Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40103 

EPA-APPROVED IOWA SOURCE-SPECIFIC ORDERS/PERMITS—Continued 

Name of source Order/permit No. State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

(165) Muscatine Power and 

Water.

Permit No. 74–A–175–S4 .. 3/2/16 [date of final publication in 

the Federal Register] 

and [Federal Register 

citation].

2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA– 

R07–OAR–2017–0416; FRL– 

XXXX–Region 7]. 

(166) Muscatine Power and 

Water.

Permit No. 95–A–373–P3 .. 3/2/16 [date of final publication in 

the Federal Register] 

and [Federal Register 

citation].

2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA– 

R07–OAR–2017–0416; FRL– 

XXXX–Region 7]. 

(167) Muscatine Power and 

Water.

Permit No. 80–A–191–P3 .. 3/2/16 [date of final publication in 

the Federal Register] 

and [Federal Register 

citation].

2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA– 

R07–OAR–2017–0416; FRL– 

XXXX–Region 7]. 

(168) Monsanto .................... Permit No. 82–A–092–P11 5/13/15 [date of final publication in 

the Federal Register] 

and [Federal Register 

citation].

2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA– 

R07–OAR–2017–0416; FRL– 

XXXX–Region 7]. 

(169) Monsanto .................... Permit No. 88–A–001–S3 .. 5/13/15 [date of final publication in 

the Federal Register] 

and [Federal Register 

citation].

2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQ Nonattainment Plan; Condition 6 of the permit is not part of the SIP; EPA– 

R07–OAR–2017–0416; FRL– 

XXXX–Region 7]. 

(e)* * * 

EPA-APPROVED IOWA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(47) 2010 1-hr SO2 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard Nonattainment Plan.

A portion of Muscatine 

County.

5/26/16 [date of final publication in 

the Federal Register] 

and [Federal Register 

citation].

EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0416; FRL– 

XXXX–Region 7]. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–17736 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133, FRL–9966–26– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS79 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Manufacture 

of Amino/Phenolic Resins 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On October 8, 2014, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

finalized amendments to the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) for the 

Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins 

(APR). Subsequently, the EPA received 

three petitions for reconsideration of the 

final rule. The EPA is reconsidering and 

requesting public comment on issues 

related to the maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) standards 

for continuous process vents (CPVs) at 

existing affected sources. The EPA is 

proposing to revise the MACT standard 

for back-end CPVs at existing affected 

sources based on hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) emissions test data for 

back-end CPVs at existing sources for 

this source category submitted by 

petitioners. The EPA is also soliciting 

comments regarding the need to revise 

the standard for front-end CPVs at 

existing sources, and to extend the 

compliance date for the proposed 

revised emission limit for back-end 

CPVs at existing sources. Additionally, 

the EPA is proposing requirements for 

storage vessels at new and existing 

sources during periods when an 

emission control system used to control 

vents on fixed roof tanks is undergoing 

planned routine maintenance. The EPA 

is seeking comments only on the four 

issues specifically addressed in this 

notice: proposed revised back-end CPV 

MACT standards for existing sources, 

whether the EPA should modify the 

front-end CPV MACT standards for 

existing sources, whether the EPA 

should extend the compliance date for 

the proposed revised back-end CPV 

MACT standards for existing sources, 

and the proposed work practice 

standards for storage vessels during 

planned routine maintenance of 

emission control systems. In this 

rulemaking, the EPA is not reopening or 

requesting comment on any other 

aspects of the 2014 final amendments to 

the NESHAP for the Manufacture of 

APR, including other issues raised in 

petitions for reconsideration of the 2014 

rule. The EPA estimates this proposal, if 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40104 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

finalized as proposed, would reduce 

compliance costs to this industry by 

$2.1 million per year, compared to a 

revised cost estimate of the MACT 

standard as amended in 2014. 

DATES:

Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before October 23, 2017. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

requested by September 7, 2017, then 

we will hold a public hearing on 

September 25, 2017 at EPA 

Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton 

East Building, 1201 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. If 

a public hearing is requested, then we 

will provide details about the public 

hearing on our Web site at: https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/manufacture-aminophenolicresins-national-emission-standards. The 

EPA does not intend to publish another 

notice in the Federal Register 

announcing any updates on the request 

for a public hearing. Please contact Ms. 

Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–0832 or by 

email at hunt.virginia@epa.gov to 

request a public hearing, to register to 

speak at the public hearing, or to inquire 

as to whether a public hearing will be 

held. The last day to pre-register in 

advance to speak at the public hearing 

will be September 21, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from http://

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

please contact Mr. Art Diem, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (E143– 

01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–1185; fax number: 

(919) 541–0246; email address: 

diem.art@epa.gov. For information 

about the applicability of the NESHAP 

to a particular entity, contact Maria 

Malave, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

WJC South Building, Mail Code 2227A, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–7027; fax number: 

(202) 564–0050; and email address: 

malave.maria@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 

EPA WJC West Building, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0133. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

will be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0133. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information you claim as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy 

of the comment that does not contain 

the information claimed as CBI for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 

part 2. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

electronic storage media you submit. If 

the EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, the EPA 

may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters or any form 

of encryption and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Preamble Acronyms and 

Abbreviations. Multiple acronyms and 

terms are used in this preamble. While 

this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 

the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the EPA defines the 

following terms and acronyms here: 

APR Amino/phenolic resin 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CPV Continuous process vent 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

HAP Hazardous air pollutants 

HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP 

ICR Information collection request 

lb Pound 

MACT Maximum achievable control 

technology 

NESHAP National emissions standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40105 

1A petitioner requested another change in the 

rule language regarding planned routine 

maintenance of emission control systems used to 

reduce HAP emissions from storage vessels. 

Although this issue was not addressed in the March 

2015 letters granting reconsideration, the EPA has 

reconsidered the storage vessel requirements and is 

addressing these requirements in this proposal. See 

section IV of this preamble for more details. 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PRD Pressure relief device 

ppmv Parts per million by volume 

RTO Regenerative thermal oxidizer 

RTR Residual risk and technology review 

UFC Urea formaldehyde concentrate 

UPL Upper predictive limit 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. What is the source of authority for the 

reconsideration action? 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed 

reconsideration action? 

B. What are the issues raised by petitioners 

about the standards for CPVs at existing 

affected sources? 

III. Proposed Emissions Standards for BackEnd CPVs at Existing Sources 

A. What data were collected for back-end 

CPVs on resin spray dryers? 

B. What analyses were conducted for backend CPVs? 

C. Should the EPA provide facilities more 

time to comply with the proposed revised 

back-end CPV standards? 

IV. What other changes or issues does this 

action address? 

A. Should the EPA promulgate a separate 

standard for front-end CPVs at existing 

sources? 

B. Proposed work practice standards for 

storage vessels at new and existing 

sources during planned routine 

maintenance of emission control systems 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VI. Solicitation of Public Comment and 

Participation 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. What is the source of authority for 

the reconsideration action? 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 112 and 

307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

(42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7607(d)(7)(B)). 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include, but are 

not limited to, facilities having a North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code 325211. Facilities 

with this NAICS code are described as 

plastics material and resin 

manufacturing establishments, which 

includes facilities engaged in 

manufacturing amino resins and 

phenolic resins, as well as other plastic 

and resin types. 

To determine whether your facility is 

affected, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1400 

of subpart OOO. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

any aspect of the NESHAP, please 

contact the appropriate person listed in 

the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the Internet. A redline 

version of the regulatory language that 

incorporates the proposed changes in 

this action is available in the docket for 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0133). Following signature 

by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will 

post a copy of this proposed action at: 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/manufactureaminophenolic-resins-nationalemission-standards. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

EPA will post the Federal Register 

version of this proposal at this same 

Web site. Other key technical 

documents related to this proposal will 

be available in the docket when the 

Federal Register version of the proposal 

is posted to the docket. Only the version 

as published in the Federal Register 

will represent the official EPA proposal. 

II. Background 

A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed 

reconsideration action? 

On October 8, 2014, the EPA 

completed the residual risk and 

technology review (RTR) of the January 

20, 2000, APR MACT standards (65 FR 

3276), and published its final rule 

amending the NESHAP for the APR 

Production source category at 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart OOO. That action also 

amended the NESHAP for the Acrylic 

and Modacrylic Fibers Production 

source category and the Polycarbonate 

Production source category at 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart YY (79 FR 60898). The 

2014 final rule established MACT 

standards for the first time for CPVs at 

existing affected sources in the APR 

Production source category. The 2014 

final rule also removed exemptions for 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction; clarified provisions 

pertaining to open-ended valves and 

lines; added monitoring requirements 

for pressure relief devices (PRDs); and 

added requirements for electronic 

reporting of performance test results. 

The October 2014 amendments to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart OOO, promulgated 

emissions limits for previously 

unregulated HAP emissions from CPVs 

at existing affected sources, without 

distinguishing between back-end and 

front-end CPVs. The standard of 0.95 

kilograms of organic HAP per megagram 

(1.9 pounds (lb) of total organic HAP per 

ton) of resin produced is codified at 40 

CFR 63.1405(a)(3) and currently applies 

to existing affected source back-end and 

front-end CPVs. 

Following promulgation of the 

October 8, 2014, final rule, the EPA 

received three petitions for 

reconsideration pursuant to section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The petitions 

were submitted by the Sierra Club, 

Tembec BTLSR (‘‘Tembec’’), and 

Georgia-Pacific LLC (‘‘Georgia-Pacific’’). 

The petitions are available for review in 

the rulemaking docket (see Docket 

Document ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0133–0077, EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0133–0076, and EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0133–0072, respectively). On March 27, 

2015, the EPA issued letters to the 

petitioners granting reconsideration of 

the final rule to address at least the 

following petitioners’ claims: that the 

public was not afforded a reasonable 

opportunity to comment on the MACT 

floor analysis, supporting data and 

resulting emission standards for CPVs at 

existing sources; and that the 

requirements associated with emissions 

from PRDs should be reconsidered.1

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40106 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

These letters are also available in the 

rulemaking docket (see Docket 

Document ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0133–0075, EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0133–0073, and EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0133–0074, respectively). 

The Agency is now proposing revised 

emissions standards for back-end CPVs 

at existing affected sources and is 

proposing alternative work practice 

standards for storage vessels during 

periods of planned routine maintenance 

of emission control systems on fixed 

roof tanks at new and existing affected 

APR production sources. The EPA is 

requesting public comments on these 

proposed standards. The EPA is also 

asking for comments on whether it is 

necessary to establish a new compliance 

date for the proposed revised back-end 

CPV limits at existing sources (if they 

are promulgated), and on whether 

revisions are needed to the existing 

source CPV limits as they apply to frontend CPVs. At this time, the EPA is not 

proposing any actions pertaining to its 

grant of reconsideration on the PRD 

issues raised in the petitions for 

reconsideration. The EPA intends to 

address those issues separately in a 

future action and is not requesting or 

accepting comment on issues related to 

PRDs. 

B. What are the issues raised by 

petitioners about the standards for CPVs 

at existing affected sources? 

1. Opportunity To Comment on Final 

Production-Based Standards for CPVs at 

Existing Affected Sources 

During the review of the APR 

NESHAP, the EPA determined that there 

were no applicable MACT standards for 

CPVs located at existing affected 

sources, and, therefore, in the January 9, 

2014 (79 FR 1676), RTR proposal for the 

category, the EPA proposed first-time 

MACT standards, based on the MACT 

floor, for those CPVs as follows: 

• Reduce organic HAP by 85 percent 

or more; or 

• Limit the concentration of organic 

HAP to 20 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv) when using a combustion 

control device; or 

• Limit the concentration of organic 

HAP to 50 ppmv when using a noncombustion control device. 

During the comment period on the 

proposal, commenters provided the EPA 

with information showing that, rather 

than the two existing affected sources in 

the category with CPVs (specifically, 

CPVs on resin spray dryers) that the 

EPA had identified at proposal, there 

are four existing affected sources with a 

total of six CPVs (all on resin spray 

dryers). In addition, commenters stated 

that the EPA should calculate 

uncontrolled production-based emission 

rates based on 5 years of production, 

taking variability in emissions between 

resin types into account. Commenters 

provided the EPA with HAP emissions 

data and resin production data for the 

previous 5 years during the comment 

period. 

The EPA considered the additional 

data submitted during the comment 

period in calculating the MACT floor, 

and determined that it was appropriate 

to finalize a production-based limit of 

1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced 

for CPVs at existing affected sources (see 

40 CFR 63.1405(a)(3)). The EPA 

discussed the determination of the 

MACT floor in a memorandum available 

in the rulemaking docket (Docket 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0133–0053). The final rule was 

promulgated on October 8, 2014 (79 FR 

60898). 

Petitioners Tembec and GeorgiaPacific each own resin spray dryers 

(back-end CPVs) regulated by the 

NESHAP for existing affected sources. 

The back-end CPVs are currently subject 

to the finalized limit of 1.9 lb of HAP 

per ton of resin produced. Tembec’s and 

Georgia-Pacific’s petitions claim they 

did not have an opportunity to comment 

on the MACT floor analysis and 

emissions standard in the final rule. 

While they stated in the petitions that 

they believe a production-based limit is 

appropriate, they claimed they did not 

get an opportunity to comment on how 

the EPA would use the data they 

provided in analyses conducted to 

determine the MACT floor level of 

control. 

2. MACT Floor Determination for BackEnd CPVs at Existing Affected Sources 

The Tembec and Georgia-Pacific 

petitions stated that the productionbased emissions limit in the 2014 final 

rule of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin 

produced was not achievable for backend CPVs, and they expressed concern 

over the data and calculation 

methodology used to set the HAP 

emissions standard for CPVs at existing 

affected sources. Specifically, Tembec 

stated that even though its back-end 

CPVs are identified as the bestperforming units, these units do not 

meet the 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin 

produced standard for existing source 

CPVs. 

Tembec and Georgia-Pacific further 

stated that the emissions data the EPA 

used to represent Tembec’s back-end 

CPVs were incomplete. According to 

Tembec and Georgia-Pacific, Tembec’s 

back-end CPV HAP emissions data used 

in the final rule MACT floor analysis do 

not account for all HAP emitted, 

including methanol and formaldehyde. 

Therefore, petitioners stated that the 

EPA underestimated the total HAP 

emissions from these back-end CPVs, 

resulting in an unreasonably stringent 

production-based total HAP emissions 

standard for existing affected sources. 

Georgia-Pacific stated in its petition 

that the EPA made three errors in 

calculating the production-based HAP 

limits for CPVs at existing affected 

sources. First, the petitioner claimed 

that the promulgated emissions 

standard does not adequately account 

for variability in emissions from backend CPVs. The commenter noted that 

the EPA calculated the emission rate for 

each CPV by dividing the 5-year total 

emissions by the 5-year total amount of 

resin produced by the corresponding 

resin unit. The petitioner stated that to 

account for short-term variability, the 

EPA should have based the standard on 

the maximum 1-year production-based 

HAP emissions rate for each CPV. 

Georgia-Pacific also stated that another 

approach the EPA could have used to 

account for variability in the data when 

calculating the production-based HAP 

emissions limit is the application of a 

99-percent upper prediction limit (UPL). 

Second, Georgia-Pacific disagreed with 

the EPA’s interpretation of ‘‘average’’ as 

the median rather than the arithmetic 

mean of the production-based HAP 

emissions, although it acknowledged 

the EPA’s long-standing interpretation 

that ‘‘average’’ could mean arithmetic 

mean, median, or mode. The petitioner 

stated that using the arithmetic mean 

would better reflect the performance of 

Georgia-Pacific’s back-end CPVs, 

whereas the median produced an 

emissions limit that is not 

representative of two of the five bestperforming back-end CPVs (with the 

noted two being Georgia-Pacific CPVs). 

Third, Georgia-Pacific stated that the 

EPA’s emissions calculations do not 

account for a change in particulate 

control technology for one of Tembec’s 

back-end CPVs that occurred prior to 

the 2014 final rule. Georgia-Pacific 

asserted that HAP emissions from this 

CPV are now higher with the change in 

particulate control technology, and the 

EPA should not have used data from a 

period with the previous control 

technology in place when determining 

production-based HAP emissions from 

the five best-performing CPVs at 

existing affected sources. 

Georgia-Pacific also suggested in its 

petition for reconsideration that the EPA 

should explore subcategorizing the 

existing source CPVs between those at 

Tembec and those at Georgia-Pacific to 

account for fundamental differences in 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40107 

2See Table 3 of the memorandum titled 

‘‘Proposed Revised MACT Floor and Beyond-theFloor Analysis for Back-End Continuous Process 

Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and 

Phenolic Resins Production Source Category’’ in 

this docket. 

equipment and processes, including 

dryer size and/or type of resin 

produced. Georgia-Pacific’s resin spray 

dryers are substantially larger than 

Tembec’s resin spray dryers. Also, 

Tembec produces urea-formaldehyde 

resins, whereas Georgia-Pacific 

produces phenolic resins. 

Tembec stated in its petition that the 

EPA did not consider information 

Tembec submitted to the EPA in the 

development of the MACT standard for 

back-end CPVs at existing sources. 

Specifically, Tembec stated that 2006 

engineering test data for one of its CPVs 

were submitted to the EPA and could 

have been used to better estimate the 

HAP emissions from its three CPVs. 

Tembec also stated that it supports the 

Georgia-Pacific petition. 

In a comment letter from GeorgiaPacific dated March 10, 2014 (Docket 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0133–0046), on the January 9, 2014, 

proposal, Georgia Pacific identified an 

additional CPV at its Crossett, Arkansas, 

facility. This newly identified CPV is 

not on the resin spray dryers. Whereas 

the resin spray dryers are on the backend of the resin manufacturing process, 

this additional CPV is associated with a 

reactor used to produce ureaformaldehyde concentrate (UFC), which 

is located in the front-end of the resin 

manufacturing process, ahead of the 

resin spray dryers. Due to a lack of 

reliable emissions data for this CPV at 

the time of the 2014 final rule, the EPA 

did not include emissions from this CPV 

when it set the MACT floor for CPVs. 

The Sierra Club raised concerns in its 

petition for reconsideration regarding 

the exclusion of HAP emissions data 

from that front-end CPV, stating that the 

EPA did not adequately explain why the 

UFC CPV HAP emissions data were not 

included in the analysis to calculate the 

MACT floor for CPVs and asserting that 

the EPA must include all existing 

sources in the MACT floor analysis. 

Sierra Club argued that if the EPA had 

included Georgia-Pacific’s UFC frontend CPV, the HAP emissions standard 

for CPVs would have been more 

stringent. 

Sierra Club asserted in its petition 

that all the CPVs are in the same source 

category and that the EPA cannot 

subcategorize based on the controls that 

are in place. Sierra Club further noted 

that although the EPA stated that the 

HAP emissions data from this front-end 

CPV were not reliable, such a statement 

is insufficient to explain ignoring the 

HAP emissions from this CPV when 

setting the MACT standard for CPVs. 

Lastly, Sierra Club stated that excluding 

the UFC front-end CPV in the MACT 

floor analysis because its HAP 

emissions are not responsible for 

driving risks is not a relevant reason for 

such an exclusion. 

Following the EPA’s issuance of the 

March 27, 2015, letters granting 

reconsideration on petitioners’ issues 

pertaining to CPVs, petitioners Tembec 

and Georgia-Pacific conducted HAP 

emissions testing on the back-end CPVs 

located on their resin dryers at their four 

existing affected sources. The data from 

that testing are discussed in section III.A 

of this preamble. 

III. Proposed Emissions Standards for 

Back-End CPVs at Existing Sources 

A. What data were collected for backend CPVs on resin spray dryers? 

Georgia-Pacific and Tembec 

conducted HAP emissions testing in 

April 2015 and June 2015 on all six 

back-end CPVs located on their resin 

spray dryers, and they submitted the 

results of that testing to the EPA. 

Georgia-Pacific separately tested 

emissions during production of three 

types of resins at its Conway, North 

Carolina, facility; two types of resins at 

the Taylorsville, Mississippi, facility; 

and one type of resin at the Crossett, 

Arkansas, facility. Tembec tested 

emissions from one spray dryer CPV 

while producing one type of resin and 

tested emissions during production of 

two types of resins from the other two 

resin spray dryer CPVs. The companies 

followed a testing protocol approved in 

advance by the EPA, and both 

companies conducted six 1-hour runs of 

the back-end CPVs on each resin spray 

dryer, where possible, yielding a total of 

64 runs. The test data indicate that the 

major HAP present were methanol and 

formaldehyde. Complete information on 

the spray dryer back-end CPV exhaust 

emission testing, including process and 

operation information, testing protocol 

and methodology, quality assurance/ 

quality control, and detailed test results 

are available in the rulemaking docket. 

B. What analyses were conducted for 

back-end CPVs? 

1. MACT Floor Analysis for Back-End 

CPVs 

We performed a MACT floor analysis 

for back-end CPVs using the 2015 test 

data provided by Georgia-Pacific and 

Tembec. In determining the MACT floor 

for existing sources, CAA section 

112(d)(3) specifies that the emissions 

limits cannot be less stringent than the 

average emission limitation achieved by 

the best-performing 12 percent of 

existing sources in the category or 

subcategory (or the best-performing five 

sources for categories or subcategories 

with fewer than 30 sources). Since we 

have identified six existing source 

dryers in the APR source category, we 

determined the MACT floor-level of 

control based on the best-performing 

five sources. The MACT floor analysis 

involved determining the UPL emission 

rate for each dryer CPV, based on the 

emissions test results for the resin type 

generating the highest HAP emissions 

(where multiple resin types were 

tested). This UPL value takes into 

account production variability and 

estimates the upper bound of future 

values, based on present or past 

samples. The resulting UPL emission 

rate values for the six dryers were 

ranked, and the five lowest values were 

averaged to produce the MACT floor 

value. 

The EPA considered the petitioner’s 

claim that the arithmetic average rather 

than the median value should be used 

in determining the MACT floor. Given 

the distribution of the data from these 

sources, the EPA interprets the 

arithmetic mean to be the better 

interpretation of ‘‘average’’ for this set of 

data. If the distribution of the emission 

rates from each of the dryers had 

extreme variation or extreme skewness, 

then the median might be a better 

indicator of the central tendency or 

average of the data set. However, given 

that the data set consists of only five 

values (i.e., the UPL of the performance 

testing results for each of the five bestperforming dryers 2) and given that there 

is only a slight positive skew of this 

dataset, there is not enough skewness or 

variation in this dataset to conclude the 

median would be a better description of 

the average over the arithmetic mean. 

The EPA also considered how to best 

account for variability in emissions rates 

in the MACT floor determination. As 

each of these sources may produce 

multiple types (or recipes) of APR 

(without restriction and without 

needing any physical modification to 

the sources), to establish a standard that 

represents the emissions limit achieved 

in practice by the best-performing 

sources, our calculations of the MACT 

floor are based on the resin resulting in 

the highest HAP emissions at each of 

the best-performing sources and the 

calculated UPL emission rate for 

production of that highest-HAP 

emission generating resin at each dryer. 

In determining the MACT floor for 

existing sources, the EPA may exercise 

its judgment, based on an evaluation of 

the relevant factors and available data, 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40108 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

3 Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 

370 F.3d 1232, (D.C. Cir. 2004). 

4Beyond-the-floor would be essentially the same 

level of control as the 2014 final rule, with revised 

estimates of the costs and HAP emissions reduction 

based on the 2015 test data of back-end CPVs at 

existing sources. 

to determine the level of performance 

that has been achieved by the average of 

the best-performing sources (in this 

case, five sources) under variable 

conditions. The Court has recognized 

that the EPA may consider variability in 

estimating the degree of emissions 

reduction achieved by the bestperforming sources and in setting 

MACT floors, holding the EPA may 

consider emission variability in 

estimating performance achieved by 

best-performing sources and may set the 

floor at a level that best-performing 

sources can expect to meet ‘‘every day 

and under all operating conditions.’’ 3

As a result of its analysis, the EPA has 

determined that an appropriate MACT 

floor for back-end CPVs s 8.6 lb of HAP 

per ton of resin produced. See the 

memorandum titled ‘‘Proposed Revised 

MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor 

Analysis for Back-End Continuous 

Process Vents at Existing Sources in the 

Amino and Phenolic Resins Production 

Source Category’’ for more details on 

this analysis. 

The EPA explored Georgia-Pacific’s 

request in its petition regarding 

subcategorizing the dryer standards 

based on dryer size and/or type of resin 

produced. However, we found no 

compelling dryer size threshold nor 

resin type attribution that would 

provide a suitable rationale for 

subcategorization of a MACT floor for a 

back-end CPV standard. 

2. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for BackEnd CPVs 

When establishing an emission 

standard pursuant to section 112(d) of 

the CAA, the EPA also determines 

whether to control emissions to a more 

stringent level ‘‘beyond-the-floor,’’ after 

considering the costs, non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts, and 

energy requirements of such more 

stringent control. As part of the beyondthe-floor analysis for existing source 

back-end CPVs, control options that are 

more stringent than the MACT floor 

were considered. We identified one 

such option for back-end CPVs at 

existing sources, a 98-percent emissions 

reduction requirement. For this option, 

we assumed that regenerative thermal 

oxidizers (RTOs) would need to be used 

to achieve this control level at all 

existing APR sources with back-end 

CPVs. While we project that two 

facilities would already need to install 

RTOs on their back-end CPVs to meet 

the proposed revised MACT floor 

emissions limit, for this beyond-thefloor analysis, we evaluated the 

potential additional installation of RTOs 

at the other two facilities—one facility 

would install an RTO to control the 

back-end CPV on one resin spray dryer 

and the other facility would install an 

RTO to control the back-end CPVs on 

three resin spray dryers. 

Table 1 presents the impacts for the 

MACT floor and the beyond-the-floor 

options evaluated. Since we are not 

aware that any of the four facilities have 

installed controls to comply with the 

CPV requirements in the 2014 final rule, 

and since we are aware that at least 

three of the facilities have obtained an 

additional year to comply from their 

permitting authorities pursuant to 40 

CFR 63.6(i), we believe it is appropriate 

to compare the impacts of the MACT 

floor and the beyond-the-floor option 

identified to the 2000 rule compliance 

baseline. In addition, as explained 

previously, because the data used to set 

the production-based HAP emissions 

limit in the 2014 final rule did not 

account for all HAP, the cost and 

emissions impacts determined at the 

time the EPA issued the 2014 final rule 

would not be an appropriate basis of 

comparison. However, we note that 

using the more complete HAP emissions 

data now available, the cost and 

emissions impacts of the 2014 final rule 

for back-end CPVs would be 

approximately the same as the cost and 

emissions impacts of the beyond-thefloor option for back-end CPVs 

presented in Table 1 because we now 

project that all four facilities would 

need to install RTOs to comply with the 

2014 final rule for back-end CPVs. More 

information on how the capital and 

annualized costs and costs per ton were 

calculated is available in the 

memorandum titled ‘‘National Impacts 

Associated with Proposed Existing 

Source Standards for CPVs and Storage 

Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic 

Resins Production Source Category,’’ 

available in the rulemaking docket. 

TABLE 1—NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR BACK-END CPVS AT

EXISTING APR FACILITIES

Regulatory options 

HAP emissions 

reduction 

compared to 

2000 rule 

(tons per year) 

Capital cost 

(million $) 

Annualized cost 

($/yr) 

Cost effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

MACT floor ............................................. 207 4.8 2.1 10,400 ..............................

Beyond-the-floor 4 .................................. 271 9.6 4.2 15,500 33,000 

Essentially, the beyond-the-floor 

option reflects a doubling of capital and 

annualized costs compared to the 

MACT floor option, while obtaining an 

additional HAP reduction of only 31- 

percent beyond the MACT floor option. 

Based on this analysis, we do not 

consider the beyond-the-floor option to 

be cost effective. Therefore, we are not 

proposing any beyond-the-floor 

standards. Instead, we are proposing to 

establish production-based HAP 

emission limits for back-end CPVs at 

existing APR production sources, at the 

level we have now determined is the 

correct MACT floor (i.e., 8.6 lb of HAP 

per ton of resin produced). 

3. Proposed Amendments to 

Compliance Demonstration Procedures 

Facilities in the APR Production 

source category produce a wide variety 

of resin recipes as needed to meet the 

specifications of various products in 

which these resins are used. As a result, 

the characteristics of the resins passing 

through the dryers where the back-end 

CPVs are located can vary at a facility. 

In order to ensure that APR sources 

monitor operating parameters at a level 

that ensures continuous compliance 

with the proposed MACT standards for 

back-end CPVs under any and all 

operating conditions, we are also 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.1413 to 

require sources to conduct the 

performance testing using the resin 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40109 

recipes anticipated to have the highest 

HAP content in the liquid resin. 

4. Consideration of Risk Review 

In the risk assessment for the 2014 

final rule, we determined that the APR 

MACT standards promulgated in 

January 2000 provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health 

(including the then-uncontrolled 

emissions from CPVs at existing 

sources). See Residual Risk Assessment 

for the Amino/Phenolic Resins 

Production Source Category, Docket 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0133–0065. Although the data set used 

to establish the MACT production-based 

emission limits for CPVs at existing 

sources in the 2014 final rule did not 

include data on all HAP, the risk 

assessment modeling input files for the 

2014 final rule show that emissions of 

all HAP, including methanol and 

formaldehyde, from the CPVs at the 

existing sources were accounted for, 

except for the non-reactor front-end CPV 

at the INEOS Melamines facility. At the 

INEOS Melamines facility, the 2014 risk 

modeling estimates a maximum 

individual risk of 0.4-in-1 million 

attributable to the APR source at the 

INEOS facility, with the risk driver 

identified as formaldehyde, and the risk 

modeling input files include 0.375 tons 

per year of formaldehyde emissions. 

The information collected from INEOS 

regarding its non-reactor front-end CPV 

indicates annual emissions of 

formaldehyde at less than 0.03 tons per 

year. Given the low risk estimate for the 

facility, we consider this small increase 

in emissions to be insignificant, and the 

estimated facility risk would be about 

the same (less than 1-in-1 million). 

Thus, we would not anticipate the 

inclusion of a revised emissions 

estimate for the INEOS facility would 

change the 2014 risk assessment results 

for the facility or the APR Production 

source category, and we have 

determined that additional quantitative 

risk analyses are not necessary. 

C. Should the EPA provide facilities 

more time to comply with the proposed 

revised back-end CPV standards? 

We are soliciting comments on 

whether existing facilities would need 

additional time to comply with the 

proposed revised back-end CPV 

standards, if the revisions to those 

standards are promulgated. The current 

compliance date in the 2014 final rule 

is October 9, 2017. The APR NESHAP 

at 40 CFR 63.1401(d) provides the 

opportunity for existing facilities, on a 

case-by-case basis, to request an 

extension from their permitting 

authorities for up to 1 additional year to 

comply, if necessary, to install controls 

to meet a standard. We anticipate that 

two existing facilities would need to 

install control devices to comply with 

the proposed revised back-end CPV 

emissions standards. Industry has 

indicated that at least 18 months would 

be needed to install controls, once the 

proposed rule is finalized, and a 1-year 

extension of the October 9, 2017, 

compliance date, if granted, would 

require compliance in less than 18 

months from any promulgation date of 

the revised back-end CPV standards 

(given the date of this proposal). We are 

soliciting comments on whether to 

maintain the current compliance date, 

anticipating that case-by-case extension 

requests may be made, or if the 

compliance date should be established 

for another date. If it is appropriate to 

establish a different compliance date, 

we are soliciting comments on an 

appropriate date, such as a date 18 

months after promulgation of the 

revised standards, the date 18 months 

beyond the original October 9, 2017, 

compliance date, or some other date. 

IV. What other changes or issues does 

this action address? 

A. Should the EPA promulgate a 

separate standard for front-end CPVs at 

existing sources? 

In the APR Production source 

category, CPVs are found in both the 

back-end and front-end of the resins 

production process. Back-end CPVs are 

associated with APR production 

operations related to processing liquid 

resins into a dry form. Back-end process 

operations include, but are not limited 

to, flaking, grinding, blending, mixing, 

drying, pelletizing, and other finishing 

operations, as well as latex and crumb 

storage. Front-end CPVs are associated 

with the part of an APR process unit 

related to producing liquid resins, 

including any product recovery, 

stripping, and filtering operations. 

Front-end CPVs can be further 

distinguished as being reactor CPVs or 

non-reactor CPVs. A reactor front-end 

CPV receives air streams originating 

from a reactor, whereas a non-reactor 

front-end CPV receives air streams 

originating from a unit operation other 

than a reactor. Examples of non-reactor 

front-end CPV unit operations include 

filter presses, surge control vessels, 

bottoms receivers, weigh tanks, holding 

tanks, and distillation systems. 

The EPA has identified two APR 

Production existing sources that have 

front-end CPVs. One is Georgia-Pacific’s 

facility in Crossett, Arkansas, and the 

other is an INEOS Melamines facility in 

Springfield, Massachusetts. GeorgiaPacific has a front-end reactor CPV that 

handles air streams originating from the 

reactor associated with the manufacture 

of UFC. This front-end CPV is 

controlled with an RTO that achieves a 

HAP control efficiency of 95 percent or 

more and also controls HAP emissions 

from other processes at the facility. The 

EPA became aware of this front-end 

CPV through comments on the 2014 

proposed rulemaking, but had limited 

information about this front-end CPV at 

the time of the final rule. INEOS 

Melamines has a front-end non-reactor 

CPV that handles air streams from the 

formaldehyde recovery process 

associated with their amino resins 

production process. This front-end CPV 

is routed to a scrubber, which was 

installed primarily for control of 

particulate matter emissions. The EPA 

was not aware of this front-end CPV 

unit during the 2014 rulemaking, but 

learned of it in 2015 from 

communications with the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental 

Protection. We are not aware of any 

other front-end CPVs at any of the other 

existing sources in the APR Production 

source category. 

Since the air emission streams from 

these two front-end CPVs have different 

characteristics, such as different flow 

rates and HAP concentrations, and are 

vents for dissimilar types of equipment 

and would likely require different 

control approaches, we are soliciting 

comments on, but not yet proposing, 

whether standards for these front-end 

CPVs should be revised from the 

currently applicable CPV standard of 1.9 

lb of HAP per ton of resin produced and 

subcategorized into two types—reactor 

and non-reactor front-end CPVs. 

Separate standards for the two types of 

front-end CPVs would be consistent 

with how reactor and non-reactor vents 

have been regulated by the EPA for 

batch processes for the APR Production 

source category—see 40 CFR 63.1406 

Reactor Batch Process Vent Provisions 

and 40 CFR 63.1407 Non-reactor Batch 

Process Vent Provisions. We are not 

proposing separate standards for frontend CPVs on reactors and non-reactors 

at this time because we are uncertain as 

to whether we have identified the only 

two front-end CPVs in the source 

category or whether the data for these 

two CPVs would be appropriate to 

revise the currently applicable CPV 

standards and establish front-end CPV 

standards for the source category if there 

are other front-end CPVs at existing 

affected sources. Therefore, we are 

seeking comment on whether there are 

other reactor or non-reactor front-end 

CPVs at existing affected sources. For 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40110 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

5See, e.g., NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills, 68 FR 2227, 2232 (January 16, 2003); 

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing, 68 FR 26690, 26697 (May 16, 2003); 

NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers 

Production, 77 FR 22848, 22876 (April 17, 2012). 

6The EPA did not select a production-based 

format for the MACT floor because front-end 

equipment may not produce finished resin products 

and relating the output of front-end equipment to 

tons of finished resin produced may be difficult for 

compliance purposes. 

7See footnote 5. 

any such front-end CPVs, we are further 

seeking information regarding current 

HAP emissions, emissions controls, and 

control costs. If there are no other 

reactor or non-reactor front-end CPVs at 

existing affected sources or if no 

additional data are provided for any 

such CPVs, it is possible that the EPA 

would consider, in lieu of leaving frontend CPVs at existing sources subject to 

the currently applicable CPV standards, 

adopting final revised standards that 

could apply to front-end CPVs at 

existing sources, as discussed below. 

Based on the analyses presented 

below, we could establish separate 

existing APR Production source 

standards for front-end CPVs on reactors 

and for front-end CPVs on non-reactors, 

based on the MACT floor. We are 

soliciting comments on whether the 

EPA should maintain the 2014 final rule 

CPV emissions standards that currently 

apply to front-end CPVs (1.9 lb of HAP 

per ton of resin produced), whether the 

EPA should replace these standards for 

front-end CPVs with standards specific 

to front-end CPVs as discussed in this 

section, or whether the EPA should set 

different revised front-end CPV 

standards based on additional 

information about additional front-end 

CPVs that the EPA has not yet obtained. 

1. Data Collected for Front-End CPVs 

On November 30, 2015, the EPA 

requested process information and 

emissions data for front-end CPVs at 

Georgia-Pacific’s Crossett and INEOS 

Melamines’ resin production facilities 

via a CAA section 114 survey. GeorgiaPacific has another formaldehyde and 

resin manufacturing facility located in 

Columbus, Ohio, for which GeorgiaPacific also provided information in 

their survey submittal. Although the 

Columbus facility is an area source not 

subject to the APR MACT standards, 

Georgia-Pacific provided the data to 

help clarify emissions that would be 

expected from the front-end CPV due to 

APR production at the Georgia-Pacific 

facility in Crossett, Arkansas, where the 

front-end CPV at this facility handles 

streams from both APR and non-APR 

production sources, since the Columbus 

and Crossett resin manufacturing 

operations are similar. The EPA 

received responses from Georgia-Pacific 

on February 9, 2016, and responses from 

INEOS Melamines on January 11, 2016, 

with additional information on May 23, 

2016. The CAA section 114 survey and 

the survey responses received from 

Georgia-Pacific and INEOS Melamines 

can be found in the rulemaking docket. 

2. MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor 

Analysis for Front-End CPVs 

We performed separate MACT floor 

analyses for reactor and non-reactor 

front-end CPVs at existing sources using 

the 2016 CAA section 114 survey data 

provided by Georgia-Pacific and INEOS 

Melamines. 

For front-end reactor CPVs at existing 

sources, we are aware of one major 

source facility with a front-end reactor 

CPV subject to the APR NESHAP, which 

is a Georgia Pacific facility in Crossett, 

Arkansas. Georgia-Pacific also 

submitted data for a facility in 

Columbus, Ohio, which is a synthetic 

area source and is not subject to the 

APR NESHAP. Consistent with the 

EPA’s longstanding policy and with 

prior rulemakings where the EPA has 

included data from synthetic area 

sources in MACT floor calculations,5

data for the front-end CPVs at both the 

synthetic area source and the major 

source were included in the MACT floor 

calculations for reactor front-end CPVs. 

Based on our analysis of the data 

provided by Georgia Pacific for these 

facilities, we have determined that the 

MACT floor for front-end reactor CPVs 

at existing sources would be 0.61 lb of 

HAP per hour.6

For front-end non-reactor CPVs at 

existing sources, we are aware of one 

major source facility with a front-end 

non-reactor CPV subject to the APR 

NESHAP, which is INEOS Melamines in 

Springfield, Massachusetts. As there is 

only one front-end CPV in this 

subcategory, the emissions level 

currently being achieved by this CPV 

represents the MACT floor for the 

subcategory. Based on our analysis of 

the data provided by INEOS Melamines 

for this front-end CPV, we have 

determined that the MACT floor for 

front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing 

sources would be 0.022 lb of HAP per 

hour.7

We also conducted a beyond-the-floor 

analysis for reactor and non-reactor 

front-end CPVs at existing sources using 

the 2016 CAA section 114 survey data. 

For front-end reactor CPVs, HAP 

emissions from the CPVs at both 

facilities are controlled with RTOs, and 

we have not identified any other 

technology that would perform better. 

Therefore, there is no beyond-the-floor 

option to evaluate. 

For front-end non-reactor CPVs at 

existing sources, the CPV at the INEOS 

Melamines facility is currently 

controlled with a scrubber, and we 

assumed carbon adsorption would be a 

technically feasible control technology 

that would reduce HAP emissions. We 

estimated the total annualized costs of 

adding carbon adsorption to be 

approximately $9,000 per year and the 

control would achieve an additional 

reduction of 0.04 tons of HAP per year, 

resulting in a cost of approximately 

$225,000 per ton of HAP removed 

beyond the MACT floor level of control. 

Based on the high costs and low 

additional emissions reduction possible 

with this control, we have determined 

that this beyond-the-floor option is not 

reasonable. More information on these 

MACT floor and beyond-the-floor 

analyses are available in the 

memorandum titled ‘‘MACT Floor and 

Beyond-the-Floor Analyses for FrontEnd Continuous Process Vents at 

Existing Sources in the Amino and 

Phenolic Resins Production Source 

Category’’ in the rulemaking docket. 

B. Proposed Work Practice Standards 

for Storage Vessels at New and Existing 

Sources During Planned Routine 

Maintenance of Emission Control 

Systems 

In the 2014 final rule, we removed the 

exemption from emissions standards for 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction in accordance with a 

decision of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 

S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). This decision 

stated that the EPA must have standards 

in place at all times, even during 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction. As a result, the storage 

vessel provisions in the APR NESHAP 

at 40 CFR 63.1404 apply at all times. In 

their petition for reconsideration, 

Georgia-Pacific requested that the EPA 

reconsider the applicability of the 

storage vessel HAP emissions standards 

when the emission control system for 

the vent on a fixed roof storage vessel 

is shut down for planned routine 

maintenance. 

In the 2014 final rule, we established 

storage vessel capacity and vapor 

pressure applicability thresholds for 

storage vessels at new and existing 

sources, consistent with the thresholds 

established for the chemical industry 

regulated by the Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP for Synthetic Organic 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40111 

Chemical Manufacturing Industry 

(HON). Georgia Pacific stated in its 

petition for reconsideration of the 2014 

final rule that to meet the goal of being 

wholly consistent with the HON storage 

vessel standards, the EPA also should 

include the HON storage vessel 

allowance for routine maintenance of an 

emission control system in the rule. The 

HON includes provisions at 40 CFR 

63.119(e)(3) and (f)(3) that allow an 

affected source to bypass the storage 

vessel emission control system for up to 

240 hours per year to perform planned 

routine maintenance of the emission 

control system. The emission control 

system could be an emission control 

device, fuel gas system, or process. The 

petitioner stated that these provisions 

would ensure consistency and are 

needed because the effort to empty and 

degas a tank to perform this 

maintenance could result in greater 

HAP emissions than would occur if a 

limited allowance or exception were 

provided. 

To determine whether separate MACT 

standards should be established for 

periods of planned routine maintenance 

of the emission control system for the 

vent on a fixed roof tank at a new or 

existing source, we reviewed the title V 

permits for each facility subject to the 

APR NESHAP. In this review, we 

searched for facilities that had storage 

vessels subject to the emissions 

standards of the APR NESHAP and for 

any permit requirements pertaining to 

periods of routine maintenance of a 

control device for a storage vessel. From 

the review, several facilities were found 

to have storage vessels subject to the 

APR NESHAP emission standards, and 

two facilities had permit conditions for 

periods of time when the storage vessel 

control device was not operating. One 

facility had requirements that emissions 

be routed to a different control device, 

which normally operates at the facility 

for other processes, during planned 

outages of the primary control device for 

the storage vessel. At this facility, when 

both control devices are not operating, 

there are requirements that the storage 

vessels not be filled during these times, 

eliminating working loss emissions. The 

other facility had requirements for one 

storage vessel that specify it could not 

be filled when its emission control 

system was not operating. The reviewed 

title V permits also indicate that some 

APR facilities are co-located with 

storage vessels subject to the HON (or 

have storage vessels that serve both APR 

and HON operations, but are subject to 

the HON due to predominant use). 

We also reviewed other chemical 

production NESHAP to determine 

requirements that apply to similar 

storage vessels. From the review of these 

NESHAP, we found that the HON and 

several other NESHAP, including, but 

not limited to, those for Group I 

Polymers and Resins, Group IV 

Polymers and Resins, Off-Site Waste 

and Recovery Operations, 

Pharmaceuticals Production, and 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 

with similar vapor pressure and 

threshold capacities had provisions that 

minimized HAP emissions during 

periods of planned routine 

maintenance. Provisions minimized 

HAP emissions by limiting the duration 

of the planned routine maintenance to 

240 hours per year. The 

Pharmaceuticals Production and 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 

NESHAP allow a facility to request an 

extension of up to an additional 120 

hours per year on the condition that no 

material is added to the tank during 

such requested extension period. Based 

on our review of these permits and 

NESHAP, we have determined that a 

separate work practice standard that 

allows owners/operators up to 240 

hours per year during planned routine 

maintenance of the emission control 

system, provided that there are no 

working losses from the vessel, 

represents the MACT floor level of 

control for fixed roof tank vents at new 

and existing APR sources. 

We evaluated the 2014 final rule’s 

requirement that the storage vessel work 

practice standard at new and existing 

APR sources apply at all times (with no 

separate work practice standards for 

periods of planned routine maintenance 

of the emission control system) as a 

beyond-the-floor control option. To 

comply with this option (i.e., the current 

rule’s storage tank requirements), we 

anticipate that backup controls would 

likely be installed to ensure compliance 

with the storage vessel requirements 

during periods of planned routine 

maintenance of the primary emission 

control system. We estimate that there 

are one to 15 sources in the category 

that would need to control one or more 

storage vessels during periods when the 

primary emission control system is 

undergoing planned routine 

maintenance. We estimate that carbon 

canisters would be the emission control 

devices used for two storage vessels at 

each facility. We estimate these control 

devices would have an annualized cost 

of $830 per year per facility and would 

reduce 240 hours of breathing losses of 

0.013 tons of HAP per year per facility, 

at a cost of $62,400 per ton of HAP 

emissions reduced. We view the costs of 

this beyond-the-floor option as not 

being cost effective. 

Based on this analysis, we are 

proposing amendments to the currently 

applicable storage vessel work practice 

standard provisions for new and 

existing affected sources that would 

establish separate work practice 

standards for periods of planned routine 

maintenance of an emission control 

system that is used to comply with HAP 

emissions standards for vents on fixed 

roof tanks. The proposed amendments 

would permit owners and operators of 

fixed roof tanks at new and existing 

affected APR sources to bypass the 

emission control system for up to 240 

hours per year during planned routine 

maintenance of the emission control 

system, provided that there are no 

working losses from the fixed roof tank. 

To prevent HAP emissions from 

working losses, owners/operators would 

not be permitted to add material to the 

tank during these planned routine 

maintenance periods. Under this 

provision, the storage vessel would emit 

HAP to the atmosphere for a limited 

amount of time due to breathing losses 

only, which we expect to be a much 

lower HAP emission rate than if there 

were also working losses resulting from 

filling the vessel. The proposed separate 

work practice standards for periods of 

planned routine maintenance of the 

emission control system would result in 

slightly higher HAP emissions 

(approximately 0.013 tons per year per 

facility) than would occur under the 

current work practice standards for 

storage vessels in the 2014 final rule and 

would reduce annualized costs of 

approximately $830 per year per 

facility. 

We are soliciting comments on these 

proposed work practice standards for 

storage vessels at new and existing APR 

sources and whether they represent 

practices by the best-performing sources 

in the APR Production source category. 

We are soliciting comments on whether 

there are other practices that should be 

considered in establishing the work 

practice standards for periods of 

planned routine maintenance of the 

emission control system for storage 

vessels at existing and new APR 

sources. We are also soliciting 

comments on whether we have 

accurately estimated the HAP emissions 

and costs compared to the work practice 

standards for storage vessels at new and 

existing sources in the 2014 final rule. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

We estimate that four to 15 existing 

sources would be affected by one or 

more of the revised requirements being 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40112 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

8See memorandum ‘‘National Impacts Associated 

with Proposed Standards for CPVs and Storage 

Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic Resins 

Production Source Category,’’ which is available in 

the rulemaking docket. 

9Same as footnote 8. 

10See Table 3 and Table 4, Memorandum 

‘‘National Impacts Associated with Proposed 

Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino 

and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,’’ 

which is available in the rulemaking docket. 

proposed in this action. We expect four 

existing sources to be affected by the 

proposed revised back-end CPV 

requirements. We expect one to 15 

existing affected sources to be affected 

by the proposed work practice standards 

for periods of planned routine 

maintenance of an emission control 

system that is used to comply with 

emissions standards for vents on fixed 

roof tanks. We anticipate that some of 

these existing affected sources could be 

affected by more than one of the 

proposed requirements. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

We are proposing a revised standard 

of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin 

produced for back-end CPVs at existing 

sources. We project that the proposed 

standard would result in an estimated 

reduction of 207 tons of HAP per year 

beyond the January 2000, APR MACT 

standards. As discussed previously in 

section III.B.2 of this preamble, the 

production-based emissions limit for 

existing source CPVs in the 2014 final 

rule was established based on 

incomplete HAP emissions data. 

However, if facilities were to comply 

with that 2014 final rule, we estimate a 

reduction of 271 tons per year of HAP 

emissions using the revised HAP 

emissions estimates based upon the 

2015 test data. 

In the 2014 final rule, we removed the 

exemptions from standards that applied 

during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. In the absence of 

separate work practice standards that 

would apply during these times, 

affected sources are now required to 

meet the storage vessel work practice 

standards during periods when the 

emission control system for the vent on 

a fixed roof storage tank is shut down 

for planned routine maintenance by 

routing storage vessel vents to a back-up 

control device, resulting in an estimated 

decrease of 0.013 tons of HAP per year 

per facility beyond the January 2000 

APR MACT standards. The proposed 

work practice standards we are 

proposing in this action would preclude 

the need to install back-up controls for 

these vessels. We anticipate that the 

proposed revised work practice 

standards would reduce HAP emissions 

from those allowed under the January 

2000 APR MACT standards as a result 

of preventing working losses by not 

filling the tank during planned routine 

maintenance of the control device and 

as a result of limiting the annual 

duration of the maintenance period; 

however, the HAP emissions reduction 

may be slightly less than the 0.08 tons 

of HAP per year projected under the 

2014 final rule. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

For back-end CPVs at existing affected 

sources, we are proposing a revised 

standard of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of 

resin produced. We project that backend CPVs at two existing affected 

sources would require emissions 

controls to meet the proposed revised 

standard. For cost purposes, we 

assumed that each facility would install 

an RTO. Based on discussions with 

Georgia-Pacific and Tembec, we 

understand that the facilities are 

exploring other options, such as process 

changes, that may be more cost 

effective. However, the technical 

feasibility and potential costs of these 

options are currently unknown, and our 

estimate of compliance costs, assuming 

the use of RTOs, is based on the best 

information available. We estimate the 

nationwide capital costs to be $4.8 

million and annualized costs to be $2.1 

million per year. These costs are 

additional to the 2000 rule, which did 

not regulate CPVs at existing sources. 

Compared to our revised estimate of the 

2014 final rule costs of $9.6 million in 

capital costs and annualized costs of 

$4.2 million,8 the proposed revised 

standard represents an approximate 50- 

percent reduction in industry-wide 

costs. 

We estimated the nationwide 

annualized cost reductions associated 

with the proposed work practice 

standard for periods of planned routine 

maintenance of an emission control 

system that is used to comply with 

emissions standards for vents on fixed 

roof tanks. Compared to our revised 

estimate of the 2014 final rule costs,9 the 

proposed storage vessel work practice 

standards result in an annualized cost 

reduction for each facility of $830 per 

year, which includes capital cost 

reduction of $1,600. We estimate the 

nationwide annualized cost reduction to 

be up to $12,450 per year based on an 

estimated 15 facilities. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

We performed a national economic 

impact analysis for APR production 

facilities affected by this proposed rule. 

We anticipate that two existing affected 

sources would install RTOs to comply 

with this proposed rule at a total 

annualized cost of $2.1 million (in 

2014$) per year compared to the 2000 

rule. These total annualized costs of 

compliance are estimated to be 

approximately 0.002 percent of sales. 

Accordingly, we do not project that this 

proposed rule would have a significant 

economic impact on the affected 

entities. 

The estimated total annualized cost of 

this proposal can also be compared to 

the estimated cost for the industry to 

comply with the 2014 final rule. Based 

on information received since the 2014 

rule was finalized, we developed a 

revised estimate of the cost to comply 

with the 2014 final rule. We estimate 

the revised annualized cost of 

complying with the 2014 final rule to be 

$4.2 million per year.10 Compared to 

this revised estimate of the cost of 

compliance with the 2014 final rule, 

this proposal would provide regulatory 

relief by reducing annualized 

compliance costs by $2.1 million. 

More information and details of this 

analysis, including the conclusions 

stated above, are provided in the 

technical document, ‘‘Economic Impact 

Analysis for the Proposed Amendments 

to the NESHAP for Amino/Phenolic 

Resins,’’ which is available in the 

rulemaking docket. 

E. What are the benefits? 

We estimate that this proposed rule 

would result in an annual reduction of 

207 tons of HAP, compared to the pre2014 baseline. These avoided emissions 

will result in improvements in air 

quality and reduced negative health 

effects associated with exposure to air 

pollution of these emissions; however, 

we have not quantified or monetized the 

benefits of reducing these emissions for 

this rulemaking. See section V.B of this 

preamble for discussion of existing 

source CPV HAP emissions under this 

proposed rule compared to the 2014 

final rule. 

VI. Solicitation of Public Comment and 

Participation 

The EPA seeks public comments on 

the issues addressed in this proposed 

rule, as described in this notice. We are 

soliciting comments on the proposed 

emission standards for back-end CPVs at 

existing affected sources, whether to 

extend the compliance date for the 

proposed revised emission standards for 

back-end CPVs at existing affected 

sources, whether to promulgate separate 

emissions standards for reactor frontend CPVs and non-reactor front-end 

CPVs at existing affected sources in lieu 

of leaving them subject to the current 

CPV standards, and on the information 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40113 

available to the EPA to establish 

emission standards for front-end CPVs 

at existing affected sources. We also 

request comments on the proposed work 

practice standards for storage vessels at 

new and existing APR sources during 

periods when an emission control 

system for a fixed roof tank vent is 

undergoing planned routine 

maintenance. We are not soliciting and 

will not respond to comments 

addressing any other issues or other 

provisions of the 2014 final rule or any 

other rule, including other issues raised 

in the petitions for reconsideration of 

the 2014 final rule. Those issues will be 

addressed, as appropriate, in a separate, 

future action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the PRA. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document that the EPA 

prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 1869.08. You can find a copy of 

the ICR in the docket for this rule, and 

it is briefly summarized here. 

This proposed rule would require 

recordkeeping and reporting of 

occurrences when control devices used 

to comply with the storage tank 

provisions undergo planned routine 

maintenance. Reporting of such 

occurrences would be required to be 

disclosed in the Periodic Reports as 

specified at 40 CFR 63.1417. 

Respondents/affected entities: The 

respondents affected by the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

OOO include, but are not limited to, 

facilities having a NAICS code 325211 

(United States Standard Industrial 

Classification 2821). Facilities with a 

NAICS code of 325211 are described as 

Plastics Material and Resin 

Manufacturing establishments, which 

includes facilities engaged in 

manufacturing amino resins and 

phenolic resins, as well as other plastic 

and resin types. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory under sections 112 and 114 

of the CAA. 

Estimated number of respondents: 15. 

Frequency of response: Once or twice 

per year. 

Total estimated burden: 45 hours (per 

year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $2,600 (per 

year). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than September 25, 2017. The EPA 

will respond to any ICR-related 

comments in the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. The EPA has identified no 

small entities that are subject to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63, subpart 

OOO. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action 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, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. The EPA’s risk assessments for 

the 2014 final rule (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2012–0133) demonstrate that 

the current regulations are associated 

with an acceptable level of risk and 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health and prevent 

adverse environmental effects. This 

proposed action would not alter those 

conclusions. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In the 2014 final rule, the EPA 

determined that the current health risks 

posed by emissions from these source 

categories are acceptable and provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent adverse 

environmental effects. This proposed 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40114 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

action would not alter the conclusions 

made in the 2014 final rule regarding 

these analyses. 

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: August 7, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency is proposing to amend title 40, 

Chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart OOO—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Manufacture of Amino/ 

Phenolic Resins 

■ 2. Section 63.1400 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1400 Applicability and designation of 

affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Equipment that does not contain 

organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

and is located within an APPU that is 

part of an affected source; 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 63.1402 paragraph (b) is 

amended by: 

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Back-end continuous 

process vent’’, ‘‘Front-end continuous 

process vent’’, ‘‘Non-reactor process 

vent’’, and ‘‘Reactor process vent’’; and 

■ b. Removing the definitions for ‘‘Nonreactor batch process vent’’ and 

‘‘Reactor batch process vent’’ 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 63.1402 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Back-end continuous process vent 

means a continuous process vent for 

operations related to processing liquid 

resins into a dry form. Back-end process 

operations include, but are not limited 

to, flaking, grinding, blending, mixing, 

drying, pelletizing, and other finishing 

operations, as well as latex and crumb 

storage. Back-end does not include 

storage and loading of finished product 

or emission points that are regulated 

under §§ 63.1404 or 63.1409 through 

63.1411 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

Front-end continuous process vent 

means a continuous process vent for 

operations in an APPU related to 

producing liquid resins, including any 

product recovery, stripping and filtering 

operations, and prior to any flaking or 

drying operations. 

* * * * * 

Non-reactor process vent means a 

batch or continuous process vent 

originating from a unit operation other 

than a reactor. Non-reactor process 

vents include, but are not limited to, 

process vents from filter presses, surge 

control vessels, bottoms receivers, 

weigh tanks, and distillation systems. 

* * * * * 

Reactor process vent means a batch or 

continuous process vent originating 

from a reactor. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.1404 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follow: 

§ 63.1404 Storage vessel provisions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Whenever gases or vapors 

containing HAP are routed from a tank 

through a closed-vent system connected 

to a control device used to comply with 

the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) 

of this section, the control device must 

be operating except as provided for in 

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

(1) The control device may be 

bypassed for the purpose of performing 

planned routine maintenance of the 

control device. When the control device 

is bypassed, the owner or operator must 

comply with paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) The control device may only be 

bypassed when the planned routine 

maintenance cannot be performed 

during periods that tank emissions are 

vented to the control device. 

(ii) On an annual basis, the total time 

that the closed-vent system or control 

device is bypassed to perform routine 

maintenance shall not exceed 240 hours 

per each calendar year. 

(iii) The level of material in the tank 

shall not be increased during periods 

that the closed-vent system or control 

device is bypassed to perform planned 

routine maintenance. 

(2) The gases or vapors containing 

HAP are routed from the tank through 

a closed-vent system connected to an 

alternate control device meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or the 

alterative standard in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

■ 5. Section 63.1405 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) introductory 

text, paragraph (a)(2) introductory text, 

paragraph (b), and adding paragraph (c) 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.1405 Continuous process vent 

provisions. 

(a) Emission standards for new 

affected sources. For each continuous 

process vent located at a new affected 

source with a Total Resource 

Effectiveness (TRE) index value, as 

determined following the procedures 

specified in § 63.1412(j), less than or 

equal to 1.2, the owner or operator shall 

comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or 

(2) of this section. As an alternative to 

complying with paragraph (a) of this 

section, an owner or operator may 

comply with paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(2) Reduce emissions of total organic 

HAP by 85 weight-percent. Control shall 

be achieved by venting emissions 

through a closed vent system to any 

combination of control devices meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS (national emission standards 

for closed vent systems, control devices, 

recovery devices). When complying 

with the requirements of 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS, the following apply for 

purposes of this subpart: 

* * * * * 

(b) Emission standards for existing 

affected sources. For each continuous 

process vent located at an existing 

affected source, the owner or operator 

shall comply with either paragraph 

(b)(1) or (2) of this section. As an 

alternative to complying with paragraph 

(b) of this section, an owner or operator 

may comply with paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section. 

(1) Vent all emissions of organic HAP 

to a flare. 

(2) The owner or operator of a backend continuous process vent shall 

reduce total organic HAP emissions to 

less than or equal to 4.3 kg of total 

organic HAP per megagram of resin 

produced (8.6 pounds of total organic 

HAP per ton of resin produced). 

(c) Alternative emission standards. As 

an alternative to complying with 

paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, an 

owner or operator may comply with 

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

appropriate. 

(1) For each continuous process vent 

located at a new affected source, the 

owner or operator shall vent all organic 

HAP emissions from a continuous 

process vent meeting the TRE value 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40115 

to a non-flare combustion control device 

achieving an outlet organic HAP 

concentration of 20 ppmv or less or to 

a non-combustion control device 

achieving an outlet organic HAP 

concentration of 50 ppmv or less. Any 

continuous process vents that are not 

vented to a control device meeting these 

conditions shall be controlled in 

accordance with the provisions of 

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

(2) For each continuous process vent 

located at an existing affected source, 

the owner or operator shall vent all 

organic HAP emissions from a 

continuous process vent to a non-flare 

combustion control device achieving an 

outlet organic HAP concentration of 20 

ppmv or less or to a non-combustion 

control device achieving an outlet 

organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv 

or less. Any continuous process vents 

that are not vented to a control device 

meeting these conditions shall be 

controlled in accordance with the 

provisions of paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of 

this section. 

■ 6. Section 63.1412 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (k)(2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1412 Continuous process vent 

applicability assessment procedures and 

methods. 

(a) General. The provisions of this 

section provide procedures and 

methods for determining the 

applicability of the control requirements 

specified in § 63.1405(a) to continuous 

process vents. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(2) If the TRE index value calculated 

using engineering assessment is less 

than or equal to 4.0, the owner or 

operator is required either to perform 

the measurements specified in 

paragraphs (e) through (h) of this section 

for control applicability assessment or 

comply with the control requirements 

specified in § 63.1405(a). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.1413 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) 

introductory text, (a)(4) introductory 

text, and paragraphs (c)(2), and (c)(4) 

through (6); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (c)(7); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (f) and (h)(1); 

■ f. Redesignating paragraph (h)(2) as 

(h)(3); 

■ g. Adding new paragraph (h)(2); 

■ h. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (h)(3) introductory text and 

paragraphs (h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii) 

introductory text, (h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) and (3), 

and (h)(3)(iii); 

■ i. Adding paragraph (h)(4); 

■ j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(iii) 

through (iv); and 

■ k. Adding paragraph (i)(1)(v). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1413 Compliance demonstration 

procedures. 

(a) General. For each emission point, 

the owner or operator shall meet three 

stages of compliance, with exceptions 

specified in this subpart. First, the 

owner or operator shall conduct a 

performance test or design evaluation to 

demonstrate either the performance of 

the control device or control technology 

being used or the uncontrolled total 

organic HAP emissions rate from a 

continuous process vent. Second, the 

owner or operator shall meet the 

requirements for demonstrating initial 

compliance (e.g., a demonstration that 

the required percent reduction or 

emissions limit is achieved). Third, the 

owner or operator shall meet the 

requirements for demonstrating 

continuous compliance through some 

form of monitoring (e.g., continuous 

monitoring of operating parameters). 

* * * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Uncontrolled continuous process 

vents. Owners or operators are required 

to conduct either a performance test or 

a design evaluation for continuous 

process vents that are not controlled 

through either a large or small control 

device. 

* * * * * 

(3) Design evaluations. As provided in 

paragraph (a) of this section, a design 

evaluation may be conducted to 

demonstrate the organic HAP removal 

efficiency for a control device or control 

technology, or the uncontrolled total 

organic HAP emissions rate from a 

continuous process vent. As applicable, 

a design evaluation shall address the 

organic HAP emissions rate from 

uncontrolled continuous process vents, 

the composition and organic HAP 

concentration of the vent stream(s) 

entering a control device or control 

technology, the operating parameters of 

the emission point and any control 

device or control technology, and other 

conditions or parameters that reflect the 

performance of the control device or 

control technology or the organic HAP 

emission rate from a continuous process 

vent. A design evaluation also shall 

address other vent stream characteristics 

and control device operating parameters 

as specified in any one of paragraphs 

(a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section, for 

controlled vent streams, depending on 

the type of control device that is used. 

If the vent stream(s) is not the only inlet 

to the control device, the efficiency 

demonstration also shall consider all 

other vapors, gases, and liquids, other 

than fuels, received by the control 

device. 

* * * * * 

(4) Establishment of parameter 

monitoring levels. The owner or 

operator of a control device that has one 

or more parameter monitoring level 

requirements specified under this 

subpart, or specified under subparts 

referenced by this subpart, shall 

establish a maximum or minimum level, 

as denoted on Table 4 of this subpart, 

for each measured parameter using the 

procedures specified in paragraph 

(a)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section. Except as 

otherwise provided in this subpart, the 

owner or operator shall operate control 

devices such that the hourly average, 

daily average, batch cycle daily average, 

or block average of monitored 

parameters, established as specified in 

this paragraph, remains above the 

minimum level or below the maximum 

level, as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Initial compliance with 

§ 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) (venting of 

emissions to a flare) shall be 

demonstrated following the procedures 

specified in paragraph (g) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(4) Continuous compliance with 

§ 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) (venting of 

emissions to a flare) shall be 

demonstrated following the continuous 

monitoring procedures specified in 

§ 63.1415. 

(5) Initial and continuous compliance 

with the production-based emission 

limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall 

be demonstrated following the 

procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this 

section. 

(6) Initial and continuous compliance 

with the emission rate limits specified 

in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) shall be 

demonstrated following the procedures 

of either paragraphs (c)(6)(i) or (ii) or 

this section. 

(i) Continuous process vents meeting 

the emission rate limit using a closed 

vent system and a control device or 

recovery device or by routing emissions 

to a fuel gas system or process shall 

follow the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS. When complying with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS, the following apply for purposes of 

this subpart: 

(A) The requirements specified in of 

§ 63.1405 (a)(2)(i) through (viii). 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40116 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

(B) When 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS 

refers to meeting a weight-percent 

emission reduction or ppmv outlet 

concentration requirement, meeting an 

emission rate limit in terms of kilograms 

of total organic HAP per hour shall also 

apply. 

(ii) Continuous process vents meeting 

the emission rate limit by means other 

than those specified in paragraph 

(c)(6)(i) of this section shall follow the 

procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) 

of this section. 

(7) Initial and continuous compliance 

with the alternative standards specified 

in § 63.1405(c) shall be demonstrated 

following the procedures in paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(f) Compliance with alternative 

standard. Initial and continuous 

compliance with the alternative 

standards in §§ 63.1404(b), 63.1405(c), 

63.1406(b), 63.1407(b)(1), and 

63.1408(b)(1) are demonstrated when 

the daily average outlet organic HAP 

concentration is 20 ppmv or less when 

using a combustion control device or 50 

ppmv or less when using a noncombustion control device. To 

demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance, the owner or operator shall 

follow the test method specified in 

§ 63.1414(a)(6) and shall be in 

compliance with the monitoring 

provisions in § 63.1415(e) no later than 

the initial compliance date and on each 

day thereafter. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) Each owner or operator complying 

with the mass emission limit specified 

in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall determine 

initial compliance as specified in 

paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section and 

continuous compliance as specified in 

paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Initial compliance. Initial 

compliance shall be determined by 

comparing the results of the 

performance test or design evaluation as 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section to the mass emission limit 

specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i). 

(ii) Continuous compliance. 

Continuous compliance shall be based 

on the daily average emission rate 

calculated for each operating day. The 

first continuous compliance average 

daily emission rate shall be calculated 

using the first 24-hour period or 

otherwise-specified operating day after 

the compliance date. Continuous 

compliance shall be determined by 

comparing the daily average emission 

rate to the mass emission limit specified 

in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i). 

(2) As required by paragraph (c)(6)(ii) 

of this section, each owner or operator 

complying with the emission rate limits 

specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), 

as applicable, by means other than those 

specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this 

section shall determine initial 

compliance as specified in paragraph 

(h)(2)(i) of this section and continuous 

compliance as specified in paragraph 

(h)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Initial compliance. Initial 

compliance shall be determined by 

comparing the results of the 

performance test or design evaluation as 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section to the emission rate limits 

specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), 

as applicable. 

(ii) Continuous compliance. 

Continuous compliance shall be based 

on the hourly average emission rate 

calculated for each operating day. The 

first continuous compliance average 

hourly emission rate shall be calculated 

using the first 24-hour period or 

otherwise-specified operating day after 

the compliance date. Continuous 

compliance shall be determined by 

comparing the average hourly emission 

rate to the emission rate limit specified 

in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), as 

applicable. 

(3) Procedures to determine 

continuous compliance with the mass 

emission limit specified in 

§ 63.1405(b)(2)(i). (i) The daily emission 

rate, kilograms of organic HAP per 

megagram of product, shall be 

determined for each operating day using 

Equation 5 of this section: 

Where: 

ER = Emission rate of organic HAP from 

continuous process vent, kg of HAP/Mg 

product. 

Ei = Emission rate of organic HAP from 

continuous process vent i as determined 

using the procedures specified in 

paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section, kg/ 

day. 

RPm = Amount of resin produced in one 

month as determined using the 

procedures specified in paragraph 

(h)(3)(iii) of this section, Mg/day. 

(ii) The daily emission rate of organic 

HAP, in kilograms per day, from an 

individual continuous process vent (Ei) 

shall be determined. Once organic HAP 

emissions have been estimated, as 

specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of 

this section for uncontrolled continuous 

process vents or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) 

and (B) of this section for continuous 

process vents vented to a control device 

or control technology, the owner or 

operator may use the estimated organic 

HAP emissions (Ei) until the estimated 

organic HAP emissions are no longer 

representative due to a process change 

or other reason known to the owner or 

operator. If organic HAP emissions (Ei) 

are determined to no longer be 

representative, the owner or operator 

shall redetermine organic HAP 

emissions for the continuous process 

vent following the procedures in 

paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for 

uncontrolled continuous process vents 

or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section for continuous process vents 

vented to a control device or control 

technology. 

* * * * * 

(B) * * * 

(1) Uncontrolled organic HAP 

emissions shall be determined following 

the procedures in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

(3) Controlled organic HAP emissions 

shall be determined by applying the 

control device or control technology 

efficiency, determined in paragraph 

(h)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, to the 

uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, 

determined in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) 

of this section. 

(iii) The rate of resin produced, RPM

(Mg/day), shall be determined based on 

production records certified by the 

owner or operator to represent actual 

production for the day. A sample of the 

records selected by the owner or 

operator for this purpose shall be 

provided to the Administrator in the 

Precompliance Report as required by 

§ 63.1417(d). 

(4) Procedures to determine 

continuous compliance with the 

emission rate limit specified in 

§ 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii). 

(i) The hourly emission rate, 

kilograms of organic HAP per hour, 

shall be determined for each hour 

during the operating day using Equation 

6 of this section: 

Where: 

EH = Hourly emission rate of organic HAP in 

the sample, kilograms per hour. 

K2 = Constant, 2.494 × 10¥6 (parts per 

million)¥1 (gram-mole per standard 

cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minutes/ 

hour), where standard temperature for 

(gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 

20 °C. 

n = Number of components in the sample. 

CJ = Organic HAP concentration on a dry 

basis of organic compound j in parts per 

million as determined by the methods 

specified in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this 

section. 

Mj = Molecular weight of organic compound 

j, gram/gram-mole. 

QS = Continuous process vent flow rate, dry 

standard cubic meter per minute, at a 


mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALSEP24AU17.000</GPH> EP24AU17.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40117 

temperature of 20 °C, as determined by 

the methods specified in paragraph 

(h)(4)(ii) of this section. 

(ii) The average hourly emission rate, 

kilograms of organic HAP per hour, 

shall be determined for each operating 

day using Equation 7 of this section: 

Where: 

AE = Average hourly emission rate per 

operating day, kilograms per hour. 

n = Number of hours in the operating day. 

(ii) Continuous process vent flow rate 

and organic HAP concentration shall be 

determined using the procedures 

specified in § 63.1414(a), or by using the 

engineering assessment procedures in 

paragraph (h)(4)(iii) of this section. 

(iii) Engineering assessment. For the 

purposes of determining continuous 

compliance with the emission rate limit 

specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) 

using Equations 6 and 7, engineering 

assessments may be used to determine 

continuous process vent flow rate and 

organic HAP concentration. An 

engineering assessment includes, but is 

not limited to, the following examples: 

(A) Previous test results, provided the 

tests are representative of current 

operating practices. 

(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data 

representative of the process under 

representative operating conditions. 

(C) Maximum volumetric flow rate or 

organic HAP concentration specified or 

implied within a permit limit applicable 

to the continuous process vent. 

(D) Design analysis based on accepted 

chemical engineering principles, 

measurable process parameters, or 

physical or chemical laws or properties. 

Examples of analytical methods include, 

but are not limited to, the following: 

(1) Estimation of maximum organic 

HAP concentrations based on process 

stoichiometry material balances or 

saturation conditions; and 

(2) Estimation of maximum 

volumetric flow rate based on physical 

equipment design such as pump or 

blower capacities. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Exceedance of the mass emission 

limit (i.e., having an average value 

higher than the specified limit) 

monitored according to the provisions 

of paragraph (e)(2) of this section for 

batch process vents and according to the 

provisions of paragraph (h)(1) of this 

section for continuous process vents; 

(iv) Exceedance of the organic HAP 

outlet concentration limit (i.e., having 

an average value higher than the 

specified limit) monitored according to 

the provisions of § 63.1415(e); and 

(v) Exceedance of the emission rate 

limit (i.e., having an average value 

higher than the specified limit) 

determined according to the provisions 

of paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 63.1415 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1415 Monitoring requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) Monitoring for the alternative 

standards. For control devices that are 

used to comply with the provisions of 

§§ 63.1404(b), 63.1405(c), 63.1406(b), 

63.1407(b), or 63.1408(b), the owner or 

operator shall conduct continuous 

monitoring of the outlet organic HAP 

concentration whenever emissions are 

vented to the control device. 

Continuous monitoring of outlet organic 

HAP concentration shall be 

accomplished using an FTIR instrument 

following Method PS–15 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B. The owner or operator 

shall calculate a daily average outlet 

organic HAP concentration. 

■ 9. Section 63.1416 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (f)(1), (3), (5) 

introductory text, and (5)(ii); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (f)(5)(iii); 

■ e. Redesignating paragraph (f)(6) as 

(f)(7); 

■ f. Adding new paragraph (f)(6); and 

■ g. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (f)(7) introductory text and 

paragraph (g)(5)(v)(E). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1416 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * (1) TRE index value records. 

Each owner or operator of a continuous 

process vent at a new affected source 

shall maintain records of measurements, 

engineering assessments, and 

calculations performed according to the 

procedures of § 63.1412(j) to determine 

the TRE index value. Documentation of 

engineering assessments, described in 

§ 63.1412(k), shall include all data, 

assumptions, and procedures used for 

the engineering assessments. 

* * * * * 

(3) Organic HAP concentration 

records. Each owner or operator shall 

record the organic HAP concentration as 

measured using the sampling site and 

organic HAP concentration 

determination procedures (if applicable) 

specified in § 63.1412(b) and (e), or 

determined through engineering 

assessment as specified in § 63.1412(k). 

* * * * * 

(5) If a continuous process vent is 

seeking to demonstrate compliance with 

the mass emission limit specified in 

§ 63.1405(b)(2)(i), keep records specified 

in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) through (iii) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(ii) Identification of the period of time 

that represents an operating day. 

(iii) The daily organic HAP emissions 

from the continuous process vent 

determined as specified in 

§ 63.1413(h)(3). 

(6) If a continuous process vent is 

seeking to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission rate limits specified in 

§ 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), keep records 

specified in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) The results of the initial 

compliance demonstration specified in 

§ 63.1413(h)(2)(i). 

(ii) Identification of the period of time 

that represents an operating day. 

(iii) The average hourly organic HAP 

emissions from the continuous process 

vent determined as specified in 

§ 63.1413(h)(4). 

(7) When using a flare to comply with 

§ 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1), keep the 

records specified in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) 

through (f)(7)(iii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(v) * * * 

(E) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 63.1417 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (d) 

introductory text, (d)(8), (e)(1) 

introductory text, (f) introductory text, 

and (f)(1), (2), (5) introductory text and 

(12)(ii); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (f)(14) and (15); 

and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (h)(7) 

introductory text. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1417 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Precompliance Report. Owners or 

operators of affected sources requesting 

an extension for compliance; requesting 

approval to use alternative monitoring 

parameters, alternative continuous 

monitoring and recordkeeping, or 

alternative controls; requesting approval 

to use engineering assessment to 

estimate organic HAP emissions from a 

batch emissions episode as described in 

§ 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to 

establish parameter monitoring levels 

according to the procedures contained 

in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing 

parameter monitoring levels based on a 

design evaluation as specified in 


mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALSEP24AU17.002</GPH>
40118 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

§ 63.1413(a)(3); or following the 

procedures in § 63.1413(e)(2); or 

following the procedures in 

§ 63.1413(h)(3), shall submit a 

Precompliance Report according to the 

schedule described in paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section. The Precompliance 

Report shall contain the information 

specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through 

(11) of this section, as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(8) If an owner or operator is 

complying with the mass emission limit 

specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the 

sample of production records specified 

in § 63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in 

the Precompliance Report. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) The results of any emission point 

applicability determinations, 

performance tests, design evaluations, 

inspections, continuous monitoring 

system performance evaluations, any 

other information used to demonstrate 

compliance, and any other information, 

as appropriate, required to be included 

in the Notification of Compliance Status 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and 

subpart WW, as referred to in § 63.1404 

for storage vessels; under 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS, as referred to in 

§ 63.1405 for continuous process vents; 

under § 63.1416(f)(1) through (3), (5)(i) 

and (ii), and (6)(i) and (ii) for 

continuous process vents; under 

§ 63.1416(d)(1) for batch process vents; 

and under § 63.1416(e)(1) for aggregate 

batch vent streams. In addition, each 

owner or operator shall comply with 

paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(f) Periodic Reports. Except as 

specified in paragraph (f)(12) of this 

section, a report containing the 

information in paragraph (f)(2) of this 

section or containing the information in 

paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) 

through (15) of this section, as 

appropriate, shall be submitted 

semiannually no later than 60 days after 

the end of each 180 day period. In 

addition, for equipment leaks subject to 

§ 63.1410, the owner or operator shall 

submit the information specified in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart UU, and for heat 

exchange systems subject to § 63.1409, 

the owner or operator shall submit the 

information specified in § 63.1409. 

Section 63.1415 shall govern the use of 

monitoring data to determine 

compliance for emissions points 

required to apply controls by the 

provisions of this subpart. 

(1) Except as specified in paragraph 

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

containing the information in paragraph 

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

information in paragraphs (f)(3) through 

(11) and (13) through (15) of this 

section, as appropriate, shall be 

submitted semiannually no later than 60 

days after the end of each 180 day 

period. The first report shall be 

submitted no later than 240 days after 

the date the Notification of Compliance 

Status is due and shall cover the 6- 

month period beginning on the date the 

Notification of Compliance Status is 

due. Subsequent reports shall cover 

each preceding 6-month period. 

(2) If none of the compliance 

exceptions specified in paragraphs (f)(3) 

through (11) and (13) through (15) of 

this section occurred during the 6- 

month period, the Periodic Report 

required by paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section shall be a statement that the 

affected source was in compliance for 

the preceding 6-month period and no 

activities specified in paragraphs (f)(3) 

through (11) and (13) through (15) of 

this section occurred during the 

preceding 6-month period. 

* * * * * 

(5) If there is a deviation from the 

mass emission limit specified in 

§ 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), 

§ 63.1407(b)(2), or § 63.1408(b)(2), the 

following information, as appropriate, 

shall be included: 

* * * * * 

(12) * * * 

(ii) The quarterly reports shall include 

all information specified in paragraphs 

(f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) 

of this section applicable to the 

emission point for which quarterly 

reporting is required under paragraph 

(f)(12)(i) of this section. Information 

applicable to other emission points 

within the affected source shall be 

submitted in the semiannual reports 

required under paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(14) If there is a deviation from the 

mass emission limit specified in 

§ 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the report shall 

include the daily average emission rate 

calculated for each operating day for 

which a deviation occurred. 

(15) If there is a deviation from the 

emission rate limit specified in 

§ 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), the report 

shall include the following information 

for each operating day for which a 

deviation occurred: 

(i) The calculated average hourly 

emission rate. 

(ii) The individual hourly emission 

rate data points making up the average 

hourly emission rate. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(7) Whenever a continuous process 

vent becomes subject to control 

requirements under § 63.1405, as a 

result of a process change, the owner or 

operator shall submit a report within 60 

days after the performance test or 

applicability assessment, whichever is 

sooner. The report may be submitted as 

part of the next Periodic Report required 

by paragraph (f) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–17514 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 20 and 43 

[WC Docket No. 11–10; FCC 17–103] 

Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data 

Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on how to 

revise the current FCC Form 477 

collection of voice and broadband 

subscription and deployment data to 

increase its usefulness to the 

Commission, Congress, the industry, 

and the public. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

September 25, 2017 and reply 

comments are due on or before October 

10, 2017. If you anticipate that you will 

be submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this document, you 

should advise the contact listed below 

as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 11–10, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Electronic Filers: 

Comments may be filed electronically 

using the Internet by accessing the 

ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS