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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60898 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 openended 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 NAICSa Code 

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

(325222) 

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

(325211) 

Amino/Phenolic Resins Production ............................................. .................................................................................................... 325211 

(325211) 

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

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60900 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 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.’’). 

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). 

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 longchain 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 comonomers; (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) nonreactor 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: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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’’ openended 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60902 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 beyondthe-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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60903 

2The 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 

Continued 

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-bycase 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 offline 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60904 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

administrative penalties, not to civil penalties 

imposed by a court.’’ Id. 

3Although 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). 

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 caseby-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

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 crossreferences to the general duty and SSM 

plan requirements in those 

subparagraphs are not necessary in light 

of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 

that require good air pollution control 

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

out the requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 productloss 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 semiannual periodic report already required 

under these rules. We are promulgating 

that the report must contain the number, 

date, time, duration and cause of such 

events (including unknown cause, if 

applicable), a list of the affected source 

or equipment, an estimate of the 

quantity of each regulated pollutant 

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, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60906 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 openended 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, openended 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 healthprotective. A discussion of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60908 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 HAPton) 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 HAPMg (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 offfacility 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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

Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum individual 

cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk 

≥1-in-1 

million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

non-cancer HQ 4

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

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. 

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

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

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 healthprotective. 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60910 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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-thefloor 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

Regulatory options 

HAP emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Capital cost 

(million $) 

Annual cost 

($/yr) 

Cost effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

($/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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60912 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 healthprotective. 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60914 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60915 

4See ‘‘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 

Continued 

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 malfunctioncaused 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 workpractice 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60916 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Development and Area Sources, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District. May 15, 2007. 

5See http://www11.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/

index.cfm. 

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. 

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 malfunctioncaused 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, openended 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 openended 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 openended 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60918 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 SocioEconomic 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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

Nationwide 

Population 

with cancer 

risk at or 

above 1-in-1 

million 

Population 

with chronic 

hazard index 

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-in1 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, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60920 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 HAPrelated 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60922 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart YY—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories: Generic 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology Standards 

■ 2. Section 63.1100 is amended by 

revising the last sentence of paragraph 

(d) introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 63.1100 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

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

(5) of this section discuss compliance 

for those process units operated as 

flexible operation units. 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.1102 is amended by 

revising the first sentence of paragraph 

(a) introductory text and adding 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1102 Compliance schedule. 

(a) * * * Affected sources, as defined 

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

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

and modacrylic fiber production, 

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

production, § 63.1103(d)(1)(i) for 

polycarbonate production, 

§ 63.1103(e)(1)(i) for ethylene 

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

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

cyanide chemicals manufacturing, or 

§ 63.1103(h)(1)(i) for spandex 

production shall comply with the 

appropriate provisions of this subpart 

and the subparts referenced by this 

subpart according to the schedule in 

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 § 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 

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

October 8, 2014, whichever is later. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.1103 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii); 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(2), adding in 

alphabetical order the terms ‘‘In organic 

hazardous air pollutant or in organic 

HAP service’’ and ‘‘Seal’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), in Table 2, 

revising entries 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and 

adding entry 11; 

■ d. Revising the second sentence of 

paragraph (b)(3)(ii); 

■ e. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), revising 

Table 3; 

■ f. Revising paragraph (b)(5); 

■ g. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii); 

■ h. In paragraph (d)(2), adding in 

alphabetical order the terms ‘‘In organic 

hazardous air pollutant or in organic 

HAP service’’ and ‘‘Seal’’; and 

■ 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: 

§ 63.1103 Source category-specific 

applicability, definitions, and requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Compliance schedule. The 

compliance schedule, for affected 

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

of this section, is specified in § 63.1102. 

(2) Definitions. 

* * * * * 

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 § 63.180(d). The 

provisions of § 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 § 63.1033(b) or 

§ 63.167(a) on or after October 8, 2014, 

that instrument monitoring of the openended valve or line conducted 

according to the method specified in 

§ 63.1023(b) and, as applicable, 

§ 63.1023(c), or § 63.180(b) and, as 

applicable, § 63.180(c), indicates no 

readings of 500 parts per million or 

greater. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60923 

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

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

SECTION? 

