases to the atmosphere from PRDs to conform with 
the reasoning of the court's ruling, the final rule states that HAP 
emission releases to the atmosphere from PRDs in organic HAP service 
are prohibited. In any case, no commenters have provided emissions 
performance information regarding organic HAP releases to the 
atmosphere from PRDs that would enable us to conduct MACT floor and 
beyond-floor determinations, even if we believed it was appropriate to 
do so and set new standards for these devices, whether numeric or work-
practice.

[[Page 60915]]

Similarly, no commenters have provided us with information regarding 
the costs of requiring the use of control devices or other means of 
emissions limitation for these devices, in lieu of a prohibition of 
their releasing HAP to the atmosphere.
    Comment: Several commenters state that there is no applicable 
emission limit for PRD releases that would make a pressure release a 
violation. One commenter states that PRD releases are specifically 
excluded from the process vent definition in the GMACT, and the 
equipment leak LDAR limit of 500 ppm that applies when a pressure 
release is not occurring. Similarly, another commenter states that the 
EPA implies that process vent standards apply to PRDs but does not 
provide an explanation or justification for this implication. The 
commenter states that the EPA has not demonstrated that emissions from 
PRDs were characterized or considered when the process vent standards 
for the subject rules were adopted. Another commenter states that since 
there is no applicable emission limit for PRD pressure releases, the 
CAA does not authorize the proposed PRD monitoring requirements. The 
commenter states that the CAA only allows for monitoring to demonstrate 
compliance with an emission limit and does not authorize monitoring for 
malfunctions. For PRDs in liquid service, the commenter states that 
there is an emission limit for PRDs during normal operation in 40 CFR 
63.1029 of subpart UU, and the excess emission criterion in the 
malfunction definition could be met if the work practice requirements 
of that section were not met. The commenter states that a rulemaking is 
required to replace the work practice with a prohibition or emission 
limit, and the EPA would need to show the proper CAA authority and the 
required analyses for the change.
    Response: The final rule language no longer states that a pressure 
release from a PRD is a violation, but rather that such organic HAP 
releases to the atmosphere are prohibited. The amendments being 
finalized for PRD releases do not impose new emission standards for 
which a MACT analysis is required by the CAA. Instead, they prohibit 
releases to the atmosphere from PRDs in organic HAP service that are no 
longer appropriate following the 2008 Sierra Club v. EPA ruling, and 
impose additional monitoring requirements to address potential 
releases. The prohibition and monitoring requirements do not apply to 
PRD release emissions that are captured and routed to a control device, 
process, fuel gas system or drain system, since such emissions are not 
released to the atmosphere. As stated in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, pressure releases from PRDs in organic HAP service occur as a 
result of malfunctions, and so with the removal of the SSM exemption, 
these releases to the atmosphere may no longer be permitted.
    The commenters are correct in that there already exists an 
equipment leak standard for PRDs after a pressure release event, but 
there previously existed no provision that prevented a facility from a 
having such a pressure release to the atmosphere, nor was there a 
provision in place addressing these malfunction-related periods other 
than immediately after a pressure release event. The commenter is 
correct that there was previously no applicable emission limit in place 
for malfunction-caused emissions to the atmosphere from PRDs. As stated 
above, however, this does not allow the EPA to permit such malfunction 
emissions to remain unaddressed by the final rules. We also disagree 
with the commenter that the EPA is not authorized to monitor for 
emissions caused by such malfunctions, as there is nothing in the CAA 
that prohibits the agency from doing so. The EPA's authority under CAA 
section 114(a)(1) to require monitoring of emissions is not limited to 
the purpose of determining whether such emissions meet numeric 
emissions limits or work-practice standards.
    Comment: Several commenters state that the EPA added the PRD 
requirements without regard to the CAA section 112 MACT development 
process and without providing the legal justification, adequate record 
basis or technical justification. One commenter added that they did not 
believe that the EPA has a legal obligation nor the discretion to 
promulgate the proposed PRD provisions because the PRD monitoring and 
reporting requirements were not derived from the technology reviews, in 
response to any residual risks detected, or the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's invalidation of the SSM 
provisions in the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions. The commenters 
suggest that these revisions should be evaluated as part of the 
technology review, and the EPA should analyze the technical 
feasibility, potential emissions reductions and cost effectiveness of 
the revisions. Two commenters argue that the EPA provided no data to 
support the claim that a large number of releases occur and may emit 
large quantities of HAP, or to support the contention that releases are 
not being identified. Another commenter states that its PRD management 
system indicates releases from ruptured disks are not frequent and 
occur for a short period of time, and that the EPA's concern about 
venting to the atmosphere is unwarranted. Another commenter states that 
the EPA fails to provide any factual data to back up its assertion that 
HAP releases to the atmosphere from PRDs in these MACT source 
categories pose a significant potential environmental harm. The 
commenter notes that the EPA concluded there is no residual 
environmental risk from these MACT categories, and that PRDs play an 
important role in the safety and health of facility employees and 
surrounding communities.
    Response: Under CAA section 112(d)(2), the EPA must promulgate 
technology-based standards that reflect the maximum degree of emission 
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts), 
and such standards must contain compliance assurance provisions to make 
sure that they are practicably enforceable. Nothing in the CAA or its 
legislative history suggests that the EPA is prohibited from reviewing 
and revising MACT standards and their compliance assurance provisions, 
except as part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) or CAA section 112(f) 
reviews or an action taken in response to a ruling by a court. The 
amendments being finalized for PRD releases do not impose new emission 
standards for which a MACT analysis is required by the CAA. Instead, 
they prohibit previously allowed malfunction-related releases to the 
atmosphere from PRDs in organic HAP service that are no longer 
appropriate following the 2008 Sierra Club v. EPA ruling, and impose 
additional monitoring requirements to address potential releases.
    As noted in a report prepared by the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD), releases from PRDs occur randomly and the 
emissions can only be approximated. Based on their analysis of refinery 
PRD reports of PRD releases from nine facilities in their district, 
there were eight PRD releases from 2003 to 2006 that were estimated to 
release greater than 2,000 lbs of emissions to the atmosphere, and 
eight PRD releases from 2003 to 2006 that were estimated to release 
between 500 and 2,000 lbs of emissions to the atmosphere.\4\ The SCAQMD 
analysis

[[Page 60916]]

focuses on volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions (which would also 
include organic HAP emissions). Additionally, the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality Emission Event Reporting Database is populated 
with Emission Event Reports from both the refinery and chemical sectors 
where the reason for the report was due to a PRD release.\5\ These 
final amendments simply prohibit HAP emissions to the atmosphere and 
require that these devices now be monitored to indicate when these 
releases occur and be reported, so that HAP emissions that may 
potentially occur from releases can be mitigated as soon as possible. 
Additionally, the final rule requirement to report PRD releases to the 
atmosphere ensures that these releases will be reported nationally and 
not just in some states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ``Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1173--
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from 
Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants.'' Planning, 
Rule Development and Area Sources, South Coast Air Quality 
Management District. May 15, 2007.
    \5\ See http://www11.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agency generally remains free to revise previously promulgated 
rules to correct newly identified problems, even in the absence of a 
remand from a court. United Gas Improvement Co. v. Callery Props, Inc., 
382 U.S. 223, 229 (1966). In light of, and consistent with, the 2008 
Sierra Club v. EPA ruling, the EPA is eliminating the SSM exemption in 
the AMF, APR and PC MACT standards and requiring that the standards in 
these rules apply at all times, including during periods of SSM. In 
addition, in order for our treatment of malfunction-caused emission 
releases to the atmosphere from PRDs to conform with the reasoning of 
the Court's ruling, the final rule states that HAP emission releases to 
the atmosphere from PRDs in organic HAP service are prohibited. To 
prohibit these malfunction-caused releases, it is not necessary for us 
to set an emission standard that is based on a MACT floor or beyond-
the-floor analysis; indeed, the EPA has consistently explained that we 
are not required to take malfunctions into account in setting standards 
or to devise standards that apply specifically to malfunction-caused 
emissions, such as PRD releases that cause HAP emissions only during 
malfunctions.
    The final rule includes detection and pressure release management 
requirements that can be used by facilities to mitigate emissions 
during pressure release events from PRDs while allowing owners or 
operators flexibility based on their current equipment and operations. 
The final rule requires that sources monitor PRDs that release to the 
atmosphere using a system that is capable of identifying and recording 
the time and duration of each pressure release and of immediately 
notifying operators that a release is occurring.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the PRD 
requirements?
    In the proposal, we proposed to eliminate the SSM exemption from 
the standards. As part of removing this exemption, we stated that under 
the proposed revised rule releases to the atmosphere from PRDs would 
constitute violations of the revised rule. However, although we 
proposed revised regulatory text to add PRD monitoring requirements and 
eliminate the SSM exemptions from the rules, we omitted a proposed 
regulatory provision that would have given effect to the proposed 
intended prohibition of such PRD releases to the atmosphere. In order 
to give effect to the proposed prohibition, which we are finalizing in 
this action, we are adding express regulatory language in the final 
rule revisions that clarifies our intent that pressure releases from 
PRDs in organic HAP service to the atmosphere are prohibited. This is a 
necessary additional revision to give full effect to our elimination of 
the general exemption for malfunctions, in light of the Court's 
reasoning in Sierra Club, and is similar to revisions that we have made 
in other rules in which the SSM exemption has been eliminated (see, 
e.g., NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production (77 FR 
22848, April 17, 2012); and NESHAP: Group IV Polymers and Resins, 
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, and Polyether Polyols 
Production (79 FR 17340, March 27, 2014)). This prohibition does not, 
however, apply to PRD releases of HAP that are captured and routed to a 
control device, process, fuel gas system or drain system, since in 
these situations there is no additional uncontrolled and unmeasured HAP 
emission occurring beyond that which is already subject to control or 
monitoring of the process unit. For additional discussion on our 
rationale for this approach, see section III.E.1 of this preamble.

C. Open-Ended Valves and Lines

1. What did we propose for open-ended valves and lines?
    For all three source categories, we proposed to add a definition of 
``seal,'' which clarified 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. See 79 FR 1715.
2. How did the definition of ``seal'' change?
    For the definition of ``seal'', we have added provisions that 
clarify that the revised definition does not take effect until the 
effective date of the final rule.
3. What key comments did we receive on the definition of ``seal'', and 
what are our responses?
    The following is a summary of the significant comments received on 
the proposed definition of ``seal'' and our responses to these 
comments. The complete list of the comments received and our responses 
to those comments can be found in the comment summary and response 
document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0133).
    Comment: Several commenters believe the EPA must show that imposing 
a new emissions limits for open-ended lines is justified according to 
the criteria of CAA section 112(d)(6), including the technical 
feasibility, potential emission reductions and cost effectiveness. One 
commenter adds that the proposed open-ended lines change fails to 
satisfy the obligation under CAA section 307(d)(3) to present a summary 
of the legal basis, factual data and analysis methods on which the 
proposal is based. Similarly, two other commenters state that the EPA 
failed to provide new data or rationale showing that the definition of 
``seal'' is needed for compliance assurance or to relieve regulatory 
uncertainty, relying only on enforcement inspections referenced in the 
2007 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV rulemaking in which monitoring open-
ended lines was determined not to be the best demonstrated technology. 
Another commenter states that such a change must be supported by a CAA 
authorization and a record that complies with the CAA, Administrative 
Procedures Act (APA), Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA) requirements.
    In contrast, another commenter states that the EPA's proposed 
definition for a ``seal'' is actually a new loophole that would exempt 
leaks from open-ended valves or lines below 500 ppm from the standards. 
The commenter contends this definition is another type of exemption 
similar to the SSM exemption the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit found unlawful, and the EPA should not 
finalize the definition as proposed.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that we are 
imposing a new emissions limit for open-ended lines. As

[[Page 60917]]

stated in the preamble for the proposed rule, the definition of 
``seal'' was intended to clarify an existing requirement that open-
ended lines be sealed with no detectable emissions (500 ppm above 
background). This is consistent with how OECA has interpreted the term 
``seal'' during their inspections and is not, as asserted by the 
commenters, a new requirement. By creating a formal definition for 
``seal,'' the EPA is removing any ambiguity regarding what constitutes 
a ``sealed'' open-ended line.
    The EPA also disagrees with the commenter that adding a definition 
of ``seal'' creates a new loophole for open-ended lines. As discussed 
in the preamble to the proposed rule and elsewhere in this preamble, 
this revision clarifies an existing requirement that open-ended lines 
be sealed with no detectable emissions, which is defined to be 500 ppm.
    Comment: One commenter states that by claiming that the new 
definition of ``seal'' is only a clarification of the current 
requirements, this would make the interpretation applicable 
retroactively. The commenter claims this would affect not only the 
industries addressed in the current rulemaking, but all industries 
subject to subpart UU and any similar open-ended lines equipment leak 
requirements, including 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV, VVa, GGG, GGGa, 
and 40 CFR part 63, subparts H and TT. This commenter and another 
commenter state that such a change must be made in the individual 
equipment leak rules and only apply prospectively.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that the definition of ``seal'' 
proposed in the AMF, APR and PC MACT standards would affect all 
industries subject to subpart UU and other similar equipment leak 
requirements. The proposed definition of ``seal'' was clear that it 
only applied to facilities subject to the AMF, APR and PC MACT 
standards who are complying with the LDAR provisions of subpart UU. It 
is incorrect to assert that this would imply that any other rules 
referencing subpart UU (or similar LDAR provisions) would also be 
affected by this clarification. However, to address concerns from the 
commenters on retroactive compliance, we have added in the final rules 
that the clarification of the definition of ``seal'' does not apply 
until the effective date of the final rules, and therefore will not 
apply retroactively.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the definition of 
``seal''?
    In the proposal, we proposed a definition of ``seal'' that 
clarified what constituted a sealed open-ended line. However, we did 
not include an effective date for this revised definition. In order to 
address concerns about potential retroactive compliance issues, we have 
added language to the final definition that clarifies that the 
definition of ``seal'' does not take effect until the effective date of 
the final rule.

VIII. 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 final amendments. We estimate there is one 
existing facility subject to the AMF MACT standards, 19 existing 
facilities subject to the APR MACT standards and four 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 revised 
MACT standards for these three source categories.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

1. AMF Source Category
    For equipment leaks, we are eliminating the option of complying 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT and requiring facilities to comply with 
only 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, except for connectors in gas and vapor 
service and in light liquid service. We are retaining 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 finalizing 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 revisions to the MACT standards regarding SSM, including 
monitoring of PRDs in organic HAP service, we expect that these changes 
will result in fewer emissions during these periods or less frequent 
periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction, but 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 final 
standards for the AMF source category are 0.2 tpy.
2. APR Source Category
    Four facilities in the APR source category have uncontrolled 
continuous process vents. We are finalizing standards that establish an 
emission limit of 0.95 kg organic HAP/Mg (1.9 lb organic HAP/ton) of 
resin produced, which represents the MACT floor level of control. The 
estimated HAP emission reductions for these four facilities are 135 
tpy.
    We are establishing emission standards for storage vessels at 
existing facilities. However, our data indicate that all storage 
vessels subject to the final standards are already in compliance, and 
no quantifiable emission reductions are expected.
    For the revisions to the MACT standards regarding SSM, including 
monitoring of PRDs in organic HAP service, we expect that these changes 
will result in fewer emissions during these periods or less frequent 
periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction, but 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 final 
standards for the APR source category are 135 tpy.
3. PC Source Category
    For equipment leaks, we are eliminating the option of complying 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT and requiring facilities to comply with 
only 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, except for connectors in gas and vapor 
service and in light liquid service. We are retaining the option to 
comply with subpart TT or subpart UU for these components. We estimate 
the HAP emission reductions for the four facilities in the PC source 
category to be 2.1 tpy.
    For the revisions to the MACT standards regarding SSM, including 
installation and operation of monitors on PRDs, we expect that these 
changes will result in fewer emissions during these periods or less 
frequent periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction, but 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 final 
standards for the PC source category are 2.1 tpy.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Though the cost savings cannot be monetized, consistent with 
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 
issued on January 18, 2011, the electronic reporting requirements being 
finalized

[[Page 60918]]

in this action for performance test reports are expected to reduce the 
burden for the AMF, APR and PC facilities in the future by cutting back 
on the recordkeeping costs and the costs that would be associated with 
fewer or less-substantial data collection requests (due to performance 
test information being readily available on the EPA's WebFIRE 
database). Although the use of electric reporting may reduce the 
recordkeeping and reporting burden for facilities in the future, 
facilities will still incur annualized costs, on net, due to these 
final amendments.
1. AMF Source Category
    For equipment leaks, we are eliminating the option of complying 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT and requiring facilities to comply with 
only 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, except for connectors in gas and vapor 
service and in light liquid service. We are retaining the option to 
comply with subpart TT or subpart UU for these components. We estimate 
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 finalizing 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 the final standard.
    For the requirement 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
    Four facilities in the APR source category have uncontrolled 
continuous process vents. We are finalizing standards that establish an 
emission limit of 0.95 kg organic HAP/Mg (1.9 lb organic HAP/ton) of 
resin produced for continuous process vents. The estimated capital 
costs for these four facilities are $3.6 million and the annualized 
costs are $860,000.
    We are establishing emission standards for storage vessels at 
existing facilities. However, our data indicate that all storage 
vessels subject to the final standards are already in compliance, and 
no capital or annual costs are expected.
    For the requirement to install and operate monitors on PRDs, we 
estimate the capital costs to be $400,000 and the annualized costs to 
be $60,000.
    Therefore, the total capital costs for the APR source category are 
approximately $4.0 million, and the total annualized costs are 
approximately $920,000.
3. PC Source Category
    For equipment leaks, we are eliminating the option of complying 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT and requiring facilities to comply with 
only 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, except for connectors in gas and vapor 
service and in light liquid service. We are retaining 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 requirement 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 final 
amendments. This is based on the costs of the rules and responsiveness 
of producers and consumers based on supply and demand elasticities for 
the industries affected by this final rule. 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 final 
rule.

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 final rule 
will provide benefits to public health. The final 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. 
Regarding SSM and PRDs, these changes will result in fewer emissions 
during SSM periods and PRD releases or less frequent SSM periods or PRD 
releases. However, the emission reductions, while tangible, are 
difficult to quantify and are not included in our assessment of health 
benefits. We have not quantified the monetary benefits associated with 
these reductions.

F. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?

1. AMF Source Category
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice (EJ) issues 
that might be associated with the AMF source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis of the population close to the one AMF 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 results of 
the risk assessment for the AMF source category have not changed since 
proposal, and we did not conduct a new demographics analysis. Therefore 
the results of our original demographics analysis have not changed 
since proposal. The full results of the demographic analysis are 
summarized in the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 1699), and the 
methodology and the results of the demographic analyses are included in 
a technical report, Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Acrylic and Modacrylic Fiber Facilities, available in the 
docket for this action.
2. APR Source Category
    To gain a better understanding of the source categories and near-
source populations, prior to proposal, the EPA conducted a proximity 
analysis of the facilities in the APR source category to identify any 
overrepresentation of minority, low income or indigenous populations. 
As part of the risk modeling effort conducted after proposal to include 
the additional APR facility, to examine the potential for any EJ issues 
that might be associated with the APR source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis of the population close to the 19 APR facilities. 
In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer 
and non-cancer risks from the APR 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, Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Polymers and Resins III Facilities, available in the

[[Page 60919]]

docket for this action. The results of the demographic analysis are 
summarized in Table 4 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 4--APR Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population
                                                                                    with cancer     Population
                                                                    Nationwide      risk at or     with chronic
                                                                                   above 1-in-1    hazard index
                                                                                      million         above 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     312,861,256          14,857               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................             72%             23%              0%
All Other Races.................................................             28%             77%              0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................             72%             23%              0%
African American................................................             13%             71%              0%
Native American.................................................            1.1%            1.7%              0%
Other and Multiracial...........................................             14%              4%              0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ethnicity by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic........................................................             17%              3%              0%
Non-Hispanic....................................................             83%             97%              0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................             14%             27%              0%
Above Poverty Level.............................................             86%             73%              0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma.........................             15%             21%              0%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................             85%             79%              0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the APR source category demographic analysis 
indicate that emissions from the APR source category expose 
approximately 15,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million 
and zero people to a chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1. The 
specific demographic results indicate that the percentage of the 
population potentially impacted by APR emissions is significantly 
greater than its corresponding national percentage for the minority 
population (77 percent for the source category compared to 28 percent 
nationwide) and for the African American population (71 percent for the 
source category compared to 13 percent nationwide). Furthermore, the 
population below the poverty level that is potentially impacted by APR 
emissions is twice its corresponding national percentage (27 percent 
for the source category compared to 14 percent nationwide). Other 
demographic groups with source category percentages greater than the 
corresponding national percentage include the population over 25 
without a high school diploma (21 percent compared to 15 percent), the 
Native American population (1.7 percent compared to 1.1 percent), and 
the population younger than 18 years old (27 percent compared to 24 
percent). All other demographic categories potentially impacted by APR 
emissions are less than or equal to the corresponding national 
percentage. However, as noted previously, risks from this source 
category were found to be acceptable for all populations. Additionally, 
the final changes to the APR MACT standards increase the level of 
environmental protection for all affected populations by reducing 
emissions from continuous process vents, reducing emissions during 
periods of SSM and having less frequent releases of organic HAP to the 
atmosphere from PRDs.
3. PC Source Category
    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 showed 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 the risk 
assessment for the PC source category have not changed since proposal 
and we did not conduct a new proximity analysis. 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.''

IX. 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,

[[Page 60920]]

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 
The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB 
approves them. The information requirements in this rulemaking are 
based on the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 
the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 
mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. 
These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically 
authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 
submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is 
safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 
subpart B.
    The OMB previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the existing regulations being amended with this final 
rule (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts YY and OOO) under the provisions 
of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Burden is 
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
1. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
    The information collection request (ICR) document prepared by the 
EPA for the amendments to the AMF MACT standards we are promulgating 
today has been assigned EPA ICR number 1871.08. Burden changes 
associated with these final amendments result from new recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements associated with requirements for spinning 
lines that use spin dope produced from a solution polymerization 
process and the PRD monitoring requirements for all facilities subject 
to the AMF MACT standards.
    We estimate one regulated facility is currently subject to the AMF 
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, 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 82 labor hours at a cost of 
$4,500 per year. There is no estimated change in annual burden to the 
federal government for these amendments.
2. Amino/Phenolic Resins Production
    The ICR document prepared by the EPA for the amendments to the APR 
MACT standards we are promulgating today has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 1869.09. Burden changes associated with these final amendments 
result from new recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated 
with the PRD monitoring requirements for all facilities subject to the 
APR MACT standards. In addition, we estimate that 3 regulated 
facilities will be subject to recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring 
requirements associated with the new requirements that apply to 
continuous process vents at existing APR facilities.
    We estimate 19 regulated facilities are currently subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, 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 1,243 labor hours at a cost of 
$69,500 per year. There is no estimated change in annual burden to the 
federal government for these amendments.
3. Polycarbonate Production
    The ICR document prepared by the EPA for the amendments to the PC 
MACT standards we are promulgating today has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 1871.08. Burden changes associated with these final amendments 
result from new recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated 
with the PRD monitoring requirements for all facilities subject to the 
MACT standards.
    We estimate four regulated facilities are currently subject to the 
PC requirements in 40 CFR part 63, 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.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When these ICR 
are approved by OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 
40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 
numbers for the approved information collection requirements contained 
in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the RFA or any other 
statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. According to the SBA small business 
standards definitions, for the 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 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 final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no 
affected small businesses in 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.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless 
has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities that 
could potentially be impacted by this rule in the future. The final 
requirements for PRD monitoring provide facilities with greater 
flexibility based on their current equipment and operations.

[[Page 60921]]

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 or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
The total annualized cost of this rule is estimated to be no more than 
$1,050,000 in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(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. The rule contains 
no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose 
obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final 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. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by state governments, and the requirements 
discussed in this document will not supersede state regulations that 
are more stringent. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have 
substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the federal government and Indian tribes or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian 
tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this action. Although Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this action, the EPA solicited comments on this 
action from tribal officials, but received none.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined 
in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. This action 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 final 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.

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 action 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 final 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. The EPA has determined 
that the current health risks posed by emissions from these source 
categories are acceptable and provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects.
    To gain a better understanding of the source categories and near 
source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis of the 
facilities in the AMF, 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. The complete proximity 
analysis results and the details concerning their development are 
presented in the memorandum titled, Environmental Justice Review: 
Amino/Phenolic Resins, Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, and 
Polycarbonate Production, available in the docket for this action. For 
the AMF and APR source categories, we also performed demographic 
analyses of the populations close to AMF and APR facilities. In these 
analyses, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and non-
cancer risks from the AMF and APR source categories across different 
social, demographic and economic groups within the populations living 
near facilities identified as having the highest risks. The complete 
demographic analyses results and the details concerning their 
development are presented in the technical reports titled, Analysis of 
Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Acrylic and 
Modacrylic Fiber Facilities and Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Polymers and Resins III Facilities, available 
in the docket for this action.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides

[[Page 60922]]

that, before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule 
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each 
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. The EPA will submit a report containing this final rule and 
other required information to the United States Senate, the United 
States House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective on 
October 8, 2014.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 16, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is amending Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:

PART 63-NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
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

0
2. Section 63.1100 is amended by revising the last sentence of 
paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1100  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * Paragraphs (d)(3), (4), and (5) of this section discuss 
compliance for those process units operated as flexible operation 
units.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.1101 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the terms 
``Pressure release'' and ``Pressure relief device or valve'' to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1101  Definitions.

* * * * *
    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.
    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.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.1102 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (a) introductory text and adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1102  Compliance schedule.

    (a) * * * Affected sources, as defined in Sec.  63.1103(a)(1)(i) 
for acetyl resins production, Sec.  63.1103(b)(1)(i) for acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber production, Sec.  63.1103(c)(1)(i) for hydrogen 
fluoride production, Sec.  63.1103(d)(1)(i) for polycarbonate 
production, Sec.  63.1103(e)(1)(i) for ethylene production, Sec.  
63.1103(f)(1)(i) for carbon black production, Sec.  63.1103(g)(1)(i) 
for cyanide chemicals manufacturing, or Sec.  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 paragraphs (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 Sec.  63.1107(e)(3) upon initial startup or October 9, 2017, 
whichever is later, and the equipment leaks requirements of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart UU upon initial startup or October 8, 2015, 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 Sec.  63.1107(e)(3) 
upon initial startup or by October 8, 2014, whichever is later.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.1103 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii);
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2), adding in alphabetical order the terms ``In 
organic hazardous air pollutant or in organic HAP service'' and 
``Seal'';
0
c. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), in Table 2, revising entries 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 
6, and 7 and adding entry 11;
0
d. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (b)(3)(ii);
0
e. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), revising Table 3;
0
f. Revising paragraph (b)(5);
0
g. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii);
0
h. In paragraph (d)(2), adding in alphabetical order the terms ``In 
organic hazardous air pollutant or in organic HAP service'' and 
``Seal''; and
0
i. In paragraph (d)(3), in Table 5, revising entries 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 
9, and adding entries 10 and 11, and in Table 6, revising entries 4 and 
5 and adding entries 6 and 7.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1102.
    (2) Definitions.
* * * * *
    In organic hazardous air pollutant or in organic HAP service means, 
for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources, that a 
piece of equipment either contains or contracts a fluid (liquid or gas) 
that is at least 10 percent by weight of total organic HAP as 
determined according to the provisions of Sec.  63.180(d). The 
provisions of Sec.  63.180(d) also specify how to determine that a 
piece of equipment is not in organic HAP service.
* * * * *
    Seal means, for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected 
sources complying with the requirements of Sec.  63.1033(b) or Sec.  
63.167(a) on or after October 8, 2014, that instrument monitoring of 
the open-ended valve or line conducted according to the method 
specified in Sec.  63.1023(b) and, as applicable, Sec.  63.1023(c), or 
Sec.  63.180(b) and, as applicable, Sec.  63.180(c), indicates no 
readings of 500 parts per million or greater.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *

[[Page 60923]]

Table 2 to Sec.   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 . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage vessel...........  The stored         a. Reduce emissions
                                 material           of organic HAP by 98
                                 contains organic   weight-percent by
                                 HAP.               venting emissions
                                                    through a closed
                                                    vent system to any
                                                    combination of
                                                    control device
                                                    meeting the
                                                    requirements of
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part, as specified
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.982(a)(1)
                                                    (storage vessel
                                                    requirements), or 95
                                                    weight-percent or
                                                    greater by venting
                                                    through a closed
                                                    vent system to a
                                                    recovery device
                                                    meeting the
                                                    requirements of
                                                    subpart SS, Sec.
                                                    63.993 (recovery
                                                    device
                                                    requirements); or
                                                   b. Comply with the
                                                    requirements of
                                                    subpart WW of this
                                                    part.
2. A process vent from          The vent steam     a. Reduce emissions
 continuous unit operations      has a mass         of organic HAP or
 (halogenated).                  emission rate of   TOC as specified for
                                 halogen atoms      nonhalogenated
                                 contained in       process vents from
                                 organic            continuous unit
                                 compounds >=0.45   operations (other
                                 kilograms per      than by using a
                                 hour,\a\ and an    flare) by venting
                                 organic HAP        emissions through a
                                 concentration      closed vent system
                                 >=50 parts per     to a halogen
                                 million by         reduction device
                                 volume \b\ and     meeting the
                                 an average flow    requirements of
                                 rate >=0.005       subpart SS of this
                                 cubic meters per   part, Sec.   63.994
                                 minute.            (halogen reduction
                                                    devices
                                                    requirements) that
                                                    reduces hydrogen
                                                    halides and halogens
                                                    by 99 weight-percent
                                                    or to less than 0.45
                                                    kilograms per year,
                                                    whichever is less
                                                    stringent; or
                                                   b. Reduce the process
                                                    vent halogen atom
                                                    mass emission rate
                                                    to less than 0.45
                                                    kilograms per hour
                                                    by venting emissions
                                                    through a closed
                                                    vent system to a
                                                    halogen reduction
                                                    device meeting the
                                                    requirements of
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part, Sec.   63.994
                                                    (halogen reduction
                                                    devices
                                                    requirements) and
                                                    then complying with
                                                    the requirements
                                                    specified for
                                                    process vents from
                                                    continuous unit
                                                    operations
                                                    (nonhalogenated).
3. A process vent from          The vent steam     a. Reduce emissions
 continuous unit operations      has a mass         of organic HAP by
 (nonhalogenated).               emission rate of   using a flare
                                 halogen atoms      meeting the
                                 contained in       requirements of
                                 organic            subpart SS of this
                                 compounds =50 parts per     weight-percent, or
                                 million by         reduce TOC to a
                                 volume \b\ and     concentration of 20
                                 an average flow    parts per million by
                                 rate >=0.005       volume, whichever is
                                 cubic meters per   less stringent, by
                                 minute.            venting emissions
                                                    through a closed
                                                    vent system to any
                                                    combination of
                                                    control devices
                                                    meeting the
                                                    requirements of
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part, as specified
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.982(a)(2)
                                                    (process vent
                                                    requirements).
4. A fiber spinning line that   The lines use a    a. Reduce organic HAP
 is a new or reconstructed       spin dope          emissions by 85
 source.                         produced from      weight-percent or
                                 either a           more. (For example,
                                 suspension         you may enclose the
                                 polymerization     spinning and washing
                                 process or         areas of the
                                 solution           spinning line (as
                                 polymerization     specified in
                                 process.           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 of this
                                                    part, as specified
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.982(a).); or
                                                   b. Reduce organic HAP
                                                    emissions from the
                                                    spinning line to
                                                    less than or equal
                                                    to 0.25 kilograms of
                                                    organic HAP per
                                                    megagram (0.5 pounds
                                                    of organic HAP per
                                                    ton) of acrylic and
                                                    modacrylic fiber
                                                    produced; or
                                                   c. Reduce the organic
                                                    HAP concentration of
                                                    the spin dope to
                                                    less than 100 ppmw.
5. A fiber spinning line that   The spinning line  Reduce organic HAP
 is an existing source.          uses a spin dope   emissions from the
                                 produced from a    spinning line to
                                 solution           less than or equal
                                 polymerization     to 20 kilograms of
                                 process.           organic HAP per
                                                    megagram (40 pounds
                                                    of organic HAP per
                                                    ton) of acrylic and
                                                    modacrylic fiber
                                                    produced.
6. A fiber spinning line that   The spinning line  a. Reduce the organic
 is an existing source.          uses a spin dope   HAP concentration of
                                 produced from a    the spin dope to
                                 suspension         less than 100 ppmw;
                                 polymerization     \b\ or
                                 process.          b. Reduce organic HAP
                                                    emissions from the
                                                    spinning line to
                                                    less than or equal
                                                    to 0.25 kilograms of
                                                    organic HAP per
                                                    megagram of acrylic
                                                    and modacrylic fiber
                                                    produced.
7. Equipment as defined under   It contains or     a. Comply with either
 Sec.   63.1101 (with the        contacts >=10      Sec.   63.1008 or
 differences for pressure        weight-percent     Sec.   63.1027 for
 relief devices described in     organic HAP,\c\    connectors in gas
 item 11 below).                 and operates       and vapor service
                                 >=300 hours per    and in light liquid
                                 year.              service, and comply
                                                    with the
                                                    requirements of
                                                    subpart UU of this
                                                    part, except Sec.
                                                    63.1030, for all
                                                    other applicable
                                                    equipment; or
                                                   b. Comply with the
                                                    requirements in
                                                    subpart H of this
                                                    part, except Sec.
                                                    63.165, as provided
                                                    by the regulatory
                                                    overlap provisions
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.1100(g)(4)(ii).
 
                              * * * * * * *
11. Pressure relief devices...  The pressure       Comply with Sec.
                                 relief device is   63.1107(e).
                                 in organic HAP
                                 service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (ii) * * * The owner or operator must determine the facility 
organic HAP emission rate using the procedures specified in paragraph 
(b)(5) of this section. * * *

[[Page 60924]]

 Table 3 to Sec.   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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Then you must control total organic HAP
 If you own or operate . . .   emissions from the affected source by . .
                                                   .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An acrylic and modacrylic   Meeting all of following requirements:
 fibers production affected    a. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
 source and your facility is    from all affected storage vessels,
 an existing source.            process vents, wastewater streams
                                associated with the acrylic and
                                modacrylic fibers production process
                                unit as defined in paragraph (b)(2) of
                                this section, and fiber spinning lines
                                operated in your acrylic and modacrylic
                                fibers production facility to less than
                                or equal to 0.5 kilograms (kg) of
                                organic HAP per megagram (Mg) of fiber
                                produced.
                               b. Determine the facility organic HAP
                                emission rate in accordance with the
                                requirements specified in paragraph
                                (b)(5) of this section.
2. An acrylic and modacrylic   Meeting all of following requirements:
 fibers production affected    a. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
 source and your facility is    from all affected storage vessels,
 a new source.                  process vents, wastewater streams
                                associated with the acrylic and
                                modacrylic fibers production process
                                unit as defined in paragraph (b)(2) of
                                this section, and fiber spinning lines
                                operated in your acrylic and modacrylic
                                fibers production facility to less than
                                or equal to 0.25 kilograms (kg) of
                                organic HAP per megagram (Mg) of fiber
                                produced.
                               b. Determine the facility organic HAP
                                emission rate in accordance with the
                                requirements specified in paragraph
                                (b)(5) of this section.
3. Equipment as defined under  a. Comply with either Sec.   63.1008 or
 Sec.   63.1101 and it          Sec.   63.1027 for connectors in gas and
 contains or contacts > 10      vapor service and in light liquid
 weight-percent organic         service, and comply with subpart UU of
 HAP,\a\ and operates > 300     this part, except Sec.   63.1030, for
 hours per year (with the       all other applicable equipment; or
 differences for pressure      b. Comply with the requirements in
 relief devices described in    subpart H of this part, except Sec.
 item 4 below).                 63.165, as provided by the regulatory
                                overlap provisions in Sec.
                                63.1100(g)(4)(ii).
4. A pressure relief device    Complying with Sec.   63.1107(e).
 in organic HAP service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (5) Facility organic HAP emission rate determination. For an owner 
or operator electing to comply with paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section, the facility organic HAP emission rate must be determined 
using the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) 
of this section.
    (i) The owner or operator must prepare an initial determination of 
the facility organic HAP emission rate.
    (ii) Whenever changes to the acrylic or modacrylic fiber production 
operations at the facility could potentially cause the facility organic 
HAP emission rate to exceed the applicable limit of kilogram of organic 
HAP per Megagram of fiber produced, the owner or operator must prepare 
a new determination of the facility organic HAP emission rate.
    (iii) For each determination, the owner or operator must prepare 
and maintain at the facility site sufficient process data, emissions 
data, and any other documentation necessary to support the facility 
organic HAP emission rate calculation.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule, for affected 
sources as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, is specified 
in Sec.  63.1102.
    (2) Definitions.
    In organic hazardous air pollutant or in organic HAP service means, 
for polycarbonate production affected sources, that a piece of 
equipment either contains or contracts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is 
at least 5 percent by weight of total organic HAP as determined 
according to the provisions of Sec.  63.180(d). The provisions of Sec.  
63.180(d) also specify how to determine that a piece of equipment is 
not in organic HAP service.
* * * * *
    Seal means, for polycarbonate production affected sources complying 
with the requirements of Sec.  63.1033(b) or Sec.  63.167(a) or after 
October 8, 2014, that instrument monitoring of the open-ended valve or 
line conducted according to the method specified in Sec.  63.1023(b) 
and, as applicable, Sec.  63.1023(c), or Sec.  63.180(b) and, as 
applicable, Sec.  63.180(c), indicates no readings of 500 parts per 
million or greater.
    (3) * * *

   Table 5 to Sec.   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 . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. A process vent from          The vent stream    a. Reduce emissions
 continuous unit operations or   has a TRE \b\      of total organic HAP
 a combined vent stream \a\      \c\ =5       Sec.   63.1027 for
 relief devices described in     weight-percent     connectors in gas
 item 11 below).                 total organic      and vapor service
                                 HAP,\e\ and        and in light liquid
                                 operates >=300     service, and comply
                                 hours per year.    with the
                                                    requirements of
                                                    subpart UU of this
                                                    part, except Sec.
                                                    63.1030, for all
                                                    other applicable
                                                    equipment; or
                                                   b. Comply with the
                                                    requirements in
                                                    subpart H of this
                                                    part, except Sec.
                                                    63.165, as provided
                                                    by the regulatory
                                                    overlap provisions
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.1100(g)(4)(ii).
8. A polycarbonate production   The process        Comply with the
 process unit that generates     wastewater         requirements of Sec.
 process wastewater.             stream is a          63.1106(a).
                                 Group 1 or a
                                 Group 2
                                 wastewater
                                 stream.
9. A polycarbonate production   The maintenance    Comply with the
 process unit that generates     wastewater         requirements of Sec.
 maintenance wastewater.         contains organic     63.1106(b).
                                 HAP.
10. An item of equipment        The item of        Comply with the
 listed in Sec.                  equipment meets    requirements in
 63.1106(c)(1).                  the criteria       Table 35 of subpart
                                 specified in       G of this part.
                                 Sec.
                                 63.1106(c)(1)
                                 through (3) and
                                 either (c)(4)(i)
                                 or (ii).
11. Pressure relief devices...  The pressure       Comply with Sec.
                                 relief device is   63.1107(e).
                                 in organic HAP
                                 service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

   Table 6 to Sec.   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 . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. A process vent from          The vent stream    a. Reduce emissions
 continuous unit operations or   has a TRE \b\      of total organic HAP
 a combined vent stream \a\      \c\ =5       Sec.   63.1027 for
 relief devices described in     weight-percent     connectors in gas
 item 6 below).                  total organic      and vapor service
                                 HAP \e\, and       and in light liquid
                                 operates >=300     service, and comply
                                 hours per year.    with the
                                                    requirements of
                                                    subpart UU of this
                                                    part, except Sec.
                                                    63.1030, for all
                                                    other applicable
                                                    equipment; or
                                                   b. Comply with the
                                                    requirements in
                                                    subpart H of this
                                                    part, except Sec.
                                                    63.165, as provided
                                                    by the regulatory
                                                    overlap provisions
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.1100(g)(4)(ii).
7. Pressure relief devices....  The pressure       Comply with Sec.
                                 relief device is   63.1107(e).
                                 in organic HAP
                                 service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.1104 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.1106 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(11) and (12), 
the first sentence of (a)(13) introductory text, and (c)(6) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1106  Wastewater provisions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (11) Where Sec.  63.152(b) and/or the Notification of Compliance 
Status is referred to in Sec. Sec.  63.132 through 63.148, the 
Notification of Compliance Status requirements contained in Sec.  
63.1110(a)(4) shall apply, for purposes of this subpart.
    (12) Where Sec.  63.152(c) and/or the Periodic Report requirements 
are referred to Sec. Sec.  63.132 through 63.148, the Periodic Report 
requirements contained in Sec.  63.1110(a)(5) shall apply, for purposes 
of this subpart.
    (13) When Method 18 of Appendix A to part 60 of this chapter is 
specified in Sec.  63.139(c)(1)(ii), Sec.  63.145(d)(4), or Sec.  
63.145(i)(2), either Method 18 or Method 25A may be used. * * *
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) When Table 35 of subpart G of this part refers to 40 CFR 
63.119(e)(1) or (e)(2) in the requirements for tanks, the owner or 
operator shall reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 95 weight-
percent by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any 
combination of control devices meeting the requirements in Sec.  
63.982(a)(1), for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.1107 is amended by revising the section heading and 
adding paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 
described in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A.

[[Page 60927]]

    (2) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in 
organic HAP gas or vapor service, the owner or operator must comply 
with either paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section following a 
pressure release, as applicable.
    (i) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a 
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as described in 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, 
except as provided in Sec.  63.171 or Sec.  63.1024(d), as applicable.
    (ii) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a 
rupture disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable after a 
pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure 
release, except as provided in Sec.  63.171 or Sec.  63.1024(d), as 
applicable.
    (3) Pressure release management. Except as specified in paragraph 
(e)(4) of this section, emissions of organic HAP to the atmosphere from 
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service are prohibited, and the 
owner or operator must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section for all pressure relief 
devices in organic HAP service.
    (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:
    (A) Identifying the pressure release;
    (B) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
    (C) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is 
occurring. The device or monitoring system may be either specific to 
the pressure relief device itself or may be associated with the process 
system or piping, sufficient to indicate a pressure release to the 
atmosphere. Examples of these types of devices and systems include, but 
are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion 
detector on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, or pressure 
monitor.
    (ii) If any pressure relief device in organic HAP service releases 
to atmosphere as a result of a pressure release event, the owner or 
operator must calculate the quantity of organic HAP released during 
each pressure release event and report this quantity as required in 
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, process, 
fuel gas system, or drain system. If a pressure relief device in 
organic HAP service is designed and operated to route all HAP emissions 
from pressure releases through a closed vent system to a control device 
or to a process, fuel gas system, or drain system, the owner or 
operator is not required to comply with paragraphs (e)(1), (2), or (3) 
(if applicable) of this section for that pressure relief device. The 
fuel gas system or closed vent system and control device (if 
applicable) must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.172 or Sec.  
63.1034, as applicable (except that the term ``pressure relief 
devices'' shall apply instead of the term ``equipment leaks'' in Sec.  
63.1034). The drain system (if applicable) must meet the requirements 
of Sec.  63.136.
    (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 vent to a fuel gas system, process, drain system, or closed-vent 
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 
paragraphs (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.
0
9. Section 63.1108 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
0
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(5); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), the first sentence of (b)(2) 
introductory text, and (b)(4)(ii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  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

[[Page 60928]]

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 non-operation of the affected source 
(or specific portion thereof) in which the lines are drained and 
depressurized resulting in cessation of the emissions to which 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 or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.
    (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) * * *
    (1) Parameter monitoring: compliance with operating conditions. 
Compliance with the required operating conditions for the monitored 
control devices or recovery devices may be determined by, but is not 
limited to, the parameter monitoring data for emission points that are 
required to perform continuous monitoring. For each excursion, except 
as provided for in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, the 
owner or operator shall be deemed to have failed to have applied the 
control in a manner that achieves the required operating conditions.
    (i) An excursion that meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section is not a violation.
    (ii) Excused excursions are not allowed for acrylic and modacrylic 
fiber production affected sources or polycarbonate production affected 
sources. For all other affected sources, an excused excursion, as 
described in Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(ii), is not a violation.
    (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 Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(ii)), if the conditions of paragraphs 
(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. (A) 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 specified in Sec.  63.997, unless otherwise specified in 
this subpart or a subpart referenced by this subpart.
    (B) 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 or operator may not 
conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or 
operator must record the process information that is necessary to 
document operating conditions during the test and include in such 
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal 
operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.1110 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(7);
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(9);
0
d. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (d)(1) introductory text; 
and
0
e. Adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  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 also submit the reports listed in 
paragraph (a)(9) of this section in addition to the reports listed in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *
    (7) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports described in Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.2), the owner 
or operator must submit the results of the performance tests, including 
any associated fuel analyses, required by this subpart according to the 
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA-
provided 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 EPA-provided 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

[[Page 60929]]

software, the owner or operator shall submit the results of the 
performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed 
in Sec.  60.4.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * * For pressure relief devices subject to the requirements 
of Sec.  63.1107(e)(3), the owner or operator of an acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber production affected source or polycarbonate production 
affected source shall also submit the information listed in paragraph 
(d)(1)(iii) of this section in a supplement to 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.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.1111 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b) introductory text;
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  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 this 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 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  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 quantity 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

0
12. Section 63.1400 is amended by revising paragraph (k) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1410, shall apply at all times except 
during periods of non-operation of the affected source (or specific 
portion thereof) in which the lines are drained and depressurized 
resulting in cessation of the emissions to which Sec.  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 or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.

0
13. Section 63.1401 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1411(c)) upon initial start-up 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 Sec.  63.1411(c) by October 9, 2017. 
New affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after 
January 9, 2014, shall be in compliance with the pressure relief device 
monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.1411(c) upon initial startup or by 
October 8, 2014.
    (b) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with this 
subpart (except Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1404, 
the continuous process vent requirements of Sec.  63.1405, and the 
pressure relief device monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.1411(c) by 
October 9, 2017.
* * * * *

0
14. Section 63.1402 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. Adding in alphabetical order the term ``Pressure relief device or 
valve (Sec.  63.161)'';
0
ii. Removing the term ``Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan (Sec.  
63.101)''; and
0
iii. Revising the term ``Inorganic hazardous air pollutant service

[[Page 60930]]

(Sec.  63.161)'' to read ``In organic hazardous air pollutant service 
(Sec.  63.161)''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b):
0
i. Adding in alphabetical order the terms ``Pressure release'' and 
``Seal''; and
0
ii. Revising the term ``Amino/phenolic. Resin process unit (APPU)'' to 
read ``Amino/phenolic resin process unit (APPU)''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1402  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    Seal means, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of 
Sec.  63.1033(b), that instrument monitoring of the open-ended valve or 
line conducted according to the method specified in Sec.  63.1023(b) 
and, as applicable, Sec.  63.1023(c), indicates no readings of 500 
parts per million or greater.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.1404 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  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. * * *
* * * * *

0
16. Section 63.1405 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and
0
c. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (b).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1405  Continuous process vent provisions.

    (a) Emission standards. For each continuous process vent with a 
Total Resource Effectiveness (TRE) index value, as determined following 
the procedures specified in Sec.  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 for continuous process vents located at a new 
affected source, and with either paragraph (a)(1) or (3) of this 
section for continuous process vents located at an existing affected 
source. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) Reduce emissions to less than or equal to 0.95 kg of total 
organic HAP per megagram (1.9 pounds of total organic HAP per ton) of 
resin produced, or to a concentration of 20 ppmv when using a 
combustion control device or to a concentration of 50 ppmv when using a 
non-combustion control device, whichever is less stringent.
    (b) Alternative standard. * * * Any continuous process vents that 
are not vented to a control device meeting these conditions shall be 
controlled in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a)(1), (2), 
or (3) of this section, as appropriate.

0
17. Section 63.1410 is amended by revising the first sentence of the 
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  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 for all equipment, as 
defined under Sec.  63.1402, that contains or contacts 5 weight-percent 
HAP or greater and operates 300 hours per year or more, except Sec.  
63.1030. * * *

0
18. Add Sec.  63.1411 to read as follows:

Sec.  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 
described in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A.
    (b) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in 
organic HAP gas or vapor service, the owner or operator must comply 
with either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section following a 
pressure release, as applicable.
    (1) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a 
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as described in 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, 
except as provided in Sec.  63.1024(d).
    (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, except as provided in Sec.  63.1024(d).
    (c) Pressure release management. Except as specified in paragraph 
(d) of this section, emissions of organic HAP to the atmosphere from 
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service are prohibited, and the 
owner or operator must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section for all pressure relief 
devices in organic HAP service.
    (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:
    (i) Identifying the pressure release;
    (ii) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
    (iii) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is 
occurring. The device or monitoring system may be either specific to 
the pressure relief device itself or may be associated with the process 
system or piping sufficient to indicate a pressure release to the 
atmosphere. Examples of these types of devices and systems include, but 
are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion 
detector on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, or pressure 
monitor.
    (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 
Sec.  63.1417(f)(13)(iii). Calculations may be based on data from the 
pressure relief device monitoring alone or in combination with process

[[Page 60931]]

parameter monitoring data and process knowledge.
    (d) Pressure relief devices routed to a control device, process, 
fuel gas system, or drain system. If a pressure relief device in 
organic HAP service is designed and operated to route all HAP emissions 
from pressure releases through a closed vent system to a control device 
or to a process, fuel gas system, or drain system, the owner or 
operator is not required to comply with paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) (if 
applicable) of this section for that pressure relief device. The fuel 
gas system or closed vent system and control device (if applicable) 
must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.1034, as applicable (except that 
the term ``pressure relief devices'' shall apply instead of the term 
``equipment leaks'' in Sec.  63.1034). The drain system (if applicable) 
must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.136.

0
19. Section 63.1412 is amended by revising the last sentence of 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
20. Section 63.1413 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text;
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as paragraph (c)(6);
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(5);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (h) as paragraph (i);
0
e. Adding paragraph (h);
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (i) introductory text and 
(i)(4) introductory text;
0
g. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (i)(4)(i), the first sentence 
of (i)(4)(iii), and (i)(5) and (6).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information 
that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and 
include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions 
represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall 
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests. 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.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Initial and continuous compliance with the emission limit 
specified in Sec.  63.1405(a)(3) shall be demonstrated following the 
procedures in paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) Continuous process vent compliance at existing sources. (1) 
Each owner or operator complying with the mass emission limit specified 
in Sec.  63.1405(a)(3) shall determine initial compliance as specified 
in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section and continuous compliance as 
specified in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Initial compliance. Initial compliance shall be based on the 
average of the first 6 monthly average emission rate data points. The 
6-month average shall be compared to the mass emission limit specified 
in Sec.  63.1405(a)(3).
    (ii) Continuous compliance. For the first year of compliance, 
continuous compliance shall be based on a cumulative average monthly 
emission rate calculated each month based on the available monthly 
emission rate data points (e.g., 7 data points after 7 months of 
operation, 8 data points after 8 months of operation) beginning the 
first month after initial compliance is demonstrated. The first 
continuous compliance cumulative average monthly emission rate shall be 
calculated using the first 7 monthly average emission rate data points. 
After the first year of compliance, a 12-month rolling average monthly 
emission rate shall be calculated each month based on the previous 12 
monthly emission rate data points. Continuous compliance shall be 
determined by comparing the cumulative average monthly emission rate or 
the 12-month rolling average monthly emission rate to the mass emission 
limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(a)(3).
    (2) Procedures to determine the monthly emission rate. (i) The 
monthly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per megagram of 
product, shall be determined at the end of each month using Equation 5 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08OC14.000

Where:

ER = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process vent, kg 
of HAP/Mg product.
Ei = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process 
vent i as determined using the procedures specified in paragraph 
(h)(2)(ii) of this section, kg/month.
RPm = Amount of resin produced in one month as determined 
using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this 
section, Mg/month.

    (ii) The monthly emission rate of organic HAP, in kilograms per 
month, from an individual continuous process vent (Ei) shall 
be determined. Once organic HAP emissions have been estimated, as 
specified in paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled 
continuous process vents or paragraphs (h)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 
section for continuous process vents vented to a control device or 
control technology, the owner or operator may use the estimated organic 
HAP emissions (Ei) until the estimated organic HAP emissions 
are no longer representative due to a process change or other reason 
known to the owner or operator. If organic HAP emissions 
(Ei) are determined to no longer be representative, the 
owner or operator shall redetermine organic HAP emissions for the 
continuous process vent following the procedures in paragraph 
(h)(2)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled continuous process vents 
or paragraphs (h)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section for continuous 
process vents vented to a control device or control technology.
    (A) For continuous process vents estimated through engineering 
assessment, as described in Sec.  63.1414(d)(10), to emit less than 10 
tons per year of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, the owner or 
operator may use the emissions determined using engineering assessment 
in Equation 5 of this section or may determine organic HAP emissions 
using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. 
For continuous process vents estimated through engineering assessment, 
as described in

[[Page 60932]]

Sec.  63.1414(d)(10), to emit 10 tons per year or greater of 
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 
shall be estimated following the procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(1)(i) of this section.
    (B) For continuous process vents vented to a control device or 
control technology, controlled organic HAP emissions shall be 
determined as follows:
    (1) Uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall be determined 
following the procedures in paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (2) Control device or control technology efficiency shall be 
determined using the procedures in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section 
for large control devices or the procedures in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 
this section for small control devices.
    (3) Controlled organic HAP emissions shall be determined by 
applying the control device or control technology efficiency, 
determined in paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, to the 
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, determined in paragraph 
(h)(2)(ii)(B)(1) of this section.
    (iii) The rate of resin produced, RPM (Mg/month), shall 
be determined based on production records certified by the owner or 
operator to represent actual production for the month. A sample of the 
records selected by the owner or operator for this purpose shall be 
provided to the Administrator in the Precompliance Report as required 
by Sec.  63.1417(d).
    (i) Deviations. Paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section 
describe deviations from the emission limits, the operating limits, the 
work practice standards, and the emission standard, respectively. 
Paragraph (i)(5) of this section describes situations that are not 
deviations. Paragraph (i)(6) of this section describes periods that are 
excluded from compliance determinations.
* * * * *
    (4) Deviation from the emission standard. If monitoring data are 
insufficient, as described in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) through (iii) of 
this section, there has been a deviation from the emission standard.
    (i) The period of control device or control technology operation is 
4 hours or greater in an operating day, and monitoring data are 
insufficient to constitute a valid hour of data, as defined in 
paragraph (i)(4)(iii) of this section, for at least 75 percent of the 
operating hours;
* * * * *
    (iii) Monitoring data are insufficient to constitute a valid hour 
of data, as used in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section, if 
measured values are unavailable for any of the 15-minute periods within 
the hour. * * *
    (5) Situations that are not deviations. If any of the situations 
listed in paragraphs (i)(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 (i)(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.

0
21. Section 63.1414 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(10) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1414  Test methods and emission estimation equations.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) For continuous process vent emissions determined by 
engineering assessment, the engineering assessment includes, but is not 
limited to, the examples provided in Sec.  63.1412(k)(3).

0
22. Section 63.1415 is amended by revising the second sentence of 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) to read as follows:

Sec.  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. * * *
* * * * *

0
23. Section 63.1416 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b), (c)(4), (d)(3)(iv)(B), and (e)(3)(iv)(B);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (f)(5), (f)(6), and (g)(5);
0
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(1)(i);
0
d. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);
0
e. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(1)(iii);
0
f. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (h)(2)(iii); and
0
g. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1416  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Malfunction records. Records shall be kept as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) 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 
quantity 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 
Sec.  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.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (B) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit, as 
specified in Sec.  63.1413(i), the individual monthly emission rate 
data points making up the cumulative average monthly emission rate or 
the 12-month rolling average monthly emission rate, as appropriate.
* * * * *

[[Page 60933]]

    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (B) If there is a deviation from the emission limit, as specified 
in Sec.  63.1413(i)(1), the individual monthly emission rate data 
points making up the rolling average monthly emission rate or the 12-
month rolling average monthly emission rate, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (5) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate 
compliance with the mass emission limit specified in Sec.  
63.1405(a)(3), keep records specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) and (ii) 
of this section.
    (i) The results of the initial compliance demonstration specified 
in Sec.  63.1413(h)(1)(i).
    (ii) The monthly organic HAP emissions from the continuous process 
vent determined as specified in Sec.  63.1413(h)(2).
    (6) When using a flare to comply with Sec.  63.1405(a), keep the 
records specified in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) through (f)(6)(iii) of this 
section.
    (i) The flare design (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted or non-
assisted);
    (ii) All visible emission readings, heat content determinations, 
flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during 
the compliance determination required by Sec.  63.1413(g); and
    (iii) Periods when all pilot flames were absent during the 
compliance determination required by Sec.  63.1413(g).
    (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 vent to a fuel gas system, process, drain system, or closed-vent 
system and control device, under the provisions in Sec.  63.1411(d).
    (ii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.1411(a).
    (iii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
equipped with rupture disks, under the provisions in Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 [deg]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 on-
site 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.

0
24. Section 63.1417 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d)(8), (d)(9), and (d)(11)(ii);
0
d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text;
0
e. Adding paragraph (e)(10);
0
f. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (f)(1);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) and (f)(5) introductory text;
0
h. Adding paragraph (f)(13);
0
i. Revising paragraph (g);
0
j. Revising paragraphs (h) introductory text and the first sentence of 
(h)(7) introductory text;
0
k. Adding paragraph (h)(8); and
0
l. Revising paragraph (k)(3)(i)(F).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to 
establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures 
contained in Sec.  63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing parameter monitoring 
levels based on a design evaluation as specified in Sec.  
63.1413(a)(3); or following the procedures in Sec.  63.1413(e)(2); or 
following the procedures in Sec.  63.1413(h)(2), shall submit a 
Precompliance Report according to the schedule described in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
    (8) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission 
limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(a)(3), the sample of production 
records specified in Sec.  63.1413(h)(2) shall be submitted in the 
Precompliance Report.
    (9) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission 
limit specified in Sec.  63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), Sec.  
63.1407(b)(2), or Sec.  63.1408(b)(2), the sample of production records 
specified in Sec.  63.1413(e)(2) shall be submitted in the 
Precompliance Report.
* * * * *
    (11) * * *
    (ii) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to 
request

[[Page 60934]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.1411(c), the owner or operator shall also 
submit the information listed in paragraph (e)(10) of this section in a 
supplement to 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. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) All information specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW and 
subpart SS for storage vessels; 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS for 
continuous process vents required to comply with subpart SS; Sec.  
63.1416(d)(3)(ii) for batch process vents; and Sec.  63.1416(e) for 
aggregate batch vent stream.
    (ii) The daily average values, batch cycle daily average values, or 
block average values of monitored parameters for deviations, as 
specified in Sec.  63.1413(i), of operating parameters. In addition, 
the periods and duration of periods when monitoring data were not 
collected shall be specified.
* * * * *
    (5) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified 
in Sec.  63.1405(a)(3), Sec.  63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), Sec.  
63.1407(b)(2), or Sec.  63.1408(b)(2), the following information, as 
appropriate, shall be included:
* * * * *
    (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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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.
    (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 quantity 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.
* * * * *
    (7) Whenever a continuous process vent becomes subject to control 
requirements under Sec.  63.1405(a), as a result of a process change, 
the owner or operator shall submit a report within 60 days after the 
performance test or applicability assessment, whichever is sooner. * * 
*
* * * * *
    (8) Electronic reporting. Within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2), the owner 
or operator must submit the results of the performance tests, including 
any associated fuel analyses, required by this subpart according to the 
methods specified in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA-
provided 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 EPA-provided 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 Sec.  60.4.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) If the daily average is not a deviation, as defined in Sec.  
63.1413(i), from the operating parameter, the data for that operating 
day may be converted to hourly average values, and the four or more 
individual records for each hour in the operating day may be discarded.
* * * * *

0
25. Table 1 to Subpart OOO is amended by:
0
a. Removing entries 63.1(a)(6)-63.1 (a)(8) and 63.1(a)(9);

[[Page 60935]]

0
b. Adding entries 63.1(a)(6) and 63.1(a)(7)-63.1(a)(9);
0
c. Revising entries 63.1(c)(4), 63.6(e), 63.6(e)(1)(i), and 
63.6(e)(1)(ii);
0
d. Adding entry 63.6(e)(3);
0
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);
0
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
0
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 Sec.   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 Sec.   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 Sec.   63.1417(g) for malfunction
                                                                        reporting requirements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
26. Table 5 to Subpart OOO is amended by removing entry 63.1417(g) and 
adding entry 63.1417(h)(8) to read as follows:

                                           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. 2014-23099 Filed 10-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```