73098 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–OAR–2003–0121; FRL–8005–2] 

RIN 2060–AM43 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: On November 10, 2003, EPA 

promulgated national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for miscellaneous organic 

chemical manufacturing. Several 

petitions for judicial review of the final 

rule were filed in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. Petitioners expressed concern 

with various requirements in the final 

rule, including applicability of specific 

operations and processes, the leak 

detection and repair requirements for 

connectors, criteria to define affected 

wastewater streams requiring control, 

control requirements for wastewater 

streams that contain only soluble HAP 

(SHAP), the definition of process 

condensers, and recordkeeping 

requirements for Group 2 batch process 

vents. In this action, EPA proposes 

amendments to the final rule to address 

these issues and to correct 

inconsistencies that have been 

discovered during the review process. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before January 24, 2006. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by December 19, 2005, a public 

hearing will be held on December 23, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA OAR– 

2003–0121, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, will be replaced by an enhanced 

Federal-wide electronic docket 

management and comment system 

located at www.regulations.gov. When 

this occurs, you will be redirected to 

that site to access the docket and submit 

comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, EPA, Mailcode: 

6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

duplicate copy, if possible. 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket, EPA, Room B–102, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. We 

request that a separate copy of each 

public comment also be sent to the 

contact person listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2003–0121. 

The EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment with a disk or CD–ROM you 

submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at EPA’s 

Environmental Research Center 

Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina or at an alternate site 

nearby. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Randy McDonald, Organic Chemicals 

Group (C504–04), Emission Standards 

Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–5402; fax number: (919) 541– 

3470; e-mail address: 

mcdonald.randy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. Categories and entities 

potentially regulated by this action 

include: 

Category NAICS* Examples of regulated entities 

Industry .............. 3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, and 3259, with several 

exceptions.

Producers of specialty organic chemicals, explosives, certain 

polymers and resins, and certain pesticide intermediates. 

* North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.2435. 

If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73099 

1The Fertilizer Institute and Arteva Specialties 

S.’ ar.l also filed petitions for review but voluntarily 

withdrew their petitions. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

Public Hearing. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony or inquiring 

as to whether a hearing is to be held 

should contact Randy McDonald, 

Organic Chemicals Group, Emission 

Standards Division (Mail Code C504–

04), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina, 27711, telephone 

number (919) 541–5402, electronic mail 

address mcdonald.randy@epa.gov, at 

least two days in advance of the 

potential date of the public hearing. 

Persons interested in attending the 

public hearing also must call Mr. Randy 

McDonald to verify the time, date, and 

location of the hearing. A public hearing 

will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or 

arguments concerning the proposed 

amendments. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the proposed rule is 

also available on the WWW through the 

Technology Transfer Network Web site 

(TTN Web). Following signature, a copy 

of the proposed rule will be posted on 

the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

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

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Organization of This Document. The 

information presented in this preamble 

is organized as follows: 

I. Why are we proposing amendments to 

subpart FFFF? 

II. How are we proposing to amend the 

compliance dates? 

A. Existing Sources 

B. Process Changes Resulting in New 

Compliance Requirements 

III. How are we proposing to amend the 

applicability requirements? 

A. Compounding and Finishing Operations 

in Polymer Processes 

B. Carbon Monoxide Production 

C. Boundary of a Miscellaneous Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing Process Unit 

That Produces a Solid Product 

D. Applicability of the MON to Coke ByProduct Plants 

IV. How are we proposing to amend the 

requirements for process vents? 

A. Process Condensers 

B. Requirements for HAP Metal 

Compounds 

C. Compliance Requirements for Process 

Tanks 

D. Provisions for Switching Batch Process 

Vents from Group 2 to Group 1 

E. Definition of Batch Process Vent 

F. Definitions of Continuous Process Vent 

and Related Terms 

G. Definition of Group 1 Continuous 

Process Vent 

H. Requirements for Biofilter Control 

Devices 

I. Emission Limit for Hydrogen Halide and 

Halogen HAP from Process Vents 

V. How are we proposing to amend the 

requirements for wastewater systems? 

A. Definitions of Wastewater and Group 1 

Wastewater 

B. Management Requirements for 

Wastewater That is Group 1 for Soluble 

HAP 

C. Discarding Materials to Water or 

Wastewater 

D. Compliance Requirements 

E. Definition of Wastewater 

VI. How are we proposing to amend the 

requirements for equipment leaks? 

VII. How are we proposing to amend the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

A. Processes with Uncontrolled Emissions 

Below the Thresholds for Control 

B. Standard and Nonstandard Batches 

C. Operating Logs 

D. Reporting Requirements for Emission 

Points that Change from Group 2 to 

Group 1 

VIII. How are we proposing to change 

requirements that apply when 

requirements in subpart FFFF and 

another rule apply to the same 

equipment? 

IX. What miscellaneous technical corrections 

are we proposing? 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

I. Why are we proposing amendments 

to subpart FFFF? 

On November 10, 2003, we 

promulgated NESHAP for miscellaneous 

organic chemical (MON) manufacturing 

as subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63. 

Petitions for review of the MON were 

filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit by 

American Chemistry Council, Eastman 

Chemical Company, Clariant LSM 

(America), Inc., Rohm and Haas 

Company, General Electric Company, 

Coke Oven Environmental Task Force 

(‘‘COETF’’) and Lyondell Chemical 

Company (collectively ‘‘Petitioners’’).1

These matters were consolidated into 

American Chemical Council, et al. v. 

EPA, No. 04–1004, 04–1005, 04–1008, 

04–1009, 04–1010, 04–1012, 04–1013 

(D.C. Cir.). Issues raised by the 

petitioners included applicability of the 

final rule; leak detection and repair 

requirements for connectors; definitions 

of process condenser, continuous 

process vent, and Group 1 wastewater; 

treatment requirements for wastewater 

that is Group 1 only for SHAP; 

recordkeeping for Group 2 batch process 

vents; and notification requirements for 

Group 2 emission points that become 

Group 1 emission points. In early 

October 2005, the parties signed a 

settlement agreement. Pursuant to 

section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), notice of the settlement was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 26, 2005 (70 FR 61814). 

Today’s proposed amendments 

address the issues raised by Petitioners 

and include corrections and 

clarifications to ensure that the final 

rule is implemented as intended. 

Today’s proposed amendments also 

provide some new compliance options, 

as well as new provisions that would 

reduce the burden associated with 

demonstrating compliance. For 

example, the use of biofilters is 

proposed as an option for complying 

with the 95 percent reduction emission 

limit for batch process vents, a new 

compliance option is proposed for 

wastewater that would allow certain 

waste management units in a 

biotreatment system to be uncovered if 

the wastewater being treated is Group 1 

only for soluble HAP, and a new 

regulatory alternative for equipment 

leaks would simplify applicability by 

applying the same requirements to all 

MON processes and reduce the leak 

detection burden for connectors. We are 

also proposing revised recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.2525(e) for 

Group 2 batch process vents that would 

eliminate recordkeeping in certain 

situations and reduce the recordkeeping 

burden if non-reactive HAP usage is less 

73100 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

than 10,000 pounds per year (lb/yr) or 

if emissions are less than 1,000 lb/yr, 

and we are proposing to eliminate the 

requirement to include results of 

engineering assessments that determine 

emissions from batch operations that 

have hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

concentrations less than 50 parts per 

million by volume (ppmv) in your 

precompliance report. 

II. How are we proposing to amend the 

compliance dates? 

A. Existing Sources 

The Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing NESHAP promulgated 

on November 10, 2003, specifies that 

existing source must be in compliance 

with the NESHAP no later than 

November 10, 2006. Precompliance 

reports must be filed by May 10, 2006. 

We are proposing a new compliance 

date of May 10, 2008, because the 

proposed amendments are sufficiently 

far reaching and complex that an 

amended rule would effectively be a 

new rule warranting a new compliance 

date and because we do not anticipate 

finalizing the proposed amendments 

with sufficient time for parties to 

comply with the amended rule, which 

set forth provisions inconsistent with 

existing provisions. 

Section 112(a)(3) of the CAA provides 

that existing sources are to be in 

compliance with applicable emission 

standards ‘‘as expeditiously as 

practicable, but in no event later than 3 

years after the effective date of such 

standard.’’ The November 10, 2003, 

Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing NESHAP specify a 

compliance date 3 years from the 

issuance of that rule. Section 112(d)(6) 

of the CAA provides authority for the 

Administrator to revise the emission 

standards issued under CAA section 112 

‘‘no less often than every 8 years.’’ We 

believe the authority to revise the 

standards inherently includes the 

authority to set new compliance dates 

for revised rules. Congress provided us 

discretion to set a compliance date for 

existing sources of up to 3 years in order 

to provide time for retrofitting of 

controls where necessary. Thus, due to 

the extensive nature of the proposed 

amendments, we are proposing a new 

compliance date. 

We believe that 18 months from the 

otherwise applicable compliance date 

will be sufficient for all sources to come 

into compliance with the proposed 

amendments. However, should any 

source be unable to meet that 

compliance date because of the need to 

install controls that cannot be installed 

by that date, each source may request an 

extension of up to 1 year in accordance 

with 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4) and (6). 

B. Process Changes Resulting in New 

Compliance Requirements 

We are proposing to add language to 

40 CFR 63.2445 to clarify when 

compliance is required after making any 

of the following types of process 

changes after the compliance date: 

Changing the status of any emission 

point from Group 2 to Group 1, 

increasing uncontrolled hydrogen 

halide and halogen emissions from all 

process vents within a process above 

1,000 lb/yr, increasing uncontrolled 

HAP metals emissions from all process 

vents within a process at a new source 

above 150 lb/yr (see discussion later in 

this preamble regarding the change from 

PM HAP to HAP metals), or changing 

the status of a control device from small 

to large. A large control device is a 

control device that has an inlet HAP 

load equal to or greater than 10 tons per 

year (tpy), and a small control device 

has an inlet HAP load less than 10 tpy. 

After making any of the noted process 

changes, information presented in the 

notification of compliance status report 

demonstrating initial compliance must 

be updated according to 40 CFR 

63.2520(e)(10)(i). If the situations after 

any of the changes described above had 

existed on the initial compliance date, 

a performance test (or design evaluation 

in some cases) would have been 

required to demonstrate initial 

compliance. Thus, a performance test or 

design evaluation is also required to 

satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 

63.2520(e)(10)(i) after one of the noted 

process changes, and the results must be 

included in the compliance report for 

the period during which the change 

occurred. Compliance reports are due 2 

months after the end of a reporting 

period. This means a facility would 

have between approximately 60 and 240 

days, depending on when the change 

occurred during the reporting period, to 

complete the performance test or design 

evaluation and include it in the 

applicable report. We consider 60 days 

to be insufficient, particularly for a 

performance test. Work on a design 

evaluation could begin before the 

change occurs, but a performance test 

cannot be conducted until the 

equipment is operating. We also 

consider the potential variability in 

timing among sources to be 

unreasonable. Therefore, we are 

proposing language in 40 CFR 63.2445 

to specify that performance tests and 

design evaluations must be conducted 

within 150 days after making one of the 

types of process changes listed above. 

This timeframe is also consistent with 

the amount of time allowed to complete 

these activities after the initial 

compliance date and include the results 

in the notification of compliance status 

report. 

Sections 63.2445(b) and (c) of the 

promulgated rule require compliance 

with all applicable requirements no 

later than the compliance date. If you 

make a process change after the 

compliance date, this requirement 

means you must comply with all 

applicable requirements for the changed 

situation beginning on the date the 

change occurs. To clarify this 

requirement for the types of process 

changes described above, we are 

proposing language in 40 CFR 63.2445 

to explicitly state that Group 1 

requirements (e.g., emission limits in 

table 2 to subpart FFFF for batch 

process vents) apply beginning on the 

date of a change from Group 2 to Group 

1, that applicable emission limits in 

table 3 to subpart FFFF apply beginning 

on the date HAP metals or hydrogen 

halide and halogen HAP emissions are 

increased above applicable thresholds, 

and monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for large control devices 

apply beginning on the date a control 

device changes status from small to 

large. 

III. How are we proposing to amend the 

applicability requirements? 

We are proposing several changes to 

the applicability requirements, 

particularly to clarify and add 

exceptions in order to make the 

regulation consistent with our intent 

and the data underlying the standards. 

Another change involves the boundary 

of a miscellaneous organic chemical 

manufacturing process unit (MCPU) that 

produces a solid product. 

A. Compounding and Finishing 

Operations in Polymer Processes 

We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 

63.2435(c)(4) to clarify the types of 

polymer finishing operations that are 

exempted from subpart FFFF. Section 

63.2435(c)(4) currently exempts only 

fabricating operations (such as spinning 

a polymer to its end use). Another 

finishing operation (compounding of 

purchased resins) is exempted by the 

exemption in 40 CFR 63.2435(c)(5) for 

production activities described using 

the 1997 version of NAICS code 325991. 

These exemptions for finishing 

operations were included in the final 

rule due to the minimal potential for 

emissions from such operations. After 

reviewing this issue, we have 

determined that additional finishing 

operations can be exempted for the 

same reason. Thus, the proposed 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73101 

2Numerous government documents and technical 

references identify CO as an inorganic compound. 

For example, the term ‘‘volatile organic 

compounds’’ is defined in 40 CFR 51.1000(s) as 

‘‘any compound of carbon, excluding carbon 

monoxide * * * which participates in atmospheric 

photochemical reactions.’’ The definition goes on to 

list compounds that have negligible photochemical 

reactivity. Since CO was explicitly excluded, and it 

is clearly volatile, the definition makes it clear that 

CO is not considered to be an organic compound. 

In addition, Hawley’s Condensed Chemical 

Dictionary states that CO is classified as an 

inorganic chemical, and the physical properties of 

CO are listed in a table of inorganic compounds in 

the Chemical Engineers’ Handbook. 

amendments to 40 CFR 63.2435(c)(4) 

would expand the exemption for 

finishing operations to cover activities 

that can be classified as fabricating, 

compounding, drawing, or extrusion 

operations, provided they do not meet 

certain specified conditions. For 

example, the exemption would not 

apply where residual monomer remains 

with some polymers and an intended 

purpose of the finishing operation is to 

remove the residual monomer. A 

finishing operation also would not be 

exempt if it involves processing with 

HAP solvent (e.g., if a solid polymer 

product is dissolved in a HAP solvent 

prior to the finishing operation). These 

changes would make the exemptions 

consistent with the exemptions in 

previous rules for polymer production 

processes such as 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart JJJ. 

As noted above, spinning a polymer 

into its end use is given as an example 

of ‘‘fabricating operations’’ in the 

existing rule. To further exemplify the 

meaning of this term, the proposed 

amendments provide compressing a 

solid polymer into its end use as 

another example. 

The proposed amendments would 

exempt all compounding operations 

with a previously produced solid 

polymer, not just compounding of 

purchased resins as currently provided 

for in 40 CFR 63.2435(c)(5). The 

compounding operation is the same 

whether it is done with purchased 

resins or at the facility that produced 

the resins. Thus, there is no reason to 

limit the exemption to compounding of 

purchased resins. To clarify what we 

mean by ‘‘compounding operations,’’

the proposed amendments describe 

them as ‘‘blending, melting, and 

resolidification of a solid polymer * * * 

for the purpose of incorporating 

additives, colorants, or stabilizers.’’

The proposed amendments include a 

new exemption for extrusion and 

drawing operations. These finishing 

operations are described in the 

proposed amendments as operations 

that ‘‘convert[] an already produced 

solid polymer into a different shape by 

melting or mixing the polymer and then 

forcing it or pulling it through an orifice 

to create an extruded product.’’ Note 

that this means some extrusion and 

drawing operations are not exempt (in 

addition to those operations that are 

intended to remove residual HAP 

monomer or involve processing with a 

HAP solvent). Specifically, extrusion 

and drawing operations integral to 

production of the solid polymer are part 

of a MCPU and are not exempt. 

B. Carbon Monoxide Production 

While carbon monoxide (CO) is an 

inorganic compound,2 petitioners 

argued that the final rule was 

ambiguous whether CO production was 

covered by the MON since it is included 

under NAICS category 325120, and the 

MON has no exemption for CO 

production. While we did not intend to 

cover CO production under the MON, it 

is not a HAP and thus not subject to 

regulation under CAA section 112, we 

are proposing to clarify the MON by 

adding a new 40 CFR 63.2435(c)(7) to 

specifically exempt CO production 

processes. 

C. Boundary of a Miscellaneous Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing Process Unit 

That Produces a Solid Product 

A miscellaneous organic chemical 

manufacturing process unit is defined in 

40 CFR 63.2550(i) of the MON as ‘‘all 

equipment which collectively function 

to produce a product * * *’’ The end of 

a process is the point at which product 

is transferred to a storage tank or a 

transfer rack because 40 CFR 63.2435(d) 

specifies that such equipment is 

associated with a process (i.e., not part 

of the process), and it may be part of the 

MCPU if it meets specified criteria. Both 

liquid and solid products may be stored 

or transferred to shipping containers. 

However, the definitions of ‘‘storage 

tank’’ and ‘‘transfer rack’’ explicitly 

refer to storage or transfer of organic 

liquids. Thus, it is not clear if storage 

and transfer of solid products should be 

subject to these definitions, if they are 

unit operations that are part of the 

process, or if they are exempt from the 

final rule. 

To eliminate this ambiguity, we are 

proposing to revise the definition of 

‘‘miscellaneous organic chemical 

manufacturing process’’ in 40 CFR 

63.2550(i) to specify the endpoint of a 

process that produces a solid product. If 

the product is dried, the end of the 

process would be the dryer. For a 

polymer production process without a 

dryer, the end of the process would be 

the extruder or die plate. This is 

consistent with the revisions to the 

exemption for polymer finishing 

operations discussed above. There 

would be two exceptions to these 

endpoints. One exception is if the dryer, 

extruder, or die plate is followed by 

blending or another operation that is 

designed and operated to remove HAP 

solvent or residual HAP monomer from 

the solid product. The second exception 

is if the dried solid is mixed with a 

HAP-based solvent. In both cases, the 

HAP removal operation would be the 

last step in the process. 

D. Applicability of the MON to Coke ByProduct Plants 

One of the petitioners requested 

clarification as to the applicability of the 

MON to coke by-product plants. On 

January 30, 2001, EPA deleted coke byproduct plants from the list of major and 

area sources of HAP required by CAA 

section 112(c)(1). (See 66 FR 8220.) 

Consequently, 40 CFR part 63 

miscellaneous achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards 

promulgated under CAA section 112(d), 

such as the MON, would not apply to 

the deleted coke by-product plant 

source category. Moreover, as EPA 

explained in 2001, coke by-product 

plants remain subject to the pre-existing 

NESHAP for benzene emissions from 

coke by-product recovery plants at 40 

CFR part 61, subpart L. (See 66 FR at 

8222.) EPA is not proposing any 

changes to the MON in order to clarify 

this issue, as it is unnecessary to do so. 

Today’s clarification is wholly 

consistent with EPA’s previous action in 

2001 deleting the coke by-product plant 

source category. 

IV. How are we proposing to amend the 

requirements for process vents? 

A. Process Condensers 

We are proposing several changes to 

clarify the definition of ‘‘process 

condenser,’’ the procedures for 

calculating emissions when process 

condensers are used, and related 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. We are proposing changes 

to the definition because we have 

become aware of an inconsistency 

between the definition of that term as it 

is used in the MON and the way 

industry representatives interpreted the 

term when they were reporting 

uncontrolled emissions in response to 

our information request in 1997. The 

inconsistency stems from a difference in 

the interpretation of ‘‘integral to a 

process.’’ Companies considered 

condensers to be integral to a process if 

collected material was returned to the 

process or used for fuel value, whereas 

73102 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

we considered condensers to be integral 

only if they reduced the temperature 

below the bubble point or boiling point. 

Thus, the companies reported 

uncontrolled emissions at the outlet of 

more condensers than we realized, 

which means the current regulatory 

requirements do not align with the data 

that were used to develop the MACT 

floor. The proposed revisions would 

correct this misalignment by clarifying 

the term process condenser as described 

below. 

Section 63.2460(c)(1) of the current 

rule references the definition of process 

condenser in 40 CFR 63.1251 of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart GGG (the 

Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP). 

According to this definition, the 

primary purpose of a process condenser 

is to recover material as an integral part 

of a process. To clarify what is meant by 

the terms ‘‘recover’’ and ‘‘an integral 

part of a process,’’ we are proposing to 

create a freestanding (i.e., non-cross 

referenced) term ‘‘process condenser’’ in 

40 CFR 63.2550(i) of subpart FFFF. This 

proposed definition would specify that 

‘‘a primary condenser or condensers in 

series are considered to be integral to 

the MCPU if they are capable of and 

normally used for the purposes of 

recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., 

net positive heating value), use, reuse or 

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

The definition of process condenser in 

subpart GGG also specified that a 

process condenser included a condenser 

recovering condensate from a process at 

or above the boiling point, and all 

condensers in line prior to a vacuum 

source. This part of the definition is 

retained in the proposed definition for 

40 CFR 63.2550(i). 

The new language related to 

‘‘recover’’ and ‘‘integral part of a 

process’’ is already used in the 

definition of ‘‘recovery device’’ in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS, that is 

referenced in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

FFFF, for continuous process vents. 

Thus, the proposed change to the 

definition of process condenser makes it 

clear that the concept of recovering 

chemicals with a condenser has similar 

meaning regardless of whether the vent 

is associated with a batch unit operation 

or a continuous unit operation. An 

important point to note is that the 

proposed changes to the definition 

mean condensers cannot be recovery 

devices for the purpose of complying 

with the 95 percent reduction 

requirement specified in table 2 to 

subpart FFFF because any recovery 

operation makes the condenser a 

process condenser. Condensers that are 

not process condensers can still be 

control devices used alone or in series 

with other control devices to comply 

with either the 98 percent reduction or 

the outlet concentration option. 

We are also proposing additional 

changes to 40 CFR 63.2460(b) and (c) to 

clarify procedures for calculating 

uncontrolled emissions associated with 

process condensers. We are proposing to 

amend paragraphs (1) and (2) in 40 CFR 

63.2460(b) to clarify that the referenced 

procedures for calculating uncontrolled 

emissions from heating and 

depressurization events for batch 

process vents are only for situations 

where the process vessel is not 

equipped with a process condenser. We 

are proposing to add a new paragraph in 

40 CFR 63.2460(b) to provide the 

appropriate procedures for calculating 

uncontrolled emissions for all types of 

emission episodes when a process 

vessel is equipped with a process 

condenser. 

We are proposing to add regulatory 

text to 40 CFR 63.2460(c) specifying that 

you must make the determination of 

whether a condenser is a process 

condenser or air pollution control 

device as part of your initial compliance 

demonstration, and you must report the 

results and supporting rationale in your 

notification of compliance status report. 

This determination is made on a process 

basis, which means a condenser is 

either a process condenser for all gas 

streams from a given process, or it is an 

air pollution control device for all gas 

streams from the process. Furthermore, 

for nondedicated operations, this means 

a condenser may be a process condenser 

for some processes and an air pollution 

control device for others. 

Finally, we are proposing changes to 

the initial compliance demonstration for 

process condensers to be consistent 

with the changes in the definition. 

Section 63.2460(c)(2)(v) references the 

initial compliance demonstration 

procedures in 40 CFR 

63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B) for process 

condensers that are not followed by an 

air pollution control device or the air 

pollution control device is not in 

compliance with the alternative 

standard. The procedures require you to 

either measure the exhaust gas 

temperature and show it is less than the 

boiling or bubble point of the substances 

in the process vessel or perform a 

material balance around the vessel and 

condenser to show that at least 99 

percent of the material vaporized while 

boiling is condensed. To be consistent 

with the proposed definition of process 

condenser, we are also proposing to 

revise 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(2)(v) to specify 

that this demonstration is only required 

for process condensers that are used 

with boiling operations (at least part of 

the time), and that the demonstration 

must be performed while boiling 

operations are occurring. 

B. Requirements for HAP Metal 

Compounds 

Table 3 to the final rule specifies 

emission limits for particulate matter 

(PM) HAP emissions from process vents 

at new sources, but the final rule does 

not define ‘‘PM HAP.’’ After 

reexamining this provision, we decided 

to propose a number of changes to table 

3 and the corresponding compliance 

procedures specified in 40 CFR 

63.2465(d). These proposed 

amendments focus the emission limit on 

metallic HAP compounds and clarify 

compliance requirements for metallic 

HAP. 

Our intent in setting the PM HAP 

emission limit in table 3 to the final rule 

was to ensure the control of metallic PM 

HAP emissions. Organic compounds 

that are emitted as solids are separately 

addressed by the emission limits for 

organic compounds (see tables 1 and 2 

of subpart FFFF). The term PM HAP, 

and associated measurement and 

monitoring techniques, however, does 

not clearly capture this intent. 

Accordingly, to clarify this point, we are 

proposing a number of changes. First, 

we are proposing to revise table 3 in the 

rule to specify emission limits for ‘‘HAP 

metals’’ rather than ‘‘PM HAP.’’ This 

does not impact the substance of the 

final rule as uncontrolled HAP metals 

must still be reduced by 97 percent, 

identical to the reduction specified for 

PM HAP in the final rule. Second, the 

term ‘‘HAP metals’’ would be defined in 

40 CFR 63.2550(i) to mean the metal 

portion of antimony compounds, 

arsenic compounds, beryllium 

compounds, cadmium compounds, 

chromium compounds, cobalt 

compounds, lead compounds, 

manganese compounds, nickel 

compounds, and selenium compounds. 

Third, the emissions threshold above 

which control is required would be 

changed from 400 lb/yr of PM HAP (i.e., 

compounds that contain metals) to 150 

lb/yr of HAP metals. Fourth, to 

determine the uncontrolled emissions of 

HAP metals, we are proposing to allow 

the use of process knowledge, 

engineering assessments, or test data. If 

you do not wish to determine the 

uncontrolled emissions, we are 

proposing to allow you to designate the 

HAP metals emissions as greater than 

150 lb/yr. Finally, to demonstrate initial 

compliance with the 97 percent 

reduction requirement for the HAP 

metals, we are proposing to allow the 

use of Method 29 of appendix A of 40 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73103 

CFR part 60 as well as Method 5 of 

appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. 

The proposed definition of ‘‘HAP 

metals’’ and the revised emissions 

threshold are based on the metal portion 

of the compounds rather than the total 

mass of the compounds that contain 

metals simply to clarify that the 

threshold does not include non-HAP 

particulate matter. The revised 

threshold was developed using the same 

process that was used to develop the 

original threshold for the MACT floor. 

This process emitted 400 lb/yr of 

manganese sulfate. Since manganese 

sulfate is about 36 percent manganese 

by weight, the amount of manganese 

emitted was about 150 lb/yr. Method 29 

of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 allows 

you to determine the quantity of each 

HAP metal at the inlet and outlet of the 

control device(s). However, since 

controls for PM would also control the 

HAP metals, a second option is to use 

Method 5 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 

60 to determine the quantity of PM at 

the inlet and outlet of the control 

device(s). 

C. Compliance Requirements for Process 

Tanks 

As defined in 40 CFR 63.2550(i), 

batch process vents include process 

tanks. Table 2 to subpart FFFF requires 

reduction of HAP from batch process 

vents by greater than or equal to 98 

percent, or 95 percent if HAP is 

recovered and reused onsite. As 

currently written, however, the recovery 

option is restricted to situations where 

there is a closed-vent system and a 

recovery device. Such a system, 

however, is not the only option for 

preventing loss of product. Floating roof 

technology achieves 95 percent or 

greater reductions by preventing 

evaporation. Thus, it is a pollution 

prevention control technology that 

meets the intent of the 95 percent 

recovery option for batch process vents 

in table 2 to subpart FFFF. 

Indeed, several rules, such as the 

hazardous organic NESHAP (HON) and 

the new source performance standards 

in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, specify 

that emissions from storage tanks must 

be reduced using an internal or external 

floating roof or by venting the emissions 

through a closed-vent system to a 

control device that reduces the 

emissions by at least 95 percent. To 

allow floating roof technology to comply 

with batch process tanks we are revising 

table 2 to subpart FFFF to reference the 

requirements of subpart WW of this part 

for any process tank. In addition, to 

make the referenced language consistent 

with process vent requirements, we 

propose adding regulatory text in 40 

CFR 63.2460(c) specifying that when 

subpart WW uses the term ‘‘storage 

vessel,’’ it means ‘‘process tank’’ for the 

purposes of 40 CFR 63.2460. 

D. Provisions for Switching Batch 

Process Vents From Group 2 to Group 1 

We are proposing to add a new 40 

CFR 63.2460(b)(6) to specify that a 

performance test report (or design 

evaluation, if emissions are controlled 

by a small control device) must be 

submitted in the next compliance report 

whenever you switch from Group 2 

batch process vents to Group 1. This 

requirement is inherent in the existing 

rule because an initial compliance 

demonstration is required for Group 1 

vents but not Group 2 vents. The 

proposed language simply makes more 

explicit this requirement. Also see the 

discussion earlier in this preamble 

regarding compliance dates for emission 

points that switch from Group 2 to 

Group 1. 

We are also proposing to include 

language in the new 40 CFR 

63.2460(b)(6) to clarify the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with making a 

switch from Group 2 to Group 1. Section 

63.2520(e)(10)(ii)(C) currently requires a 

60-day advance notification of any 

change in status from Group 2 to Group 

1. The primary reason for this 

notification is that it alerts the 

regulatory authority to a situation where 

a performance test (or design 

evaluation) will be needed. However, 

we realize that certain facilities have 

frequent turnover in their batch 

production processes, and it can be 

difficult to predict 60 days in advance 

which new processes will grow to the 

point that they have Group 1 batch 

process vents. To minimize this burden, 

we are proposing to eliminate the 

advance notification requirement if 

records show the process has been in 

compliance with the 10,000 lb/yr 

threshold for Group 2 batch process 

vents for at least 365 days prior to the 

switch (on a rolling average). For these 

processes, we believe it will be 

sufficient to receive notification of the 

switch in the next compliance report. 

The existing requirement for a 60-day 

advance notification of a switch would 

still apply if the process has not been 

operated for at least one year with 

Group 2 batch process vents. See 

discussion later in this preamble 

regarding the related changes to the 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR 

63.2520(e)(10). 

E. Definition of Batch Process Vent 

We are proposing minor changes to 

clarify the threshold levels specified in 

the definition of ‘‘batch process vent.’’

Although these changes will not change 

the thresholds or the intended meaning 

of the definition, we are including a 

detailed explanation in this preamble of 

how to apply the thresholds to ensure 

that the revised language is interpreted 

as we intended. We are also proposing 

to make a separate change to reduce the 

burden of demonstrating whether 

emission streams exceed these 

thresholds and, thus, constitute batch 

process vents. 

Item number 8 in the definition of 

batch process vent specifies two HAP 

thresholds below which emission 

streams are not a batch process vent. 

The first threshold is 50 ppmv of HAP. 

This threshold applies to the emission 

stream from each individual emission 

episode (e.g., a displacement, purge, 

vacuum operation, etc.). If the average 

HAP concentration over the episode is 

less than 50 ppmv, then the emission 

stream is not a batch process vent. The 

second threshold is 200 lb/yr of HAP. 

This threshold applies to the collective 

emissions from a single vent (i.e., 

release point); including releases below 

the 50 ppmv threshold. Note that HAP 

concentration is not necessarily 

required for determination of the single 

vent emission rate. If the total HAP 

emissions for a vent are less than 200 lb/ 

yr, then that vent is not a batch process 

vent, and none of the emission streams 

that discharge from it are subject to 

requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

FFFF. The vent in this determination 

may be for a single unit operation that 

has multiple emission episodes. On the 

other hand, if you connect the vents 

from multiple unit operations to a 

manifold and discharge combined 

emissions at one point, then the 

discharge point is the vent for the 

purposes of this determination. Note 

that the HAP in emission streams that 

are exempted by this determination 

(either because they are individually 

below the 50 ppmv threshold or because 

the total emissions from the vent are 

below the 200 lb/year threshold) do not 

need to be counted towards the 10,000 

lb/yr threshold in the determination of 

whether batch process vents are Group 

1 batch process vents. 

The following example provides a 

simple illustration of how to apply these 

thresholds. Consider operations in a 

single vessel that generate HAP 

emissions from three emission episodes: 

the first contains HAP at >50 ppmv that 

amounts to 180 lb/yr when summed 

over all of the batches for the process in 

a year, the second contains HAP at <50 

ppmv and 20 lb/yr, and the third 

contains <50 ppmv and 250 lb/yr. A 

batch process vent exists for this vessel 

73104 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

because total emissions exceed 200 lb/ 

yr and the first emission episode has a 

HAP concentration >50 ppmv. Note that 

only the first emission episode meets 

the definition of batch process vent. In 

addition, only the 180 lb/yr from the 

first emission episode must be added 

with emissions from other batch process 

vents to determine if total emissions 

from the process meet the 10,000 lb/yr 

threshold. If the example were changed 

slightly to have a manifolded vent with 

emissions from both this vessel and 

other operations within the process, 

your manifolded vent would be a batch 

process vent (regardless of the 

contribution from the other operations) 

because the total HAP emissions from 

the original vessel alone exceed the 200 

lb/yr threshold, and an emission 

episode from the vessel exceeds 50 

ppmv. 

Other proposed changes to the 

definition involve the procedures for 

conducting and reporting the results of 

an engineering assessment to determine 

the HAP concentration or mass emission 

rate for emission streams that will be 

exempt from control because it is 

determined that HAP is present at a 

concentration less than 50 ppmv or a 

mass emission rate less than 200 lb/yr. 

Item 8 in the current definition specifies 

that you may determine the 

concentration or mass emission rate 

using an engineering assessment as 

discussed in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii) of 

subpart GGG. According to the 

referenced provision, you could use an 

engineering assessment only if you first 

demonstrate that the equations in 40 

CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) are not applicable. 

You would also have to provide the 

results and supporting information in 

your precompliance report for this 

finding as well as for the engineering 

assessment that you want to use. 

Since promulgation, it has been 

brought to our attention that many 

emission streams from batch operations 

in MON processes are likely to have 

HAP emissions below the specified 

thresholds. As a result, this provision is 

likely to impose a substantial burden on 

both affected sources and regulatory 

agencies. We have determined that such 

an expenditure of resources on 

documenting and approving procedures 

used to estimate emissions from these 

minor sources imposes an unreasonable 

regulatory burden relative to the 

additional precision potential achieved 

by using the equations in 40 CFR 

63.1257(d)(2)(i). 

To minimize this burden, we are 

proposing changes to item 8 of the 

definition of batch process vent and to 

related precompliance reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.2520(c)(4). 

One new provision in the definition of 

batch process vent would specify that 

you do not have to demonstrate that the 

equations in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) are 

not appropriate before you may use an 

engineering assessment, and the second 

would specify that the precompliance 

reporting requirements specified in 40 

CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii)(E) do not apply for 

the purposes of demonstrating 

compliance with the applicable 

threshold. One of the proposed changes 

to 40 CFR 63.2520(c)(4) would eliminate 

the requirement to include data and 

results from an engineering assessment 

in your precompliance report if you 

determine the HAP concentration is less 

than 50 ppmv. We believe that this 

reporting requirement can be eliminated 

without compromising the regulatory 

agency’s ability to determine 

compliance; documenting these results 

in your notification of compliance status 

report will be sufficient. Another 

proposed change to 40 CFR 

63.2520(c)(4) would eliminate the 

requirement to include the results of an 

engineering assessment that is based on 

previous test data in your 

precompliance report. Results based on 

test data do not need to be approved by 

the regulatory agency, and we believe 

that documenting these results in your 

notification of compliance status report 

will be sufficient. 

F. Definitions of Continuous Process 

Vent and Related Terms 

In the existing rule, only air oxidation 

reactors, distillation units, and reactors 

can have continuous process vents 

because the definition of this term in 40 

CFR 63.2550(i) references the criteria in 

40 CFR 63.107 of the HON. We are 

proposing to revise this definition to 

specify that it applies to any continuous 

unit operation for the purposes of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. We 

determined that this change is needed 

because the data we used to develop the 

MACT floor for continuous process 

vents was not limited to air oxidation 

reactors, distillation units, and reactors. 

We also re-examined the data to 

determine if any distinct class of 

continuous process vents, such as 

atmospheric dryers, would have a 

different MACT floor than other classes 

or the combined group of all continuous 

process vents. We concluded that 

developing separate MACT floors would 

be infeasible because data were sparse 

and inadequate to develop separate 

floors. However, the data we have 

indicates that several atmospheric 

dryers, which are not considered 

continuous vents in the current rule, 

have emission characteristics that are 

sufficiently similar to other continuous 

process vents in our database such that 

they should be included in the 

definition of continuous process vents. 

We are also proposing to add another 

provision to the continuous process 

vent definition to provide that the 

determination of whether a gas stream is 

a continuous process vent must be made 

at a point before the combination of the 

gas stream with any other gas streams 

from process operations. As currently 

written, when continuous flow gas 

streams from continuous operations are 

combined with other gas streams, 40 

CFR 63.107(b) would allow 

determination of whether the combined 

stream is a continuous process vent. 

This is inconsistent with our intent that 

continuous process vents and batch 

process vents be separate, distinct 

streams. This intent is evident in the 

hierarchical provisions in 40 CFR 

63.2450(c) for determining applicable 

requirements for combined streams. The 

proposed change would eliminate this 

inconsistency and ensure the rule is 

implemented consistent with our intent. 

Surge control vessels are used in a 

process to transition from one operation 

to another. Consistent with the current 

definition of continuous process vent, 

the existing definition in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart FFFF describes surge control 

vessels as vessels that precede 

continuous reactors, air oxidation 

reactors, and distillation units (i.e., the 

only operations that have continuous 

process vents under the existing rule). If 

the universe of continuous process 

vents expands as proposed above, then 

a comparable change is needed in the 

definition of surge control vessel. To 

maintain consistency, we are proposing 

to use the term ‘‘continuous operations’’

in place of the reference to reactors, air 

oxidation reactors, and distillation units 

in the definition of surge control vessel. 

The term ‘‘continuous operation’’ is not 

defined in the existing rule. However, 

since the final rule already contains a 

definition for the term ‘‘batch 

operation,’’ we are proposing to define 

a continuous operation as any MON 

operation that is not a batch operation. 

G. Definition of Group 1 Continuous 

Process Vent 

We are proposing to revise the 

definition of ‘‘Group 1 continuous 

process vent’’ by adding an exemption 

for continuous process vents with a flow 

less than 0.005 standard cubic meter per 

minute, which was inadvertently 

excluded from the MON. This error 

occurred because rather than 

referencing the definition in 40 CFR 

63.111 of the HON, we decided to 

specifically define this term in 40 CFR 

63.2550(i) of subpart FFFF because the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73105 

definition is short and the key element 

of the definition, the total resource 

effectiveness (TRE) threshold, differs 

between the two rules. While our intent 

was that other elements of the definition 

would be the same as in the HON we 

neglected to include the flowrate 

threshold. The proposed amendment 

corrects this oversight. 

We believe this correction is 

appropriate in part because the HON 

and other NESHAP that also use the 

same threshold often apply to the same 

facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart FFFF. Thus, making the 

definitions more consistent between the 

rules may reduce both the burden on the 

affected sources and the potential for 

inadvertent deviations from 

requirements. 

H. Requirements for Biofilter Control 

Devices 

Interest in using biofilters to control 

emissions is growing. Therefore, we are 

proposing to specify that biofilter 

control devices may be used to comply 

with the 95 percent reduction option (or 

outlet concentration limit) for batch 

process vents. We are also proposing to 

add a definition for biofilter in 40 CFR 

63.2550(i) that is consistent with the 

definition used in subpart DDDD to part 

63 (Plywood and Composite Wood 

Products NESHAP). Although biofilters 

are not recovery devices, we are 

proposing to allow their use for 

complying with the 95 percent option 

because they have the ability to meet 

this limit and they have few cross media 

impacts. 

In addition to specifying that 

biofilters may be used to comply with 

the emission limit for batch process 

vents, we are also proposing initial 

compliance and monitoring 

requirements. Initial compliance would 

have to be demonstrated by conducting 

a performance test according to the 

procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.997. 

A design evaluation would not be 

allowed because we do not have 

information on the design 

characteristics that could be used to 

demonstrate proper operation and 

maximum performance of biofilters. 

You would also have to establish 

operating limits for either the biofilter 

bed temperature or the outlet organic 

concentration based on continuous 

monitoring conducted during the 

performance test. Extremes in 

temperature can slow or halt microbial 

activity. Thus, monitoring temperature 

helps determine the health of the 

microorganism population. 

If you elect to measure temperature, 

you would be allowed to place multiple 

thermocouples in representative 

locations throughout the biofilter bed 

and determine the average from these 

readings before determining 15-minute 

or more frequent averages. As for other 

types of control devices, you would be 

able to develop the operating limits 

based on results of a previous 

performance test that meets all of the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.997 and 

achieves the required reduction. 

However, we are proposing to require 

that the operating limits be based only 

on these measurements. Engineering 

assessments and manufacturer’s 

recommendations could not be used to 

supplement the test data. You would 

also be required to conduct repeat 

performance tests within 2 years 

following each previous test and within 

150 days after each replacement of any 

portion of the biofilter bed media with 

a different type of media or each 

replacement of more than 50 percent (by 

volume) of the biofilter bed media with 

the same type of media. 

Monitoring to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

emission limit would be required for the 

same parameter measured during the 

performance test. The continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.996 and 40 

CFR 63.998 would apply to temperature 

monitors, and the continuous emission 

monitoring system (CEMS) monitoring 

requirements in subpart A of 40 CFR 

part 63 would apply to organic 

monitoring devices. 

I. Emission Limit for Hydrogen Halide 

and Halogen HAP From Process Vents 

We are proposing to add a halogen 

atom mass flow rate emission limit of 

0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) as an 

alternative to the current emission 

limits that require either a 99 percent 

reduction or control to an outlet 

concentration limit of 20 ppmv because 

we inadvertently neglected to include it 

in the final rule. This control option is 

already available for hydrogen halide 

and halogen HAP emissions generated 

by combusting halogenated organic vent 

streams, and there is no reason not to 

include it for hydrogen halide and 

halogen HAP emissions from process 

vents. This control option also would 

make the requirements for hydrogen 

halide and halogen HAP consistent with 

the requirements for combusting 

halogenated organic vent streams. The 

amendment will allow operators with 

halogenated Group 1 streams also 

containing greater than 1,000 pounds 

per year halides to use the 0.45 kg/yr 

control option for combustion devices. 

V. How are we proposing to amend the 

requirements for wastewater systems? 

A. Definitions of Wastewater and Group 

1 Wastewater 

We are proposing several changes to 

the criteria for Group 1 wastewater in 40 

CFR 63.2485(c) to address 

inconsistencies identified by industry 

regarding concentration thresholds for 

partially soluble HAP (PSHAP 

compounds in table 8 to subpart FFFF) 

and soluble HAP (SHAP compounds in 

table 9 to subpart FFFF). We are also 

proposing to change the HAP threshold 

in one set of criteria for Group 1 

wastewater at a new source due to 

uncertainty regarding the performance 

at the source originally identified as the 

best performing source. 

The three sets of criteria in the final 

rule are as follows: 

• The total annual average 

concentration of compounds in table 8 

to this subpart is greater than 50 parts 

per million by weight (ppmw), and the 

combined total annual average 

concentration of compounds in tables 8 

and 9 to this subpart is greater than or 

equal to 10,000 ppmw at any flowrate. 

• The total annual average 

concentration of compounds in table 8 

to this subpart is greater than 50 ppmw, 

the combined total annual average 

concentration of compounds in tables 8 

and 9 to this subpart is greater than or 

equal to 1,000 ppmw, and the annual 

average flowrate is greater than or equal 

to 1 1/min. 

• The total annual average 

concentration of compounds in table 8 

to this subpart is less than or equal to 

50 ppmw, the total annual average 

concentration of compounds in table 9 

to this subpart is greater than or equal 

to 30,000 ppmw at an existing source or 

greater than or equal to 4,500 ppmw at 

a new source, and the total annual load 

of compounds in table 9 to this subpart 

is greater than or equal to 1 tpy. 

The originally proposed wastewater 

provisions (67 FR 16154; April 4, 2002) 

closely followed the provisions in the 

HON, including Group 1 applicability 

determinations based on the total HAP 

in the wastewater streams. In response 

to comments on the proposed rule, we 

decided to develop the Group 1 criteria 

listed above based on SHAP and 

PSHAP, which is analogous to the 

approach used in the Pharmaceuticals 

Production NESHAP. By carving out 

streams that contain only soluble HAP 

but continuing to look at total HAP in 

all other streams, we created an 

inconsistency that became apparent 

only after promulgation of the rule. 

Specifically, a wastewater stream with 

less than 30,000 ppmw of SHAP would 

73106 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

not be Group 1 if no PSHAP was 

present, however, it would be Group 1 

if there was at least 50 ppmw of PSHAP 

and 10,000 ppmw of total HAP. We are 

now proposing additional changes to 

the Group 1 criteria to more closely 

match the format used in the 

Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. 

We are proposing to make the lower 

concentration thresholds (i.e., 1,000 

ppmw and 10,000 ppmw) for PSHAP 

rather than total HAP, and to make the 

higher concentration threshold (i.e., 

30,000 ppmw) for total HAP rather than 

SHAP. We are also proposing a PSHAP 

mass load threshold for the streams with 

at least 10,000 ppmw of PSHAP because 

the other two sets of criteria listed above 

and the Group 1 criteria in the 

Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP 

also have minimum mass load 

thresholds. The proposed level is 200 

lb/yr, which is calculated using 10,000 

ppmw and an average annual flow of 

0.02 1/min. 

We are also proposing to amend the 

third set of criteria for Group 1 

wastewater streams by changing the 

total PSHAP and SHAP threshold for 

new sources from 4,500 ppmw to 30,000 

ppmw. The original threshold was 

based on the lowest methanol 

concentration in a stream that was sent 

to a treatment unit that operated at a 

performance level equivalent to the 

level required in the HON; this was 

determined to be the best performing 

source. The stream that was determined 

to meet these conditions had a 

concentration of 4,500 ppmw, and it 

was sent to an air stripper (followed by 

incineration of the overhead gas stream). 

However, since promulgation of the 

final rule, questions have been raised 

about whether such a system is at least 

equivalent to the design steam stripper 

option in the HON (i.e., the treatment 

part of the MACT floor for wastewater 

at MON sources). Without actual test 

data for the specific facility, we are 

unable to determine that the 

performance of an air stripper system is 

more efficient than a design steam 

stripper for a soluble HAP like 

methanol. Therefore, we removed the 

facility with the 4,500 ppmw 

concentration from our new source 

analysis. The best performing source in 

the revised analysis has a wastewater 

stream with a methanol concentration of 

30,000 ppmw. Therefore, we are 

proposing to use this concentration as 

the threshold for new sources. 

A few of the streams in our database 

would no longer be Group 1 streams 

under the revised criteria, and a few 

other streams are now Group 1 based on 

a different set of criteria. The changes 

do not affect the MACT floor 

determinations. Overall performance of 

the final rule for the streams in our 

database may be reduced by the slight 

reduction in the number in Group 1 

streams. However, most of the streams 

that are no longer Group 1 are at 

facilities that still have other Group 1 

streams that will need to be controlled, 

and only one of the remaining streams 

has a load over 200 lb/yr. 

B. Management Requirements for 

Wastewater That Is Group 1 for Soluble 

HAP 

We are proposing to add an 

alternative compliance option in a new 

40 CFR 63.2485(n) for wastewater 

streams that are Group 1 for soluble 

HAP and receive biological treatment. 

Under the proposed option, you would 

not be required to comply with the 

emission suppression requirements (i.e., 

covers) for an equalization unit, 

neutralization unit, or clarifier prior to 

the activated sludge unit, provided you 

demonstrate that the treatment system 

achieves at least 90 percent destruction 

of the total PSHAP and SHAP entering 

the equalization unit (or whichever unit 

is first in the series of units). In addition 

to the load from streams that are Group 

1 for soluble HAP, this total must 

include the PSHAP and SHAP in all 

Group 2 streams from MCPU that are 

sent to the biotreatment unit. If your 

wastewater stream is Group 1 for 

PSHAP as well as SHAP (i.e., the stream 

meets the criteria specified in 40 CFR 

63.2485(c)(1) or (2) as well as the 

criteria in 40 CFR 63.2485(c)(3)), you 

may elect to meet the requirements 

specified in table 7 to subpart FFFF for 

the PSHAP in the stream and then 

comply with this new option for the 

remaining SHAP. 

To demonstrate initial compliance 

with this alternative, use the new 

equation 1 in 40 CFR 63.2485(n)(2) and 

comply with the following 

requirements. First, use the procedures 

specified in 40 CFR 63.145(f)(1) and (2) 

to estimate the flow rate and PSHAP 

and SHAP concentrations at the inlet to 

the equalization unit under 

representative conditions, and use these 

data to calculate the mass flow rate of 

total PSHAP and SHAP into the 

equalization unit. Second, use EPA’s 

WATER9 model to estimate emissions 

from the equalization unit, 

neutralization unit, and clarifier. Note 

that you must also conduct testing or 

use other procedures to validate the 

modeling results, and the data and 

results of the validation demonstration 

must be included in your notification of 

compliance status report. Third, 

subtract the estimated emissions from 

the inlet mass flow rate of total PSHAP 

and SHAP to the equalization unit to 

estimate the total PSHAP and SHAP 

load to the activated sludge unit. 

Fourth, determine the fraction 

biodegraded in the activated sludge unit 

using the procedures specified in 40 

CFR 63.145(h). Note that you may 

assume all of the PSHAP and SHAP 

entering the activated sludge unit is 

biodegraded (i.e., Fbio=1) if the 

biological treatment unit meets the 

definition of an ‘‘enhanced biological 

treatment unit’’ and at least 99 percent 

by weight of the total PSHAP and SHAP 

at the inlet to the equalization unit are 

compounds on list 1 of table 36 in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart G. Alternatively, if 

your wastewater contains only a small 

amount of PSHAP, you may elect to 

assume that none of it is biodegraded in 

the activated sludge unit (i.e., fbio=0). 

Finally, multiply together the fraction 

biodegraded and the HAP load at the 

inlet to the activated sludge unit. If this 

value is more than 90 percent of the 

load to the equalization unit, then you 

have demonstrated initial compliance. 

We are also proposing to change the 

venting requirements for lift stations as 

part of this option. The final rule 

currently specifies that venting to the 

atmosphere is allowed for lift stations 

that are filled and emptied by gravity 

flow or that operate with no more than 

slight fluctuations in the liquid level, 

provided the vent pipe is at least 90 

centimeters in length and 10.2 

centimeters in nominal inside diameter. 

The proposed option would allow any 

openings necessary for proper venting of 

the lift station because we understand 

that the specified vent pipe criteria may 

be too small to allow for proper 

operation of large lift stations. 

Requirements for all waste 

management units prior to the 

equalization unit, except for lift stations 

as noted above, are as specified in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart G. Similarly, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements for the activated 

sludge unit are unchanged from the 

requirements specified in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart G. 

We are proposing the new compliance 

option because we believe it will 

achieve comparable or better control 

than existing requirements. The 90 

percent destruction efficiency is higher 

than the required fraction removed for 

most SHAP, particularly methanol, 

which is by far the most common SHAP. 

Furthermore, this destruction efficiency 

is likely comparable to the overall 

destruction that would be achieved if 

the emission limit were met using a 

design steam stripper, and effluent from 

the steam stripper were discharged to a 

sewer and biological treatment unit that 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73107 

3The LDAR program in 40 CFR part 65, subpart 

F, the Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR), is also 

an option for any process. The proposed 

amendments to 40 CFR 63.2480 include comparable 

exceptions to the requirements for connectors for 

the CAR. 

4A number of Petitioners argued that in light of 

Arteva Specialties S.R.R.L., d/b/a KoSa v. EPA, 323 

F.3d 1088, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 2003), we must review 

impacts of LDAR monitoring requirements on an 

individual component basis and not on an LDAR 

program basis. They urged that we adopt the 

standard we are proposing today on the basis of 

such an analysis. While we disagree with 

Petitioner’s assessment of Arteva, we note that if 

their position were correct the standard we are 

proposing today would be identical. 

is not in compliance with 40 CFR part 

63, subpart G. 

C. Discarding Materials to Water or 

Wastewater 

Section 63.132(f) of the HON, which 

is referenced from table 7 to subpart 

FFFF, states that liquid or solid organic 

materials (except for certain exempted 

materials) with HAP concentrations 

>10,000 ppmw may not be discarded to 

water or wastewater unless the receiving 

stream is treated as Group 1 wastewater. 

The concentration in this provision is 

consistent with the threshold for Group 

1 wastewater in the HON. Since the 

thresholds for Group 1 wastewater 

streams in subpart FFFF differ from 

those in the HON, we are proposing to 

add a new paragraph (m) in 40 CFR 

63.2485 to revise the meaning of 40 CFR 

63.132(f) for the purposes of subpart 

FFFF. To match the threshold for Group 

1 wastewater specified in 40 CFR 

63.2485(c), as modified in amendments 

described above, the proposed 

amendment would specify that 40 CFR 

63.132(f) applies to materials with a 

concentration greater than 30,000 ppmw 

of total PSHAP and SHAP or greater 

than 10,000 ppmw of PSHAP. 

D. Compliance Requirements 

We are proposing to add two 

requirements in new 40 CFR 63.2485(o) 

to make the recordkeeping requirements 

for monitoring devices used with 

control devices for wastewater 

emissions consistent with the 

requirements for the same monitoring 

devices used with control devices for 

other emissions. First, we are proposing 

to require that you keep records of all 

periods during which a pilot flame 

monitor is not operating. This record is 

required in 40 CFR 63.998(c)(ii)(C), but 

it is not included in the referenced 

sections of subpart G that specify 

requirements for wastewater systems. 

Second, we are proposing to require that 

you keep records as specified in 40 CFR 

63.998(c)(1) for CPMS used with 

nonflare control devices because 

comparable records are not required in 

the referenced sections of subpart G. 

They are required in subpart A to part 

63, but table 12 to subpart FFFF 

specifies that those sections of subpart 

A do not apply to subpart FFFF because 

subpart FFFF relies on comparable 

provisions in subpart SS of this part. 

E. Definition of Wastewater 

We are proposing three editorial 

changes to clarify the definition of 

‘‘wastewater.’’ According to the current 

definition, water must be discarded 

from an MCPU through a ‘‘single POD’’

to be wastewater. We understand that 

this term has caused confusion because 

it could be interpreted to mean that an 

MCPU with multiple points of 

determination (POD) does not have 

wastewater. To clarify the requirement, 

we are proposing to delete the word 

‘‘single.’’ The intended meaning is that 

all water-containing discharges through 

a single point from a given MCPU (e.g., 

a recovery device) are considered to be 

a single wastewater stream. 

Another part of the definition 

specifies concentrations of compounds 

in ‘‘Tables 8 or 9.’’ We are proposing to 

replace this phrase with ‘‘Tables 8 and 

9’’ to clarify that the thresholds are 

based on the concentration of total 

PSHAP and SHAP, not the separate 

amounts of PSHAP and SHAP. 

Finally, we are proposing to clarify 

the definition of wastewater by 

specifying that wastewater means 

process wastewater or maintenance 

wastewater. This language is also used 

in the definition of wastewater in the 

HON, and it clarifies that these are the 

only types of streams that are 

wastewater. Streams that are 100 

percent organic by-product or waste are 

not wastewater because they contain no 

water. 

VI. How are we proposing to amend the 

requirements for equipment leaks? 

We are proposing to restructure the 

equipment leak requirements for 

existing sources to simplify 

applicability without impacting the 

overall level of control achieved by the 

leak detection and repair (LDAR) 

program for the MON. We are achieving 

this improvement by adopting a single 

beyond-the-floor standard covering both 

continuous and batch process vents 

consisting of the requirements in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart UU, except that 

you may elect to comply with sensory 

monitoring requirements for connectors. 

This consolidated approach differs from 

the final rule, which requires 

compliance with the LDAR program 

specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, 

if an MCPU has any continuous process 

vents (i.e., a beyond-the-floor 

requirement), and it requires 

compliance with the LDAR program in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, (i.e., the 

MACT floor) for MCPU that have no 

continuous process vents.3 The net 

effect of these changes is to eliminate 

the requirement of EPA Method 21 

monitoring of connectors for processes 

with a continuous process vent, 

requiring sensory monitoring instead, 

while simultaneously lowering the 

detection limit for pumps and valves. 

We decided to propose these changes 

after we reanalyzed the data in light of 

an alternative beyond-the floor standard 

suggested by Petitions.4

As with the analysis used to select the 

program in the final rule, we also looked 

at more stringent alternatives, including 

requiring adoption of 40 CFR part, 

subpart UU, for all vents, but for this 

industry the incremental reductions are 

marginal. Accordingly, we rejected 

adopting an even tighter beyond-thefloor standard. 

We believe that overall these revisions 

will reduce regulatory burdens. While 

the lower leak definition should result 

in identification of additional leaking 

components in batch processes, thus 

requiring additional time and materials 

to repair leaking valves and pumps this 

increased burden should be more than 

offset by the decrease in burden 

achieved by eliminating instrument 

monitoring for connectors in processes 

with continuous process vents. 

Furthermore, some facilities with batch 

processes are likely to experience a 

reduction in burden associated with 

complying with the equipment leak 

requirements because they also have 

processes with continuous process 

vents. 

Another change under the proposed 

amendments to the equipment leak 

requirements is that you would not be 

required to develop an initial list of 

connector identification numbers as 

otherwise required in 40 CFR 

63.1022(b)(1). We are proposing this 

change to the connector identification 

requirements because 40 CFR 63.1029 

does not require you to calculate the 

percentage of all connectors that are 

leaking, and it does not include any 

other requirements that depend on an 

identification of specific connectors. 

VII. How are we proposing to amend 

the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

A. Processes With Uncontrolled 

Emissions Below the Thresholds for 

Control 

We are proposing a number of 

changes to the recordkeeping 

73108 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.2525(e) to 

clarify the requirements and reduce the 

burden associated with ongoing 

compliance demonstrations for 

processes that do not meet the annual 

mass emission rate thresholds for 

control of process vent emissions. The 

final rule currently requires four records 

for a process if either uncontrolled 

organic HAP emissions from the sum of 

all batch process vents within the 

process are less than 10,000 lb/yr (i.e., 

Group 2 batch process vents) or 

uncontrolled hydrogen halide and 

halogen HAP emissions from the sum of 

all batch and continuous process vents 

are less than 1,000 lb/yr. The four 

records are: (1) A record of the day on 

which each batch was completed; (2) a 

record of whether each batch operated 

was considered a standard batch; (3) the 

estimated uncontrolled and controlled 

emissions for each nonstandard batch; 

and (4) records of the daily 365-day 

rolling summation of emissions, or 

alternative records that correlate to the 

emissions (such as the cumulative 

number of batches). No records are 

required if you document in your 

notification of compliance status report 

that the process does not process, use, 

or produce HAP. 

After re-examining these 

requirements, we determined that 

recordkeeping could be eliminated 

where emissions from a Group 2 batch 

vent are being controlled as if they are 

being emitted from a Group 1 batch 

process vent. In such case, keeping 

records to demonstrate that you are 

below the thresholds is necessary. To 

implement this change, we are 

amending 40 CFR 63.987 to provide that 

you need not comply with the reporting 

requirements if either of two conditions 

are met. One of these conditions is if 

you control Group 2 batch process vents 

using a flare that meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 63.987. There is no need in 

this case to keep records demonstrating 

that emissions remain below the 

threshold for control because you would 

have been complying with the 

requirements for Group 1 batch process 

vents at all times, i.e., you are in fact 

controlling emissions from the process 

with a flare. The second condition 

under which no recordkeeping would 

be required is if you control Group 2 

batch process vents using a control 

device that meets the requirements for 

Group 1 vents specified in table 2 to 

subpart FFFF and for which your 

determination of worst case for initial 

compliance includes the contribution of 

all Group 2 batches. In this case, just 

like when the control device is a flare, 

the emissions are always controlled as 

if they are from Group 1 vents. Thus, 

there is no need to maintain records that 

show whether or not the emissions 

remain below the threshold for control. 

We also determined that it is 

appropriate to reduce recordkeeping 

requirements under circumstances 

where we can be confident that the 

relevant thresholds cannot be exceeded. 

Specifically, we believe that 

recordkeeping and reporting are 

appropriate where: (1) If non-reactive 

organic HAP usage is less than 10,000 

lb/yr (i.e., solvents and impurities in 

raw materials that pass through the 

process without participating in 

reactions), and (2) if total uncontrolled 

organic HAP emissions from the batch 

process vents in an MCPU are less than 

1,000 lb/yr. 

We are proposing two changes that 

would reduce the initial and ongoing 

compliance burden for processes with 

total non-reactive organic HAP usage 

less than 10,000 lb/yr. First, we are 

proposing to add a new 40 CFR 

63.2460(b)(7) to specify that, as an 

alternative to determining the 

uncontrolled batch process vent 

emissions, you may elect to document 

in your notification of compliance status 

report that the non-reactive organic HAP 

usage is less than 10,000 lb/yr. We are 

proposing this change to address 

impurities. There is no need to calculate 

the emissions if the total non-reactive 

HAP usage itself is less than the 

emissions threshold, and the MCPU 

does not process, use, or produce any 

other organic HAP. The second 

proposed amendment would reduce the 

recordkeeping requirements specified in 

40 CFR 63.2525(e). If non-reactive 

organic HAP usage is expected to be less 

than 10,000 lb/yr, then simply tracking 

the consumption of the HAP material 

would be sufficient to demonstrate 

compliance with this threshold. 

Therefore, the proposed amendments 

would require you to keep records of the 

amount of non-reactive organic HAP 

material used and to calculate the daily 

rolling annual sum of the amount used; 

you would be allowed to collect and 

maintain the necessary data for up to 

one month before actually performing 

each of the daily calculations. In a new 

40 CFR 63.2520(e)(5)(iv), the proposed 

amendments also would require you to 

include records for each calculation that 

shows usage exceeded 10,000 lb/yr in 

your next compliance report. If you 

exceed the 10,000 lb/yr usage threshold, 

you must begin keeping the standard 

records for Group 2 batch process vents 

for at least one year. After at least 1 year 

with usage below 10,000 lb, you could 

return to recording only usage. We 

limited this option to non-reactive HAP 

to keep the recordkeeping simple. 

We recognize that many MCPU may 

have only trace amounts of HAP, yet 

they still generate emissions from batch 

operations that exceed either the 50 

ppmv or 200 lb/yr threshold in the 

definition of a batch process vent. Some 

of these MCPU also may have estimated 

emissions well below the 10,000 lb/yr 

threshold for Group 1 batch process 

vents. As the final rule is currently 

written, you are required to keep the 

records specified in 40 CFR 63.2525(e) 

regardless of the actual annual emission 

rate from the batch process vents. We 

have determined that these records are 

unnecessary if the anticipated emissions 

are sufficiently low because it would be 

virtually impossible to exceed the 

10,000 lb/yr threshold by operating 

nonstandard batches. Therefore, we are 

proposing to add a provision in 40 CFR 

63.2525(e) that reduces the 

recordkeeping burden for MCPU with 

anticipated batch process vent 

emissions less than 1,000 lb/yr. For 

these MCPU you would be required to 

document in your notification of 

compliance status report that the total 

uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 

from the batch process vents in the 

MCPU will be less than 1,000 lb/yr for 

the anticipated number of batches 

operated. You would also be required to 

keep records of the number of batches 

operated and to calculate a daily rolling 

annual sum of the batches operated. 

Similar to the proposed amendment for 

MCPU with non-reactive organic HAP 

usage rates less than 10,000 lb/yr, you 

would be allowed to collect the 

necessary data for up to one month 

before performing all of the required 

daily calculations. Finally, you would 

be required to include the applicable 

records in your next compliance report 

for each calculation that shows the 

actual number of batches operated 

exceeds the number specified in your 

notification of compliance status report. 

If any record shows you exceeded the 

1,000 lb/yr threshold, you would be 

required to begin keeping the standard 

records for Group 2 batch process vents 

for at least 1 year with emissions less 

than 1,000 lb. We selected the level of 

1,000 lb/yr because we believe it is high 

enough to eliminate unnecessary 

recordkeeping for processes with clearly 

minimal emissions from standard 

batches while still providing an ample 

margin of safety to ensure that 

nonstandard batches and increased 

production rates do not cause the 

process to exceed the 10,000 lb/yr 

threshold for Group 1 batch process 

vents. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73109 

As currently written, 40 CFR 

63.2525(e) does not clearly specify what 

records should be kept when a process 

emits hydrogen chloride and halogen 

HAP from continuous operations 

because all of the required records relate 

to batch operations. To clarify this 

requirement, our final proposed 

amendment to 40 CFR 63.2525(e) is to 

add a provision that would require you 

to keep records of the number of hours 

of operation for such processes. In 

addition, you would need to document 

in your notification of compliance status 

report the number of hours per year for 

continuous operations plus the number 

of batches for batch operations that 

corresponds to emissions of 1,000 lb/yr. 

You would be required to include the 

applicable records in your compliance 

report for each calculation that shows 

the actual hours per year exceeds the 

hours per year specified in your 

notification of compliance status report. 

B. Standard and Nonstandard Batches 

We understand there is some 

confusion about ‘‘standard batches’’ and 

‘‘nonstandard batches.’’ We are not 

proposing changes to the definitions of 

standard batch and nonstandard batch 

or to relevant recordkeeping 

requirements; however, we want to take 

this opportunity to explain how we 

expect the concept of standard and 

nonstandard batches to be used. 

A standard batch is a batch process 

that is operated within an acceptable 

range of operating conditions. 

Numerous operating characteristics and 

other processing variables affect 

emissions from a process. Typically, the 

actual values of these characteristics 

and variables for successful batches will 

vary within some range from one batch 

to the next. As a result, the actual 

emissions will also vary from batch to 

batch. Demonstrating compliance by 

calculating emissions for each batch 

based on the batch-specific 

characteristics would be unnecessarily 

burdensome. Therefore, the final rule 

specifies that you may develop a 

standard batch to represent typical 

batches with a single emissions 

estimate. The uncontrolled and 

controlled emissions for each emission 

episode in a standard batch must be 

estimated based on the values within 

these ranges that result in the highest 

level of emissions. The operating ranges 

and the calculated emissions become 

part of the operating scenario for the 

process. These results also are used in 

demonstrating initial compliance. 

Nonstandard batches are batches that 

operate outside of the documented 

ranges, provided the variation is due to 

a reasonably anticipated fluctuation or 

event, not a malfunction or an intended 

permanent change. For example, a 

nonstandard batch occurs when 

additional processing, or processing at 

different operating conditions, must be 

conducted (perhaps in response to a 

malfunction) to produce a product that 

is normally produced under conditions 

described by the standard batch. 

Emissions for each nonstandard batch 

must be estimated and recorded. Note 

that operating a nonstandard batch does 

not mean you have to create a new 

operating scenario. To clarify this point, 

we are proposing to state in 40 CFR 

63.2520(e)(10)(i) that a nonstandard 

batch does not constitute a process 

change. 

To demonstrate initial compliance 

with some of the requirements for batch 

process vents, 40 CFR 63.2525(d) and (e) 

require records of the uncontrolled and 

controlled emissions for standard 

batches. To demonstrate ongoing 

compliance, records of whether each 

batch is a standard or nonstandard batch 

and estimated uncontrolled and 

controlled emissions for each 

nonstandard batch are required. 

One way of achieving an overall 

process-based percent reduction in 

batch process vent emissions in 

accordance with table 2 to subpart FFFF 

is to over control some vents and under 

control others. When this strategy is 

used, you must monitor operating 

parameters to demonstrate that the 

intended percent reductions are being 

achieved by individual control device. 

However, information on nonstandard 

batches is needed to demonstrate 

ongoing compliance with the overall 

percent reduction requirement. 

Similarly, emission estimates are 

needed for each standard and 

nonstandard batch to demonstrate 

ongoing compliance for a process if you 

document in your notification of 

compliance status report that the 

process has uncontrolled organic HAP 

emissions (from batch process vents) 

less than 10,000 lb/yr, or uncontrolled 

hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 

emissions (from both batch and 

continuous operations) less than 1,000 

lb/yr. The concept of standard batches 

and nonstandard batches and the related 

recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 

63.2525(d) and (e) are used to 

demonstrate compliance in these 

situations. Note that you must develop 

standard and nonstandard batches only 

when complying with the specific 

process vent provisions identified above 

in this paragraph. If you elect to comply 

with other options (e.g., by using a flare 

or controlling all batch process vents 

with the same control device), you do 

not need to develop standard and 

nonstandard batches. 

Our intent was that you have 

flexibility in determining how to 

identify and record nonstandard 

batches. The objective should be to 

focus on the critical parameters in the 

standard batch that, if exceeded, can 

affect emissions or control efficiency. In 

addition, we are interested in changes 

that increase emissions from the 

process; decreases do not need to be 

estimated and recorded. For example, if 

the recorded duration of the batch, the 

measured mass of the batch, and the 

monitored process condenser exit 

temperature are each less than the 

values defined in the standard batch, 

and these are the critical parameters 

affecting HAP emissions, then the batch 

is considered to be standard. In other 

cases, tracking control device 

parameters, such as condenser 

temperature, may be an adequate means 

of detecting nonstandard batches. 

Insignificant episodes do not require 

any further monitoring for 

‘‘nonstandard’’ during the operating 

period. 

C. Operating Logs 

We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 

63.2525(c) to require a schedule or log 

of operating scenarios (i.e., ‘‘operating 

logs’’) only for processes that have batch 

vents. We are also proposing related 

changes to the compliance reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 

63.2520(e)(5)(ii)(C) and (e)(5)(iii)(K) to 

clarify that operating logs apply only for 

processes that have batch vents. These 

proposed changes are intended to 

minimize the recordkeeping and 

reporting burden without sacrificing the 

collection of information needed to 

demonstrate compliance. 

An operating log is any paper or 

electronic recordkeeping system that 

tracks the implementation of operating 

scenarios as an indicator of which 

processes are operating on any given 

day. When you experience a deviation 

from an emission limit, operating limit, 

or work practice standard, you must 

include the applicable portion of the log 

in your compliance report so that EPA 

or the delegated authority understands 

which process(es) were operating during 

the deviation. For example, when you 

have a deviation from an operating limit 

for a control device or wastewater 

treatment unit that is shared by more 

than one process, an operating log 

would identify which process (or 

processes) was operating during the 

deviation. 

We have decided that processes that 

consist entirely of continuous 

operations do not need to be included 

73110 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

in an operating log because such 

processes generally operate all of the 

time. Furthermore, startup and 

shutdown records may serve the same 

purpose, provided excess emissions 

(i.e., a deviation) occur during the 

startup or shutdown. Although the 

proposed change means you would not 

be required to include such a process in 

an operating log, it does not prohibit 

you from including it. In the absence of 

information to the contrary in an 

operating log or startup and shutdown 

records, our default assumption will be 

that each process that consists only of 

continuous operations was operating 

during deviations. 

D. Reporting Requirements for Emission 

Points That Change From Group 2 to 

Group 1 

Section 63.2520(e)(10)(ii)(C) of the 

promulgated rule requires a 60-day 

advance notification for whenever you 

change an emission point from Group 2 

to Group 1. The purpose of the advance 

notification is to provide EPA with the 

opportunity to evaluate whether the 

change in status is consistent with 

compliance requirements. Since 

promulgation we have determined that 

changing batch process vents to Group 

1 status after at least 365 days of 

operation as Group 2 will always be 

acceptable because the requirement to 

have uncontrolled emissions less than 

10,000 lb/yr would always be met. 

Thus, we are proposing to delete the 60- 

day advance notification requirement 

for batch process vents. Although the 

proposed amendment would delete the 

advance notification requirement, the 

change in status would still have to be 

documented in a revised operating 

scenario and submitted in the 

applicable compliance report in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(7) 

and (e)(10)(i). 

VIII. How are we proposing to change 

requirements that apply when 

requirements in subpart FFFF and 

another rule apply to the same 

equipment? 

Section 63.2535(k) specifies 

compliance options when equipment 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, 

or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, is also 

subject to equipment leak provisions in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. We are 

proposing two changes to this 

paragraph. First, as a result of the 

proposed changes to the definition of 

continuous process vent, we are 

proposing to delete the second sentence 

in this paragraph because it is no longer 

applicable (see discussion earlier in this 

preamble). Therefore, this paragraph 

would only indicate that you may elect 

to apply subpart FFFF to all equipment 

subject to either of the other two 

subparts as well as subpart FFFF. 

However, it is possible that some 

equipment that is subject to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart V or VV, will be in contact 

with fluid that only contains volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and would 

not otherwise be subject to the MON. To 

clarify the procedures in such 

situations, our second proposed change 

is to add a statement that would require 

you to consider all total organic 

compounds, minus methane and ethane, 

as if they were organic HAP for the 

purposes of compliance with this 

provision. This language is consistent 

with the language in 40 CFR 63.2535(h), 

which specifies procedures for dealing 

with overlap between subpart FFFF and 

the new source performance standards 

(NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

DDD, III, NNN, and RRR. 

IX. What miscellaneous technical 

corrections are we proposing? 

We are proposing to edit several 

provisions to clarify our intent. These 

proposed changes are described in table 

1 of this preamble. 

TABLE 1.—TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO SUBPART FFFF 

Subpart FFFF Description of proposed correction 

40 CFR 63.2435(b) introductory 

text.

We are proposing to replace the phrase ‘‘product transfer rack’’ with ‘‘transfer rack.’’ The change is needed 

to clarify that, like in the HON, the requirements for transfer racks apply to all materials from the process 

unit that are loaded at the transfer rack. It is not limited to intended products. This change also will make 

the language in this section consistent with the language throughout the rest of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

FFFF. 

40 CFR 63.2435(b)(1)(i) and (ii) ..... We are proposing to replace the phrase ‘‘organic chemical or chemicals’’ with ‘‘organic chemical(s)’’ to 

clarify that the final rule applies to the organic chemicals in the specified SIC and NAICS code categories. 

40 CFR 63.2445(c) ......................... We are proposing to edit the first sentence in 40 CFR 63.2445(c) to clarify that due dates for notifications 

are specified in 40 CFR 63.2515 and in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 (i.e., the General Provisions). This 

change also makes the sentence consistent with language used in other NESHAP. 

40 CFR 63.2450(h) ......................... We are proposing to revise the first sentence in this section to clarify that the design evaluation option for 

small control devices applies only to control devices that are used to comply with an emission limit for 

process vents or transfer racks. This option does not apply to control devices for storage tanks and 

wastewater systems because referenced provisions in subparts G and SS, 40 CFR part 63, already 

allow a design evaluation for any control devices used to control these emissions. 

40 CFR 63.2450(k)(3) ..................... We are proposing changes to clarify that if you elect to measure caustic strength as an alternative to 

measuring pH, then you must also record the caustic strength measurements instead of pH measurements. 

40 CFR 63.2450(k)(4) ..................... We are proposing changes to this section to clarify that if you elect to monitor the inlet temperature and 

the catalyst activity level, then you must record only the inlet temperature, not both the inlet and outlet 

temperatures and the temperature difference across the catalyst bed. 

40 CFR 63.2450(k)(5) ..................... We are proposing to add this section to require monitoring of influent liquid flow, determination of gas flow, 

and recordkeeping of the liquid-to-gas ratio for absorbers. This monitoring would be in addition to the 

measuring the scrubbing liquid temperature and specific gravity, and it would ensure proper operation of 

the tower and that sufficient scrubbing fluid is circulated to achieve the intended reductions. 

40 CFR 63.2460(c)(2)(iii) ................ We are proposing revisions to clarify that the option to calculate controlled emissions from a condenser 

apply only if you are complying with a percent reduction standard, not an outlet concentration limit. 

40 CFR 63.2465(b) ......................... We are proposing to replace the reference to ‘‘40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii)’’ with a reference to ‘‘40 

CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and/or (ii), as appropriate.’’ This change clarifies that uncontrolled HCl and hydrogen halide emissions from each process vent may be estimated using the appropriate procedures in either of the referenced paragraphs. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73111 

TABLE 1.—TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO SUBPART FFFF—Continued 

Subpart FFFF Description of proposed correction 

40 CFR 63.2470(b) and entries 

1.a.iii and 1.b.iv to Table 2 to 

subpart FFFF.

We are proposing to specify in table 2 to subpart FFFF rather than in 40 CFR 63.2470(b) that you must 

comply with 40 CFR 63.984 if you reduce HAP emissions by routing to a fuel gas system or process. 

Therefore, we are proposing to delete and reserve 40 CFR 63.2470(b). The goal of these changes is to 

enhance clarity of the rule; the requirements are unchanged. 

40 CFR 63.2475(c) and entry 1.c in 

Table 5 to subpart FFFF.

We are proposing to specify in table 5 to subpart FFFF rather than in 40 CFR 63.2475(c) that you must 

comply with 40 CFR 63.984 if you reduce HAP emissions by routing to a fuel gas system or process. 

Therefore, we are proposing to delete 40 CFR 63.2475(c). The goal of these changes is to enhance 

clarity of the final rule; the requirements are unchanged. 

40 CFR 63.2520(c)(4) ..................... We are proposing to add a statement specifying that the requirement to submit data and rationale used to 

support engineering assessments does not apply to engineering assessments that show an emission 

stream from a batch operation contains less than 50 ppmv of HAP or if you use previous test data in 

your engineering assessment. 

40 CFR 63.2520(e)(10)(i) ............... This section currently requires you to submit a notification of process change whenever you make a 

change to any of the information submitted in the notification of compliance status report. We are proposing a revision to this section to clarify that the notification requirement applies to changes in information submitted in previous compliance reports as well as the notification of compliance status report. 

40 CFR 63.2550(i) .......................... We are proposing to add a definition for the term ‘‘halogen atoms’’ to clarify that this term means chlorine 

and fluorine when it is used in the definition of ‘‘halogenated vent stream.’’ The concept of a halogenated vent stream is used for emission streams that are controlled using combustion devices that 

could generate inorganic combustion products that are HAP (i.e., HCl, chlorine, and hydrogen fluoride). 

Although bromine is also a halogen, it is not included in the definition of halogen atoms because its 

products of combustion (bromine and hydrogen bromide) are not HAP. 

Table 2 to subpart FFFF ................. We are proposing to edit the language in item 2.c of table 2 to subpart FFFF to clarify our intent that flares 

are an option for controlling emissions from batch process vents. The revised language does not change 

the available compliance options. 

Entry 1.b in Table 4 to subpart 

FFFF.

We are proposing to correct several typesetting errors. The maximum true vapor pressure threshold should 

be <76.6 kilopascals, not ≤76.6 kilopascals. The concentration limits for total organic compounds (TOC) 

or organic HAP and for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP should be ≤20 ppmv, not <20 ppmv. 

Table 12 to subpart FFFF ............... We are proposing changes in the explanations column for many of the entries in table 12 to subpart FFFF 

to specify that requirements for continuous monitoring systems (CMS) in the General Provisions apply to 

all CEMS, not just CEMS used to comply with the alternative standard. This correction is needed because CEMS may also be used to monitor the outlet pollutant concentration to demonstrate ongoing 

compliance with a percent reduction emission limit. The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS that 

apply to control device parameter monitors that are used to demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction emission limit do not apply to CEMS. Therefore, the provisions for CMS in the General Provisions must apply to CEMS that are used in this application as well as to CEMS that are used to comply 

with the alternative standard. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Executive Order defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Although OMB has notified EPA that 

it considers this a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866, OMB has waived review of 

the proposed amendments. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The proposed amendments impose no 

new information collection 

requirements on the industry. The 

proposed amendments would give 

owners and operators options to some 

requirements. For example, biofilters are 

proposed as an option to meet the 

emission limit for batch process vents. 

Other proposed changes may result in a 

minor reduction in the burden. For 

example, one proposed option would 

allow an owner or operator to conduct 

sensory monitoring as an alternative to 

instrument monitoring of connectors. 

Another proposed change would 

eliminate the requirement to include 

data and results from an engineering 

assessment of emissions from batch 

operations in the precompliance report 

if the HAP concentration is determined 

to be less than 50 ppmv. Since all of 

these changes are either options or have 

the potential to result in minor 

reductions in the information collection 

burden, the ICR has not been revised. 

The OMB has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0533 (EPA ICR number 1969.02). 

A copy of the OMB approved 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

may be obtained from Susan Auby, 

Collection Strategies Division; U.S. EPA 

(2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 

auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 

566–1672. Include the ICR or OMB 

number in any correspondence. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

73112 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48, CFR chapter 

15. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed amendments on 

small entities, a small entity is defined 

as: (1) A small business ranging from up 

to 500 employees to up to 1,000 

employees, depending on the NAICS 

code; (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; or (3) a small organization 

that is any not-for-profit enterprise that 

is independently owned and operated 

and is not dominant in its field. The 

maximum number of employees to be 

considered a small business for each 

NAICS code is shown in the preamble 

to the proposed rule (67 FR 16178). 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed 

amendments on small entities, I certify 

that the proposed amendments will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. The 

proposed amendments include 

additional compliance options for 

process tanks, batch process vents, 

equipment leaks, and SHAP-containing 

wastewater that provide small entities 

with greater flexibility to comply with 

the standards. Other proposed 

amendments potentially reduce the 

recordkeeping and reporting burden. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed 

amendments on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any 1 year. Before promulgating 

an EPA rule for which a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most cost 

effective, or least-burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

per costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

The EPA has determined that the 

proposed amendments do not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any 1 year. The maximum total annual 

costs of the proposed amendments for 

any year is estimated to be about $75 

million, and the proposed amendments 

do not add new requirements that 

would increase that cost. Thus, the 

proposed amendments are not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. In addition, the 

proposed amendments contain no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because they contain no 

requirements that apply to such 

governments or impose obligations 

upon them. Therefore, the proposed 

amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’

The proposed amendments do not 

have federalism implications. They 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 or local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to the proposed amendments. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73113 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ The proposed 

amendments do not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. The proposed 

amendments provide an owner or 

operator with several additional options 

for complying with the emission limits 

and other requirements in the rule. 

Therefore, the proposed amendments 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to the proposed amendments. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 1985, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that are based on 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. The proposed 

amendments are not subject to the 

Executive Order because they are based 

on technology performance and not 

health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

The proposed amendments do not 

constitute a ‘‘significant energy action’’

as defined in Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001)) because the proposed 

amendments are not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Further, 

we have concluded that the proposed 

amendments are not likely to have any 

adverse energy effects. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 104–

113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to 

use voluntary consensus standards in its 

regulatory and procurement activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, business 

practices) developed or adopted by one 

or more voluntary consensus bodies. 

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through annual reports to 

OMB, with explanations when an 

agency does not use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

During the rulemaking, the EPA 

conducted searches to identify 

voluntary consensus standards in 

addition to EPA test methods referenced 

by the final rule. The search and review 

results have been documented and 

placed in the docket for the NESHAP 

(Docket OAR–2003–0121). The 

proposed amendments do not propose 

the use of any additional technical 

standards beyond those cited in the 

final rule. Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any additional 

voluntary consensus standards for the 

proposed amendments. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 30, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of the Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart FFFF—[Amended] 

2. Section 63.2435 is amended as 

follows: 

a. Revising ‘‘product transfer racks’’ to 

read ‘‘transfer racks’’ in paragraph (b) 

introductory text; 

b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and 

(ii); 

c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; 

d. Revising paragraph (c)(4); and 

e. Adding new paragraph (c)(7). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.2435 Am I subject to the requirements 

of this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) An organic chemical(s) classified 

using the 1987 version of SIC code 282, 

283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, or 386, 

except as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of 

this section. 

(ii) An organic chemical(s) classified 

using the 1997 version of NAICS code 

325, except as provided in paragraph 

(c)(5) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) The requirements in this subpart 

do not apply to the operations specified 

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

section. 

* * * * * 

(4) Fabricating operations (such as 

spinning or compressing a solid 

polymer into its end use); compounding 

operations (in which blending, melting, 

and resolidification of a solid polymer 

product occur for the purpose of 

incorporating additives, colorants, or 

stabilizers); and extrusion and drawing 

operations (converting an already 

produced solid polymer into a different 

shape by melting or mixing the polymer 

and then forcing it or pulling it through 

an orifice to create an extruded 

product). An operation is not exempt if 

it involves processing with HAP solvent 

or if an intended purpose of the 

operation is to remove residual HAP 

monomer. 

* * * * * 

(7) Carbon monoxide production. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 63.2445 is amended as 

follows: 

a. Revising paragraph (b) and the first 

sentence in paragraph (c); and 

b. Adding new paragraphs (d), (e), and 

(f). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.2445 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

73114 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(b) If you have an existing source on 

November 10, 2003, you must comply 

with the requirements for existing 

sources in this subpart no later than 

May 10, 2008. 

(c) You must meet the notification 

requirements in § 63.2515 according to 

the dates specified in that section and 

in subpart A of this part 63. * * * 

(d) If you have a Group 2 emission 

point that becomes a Group 1 emission 

point after the compliance date for your 

affected source, you must comply with 

the Group 1 requirements beginning on 

the date the switch occurs. A 

performance test (or design evaluation, 

if applicable) must be conducted within 

150 days after the switch occurs. 

(e) If, after the compliance date for 

your affected source, hydrogen halide 

and halogen HAP emissions from 

process vents in a process increase to 

more than 1,000 lb/yr, or HAP metals 

emissions from a process at a new 

affected source increase to more than 

150 lb/yr, you must comply with the 

applicable emission limits specified in 

Table 3 to this subpart and the 

associated compliance requirements 

beginning on the date the emissions 

exceed the applicable threshold. A 

performance test (or design evaluation, 

if applicable) must be conducted within 

150 days after the switch occurs. 

(f) If you have a small control device 

for process vent or transfer rack 

emissions that becomes a large control 

device, as defined in § 63.2550(i), you 

must comply with monitoring and 

associated recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for large control devices 

beginning on the date the switch occurs. 

A performance test must be conducted 

within 150 days after the switch occurs. 

4. Section 63.2450 is amended as 

follows: 

a. Revising the first sentence in 

paragraph (h); 

b. Revising paragraph (k) introductory 

text, paragraph (k)(3), paragraph (k)(4) 

introductory text, and paragraph 

(k)(4)(i); and 

c. Adding new paragraphs (k)(4)(iv) 

and (k)(5). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.2450 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

(h) Design evaluation. To determine 

the percent reduction of a small control 

device that is used to comply with an 

emission limit specified in Table 1, 2, 3, 

or 5 to this subpart, you may elect to 

conduct a design evaluation as specified 

in § 63.1257(a)(1) instead of a 

performance test as specified in subpart 

SS of this part 63. * * * 

* * * * * 

(k) Continuous parameter monitoring. 

The provisions in paragraphs (k)(1) 

through (4) of this section apply in 

addition to the requirements for 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) in subpart SS of this part 

63. 

* * * * * 

(3) As an alternative to measuring and 

recording pH as specified in 

§§ 63.994(c)(1)(i) and 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(D), 

you may elect to continuously monitor 

and record the caustic strength of the 

scrubber effluent. 

(4) As an alternative to the inlet and 

outlet temperature monitoring 

requirements for catalytic incinerators 

as specified in § 63.988(c)(2) and the 

related recordkeeping requirements 

specified in § 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(B)(2) and 

(c)(2)(ii), you may elect to comply with 

the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (k)(4)(i) through (iv) of this 

section. 

(i) Monitor and record the inlet 

temperature as specified in subpart SS 

of this part 63. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Recording the downstream 

temperature and temperature difference 

across the catalyst bed as specified in 

§ 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(B)(2) and (b)(2)(ii) is 

not required. 

(5) In addition to the monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements specified in 

§§ 63.990(c)(1), 63.993(c)(1), and 

63.998(a)(2)(ii)(C) for absorbers, you 

must use a flow meter capable of 

providing a continuous record of the 

absorber influent liquid flow, determine 

gas stream flow using one of the 

procedures specified in 

§ 63.994(c)(1)(ii)(A) through (D), and 

record the absorber liquid-to-gas ratio 

averaged over the time period of any 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 63.2460 is amended as 

follows: 

a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text and paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2); 

b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as 

paragraph (b)(5) and amending newly 

redesignated (b)(5) introductory text by 

revising ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), or 

(iii)’’ to read ‘‘paragraph (b)(5)(i), (ii), or 

(iii)’’; 

c. Adding new paragraphs (b)(4), 

(b)(6), and (b)(7); 

d. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text, paragraph (c)(1), paragraph 

(c)(2)(iii), and the first sentence in 

paragraph (c)(2)(v); and 

e. Adding new paragraphs (c)(8) and 

(c)(9). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.2460 What requirements must I meet 

for batch process vents? 

* * * * * 

(b) Group status. If a process has 

batch process vents, as defined in 

§ 63.2550, you must determine the 

group status of the batch process vents 

by determining and summing the 

uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 

from each of the batch process vents 

within the process using the procedures 

specified in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii), 

except as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (7) of this section. 

(1) To calculate emissions caused by 

the heating of a vessel without a process 

condenser to a temperature lower than 

the boiling point, you must use the 

procedures in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3). 

(2) To calculate emissions from 

depressurization of a vessel without a 

process condenser, you must use the 

procedures in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(D)(10). 

* * * * * 

(4) To calculate uncontrolled 

emissions when a vessel is equipped 

with a process condenser, you must use 

the procedures in § 63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B). 

* * * * * 

(6) You may change from Group 2 to 

Group 1 in accordance with either 

paragraph (b)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section. 

You must comply with the requirements 

of this section and submit the test report 

in the next Compliance report. 

(i) You may switch at anytime after 

operating as Group 2 for at least one 

year so that you can show compliance 

with the 10,000 lb/yr threshold for 

Group 2 batch process vents for at least 

365 days before the switch. You may 

elect to start keeping records of 

emissions from Group 2 batch process 

vents before the compliance date. 

Report a switch based on this provision 

in your next compliance report in 

accordance with § 63.2520(e)(10)(i). 

(ii) If the conditions in paragraph 

(b)(6)(i) of this section are not 

applicable, you must provide a 60-day 

advance notice in accordance with 

§ 63.2520(e)(10)(ii) before switching. 

(7) As an alternative to determining 

the uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 

as specified in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii), 

you may elect to demonstrate that nonreactive organic HAP usage in a process 

is less than 10,000 lb/yr. You must 

provide data and supporting rationale in 

your notification of compliance status 

report explaining why the non-reactive 

organic HAP usage will be less than 

10,000 lb/yr. You must keep records of 

the non-reactive organic HAP usage as 

specified in § 63.2525(e)(2) and include 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73115 

information in compliance reports as 

specified in § 63.2520(e)(5)(iv). 

(c) Exceptions to the requirements in 

subparts SS and WW of this part 63 are 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(9) of this section. 

(1) Process condensers. Process 

condensers, as defined in § 63.2550(i), 

are not considered to be control devices 

for batch process vents. You must 

determine whether a condenser is a 

control device for a batch process vent 

or a process condenser from which the 

uncontrolled HAP emissions are 

evaluated as part of the initial 

compliance demonstration for each 

MCPU and report the results with 

supporting rationale in your notification 

of compliance status report. 

(2) * * * 

(iii) As an alternative to conducting a 

performance test or design evaluation to 

demonstrate initial compliance with a 

percent reduction requirement for a 

condenser, you may determine 

controlled emissions using the 

procedures specified in 

§ 63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B). 

* * * * * 

(v) If a process condenser is used for 

any boiling operations, you must 

demonstrate that it is properly operated 

according to the procedures specified in 

§ 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(4)(ii) and 

(d)(3)(iii)(B), and the demonstration 

must occur only during the boiling 

operation. * * * 

* * * * * 

(8) Terminology. When the term 

‘‘storage vessel’’ is used in subpart WW 

of this part 63, the term ‘‘process tank,’’

as defined in § 63.2550(i), applies for 

the purposes of this section. 

(9) Requirements for a biofilter. If you 

use a biofilter to meet either the 95 

percent reduction requirement or outlet 

concentration requirement specified in 

Table 2 to this subpart, you must meet 

the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (iv) of this 

section. 

(i) Operational requirements. The 

biofilter must be operated at all times 

when emissions are vented to it. 

(ii) Performance tests. To demonstrate 

initial compliance, you must conduct a 

performance test according to the 

procedures in § 63.997 and paragraphs 

(c)(9)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section. 

The design evaluation option for small 

control devices is not applicable if you 

use a biofilter. 

(A) Keep up-to-date, readily 

accessible continuous records of either 

the biofilter bed temperature averaged 

over the full period of the performance 

test or the outlet total organic HAP or 

TOC concentration averaged over the 

full period of the performance test. 

Include these data in your notification 

of compliance status report as required 

by § 63.999(b)(3)(ii). 

(B) Record either the percent 

reduction of total organic HAP achieved 

by the biofilter determined as specified 

in § 63.997(e)(2)(iv) or the concentration 

of TOC or total organic HAP determined 

as specified in § 63.997(e)(2)(iii) at the 

outlet of the biofilter, as applicable. 

(C) If you monitor the biofilter bed 

temperature, you may elect to use 

multiple thermocouples in 

representative locations throughout the 

biofilter bed and calculate the average 

biofilter bed temperature across these 

thermocouples prior to reducing the 

temperature data to 15 minute (or 

shorter) averages for purposes of 

establishing operating limits for the 

biofilter. If you use multiple 

thermocouples, include your rationale 

for their site selection in your 

notification of compliance status report. 

(D) Submit a performance test report 

as specified in § 63.999(a)(2)(i) and (ii). 

Include the records from paragraph 

(c)(9)(ii)(B) of this section in your 

performance test report. 

(iii) Monitoring requirements. Use 

either a biofilter bed temperature 

monitoring device (or multiple devices) 

capable of providing a continuous 

record or an organic monitoring device 

capable of providing a continuous 

record. Keep records of temperature 

monitoring results as specified in 

§ 63.998(b) and (c), as applicable. 

General requirements for monitoring 

and continuous temperature monitoring 

systems are contained in § 63.996, and 

requirements for using a CEMS are 

specified in § 63.2450(j) and Table 12 to 

this subpart. If you monitor 

temperature, the operating temperature 

range must be based on only the 

temperatures measured during the 

performance test; these data may not be 

supplemented by engineering 

assessments or manufacturer’s 

recommendations as otherwise allowed 

in § 63.999(b)(3)(ii)(A). If you establish 

the operating range (minimum and 

maximum temperatures) using data 

from previous performance tests in 

accordance with § 63.996(c)(6), 

replacement of the biofilter media with 

the same type of media is not 

considered a process change under 

§ 63.997(b)(1). You may expand your 

biofilter bed temperature operating 

range by conducting a repeat 

performance test that demonstrates 

compliance with the 95 percent 

reduction requirement or outlet 

concentration limit, as applicable. 

(iv) Repeat performance tests. You 

must conduct a repeat performance test 

using the applicable methods specified 

in § 63.997 within 2 years following the 

previous performance test and within 

150 days after each replacement of any 

portion of the biofilter bed media with 

a different type of media or each 

replacement of more than 50 percent (by 

volume) of the biofilter bed media with 

the same type of media. 

6. Section 63.2465 is amended by 

revising the section heading, paragraph 

(b), and paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 63.2465 What requirements must I meet 

for process vents that emit hydrogen halide 

and halogen HAP or HAP metals? 

* * * * * 

(b) If any process vents within a 

process emit hydrogen halide and 

halogen HAP, you must determine and 

sum the uncontrolled hydrogen halide 

and halogen HAP emissions from each 

of the process vents within the process 

using the procedures specified in 

§ 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and/or (ii), as 

appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(d) To demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limit in Table 3 to this 

subpart for HAP metals at a new source, 

you must comply with paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (3) of this section. 

(1) Determine the mass emission rate 

of HAP metals based on process 

knowledge, engineering assessment, or 

test data. 

(2) Conduct an initial performance 

test of each control device that is used 

to comply with the emission limit for 

HAP metals specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart. Conduct the performance test 

according to the procedures in § 63.997. 

Use Method 29 of appendix A of 40 CFR 

part 60 to determine the HAP metals at 

the inlet and outlet of each control 

device, or use Method 5 of appendix A 

of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the total 

particulate matter at the inlet and outlet 

of each control device. You have 

demonstrated initial compliance if the 

overall reduction of either HAP metals 

or total PM from the process is greater 

than or equal to 97 percent by weight. 

(3) Comply with the monitoring 

requirements specified in 

§ 63.1366(b)(1)(xi) for each fabric filter 

used to control HAP metals. 

§ 63.2470 [Amended] 

7. Section 63.2470 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (b). 

§ 63.2475 [Amended] 

8. Section 63.2475 is amended by 

removing paragraph (c). 

9. Section 63.2480 is revised to read 

as follows: 

73116 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

§ 63.2480 What requirements must I meet 

for equipment leaks? 

(a) You must meet each requirement 

in Table 6 to this subpart that applies to 

your equipment leaks, except as 

specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this 

section. 

(b) If you comply with subpart UU of 

this part 63, you may elect to comply 

with the provisions in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (4) of this section as an 

alternative to the referenced provisions 

in subpart UU. 

(1) The requirements for pressure 

testing in § 63.1036(b) may be applied to 

all processes, not just batch processes. 

(2) For the purposes of this subpart, 

pressure testing for leaks in accordance 

with § 63.1036(b) is not required after 

reconfiguration of an equipment train if 

flexible hose connections are the only 

disturbed equipment. 

(3) For an existing source, you are not 

required to develop an initial list of 

identification numbers for connectors as 

would otherwise be required under 

§ 63.1022(b)(1). 

(4) For connectors in gas/vapor and 

light liquid service at an existing source, 

you may elect to comply with the 

requirements in § 63.1029 for 

connectors in heavy liquid service, 

including all associated recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements, rather than 

the requirements of § 63.1027. 

(c) If you comply with 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart F, you may elect to comply with 

the provisions in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (6) of this section as an 

alternative to the referenced provisions 

in 40 CFR part 65, subpart F. 

(1) The requirements for pressure 

testing in § 65.117(b) may be applied to 

all processes, not just batch processes. 

(2) For the purposes of this subpart, 

pressure testing for leaks in accordance 

with § 65.117(b) is not required after 

reconfiguration of an equipment train if 

flexible hose connections are the only 

disturbed equipment. 

(3) For an existing source, you are not 

required to develop an initial list of 

identification numbers for connectors as 

would otherwise be required under 

§ 65.103(b)(1). 

(4) You may elect to comply with the 

monitoring and repair requirements 

specified in § 65.108(e)(3) as an 

alternative to the requirements specified 

in § 65.108(a) through (d) for any 

connectors at your affected source. 

(5) When 40 CFR part 65, subpart F 

refers to the implementation date 

specified in § 65.1(f), it means the 

compliance date specified in § 63.2445. 

(6) When §§ 65.105(f) and 65.117(d)(3) 

refer to § 65.4, it means § 63.2525. 

(7) When § 65.120(a) refers to 

§ 65.5(d), it means § 63.2515. 

(8) When § 65.120(b) refers to 

§ 65.5(e), it means § 63.2520. 

10. Section 63.2485 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) and by adding new 

paragraphs (m), (n), and (o) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.2485 What requirements must I meet 

for wastewater streams and liquid streams 

within an MCPU? 

(a) You must meet each requirement 

in Table 7 to this subpart that applies to 

your wastewater streams and liquid 

streams in open systems within an 

MCPU, except as specified in 

paragraphs (b) through (o) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The total annual average 

concentration of compounds in Table 8 

to this subpart is greater than or equal 

to 10,000 ppmw at any flowrate, and the 

total annual load of compounds in Table 

8 to this subpart is greater than or equal 

to 200 lb/yr. 

(2) The total annual average 

concentration of compounds in Table 8 

to this subpart is greater than or equal 

to 1,000 ppmw, and the annual average 

flowrate is greater than or equal to 1 

l/min. 

(3) The combined total annual average 

concentration of compounds in Tables 8 

and 9 to this subpart is greater than or 

equal to 30,000 ppmw, and the 

combined total annual load of 

compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to this 

subpart is greater than or equal to 1 tpy. 

* * * * * 

(m) When § 63.132(f) refers to ‘‘a 

concentration of greater than 10,000 

ppmw of Table 9 compounds,’’ it means 

‘‘a concentration of greater than 30,000 

ppmw of total partially soluble HAP 

(PSHAP) and soluble HAP (SHAP) or 

greater than 10,000 ppmw of PSHAP’’

for the purposes of this subpart. 

(n) Alternative requirements for 

wastewater that is Group 1 for soluble 

HAP only. The option specified in this 

paragraph (n) applies to wastewater that 

is Group 1 for soluble HAP in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section and is discharged to biological 

treatment. Except as provided in 

paragraph (n)(4) of this section, this 

option does not apply to wastewater 

that is Group 1 for partially soluble HAP 

in accordance with paragraph (c)(1), (2), 

or (4) of this section. For wastewater 

that is Group 1 for soluble HAP, you 

need not comply with §§ 63.133 through 

63.137 for any equalization unit, 

neutralization unit, and/or clarifier prior 

to the activated sludge unit, and you 

need not comply with the venting 

requirements in § 63.136(e)(2)(ii)(A) for 

lift stations with a volume larger than 

10,000 gal, provided you comply with 

the requirements specified in 

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

section and all otherwise applicable 

requirements specified in Table 7 to this 

subpart. For this option, the treatment 

requirements in § 63.138 and the 

performance testing requirements in 

§ 63.145 do not apply to the biological 

treatment unit, except as specified in 

paragraphs (n)(2)(i) through (iv) of this 

section. 

(1) Wastewater must be hard-piped 

between the equalization unit, clarifier, 

and activated sludge unit. This 

requirement does not apply to the 

transfer between any of these types of 

units that are part of the same structure 

and one unit overflows into the next. 

(2) Calculate the destruction 

efficiency of the biological treatment 

unit using Equation 1 of this section in 

accordance with the procedures 

described in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) through 

(vi) of this section. You have 

demonstrated initial compliance if E is 

greater than or equal to 90 percent. 

E QMW QMG QMG QMG F a e n c bio = ( )( ) −−− ×

QMW 100 (Eq. 1)

a

Where: 

E = Destruction efficiency of total 

PSHAP and SHAP for the biological 

treatment unit including the 

equalization unit, neutralization 

unit, and/or clarifier, percent 

QMWa = mass flow rate of total PSHAP 

and SHAP compounds entering the 

equalization unit (or whichever of 

the three types of units is first), kg/ 

hr 

QMGe = mass flow rate of total PSHAP 

and SHAP compounds emitted from 

the equalization unit, kg/hr 


EP08DE05.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73117 

QMGn = mass flow rate of total PSHAP 

and SHAP compounds emitted from 

the neutralization unit, kg/hr 

QMGc = mass flow rate of total PSHAP 

and SHAP compounds emitted from 

the clarifier, kg/hr 

Fbio = Site-specific fraction of PSHAP 

and SHAP compounds biodegraded 

in the biological treatment unit 

(i) Include all PSHAP and SHAP 

compounds in both Group 1 and Group 

2 wastewater streams from all MCPUs, 

except you may exclude any 

compounds that meet the criteria 

specified in § 63.145(a)(6)(ii) or (iii). 

(ii) Conduct the demonstration under 

representative process unit and 

treatment unit operating conditions in 

accordance with § 63.145(a)(3) and (4). 

(iii) Determine PSHAP and SHAP 

concentrations and the total wastewater 

flow rate at the inlet to the equalization 

unit in accordance with § 63.145(f)(1) 

and (2). References in § 63.145(f)(1) and 

(2) to RMR and AMR do not apply for 

the purposes of this section. 

(iv) Determine Fbio for the activated 

sludge unit as specified in § 63.145(h), 

except as specified in paragraph 

(n)(2)(iv)(A) or (B) of this section. 

(A) If the biological treatment process 

meets both of the requirements specified 

in § 63.145(h)(1)(i) and (ii), you may 

elect to replace the Fbio term in Equation 

1 of this section with the numeral ‘‘1.’’

(B) You may elect to assume Fbio is 

zero for any compounds on List 2 of 

Table 36 in subpart G. 

(v) Determine QMGe, QMGn, and 

QMGc using EPA’s WATER9 model or 

the most recent update to this model, 

and conduct testing or use other 

procedures to validate the modeling 

results. 

(vi) Submit the data and results of 

your demonstration, including both a 

description of and the results of your 

WATER9 modeling validation 

procedures, in your notification of 

compliance status report as specified in 

§ 63.2520(d)(2)(ii). 

(3) As an alternative to the venting 

requirements in § 63.136(e)(2)(ii)(A), a 

lift station with a volume larger than 

10,000 gal may have openings necessary 

for proper venting of the lift station. The 

size and other design characteristics of 

these openings may be established 

based on manufacturer 

recommendations or engineering 

judgment for venting under normal 

operating conditions. You must describe 

the design of such openings and your 

supporting calculations and other 

rationale in your notification of 

compliance status report. 

(4) For any wastewater streams that 

are Group 1 for both PSHAP and SHAP, 

you may elect to meet the requirements 

specified in Table 7 to this subpart for 

the PSHAP and then comply with 

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

section for the SHAP in the wastewater 

system. You may determine the SHAP 

mass removal rate, in kg/hr, in treatment 

units that are used to meet the 

requirements for PSHAP and add this 

amount to both the numerator and 

denominator in equation 1 of this 

section. 

(o) Compliance records. (1) If you use 

a flare to meet a requirement specified 

in Table 7 to this subpart, you must 

keep records of the times and durations 

of all periods during which the pilot 

flame monitor is not operating. This 

information must be submitted in the 

compliance reports as specified in 

§ 63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(A). 

(2) For each CPMS used to monitor a 

nonflare control device for wastewater 

emissions, you must keep records as 

specified in § 63.998(c)(1) in addition to 

the records required in § 63.147(d). 

11. Section 63.2520 is amended as 

follows: 

a. Revising paragraph (c)(4); 

b. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i); 

c. Revising paragraphs (e)(5) 

introductory text, (e)(5)(ii)(C), and 

(e)(5)(iii)(K) and adding new paragraph 

(e)(5)(iv); 

d. Revising paragraph (e)(9); and 

e. Revising the first two sentences of 

paragraph (e)(10)(i) and paragraph 

(e)(10)(ii)(C). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.2520 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) Data and rationale used to support 

an engineering assessment to calculate 

uncontrolled emissions in accordance 

with § 63.1257(d)(2)(ii). This 

requirement does not apply if you 

determine the total HAP concentration 

to be less than 50 ppmv or if you use 

previous test data to establish the 

uncontrolled emissions. 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) The results of any applicability 

determinations, emission calculations, 

or analyses used to identify and 

quantify HAP usage or HAP emissions 

from the affected source. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(5) The compliance report must 

contain the information on deviations, 

as defined in § 63.2550, according to 

paragraphs (e)(5)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Operating logs of processes with 

batch vents for the day(s) during which 

the deviation occurred, except operating 

logs are not required for deviations of 

the work practice standards for 

equipment leaks. 

(iii) * * * 

(K) Operating logs of processes with 

batch vents for each day(s) during 

which the deviation occurred. 

* * * * * 

(iv) If you documented in your 

notification of compliance status report 

that an MCPU has Group 2 batch 

process vents because the non-reactive 

HAP usage is less than 10,000 lb/yr, the 

total uncontrolled organic HAP 

emissions from the batch process vents 

in an MCPU will be less than 1,000 lb/ 

yr for the anticipated number of 

standard batches, or total uncontrolled 

hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 

emissions from all batch process vents 

and continuous process vents in a 

process are less than 1,000 lb/yr, 

include the records associated with each 

calculation required by § 63.2525(e) that 

exceeds an applicable HAP usage or 

emissions threshold. 

* * * * * 

(9) Applicable records and 

information for periodic reports as 

specified in referenced subparts F, G, 

SS, WW, and GGG of this part and 

subpart F of 40 CFR part 65. 

(10) * * * 

(i) Except as specified in paragraph 

(e)(10)(ii) of this section, whenever you 

make a process change, or change any 

of the information submitted in the 

notification of compliance status report 

or a previous compliance report, that is 

not within the scope of an existing 

operating scenario, you must document 

the change in your compliance report. A 

process change does not include moving 

within a range of conditions identified 

in the standard batch, and a 

nonstandard batch does not constitute a 

process change. * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) A change from Group 2 to Group 

1 for any emission point except for 

batch process vents that meet the 

conditions specified in 

§ 63.2460(b)(6)(i). 

12. Section 63.2525 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (c), and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.2525 What records must I keep? 

(a) Each applicable record required by 

subpart A of this part 63 and in 

referenced subparts F, G, SS, WW, and 

GGG of this part 63 and in referenced 

subpart F of 40 CFR part 65. 

* * * * * 

73118 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(c) A schedule or log of operating 

scenarios for processes with batch vents 

updated each time a different operating 

scenario is put into effect. 

* * * * * 

(e) The information specified in 

paragraph (e)(2), (3), or (4) of this 

section, as applicable, for each process 

with Group 2 batch process vents or 

uncontrolled hydrogen halide and 

halogen HAP emissions from the sum of 

all batch and continuous process vents 

less than 1,000 lb/yr. No records are 

required for situations described in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section. 

(1) No records are required if you 

documented in your notification of 

compliance status report that the MCPU 

meets any of the situations described in 

paragraph (e)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) The MCPU does not process, use, 

or produce HAP. 

(ii) You control the Group 2 batch 

process vents using a flare that meets 

the requirements of § 63.987. 

(iii) You control the Group 2 batch 

process vents using a control device for 

which your determination of worst case 

for initial compliance includes the 

contribution of all Group 2 batches. 

(2) If you documented in your 

notification of compliance status report 

that an MCPU has Group 2 batch 

process vents because the non-reactive 

organic HAP usage is less than 10,000 

lb/yr, as specified in § 63.2460(b)(7), 

you must keep records of the amount of 

HAP material used, and calculate the 

daily rolling annual sum of the amount 

used no less frequently than monthly. If 

a record indicates usage exceeds 10,000 

lb/yr, you must estimate emissions for 

the preceding 12 months based on the 

number of batches operated and the 

estimated emissions for a standard 

batch, and you must begin 

recordkeeping as specified in paragraph 

(e)(4) of this section. After 1 year, you 

may revert to recording only usage if the 

usage during the year is less than 10,000 

lb. 

(3) If you documented in your 

notification of compliance status report 

that total uncontrolled organic HAP 

emissions from the batch process vents 

in an MCPU will be less than 1,000 lb/ 

yr for the anticipated number of 

standard batches, then you must keep 

records of the number of batches 

operated and calculate a daily rolling 

annual sum of batches operated no less 

frequently than monthly. If the number 

of batches operated results in organic 

HAP emissions that exceed 1,000 lb/yr, 

you must estimate emissions for the 

preceding 12 months based on the 

number of batches operated and the 

estimated emissions for a standard 

batch, and you must begin 

recordkeeping as specified in paragraph 

(e)(4) of this section. After one year, you 

may revert to recording only the number 

of batches if the number of batches 

operated during the year results in less 

than 1,000 lb of organic HAP emissions. 

(4) If you meet none of the conditions 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(3) of this section, you must keep 

records of the information specified in 

paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iv) of this 

section. 

(i) A record of the day each batch was 

completed and/or the operating hours 

per day for continuous operations with 

hydrogen halide and halogen emissions. 

(ii) A record of whether each batch 

operated was considered a standard 

batch. 

(iii) The estimated uncontrolled and 

controlled emissions for each batch that 

is considered to be a nonstandard batch. 

(iv) Records of the daily 365-day 

rolling summations of emissions, or 

alternative records that correlate to the 

emissions (e.g., number of batches), 

calculated no less frequently than 

monthly. 

* * * * * 

13. Section 63.2535 is amended by 

revising paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 63.2535 What compliance options do I 

have if part of my plant is subject to both 

this subpart and another subpart? 

* * * * * 

(k) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart VV, and 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart V. After the compliance date 

specified in § 63.2445, if you have an 

affected source with equipment that is 

also subject to the requirements of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 

61, subpart V, you may elect to apply 

this subpart to all such equipment. If 

you elect this method of compliance, 

you must consider all total organic 

compounds, minus methane and ethane, 

in such equipment for purposes of 

compliance with this subpart, as if they 

were organic HAP. Compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart, in the 

manner described in this paragraph (k), 

will constitute compliance with 40 VFR 

part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart V, as applicable. 

* * * * * 

14. Section 63.2550 is amended as 

follows: 

a. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(b) and (c); 

b. Revising the last sentence in 

paragraph (i) introductory text; 

c. Revising paragraph (8) in the 

definition of the term ‘‘batch process 

vent’’ in paragraph (i); 

d. Adding new paragraphs (6) and (7) 

to the definition of the term 

‘‘continuous process vent’’ in paragraph 

(i); 

e. Revising the definition of the term 

‘‘Group 1 continuous process vent’’ in 

paragraph (i); 

f. Adding new paragraph (6) to the 

definition of the term ‘‘miscellaneous 

organic chemical manufacturing 

process’’ in paragraph (i); 

g. Revising the definition of the term 

‘‘surge control vessel’’ in paragraph (i); 

h. Revising the introductory text of 

the definition of the term ‘‘wastewater’’

in paragraph (i); and 

i. Adding, in alphabetical order, new 

definitions for the terms ‘‘biofilter,’’

‘‘continuous operation,’’ ‘‘halogen 

atoms,’’ ‘‘HAP metals,’’ and ‘‘process 

condenser’’ in paragraph (i). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.2550 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * If a term is defined in § 63.2, 

§ 63.101, § 63.111, § 63.981, § 63.1061, 

§ 63.1251, or § 65.2 and in this 

paragraph (i), the definition in this 

paragraph (i) applies for the purposes of 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

Batch process vent * * * 

(8) Emission streams from emission 

episodes that are undiluted and 

uncontrolled containing less than 50 

ppmv HAP are not part of any batch 

process vent. A vent from a unit 

operation, or a vent from multiple unit 

operations that are manifolded together, 

from which total uncontrolled HAP 

emissions are less than 200 lb/yr is not 

a batch process vent; emissions for all 

emission episodes associated with the 

unit operation(s) must be included in 

the determination of the total mass 

emitted. The HAP concentration or mass 

emission rate may be determined using 

any of the following: Process knowledge 

that no HAP are present in the emission 

stream; an engineering assessment as 

discussed in § 63.1257(d)(2)(ii), except 

that you do not need to demonstrate that 

the equations in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i) do 

not apply, and the precompliance 

reporting requirements specified in 

§ 63.1257(d)(2)(ii)(E) do not apply for 

the purposes of this demonstration; 

equations specified in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i), 

as applicable; test data using Method 18 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; or any 

other test method that has been 

validated according to the procedures in 

Method 301 of appendix A of this part. 

* * * * * 

Biofilter means an enclosed control 

system such as a tank or series of tanks 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73119 

with a fixed roof that contact emissions 

with a solid media (such as bark) and 

use microbiological activity to transform 

organic pollutants in a process vent 

stream to innocuous compounds such as 

carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic 

salts. Wastewater treatment processes 

such as aeration lagoons or activated 

sludge systems are not considered to be 

biofilters. 

* * * * * 

Continuous operation means any 

operation that is not a batch operation. 

* * * * * 

Continuous process vent * * * 

(6) The references to an ‘‘air oxidation 

reactor, distillation unit, or reactor’’ in 

§ 63.107 mean any continuous operation 

for the purposes of this subpart. 

(7) If a gas stream that originates as a 

continuous flow from a continuous 

operation is combined with gas streams 

from other process operations, but not 

items in § 63.107(h), the determination 

of whether the gas stream is a 

continuous process vent must be made 

at a point prior to the combination of 

the gas streams. The phrase ‘‘point of 

discharge to the atmosphere (or the 

point of entry to a control device, if 

any)’’ in § 63.107(c), (d), and (f) means 

‘‘a point prior to the combination of the 

gas streams’’ when such gas streams are 

combined. 

* * * * * 

Group 1 continuous process vent 

means a continuous process vent for 

which the flow rate is greater than or 

equal to 0.005 standard cubic meter per 

minute, and the total resource 

effectiveness index value, calculated 

according to § 63.2455(b), is less than or 

equal to 1.9 at an existing source and 

less than or equal to 5.0 at a new source. 

* * * * * 

Halogen atoms mean chlorine and 

fluorine. 

* * * * * 

HAP metals means the metal portion 

of antimony compounds, arsenic 

compounds, beryllium compounds, 

cadmium compounds, chromium 

compounds, cobalt compounds, lead 

compounds, manganese compounds, 

mercury compounds, nickel 

compounds, and selenium compounds. 

* * * * * 

Miscellaneous organic chemical 

manufacturing process * * * 

(6) The end of a process that produces 

a solid material is either up to and 

including the dryer or, for a polymer 

production process without a dryer, up 

to and including the extruder or die 

plate, except in two cases. If the dryer, 

extruder, or die plate is followed by an 

operation that is designed and operated 

to remove HAP solvent or residual HAP 

monomer from the solid, then the 

solvent removal operation is the last 

step in the process. If the dried solid is 

diluted or mixed with a HAP-based 

solvent, then the solvent removal 

operation is the last step in the process. 

* * * * * 

Process condenser means a condenser 

whose primary purpose is to recover 

material as an integral part of an MCPU. 

A primary condenser or condensers in 

series are considered to be integral to 

the MCPU if they are capable of and 

normally used for the purpose of 

recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., 

net positive heating value) use, reuse or 

for sale for fuel value use, or reuse. All 

condensers recovering condensate from 

an MCPU at or above the boiling point 

or all condensers in line prior to a 

vacuum source are considered process 

condensers. 

* * * * * 

Surge control vessel means feed 

drums, recycle drums, and intermediate 

vessels as part of any continuous 

operation. Surge control vessels are 

used within an MCPU when in-process 

storage, mixing, or management of 

flowrates or volumes is needed to 

introduce material into continuous 

operations. 

* * * * * 

Wastewater means water that is 

discarded from an MCPU through a POD 

and that contains either: an annual 

average concentration of compounds in 

Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart of at least 

5 ppmw and has an annual average 

flowrate of 0.02 liters per minute or 

greater; or an annual average 

concentration of compounds in Tables 8 

and 9 to this subpart of at least 10,000 

ppmw at any flowrate. Wastewater 

means process wastewater or 

maintenance wastewater. The following 

are not considered wastewater for the 

purposes of this subpart: * * * 

* * * * * 

15. Table 2 to subpart FFFF of part 63 

is amended by revising entry 1 to read 

as follows: 

73120 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART FFFF OF PART 63.—EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS FOR BATCH PROCESS

VENTS

For each . . . Then you must . . . And you must . . . 

1. Process with Group 1 

batch process vents.

a. Reduce collective uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the sum of all batch process vents within 

the process by ≥98 percent by weight by venting 

emissions from a sufficient number of the vents 

through a closed-vent system to any combination of 

control devices. (except a flare); or 

Not applicable. 

b. Reduce collective uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the sum of all batch process vents within 

the process by ≥95 percent by weight by venting 

emissions from a sufficient number of the vents 

through a closed-vent system to any combination of 

recovery devices or a biofilter, except you may elect 

to comply with the requirements of subpart WW of 

this part for any process tank; or.

Not applicable. 

c. Reduce uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from 

one or more batch process vents within the process 

by venting through a closed-vent system to a flare or 

by venting through a closed-vent to any combination 

of control devices (excluding a flare) that reduce organic HAP to an outlet concentration ≤20 ppmv as 

TOC or total organic HAP.

For all other batch process vents within the process, 

reduce collective organic HAP emissions as specified 

in item 1.a and/or item 1.b of this table. 

* * * * * * * 

16. Table 3 to subpart FFFF of part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART FFFF OF PART 63.—EMISSION LIMITS FOR HYDROGEN HALIDE AND HALOGEN HAP EMISSIONS OR

HAP METALS EMISSIONS FROM PROCESS VENTS

For each . . . You must . . . 

1. Process with uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions from process vents ≥1,000 lb/yr.a. Reduce collective hydrogen halide and halogen HAP with emissions 

by ≥99 percent by weight or to an outlet concentration ≤20 ppmv by 

venting through a closed-vent system to any combination of control 

devices, or 

b. Reduce the halogen atom mass emission rate to ≤0.45 halogen 

HAP kg/hr by venting through a closed-vent system to a halogen reduction device. 

2. Process at a new source with uncontrolled emissions from process 

vents ≥150 lb/yr of HAP metals.

Reduce overall emissions of HAP metals by ≥97 percent by at a new 

weight. 

17. Table 4 to subpart FFFF of part 63 

is amended by revising entry 1 to read 

as follows: 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART FFFF OF PART 63.—EMISSION LIMITS FOR STORAGE TANKS

For each . . . For which . . . Then you must . . . 

1. Group 1 storage tank ....... a. The maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP at 

the storage temperature of ≥76.6 kilopascals.

i. Reduce total HAP emissions by ≥95 percent by 

weight or to ≤20 ppmv of TOC or organic HAP and 

≤20 ppmv of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP by 

venting emissions through a closed vent system to 

any combination of control devices (excluding a 

flare); or 

ii. Reduce total organic HAP emissions by venting 

emissions through a closed vent system to a flare; or 

iii. Reduce total HAP emissions by venting emissions to 

a fuel gas system or process in accordance with 

§ 63.984 and the requirements referenced therein. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73121 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART FFFF OF PART 63.—EMISSION LIMITS FOR STORAGE TANKS—Continued 

For each . . . For which . . . Then you must . . . 

b. The maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP at 

the storage temperature is <76.6 kilopascals.

i. Comply with the requirements of subpart WW of this 

part, except as specified in § 63.2470; or 

ii. Reduce total HAP emissions by ≥95 percent at the 

storage by weight or to ≤20 ppmv of TOC or organic 

HAP and ≤20 ppmv of hydrogen halide and halogen 

HAP by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices (excluding 

a flare); or 

iii. Reduce total organic HAP emissions by venting 

emissions through a closed vent system to a flare; or 

iv. Reduce total HAP emissions by venting emissions 

to a fuel gas system or process in accordance with 

§ 63.984 and the requirements referenced therein. 

* * * * * * * 

18. Table 5 to subpart FFFF of part 63 

is amended by revising entry 1 to read 

as follows: 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART FFFF OF PART 63.—EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS FOR TRANSFER RACKS

For each . . . You must . . . 

1. Group 1 transfer rack ..................................... a. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by ≥98 percent by weight or to an outlet concentration ≤20 ppmv as organic HAP or TOC by venting emissions through a closed-vent system 

to any combination of control devices (except a flare); or 

b. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by venting emissions through a closed-vent system 

to a flare; or 

c. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by venting emissions to a fuel gas system or process in accordance with § 63.984 and the requirements referenced therein; or 

d. Use a vapor balancing system designed and operated to collect organic HAP vapors displaced from tank trucks and railcars during loading and route the collected HAP vapors to 

the storage tank from which the liquid being loaded originated or to another storage tank 

connected by a common header. 

* * * * * * * 

19. Table 6 to subpart FFFF of part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART FFFF OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS

For all . . . You must . . . 

1. Equipment that is in organic HAP service ..... a. Comply with the requirements of subpart UU of this part 63 and the requirements referenced therein, except as specified in § 63.2480(b), or 

b. Comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 65, subpart F and the requirements referenced therein, except as specified in § 63.2480(c). 

20. Table 12 to subpart FFFF of part 

63 is amended as follows: 

a. Removing the entries for 

§§ 63.8(c)(4)(i)–(ii) and 63.10(e)(1)–(2); 

b. Adding new entries for 

§§ 63.8(c)(4)(i), 63.8(c)(4)(ii), 63.10(e)(1), 

63.10(e)(2)(i), and 63.10(e)(2)(ii); and 

c. Revising the entries for 

§§ 63.8(c)(4), 63.8(c)(6), 63.8(c)(7)–(8), 

63.8(d), 63.8(e), 63.9(g), 63.10(b)(2)(xiii), 

and 63.10(c)(1)–(6), (9)–(15). 

TABLE 12 TO SUBPART FFFF OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART FFFF 

Citation Subject Explanation 

§ 63.8(c)(4) ........................... CMS Requirements ......................................................... Only for CEMS. Requirements for CPMS are specified 

in referenced subparts G and SS of part 63. Requirements for COMS do not apply because subpart FFFF 

does not require COMS. 

§ 63.8(c)(4)(i) ........................ COMS Measurement and Recording Frequency ........... No; subpart FFFF does not require COMS.

§ 63.8(c)(4)(ii) ....................... CEMS Measurement and Recording Frequency ............ Yes. 

73122 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 12 TO SUBPART FFFF OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART FFFF—Continued 

Citation Subject Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.8(c)(6) ........................... CMS Requirements ......................................................... Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are specified 

in referenced subparts G and SS of this part 63. Requirements for COMS do not apply because subpart 

FFFF does not require COMS. 

§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ..................... CMS Requirements ......................................................... Only for CEMS. Requirements for CPMS are specified 

in referenced subparts G and SS of part 63. Requirements for COMS do not apply because subpart FFFF 

does not require COMS. 

§ 63.8(d) ............................... CMS Quality Control ....................................................... Only for CEMS. 

§ 63.8(e) ............................... CMS Performance Evaluation ......................................... Only for CEMS. Section 63.8(e)(5)(ii) does not apply 

because subpart FFFF does not require COMS. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.9(g) ............................... Additional Notifications When Using CMS ...................... Only for CEMS. Section 63.9(g)(2) does not apply because subpart FFFF does not require COMS. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) .................. Records ........................................................................... Only for CEMS. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6), (9)–(15) .... Records ........................................................................... Only for CEMS. Recordkeeping requirements for CPMS 

are specified in referenced subparts G and SS of this 

part 63. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(e)(1) ......................... Additional CEMS Reports ............................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(e)(2)(i) ...................... Additional CMS Reports .................................................. Only for CEMS. 

§ 63.10(e)(2)(ii) ..................... Additional COMS Reports ............................................... No. Subpart FFFF does not require COMS. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–23666 Filed 12–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P