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

1. A storage vessel ........................ The stored material contains organic HAP.a. Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 98 weight-percent by 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 § 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, 

§ 63.993 (recovery device requirements); or 

b. Comply with the requirements of subpart WW of this part. 

2. A process vent from continuous 

unit operations (halogenated).

The vent steam has a mass emission rate of halogen atoms contained in organic compounds 

≥0.45 kilograms per hour,a and 

an organic HAP concentration 

≥50 parts per million by volume b

and an average flow rate ≥0.005 

cubic meters per minute.

a. Reduce emissions of organic HAP or TOC as specified for nonhalogenated process vents from continuous unit operations (other 

than by using a flare) by venting emissions through a closed vent 

system to a halogen reduction device meeting the requirements of 

subpart SS of this part, § 63.994 (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, § 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 continuous 

unit operations (nonhalogenated).

The vent steam has a mass emission rate of halogen atoms contained in organic compounds 

<0.45 kilograms per hour,a and 

an organic HAP concentration 

≥50 parts per million by volume b

and an average flow rate ≥0.005 

cubic meters per minute.

a. Reduce emissions of organic HAP by using a flare meeting the requirements of subpart SS of this part, § 63.987 (flare requirements); 

or 

b. Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 98 weight-percent, or reduce 

TOC to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, whichever is less stringent, by 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 § 63.982(a)(2) 

(process vent requirements). 

4. A fiber spinning line that is a 

new or reconstructed source.

The lines use a spin dope produced from either a suspension 

polymerization process or solution polymerization process.

a. Reduce organic HAP emissions by 85 weight-percent or more. (For 

example, you may enclose the spinning and washing areas of the 

spinning line (as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section) and 

vent through a closed vent system and use any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart SS of this part, as 

specified in § 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 is an 

existing source.

The spinning line uses a spin dope 

produced from a solution polymerization process.

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

equal to 20 kilograms of organic HAP per megagram (40 pounds of 

organic HAP per ton) of acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced. 

6. A fiber spinning line that is an 

existing source.

The spinning line uses a spin dope 

produced from a suspension polymerization process.

a. Reduce the organic HAP concentration of the spin dope to less 

than 100 ppmw; b or 

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 

§ 63.1101 (with the differences 

for pressure relief devices described in item 11 below).

It contains or contacts ≥10 weightpercent organic HAP,c and operates ≥300 hours per year.a. Comply with either § 63.1008 or § 63.1027 for connectors in gas 

and vapor service and in light liquid service, and comply with the 

requirements of subpart UU of this part, except § 63.1030, for all 

other applicable equipment; or 

b. Comply with the requirements in subpart H of this part, except 

§ 63.165, as provided by the regulatory overlap provisions in 

§ 63.1100(g)(4)(ii). 

*******

11. Pressure relief devices ............ The pressure relief device is in organic HAP service.Comply with § 63.1107(e). 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * The owner or operator must 

determine the facility organic HAP 

emission rate using the procedures specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this 

section. * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60924 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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

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

SECTION? 

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

1. An acrylic and modacrylic fibers production 

affected source and your facility is an existing 

source.

Meeting all of following requirements: 

a. Reduce total organic HAP emissions from all affected storage vessels, 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 fibers production 

affected source and your facility is a new 

source.

Meeting all of following requirements: 

a. Reduce total organic HAP emissions from all affected storage vessels, 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 § 63.1101 and it 

contains or contacts > 10 weight-percent organic HAP,a and operates > 300 hours per 

year (with the differences for pressure relief 

devices described in item 4 below).

a. Comply with either § 63.1008 or § 63.1027 for connectors in gas and vapor service and in 

light liquid service, and comply with subpart UU of this part, except § 63.1030, for all other 

applicable equipment; or 

b. Comply with the requirements in subpart H of this part, except § 63.165, as provided by the 

regulatory overlap provisions in § 63.1100(g)(4)(ii). 

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

* * * * * 

(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 § 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 

§ 63.180(d). The provisions of 

§ 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 § 63.1033(b) or 

§ 63.167(a) or after October 8, 2014, that 

instrument monitoring of the openended valve or line conducted 

according to the method specified in 

§ 63.1023(b) and, as applicable, 

§ 63.1023(c), or § 63.180(b) and, as 

applicable, § 63.180(c), indicates no 

readings of 500 parts per million or 

greater. 

(3) * * * 

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

EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCE? 

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

*******

4. A process vent from continuous 

unit operations or a combined 

vent stream a (halogenated).

The vent stream has a TREb c

≤ 2.7.

a. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 98 weight-percent, or 

reduce total organic HAP to a concentration of 20 parts per million 

by volume, whichever is less stringent, by 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 

§ 63.982(c)(2) and (e); and then vent emissions from those control 

device(s) through a closed vent system to a halogen reduction device meeting the requirements of subpart SS, § 63.994, that reduces hydrogen halides and halogens by 99 weight-percent or to 

less than 0.45 kilograms per hour,d whichever is less stringent; or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60925 

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

EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCE?—Continued 

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

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, § 63.994; and then vent emissions 

from those control device(s) through a closed vent system to any 

combination of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart 

SS, as specified in § 63.982(c)(2) and (e), that reduces emissions 

of total organic HAP by 98 weight-percent, or reduce total organic 

HAP or TOC to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, 

whichever is less stringent; or 

c. Achieve and maintain a TRE index value greater than 2.7. 

5. A process vent from continuous 

unit operations or a combined 

vent stream a (nonhalogenated).

The vent stream has a TREb c

≤ 2.7.

a. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 98 weight-percent; or 

reduce total organic HAP to a concentration of 20 parts per million 

by volume; whichever is less stringent, by 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 

§ 63.982(a)(2) (process vent requirements); or 

b. Achieve and maintain a TRE index value greater than 2.7. 

6. A process vent from continuous 

unit operations or a combined 

vent stream a.

2.7 < TREb c ≤ 4.0 ......................... Monitor and keep records of equipment operating parameters specified to be monitored under subpart SS of this part, §§ 63.982(e) and 

63.993(c) (absorbers, condensers, carbon adsorbers and other recovery devices used as final recovery devices). 

7. Equipment as defined under 

§ 63.1101 (with the differences 

for pressure relief devices described in item 11 below).

The equipment contains or contacts ≥5 weight-percent total organic HAP,e and operates ≥300 

hours per year.

a. Comply with either § 63.1008 or § 63.1027 for connectors in gas 

and vapor service and in light liquid service, and comply with the 

requirements of subpart UU of this part, except § 63.1030, for all 

other applicable equipment; or 

b. Comply with the requirements in subpart H of this part, except 

§ 63.165, as provided by the regulatory overlap provisions in 

§ 63.1100(g)(4)(ii). 

8. A polycarbonate production 

process unit that generates process wastewater.

The process wastewater stream is 

a Group 1 or a Group 2 wastewater stream.

Comply with the requirements of § 63.1106(a). 

9. A polycarbonate production 

process unit that generates 

maintenance wastewater.

The maintenance wastewater contains organic HAP.Comply with the requirements of § 63.1106(b). 

10. An item of equipment listed in 

§ 63.1106(c)(1).

The item of equipment meets the 

criteria specified in 

§ 63.1106(c)(1) through (3) and 

either (c)(4)(i) or (ii).

Comply with the requirements in Table 35 of subpart G of this part. 

11. Pressure relief devices ............ The pressure relief device is in organic HAP service.Comply with § 63.1107(e). 

* * * * * 

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

AFFECTED SOURCE? 

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

*******

4. A process vent from continuous 

unit operations or a combined 

vent stream a (halogenated).

The vent stream has a TREb c

≤9.6.

a. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 98 weight-percent, or 

reduce total organic HAP to a concentration of 20 parts per million 

by volume, whichever is less stringent, by 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 

§ 63.982(c)(2) and (e); and then vent emissions from those control 

device(s) through a closed vent system to a halogen reduction device meeting the requirements of subpart SS, § 63.994, that reduces hydrogen halides and halogens by 99 weight-percent or to 

less than 0.45 kilograms per hour,d whichever is less stringent; or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60926 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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

AFFECTED SOURCE?—Continued 

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

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, § 63.994; and then vent emissions 

from those control device(s) through a closed vent system to any 

combination of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart 

SS, as specified in § 63.982(c)(2) and (e), that reduces emissions 

of total organic HAP by 98 weight-percent, or reduce total organic 

HAP or TOC to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, 

whichever is less stringent; or 

c. Achieve and maintain a TRE index value greater than 9.6. 

5. A process vent from continuous 

unit operations or a combined 

vent stream a (nonhalogenated).

The vent stream has a TREb c

≤ 9.6.

a. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 98 weight-percent; or 

reduce total organic HAP to a concentration of 20 parts per million 

by volume; whichever is less stringent, by 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 

§ 63.982(a)(2) (process vent requirements); or 

b. Achieve and maintain a TRE index value greater than 9.6. 

6. Equipment as defined under 

§ 63.1101 (with the differences 

for pressure relief devices described in item 6 below).

The equipment contains or contacts ≥5 weight-percent total organic HAPe, and operates ≥300 

hours per year.

a. Comply with either § 63.1008 or § 63.1027 for connectors in gas 

and vapor service and in light liquid service, and comply with the 

requirements of subpart UU of this part, except § 63.1030, for all 

other applicable equipment; or 

b. Comply with the requirements in subpart H of this part, except 

§ 63.165, as provided by the regulatory overlap provisions in 

§ 63.1100(g)(4)(ii). 

7. Pressure relief devices .............. The pressure relief device is in organic HAP service.Comply with § 63.1107(e). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.1104 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1104 Process vents from continuous 

unit operations: applicability assessment 

procedures and methods. 

* * * * * 

(c) Applicability assessment 

requirement. The TOC or organic HAP 

concentrations, process vent volumetric 

flow rates, process vent heating values, 

process vent TOC or organic HAP 

emission rates, halogenated process vent 

determinations, process vent TRE index 

values, and engineering assessments for 

process vent control applicability 

assessment requirements are to be 

determined during maximum 

representative operating conditions for 

the process, except as provided in 

paragraph (d) of this section, or unless 

the Administrator specifies or approves 

alternate operating conditions. For 

acrylic and modacrylic fiber production 

affected sources and polycarbonate 

production affected sources, operations 

during periods of malfunction shall not 

constitute representative conditions for 

the purpose of an applicability test. For 

all other affected sources, operations 

during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction shall not constitute 

representative conditions for the 

purpose of an applicability test. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.1106 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(11) and (12), the 

first sentence of (a)(13) introductory 

text, and (c)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1106 Wastewater provisions. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(11) Where § 63.152(b) and/or the 

Notification of Compliance Status is 

referred to in §§ 63.132 through 63.148, 

the Notification of Compliance Status 

requirements contained in 

§ 63.1110(a)(4) shall apply, for purposes 

of this subpart. 

(12) Where § 63.152(c) and/or the 

Periodic Report requirements are 

referred to §§ 63.132 through 63.148, the 

Periodic Report requirements contained 

in § 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 

§ 63.139(c)(1)(ii), § 63.145(d)(4), or 

§ 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 § 63.982(a)(1), for 

the purposes of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 63.1107 is amended by 

revising the section heading and adding 

paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1107 Equipment leaks. 

* * * * * 

(e) Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. For acrylic and modacrylic 

fiber production affected sources and 

polycarbonate production affected 

sources, except as specified in 

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

owner or operator must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

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

relief devices in organic HAP gas or 

vapor service. Except as specified in 

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

owner or operator of an acrylic and 

modacrylic fiber production affected 

source or polycarbonate production 

affected source must also comply with 

the requirements specified in paragraph 

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

relief devices in organic HAP service. (1) Operating requirements. Except 

during a pressure release event, operate 

each pressure relief device in organic 

HAP gas or vapor service with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background as described in 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 63.171 or 

§ 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 

§ 63.171 or § 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 § 63.172 or 

§ 63.1034, as applicable (except that the 

term ‘‘pressure relief devices’’ shall 

apply instead of the term ‘‘equipment 

leaks’’ in § 63.1034). The drain system 

(if applicable) must meet the 

requirements of § 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. 

■ 9. Section 63.1108 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(4); 

■ c. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (a)(5); and 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), the first 

sentence of (b)(2) introductory text, and 

(b)(4)(ii). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1108 Compliance with standards and 

operation and maintenance requirements. 

(a) Requirements. The requirements of 

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

section apply to all affected sources 

except acrylic and modacrylic fiber 

production affected sources and 

polycarbonate production affected 

sources. The requirements of paragraph 

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


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60928 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

acrylic and modacrylic fiber production 

affected sources and polycarbonate 

production affected sources. The 

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

and (7) of this section apply to all 

affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(4)(i) For acrylic and modacrylic fiber 

production affected sources and 

polycarbonate production affected 

sources, the emission limitations and 

established parameter ranges of this part 

shall apply at all times except during 

periods of non-operation of the affected 

source (or specific portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which this subpart applies. Equipment 

leak requirements shall apply at all 

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

specific portion thereof) in which the 

lines are drained and depressurized 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which the equipment leak requirements 

apply. 

(ii) General duty. At all times, the 

owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the owner 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 63.1110 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (a) introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(7); 

■ c. Adding paragraph (a)(9); 

■ d. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (d)(1) introductory text; and 

■ e. Adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1110 Reporting requirements. 

(a) * * * Each owner or operator of 

an acrylic and modacrylic fiber 

production affected source or 

polycarbonate production affected 

source subject to this subpart shall 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 

§ 63.1111 (except for acrylic and 

modacrylic fiber production affected 

sources and polycarbonate production 

affected sources). 

* * * * * 

(9) Electronic reporting. Within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 63.2), 

the owner or operator must submit the 

results of the performance tests, 

including any associated fuel analyses, 

required by this subpart according to the 

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

or (ii) of this section. 

(i) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPAprovided software, the owner or 

operator shall submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software, 

unless otherwise approved by the 

Administrator. Owners or operators, 

who claim that some of the information 

being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI), 

must submit a complete file using EPAprovided software that includes 

information claimed to be CBI on a 

compact disc, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

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

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software. 

(ii) For any performance test 

conducted using test methods that are 

not compatible with the EPA-provided 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60929 

software, the owner or operator shall 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * For pressure relief devices 

subject to the requirements of 

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

an acrylic and modacrylic fiber 

production affected source or 

polycarbonate production affected 

source shall 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.1111 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding paragraphs (a) introductory 

text and (b) introductory text; 

■ b. Removing paragraph (b)(3); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (c). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1111 Startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

(a) Startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan. The requirements of 

this paragraph (a) apply to all affected 

sources except for acrylic and 

modacrylic fiber production affected 

sources and polycarbonate production 

affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(b) Startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction reporting requirements. 

The requirements of 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 

§ 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 

■ 12. Section 63.1400 is amended by 

revising paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1400 Applicability and designation of 

affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(k) Applicability of this subpart. (1) 

The emission limitations set forth in 

this subpart and the emission 

limitations referred to in this subpart 

shall apply at all times except during 

periods of non-operation of the affected 

source (or specific portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which this subpart applies. 

(2) The emission limitations set forth 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, as 

referred to in § 63.1410, shall apply at 

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

specific portion thereof) in which the 

lines are drained and depressurized 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which § 63.1410 applies. 

(3) The owner or operator shall not 

shut down items of equipment that are 

required or utilized for compliance with 

this subpart during times when 

emissions are being routed to such items 

of equipment if the shutdown would 

contravene requirements of this subpart 

applicable to such items of equipment. 

(4) General duty. At all times, the 

owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the owner 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. 

■ 13. Section 63.1401 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1401 Compliance schedule. 

(a) New affected sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction after December 14, 1998, 

shall be in compliance with this subpart 

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

later. New affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after December 14, 1998, 

but on or before January 9, 2014, shall 

be in compliance with the pressure 

relief device monitoring requirements of 

§ 63.1411(c) by 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 § 63.1411(c) 

upon initial startup or by October 8, 

2014. 

(b) Existing affected sources shall be 

in compliance with this subpart (except 

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

later than 3 years after January 20, 2000. 

Existing affected sources shall be in 

compliance with the storage vessel 

requirements of § 63.1404, the 

continuous process vent requirements of 

§ 63.1405, and the pressure relief device 

monitoring requirements of § 63.1411(c) 

by October 9, 2017. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 63.1402 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a): 

■ i. Adding in alphabetical order the 

term ‘‘Pressure relief device or valve 

(§ 63.161)’’; 

■ ii. Removing the term ‘‘Start-up, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan 

(§ 63.101)’’; and 

■ iii. Revising the term ‘‘Inorganic 

hazardous air pollutant service 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60930 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(§ 63.161)’’ to read ‘‘In organic 

hazardous air pollutant service 

(§ 63.161)’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b): 

■ i. Adding in alphabetical order the 

terms ‘‘Pressure release’’ and ‘‘Seal’’; 

and 

■ 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: 

§ 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 

§ 63.1033(b), that instrument monitoring 

of the open-ended valve or line 

conducted according to the method 

specified in § 63.1023(b) and, as 

applicable, § 63.1023(c), indicates no 

readings of 500 parts per million or 

greater. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Section 63.1404 is amended by 

revising the first sentence of paragraph 

(a) introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 63.1404 Storage vessel provisions. 

(a) Emission standards. For each 

storage vessel located at a new or 

existing affected source that has a 

capacity of greater than or equal to 

20,000 gallons, but less than 40,000 

gallons, and vapor pressure of 1.9 

pounds per square inch absolute (psia) 

or greater; has a capacity of greater than 

or equal to 40,000 gallons, but less than 

90,000 gallons, and vapor pressure of 

0.75 psia or greater; or has a capacity of 

90,000 gallons or greater and vapor 

pressure of 0.15 psia or greater, the 

owner or operator shall comply with 

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

section. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Section 63.1405 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (a) introductory text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and 

■ c. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (b). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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. 

■ 17. Section 63.1410 is amended by 

revising the first sentence of the 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 63.1410 Equipment leak provisions. 

The owner or operator of each 

affected source shall comply with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

UU for all equipment, as defined under 

§ 63.1402, that contains or contacts 5 

weight-percent HAP or greater and 

operates 300 hours per year or more, 

except § 63.1030. * * * 

■ 18. Add § 63.1411 to read as follows: 

§ 63.1411 Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. 

Except as specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section, the owner or operator must 

comply with the requirements specified 

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

for pressure relief devices in organic 

HAP gas or vapor service. Except as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section, the owner or operator must also 

comply with the requirements specified 

in paragraph (c) of this section for all 

pressure relief devices in organic HAP 

service. 

(a) Operating requirements. Except 

during a pressure release event, operate 

each pressure relief device in organic 

HAP gas or vapor service with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background as 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 63.1417(f)(13)(iii). 

Calculations may be based on data from 

the pressure relief device monitoring 

alone or in combination with process 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 63.1034, as applicable (except that 

the term ‘‘pressure relief devices’’ shall 

apply instead of the term ‘‘equipment 

leaks’’ in § 63.1034). The drain system 

(if applicable) must meet the 

requirements of § 63.136. 

■ 19. Section 63.1412 is amended by 

revising the last sentence of paragraph 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1412 Continuous process vent 

applicability assessment procedures and 

methods. 

* * * * * 

(c) Applicability assessment 

requirement. * * * Operations during 

periods of malfunction shall not 

constitute representative conditions for 

the purpose of an applicability test. 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Section 63.1413 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as 

paragraph (c)(6); 

■ c. Adding paragraph (c)(5); 

■ d. Redesignating paragraph (h) as 

paragraph (i); 

■ e. Adding paragraph (h); 

■ f. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraphs (i) introductory text and 

(i)(4) introductory text; 

■ 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: 

§ 63.1413 Compliance demonstration 

procedures. 

(a)* * * 

(2) Performance tests. Performance 

tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator 

specifies to the owner or operator based 

on representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested and in accordance with the 

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

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

exceptions specified in paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section. Representative 

conditions exclude periods of startup 

and shutdown unless specified by the 

Administrator or an applicable subpart. 

The owner 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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: 

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 

§ 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESER08OC14.000</GPH>
60932 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

■ 21. Section 63.1414 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d)(10) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 63.1412(k)(3). 

■ 22. Section 63.1415 is amended by 

revising the second sentence of 

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

§ 63.1415 Monitoring requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) * * * The plan shall require 

determination of gas stream flow by a 

method which will at least provide a 

value for either a representative or the 

highest gas stream flow anticipated in 

the scrubber during representative 

operating conditions other than 

malfunctions. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Section 63.1416 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b), (c)(4), 

(d)(3)(iv)(B), and (e)(3)(iv)(B); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (f)(5), (f)(6), and 

(g)(5); 

■ c. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(1)(i); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii); 

■ e. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(1)(iii); 

■ f. Revising the last sentence of 

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

■ g. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1416 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Malfunction records. Records shall 

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

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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60933 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(B) If there is a deviation from the 

emission limit, as specified in 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 63.1413(h)(1)(i). 

(ii) The monthly organic HAP 

emissions from the continuous process 

vent determined as specified in 

§ 63.1413(h)(2). 

(6) When using a flare to comply with 

§ 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., steamassisted, 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 

§ 63.1413(g); and 

(iii) Periods when all pilot flames 

were absent during the compliance 

determination required by § 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 § 63.1411(d). 

(ii) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices subject to the 

provisions in § 63.1411(a). 

(iii) A list of identification numbers 

for pressure relief devices equipped 

with rupture disks, under the provisions 

in § 63.1411(b)(2). 

(iv) The dates and results of the 

monitoring following a pressure release 

for each pressure relief device subject to 

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

The results shall include: 

(A) The background level measured 

during each compliance test. 

(B) The maximum instrument reading 

measured at each piece of equipment 

during each compliance test. 

(v) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

§ 63.1411(c), keep records of each 

pressure release to the atmosphere, 

including the following information: 

(A) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

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

pressure release. 

(C) An estimate of the quantity of total 

HAP emitted during the pressure release 

and the calculations used for 

determining this quantity. 

(D) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(E) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unrealistic or impossible 

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

temperature reading of ¥200 °C on a 

boiler) and will alert the operator by 

alarm or other means. * * * 

(ii) The monitoring system generates, 

updated at least hourly throughout each 

operating day, a running average of the 

parameter values that have been 

obtained during that operating day or 

block, and the capability to observe this 

running average is readily available onsite to the Administrator during the 

operating day. The owner or operator 

shall record the occurrence of any 

period meeting the criteria in 

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

section. All instances in an operating 

day or block constitute a single 

occurrence: 

(A) The running average is above the 

maximum or below the minimum 

established limits; and 

(B) The running average is based on 

at least six 1-hour average values. 

(iii) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unchanging data during 

periods of operation, except in 

circumstances where the presence of 

unchanging data is the expected 

operating condition based on past 

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

and will alert the operator by alarm or 

other means. * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

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

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

through (iv) of this section does not 

result in retention of a record of at least 

one occurrence or measured parameter 

value, the owner or operator shall 

record and retain at least one value 

during a period of operation. 

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

of this section, a deviation means that 

the daily average, batch cycle daily 

average, or block average value of 

monitoring data for a parameter is 

greater than the maximum, or less than 

the minimum established value. 

■ 24. Section 63.1417 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (d); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (d)(8), (d)(9), 

and (d)(11)(ii); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory 

text; 

■ e. Adding paragraph (e)(10); 

■ f. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (f)(1); 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) 

and (f)(5) introductory text; 

■ h. Adding paragraph (f)(13); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (g); 

■ j. Revising paragraphs (h) introductory 

text and the first sentence of (h)(7) 

introductory text; 

■ k. Adding paragraph (h)(8); and 

■ l. Revising paragraph (k)(3)(i)(F). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1417 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Precompliance Report. Owners or 

operators of affected sources requesting 

an extension for compliance; requesting 

approval to use alternative monitoring 

parameters, alternative continuous 

monitoring and recordkeeping, or 

alternative controls; requesting approval 

to use engineering assessment to 

estimate organic HAP emissions from a 

batch emissions episode as described in 

§ 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to 

establish parameter monitoring levels 

according to the procedures contained 

in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing 

parameter monitoring levels based on a 

design evaluation as specified in 

§ 63.1413(a)(3); or following the 

procedures in § 63.1413(e)(2); or 

following the procedures in 

§ 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 § 63.1405(a)(3), the sample 

of production records specified in 

§ 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 § 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or 

(a)(2)(iii), § 63.1407(b)(2), or 

§ 63.1408(b)(2), the sample of 

production records specified in 

§ 63.1413(e)(2) shall be submitted in the 

Precompliance Report. 

* * * * * 

(11) * * * 

(ii) Supplements to the Precompliance 

Report may be submitted to request 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60934 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

approval to use alternative monitoring 

parameters, as specified in paragraph (j) 

of this section; to use alternative 

continuous monitoring and 

recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph 

(k) of this section; to use alternative 

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

of this section; to use engineering 

assessment to estimate organic HAP 

emissions from a batch emissions 

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

of this section; or to establish parameter 

monitoring levels according to the 

procedures contained in 

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

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

(e) Notification of Compliance Status. 

For existing and new affected sources, a 

Notification of Compliance Status shall 

be submitted within 150 days after the 

compliance dates specified in § 63.1401. 

For equipment leaks, the Notification of 

Compliance Status shall contain the 

information specified in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart UU. For storage vessels, 

continuous process vents, batch process 

vents, and aggregate batch vent streams, 

the Notification of Compliance Status 

shall contain the information listed in 

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

section. For pressure relief devices 

subject to the requirements of 

§ 63.1411(c), the owner or operator shall 

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; 

§ 63.1416(d)(3)(ii) for batch process 

vents; and § 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 

§ 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 

§ 63.1405(a)(3), § 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or 

(a)(2)(iii), § 63.1407(b)(2), or 

§ 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 

§ 63.1411, report confirmation that all 

monitoring to show compliance was 

conducted within the reporting period. 

(ii) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP gas or vapor service subject 

to § 63.1411(b), report any instrument 

reading of 500 ppm above background 

or greater, more than 5 days after the 

relief device returns to organic HAP gas 

or vapor service after a pressure release. 

(iii) For pressure relief devices in 

organic HAP service subject to 

§ 63.1411(c), report each pressure 

release to the atmosphere, including the 

following information: 

(A) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

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

pressure release. 

(C) An estimate of the quantity of total 

HAP emitted during the pressure release 

and the method used for determining 

this quantity. 

(D) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(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 § 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 § 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 EPAprovided software, the owner or 

operator shall submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software, 

unless otherwise approved by the 

Administrator. Owners or operators, 

who claim that some of the information 

being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI), 

must submit a complete file using EPAprovided software that includes 

information claimed to be CBI on a 

compact disc, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

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

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software. 

(ii) For any performance test 

conducted using test methods that are 

not compatible with the EPA-provided 

software, the owner or operator shall 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(F) If the daily average is not a 

deviation, as defined in § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Table 1 to Subpart OOO is 

amended by: 

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

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


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60935 

■ b. Adding entries 63.1(a)(6) and 

63.1(a)(7)–63.1(a)(9); 

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

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

■ d. Adding entry 63.6(e)(3); 

■ e. Removing entries 63.6(e)(3)(i), 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

■ f. Revising entries 63.6(f)(1), 

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

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

■ g. Removing footnote a. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

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

SOURCES

Reference Applies to subpart OOO Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

* * * * * * * 

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

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

■ 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES