[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73098-73122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23666]



[[Page 73097]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 73098]]


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

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:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98f9b5f9f6fcb5eab5fcf7fbf3fdecd8fde8f9b6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8deca0ece3e9a0ffa0e9e2eee6e8f9cde8fdeca3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Fax: (202) 566-1741.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 e-mail 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aec3cdcac1c0cfc2ca80dccfc0cad7eecbdecf80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f69b95929998979a92d8849798928fb6938697d8919980">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
        Category                 NAICS *                 entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............  3251, 3252, 3253, 3254,  Producers of specialty
                          3255, 3256, and 3259,    organic chemicals,
                          with several             explosives, certain
                          exceptions.              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.

[[Page 73099]]

    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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#68050b0c070609040c461a09060c11280d1809460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfb2bcbbb0b1beb3bbf1adbeb1bba69fbaafbef1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 By-Product 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Fertilizer Institute and Arteva Specialties S.' ar.l 
also filed petitions for review but voluntarily withdrew their 
petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 73100]]

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

[[Page 73101]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Numerous 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 By-Product 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 by-product 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

[[Page 73102]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 73104]]

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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 73106]]

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., 
F<INF>bio</INF>=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., f<INF>bio</INF>=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

[[Page 73107]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We decided to propose these changes after we reanalyzed the data in 
light of an alternative beyond-the floor standard suggested by 
Petitions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-the-floor 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

[[Page 73108]]

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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 73110]]

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      We are proposing to replace the
 text.                               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.

[[Page 73111]]

 
40 CFR 63.2470(b) and entries       We are proposing to specify in table
 1.a.iii and 1.b.iv to Table 2 to    2 to subpart FFFF rather than in 40
 subpart FFFF.                       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  We are proposing to specify in table
 Table 5 to subpart FFFF.            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     We are proposing to correct several
 FFFF.                               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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a2b3f283364393f392b240a2f3a2b642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="71100413085f020402101f311401105f161e07">[email protected]</span></a>, 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

[[Page 73112]]

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.

[[Page 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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  63.2445  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

* * * * *

[[Page 73114]]

    (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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  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 
Sec.  63.988(c)(2) and the related recordkeeping requirements specified 
in Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec. Sec.  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 
Sec.  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:


Sec.  63.2460  What requirements must I meet for batch process vents?

* * * * *
    (b) Group status. If a process has batch process vents, as defined 
in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.2520(e)(10)(ii) before switching.
    (7) As an alternative to determining the uncontrolled organic HAP 
emissions as specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii), you may 
elect to demonstrate that non-reactive 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 Sec.  63.2525(e)(2) and include

[[Page 73115]]

information in compliance reports as specified in Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.999(b)(3)(ii).
    (B) Record either the percent reduction of total organic HAP 
achieved by the biofilter determined as specified in Sec.  
63.997(e)(2)(iv) or the concentration of TOC or total organic HAP 
determined as specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.998(b) and (c), as 
applicable. General requirements for monitoring and continuous 
temperature monitoring systems are contained in Sec.  63.996, and 
requirements for using a CEMS are specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.996(c)(6), replacement of 
the biofilter media with the same type of media is not considered a 
process change under Sec.  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 Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.1366(b)(1)(xi) for each fabric filter used to control HAP metals.


Sec.  63.2470  [Amended]

    7. Section 63.2470 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(b).


Sec.  63.2475  [Amended]

    8. Section 63.2475 is amended by removing paragraph (c).
    9. Section 63.2480 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 73116]]

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.1029 for connectors in heavy liquid service, including all 
associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements, rather than the 
requirements of Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  65.103(b)(1).
    (4) You may elect to comply with the monitoring and repair 
requirements specified in Sec.  65.108(e)(3) as an alternative to the 
requirements specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  65.1(f), it means the compliance date specified 
in Sec.  63.2445.
    (6) When Sec. Sec.  65.105(f) and 65.117(d)(3) refer to Sec.  65.4, 
it means Sec.  63.2525.
    (7) When Sec.  65.120(a) refers to Sec.  65.5(d), it means Sec.  
63.2515.
    (8) When Sec.  65.120(b) refers to Sec.  65.5(e), it means Sec.  
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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.138 and the performance testing 
requirements in Sec.  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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE05.000

Where:
E = Destruction efficiency of total PSHAP and SHAP for the biological 
treatment unit including the equalization unit, neutralization unit, 
and/or clarifier, percent
QMW<INF>a</INF> = 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
QMG<INF>e</INF> = mass flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP compounds 
emitted from the equalization unit, kg/hr

[[Page 73117]]

QMG<INF>n</INF> = mass flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP compounds 
emitted from the neutralization unit, kg/hr
QMG<INF>c</INF> = mass flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP compounds 
emitted from the clarifier, kg/hr
F<INF>bio</INF> = 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 Sec.  63.145(a)(6)(ii) or 
(iii).
    (ii) Conduct the demonstration under representative process unit 
and treatment unit operating conditions in accordance with Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.145(f)(1) and (2). References in Sec.  
63.145(f)(1) and (2) to RMR and AMR do not apply for the purposes of 
this section.
    (iv) Determine F<INF>bio</INF> for the activated sludge unit as 
specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  63.145(h)(1)(i) and (ii), you may elect 
to replace the F<INF>bio</INF> term in Equation 1 of this section with 
the numeral ``1.''
    (B) You may elect to assume F<INF>bio</INF> is zero for any 
compounds on List 2 of Table 36 in subpart G.
    (v) Determine QMG<INF>e</INF>, QMG<INF>n</INF>, and QMG<INF>c</INF> 
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 Sec.  63.2520(d)(2)(ii).
    (3) As an alternative to the venting requirements in Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.998(c)(1) in addition to the records required in Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.2460(b)(6)(i).
    12. Section 63.2525 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), and 
(e) to read as follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *

[[Page 73118]]

    (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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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:


Sec.  63.2550  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (i) * * * If a term is defined in Sec.  63.2, Sec.  63.101, Sec.  
63.111, Sec.  63.981, Sec.  63.1061, Sec.  63.1251, or Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(ii), except that you do not need to 
demonstrate that the equations in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i) do not apply, 
and the precompliance reporting requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(ii)(E) do not apply for the purposes of this 
demonstration; equations specified in Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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:

[[Page 73120]]



 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       a. Reduce collective  Not applicable.
 batch process vents.          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
                              b. Reduce collective  Not applicable.
                               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.
                              c. Reduce             For all other batch
                               uncontrolled          process vents
                               organic HAP           within the process,
                               emissions from one    reduce collective
                               or more batch         organic HAP
                               process vents         emissions as
                               within the process    specified in item
                               by venting through    1.a and/or item 1.b
                               a closed-vent         of this table.
                               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.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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    a. Reduce collective hydrogen
 halide and halogen HAP emissions from    halide and halogen HAP with
 process vents >=1,000 lb/yr.             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          Reduce overall emissions of HAP
 uncontrolled emissions from process      metals by >=97 percent by at a
 vents >=150 lb/yr of HAP metals.         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   i. Reduce total HAP
                               vapor pressure of     emissions by >=95
                               total HAP at the      percent by weight
                               storage temperature   or to <=20 ppmv of
                               of >=76.6             TOC or organic HAP
                               kilopascals.          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
                                                     Sec.   63.984 and
                                                     the requirements
                                                     referenced therein.

[[Page 73121]]

 
                              b. The maximum true   i. Comply with the
                               vapor pressure of     requirements of
                               total HAP at the      subpart WW of this
                               storage temperature   part, except as
                               is <76.6              specified in Sec.
                               kilopascals.          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
                                                     Sec.   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
                                Sec.   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        a. Comply with the requirements of
 organic HAP service.           subpart UU of this part 63 and the
                                requirements referenced therein, except
                                as specified in Sec.   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 Sec.   63.2480(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Table 12 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended as follows:
    a. Removing the entries for Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii) and 
63.10(e)(1)-(2);
    b. Adding new entries for Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   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.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i)........  COMS Measurement and  No; subpart FFFF
                               Recording Frequency.  does not require
                                                     COMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(ii).......  CEMS Measurement and  Yes.
                               Recording Frequency.

[[Page 73122]]

 
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   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.
Sec.   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.
Sec.   63.8(d)..............  CMS Quality Control.  Only for CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(e)..............  CMS Performance       Only for CEMS.
                               Evaluation.           Section
                                                     63.8(e)(5)(ii) does
                                                     not apply because
                                                     subpart FFFF does
                                                     not require COMS.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.9(g)..............  Additional            Only for CEMS.
                               Notifications When    Section 63.9(g)(2)
                               Using CMS.            does not apply
                                                     because subpart
                                                     FFFF does not
                                                     require COMS.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)....  Records.............  Only for CEMS.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-  Records.............  Only for CEMS.
 (15).                                               Recordkeeping
                                                     requirements for
                                                     CPMS are specified
                                                     in referenced
                                                     subparts G and SS
                                                     of this part 63.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)..........  Additional CEMS       Yes.
                               Reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(i).......  Additional CMS        Only for CEMS.
                               Reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii)......  Additional COMS       No. Subpart FFFF
                               Reports.              does not require
                                                     COMS.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 05-23666 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>