Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49513 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0490; FRL–9969–95– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS85 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly 

Owned Treatment Works Residual Risk 

and Technology Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the 

residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) conducted for the Publicly 

Owned Treatment Works (POTW) 

source category regulated under 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In 

addition, we are taking final action 

addressing revised names and 

definitions of the subcategories, 

revisions to the applicability criteria, 

revised regulatory provisions pertaining 

to emissions during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), 

initial notification requirements for 

existing Group 1 and Group 2 POTW, 

revisions to the requirements for new 

Group 1 POTW, requirements for 

electronic reporting, and other 

miscellaneous edits and technical 

corrections. While we do not anticipate 

any emission reductions as a result of 

these revisions, the changes should 

provide clarity for sources determining 

applicability and ensuring compliance. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 26, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0490. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room Number 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 

(EST), Monday through Friday, 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this final action, contact 

Katie Hanks, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–03), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

2159; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and 

email address: hanks.katie@epa.gov. For 

specific information regarding the risk 

modeling methodology, contact Terri 

Hollingsworth, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division (C539– 

02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–5623; fax number: 

(919) 541–0840; and email address: 

hollingsworth.terri@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

the NESHAP to a particular entity, 

contact Sara Ayres, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard (E–19J), Chicago, Illinois 

60604; telephone number: (312) 353– 

6266; and email address: ayres.sara@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. We use multiple 

acronyms and terms 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: 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

HAP hazardous air pollutants(s) 

HQ hazard quotient 

H2S hydrogen sulfide 

ICR Information Collection Request 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MGD million gallons per day 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act 

PB–HAP Hazardous air pollutants known 

to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

RTR Risk and Technology Review 

SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TOSHI Target Organ Specific Hazard 

Index 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Background information. On 

December 27, 2016, the EPA proposed 

revisions to the POTW NESHAP based 

on our RTR. In this action, we are 

finalizing decisions and revisions for 

the rule. We summarize some of the 

more significant comments we timely 

received regarding the proposed rule 

and provide our responses in this 

preamble. A summary of all other public 

comments on the proposal and the 

EPA’s responses to those comments is 

available in Response to Public 

Comments on the EPA’s Residual Risk 

and Technology Review for the Publicly 

Owned Treatment Works Source 

Category in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2016–0490. A ‘‘track changes’’ 

version of the regulatory language that 

incorporates the changes in this action 

is available in the docket. 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is the POTW source category and 

how does the NESHAP regulate HAP 

emissions from the source category? 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

POTW source category in our December 

27, 2016, RTR proposal? 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the POTW 

source category? 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

POTW source category? 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction? 

D. What other changes have been made to 

the NESHAP? 

E. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards? 

F. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

POTW source category? 

A. Residual Risk Review for the POTW 

Source Category 

B. Technology Review for the POTW 

Source Category 

C. Applicability Criteria 

D. Emissions From Collection Systems 

E. Pretreatment Requirements 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49514 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1As discussed below in section III.D of this 

preamble, the terms ‘‘Group 1 POTW’’ and ‘‘Group 

2 POTW’’ are replacing the previous terms 

‘‘industrial POTW’’ and ‘‘nonindustrial POTW. The 

‘‘Group 1’’ and ‘‘Group 2’’ subcategories are 

described in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1581. 

F. HAP Fraction Emitted for Existing 

Group 1 and Group 2 Sources 

G. New and Existing Group 1 POTW 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected facilities? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action are shown in Table 1 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL

SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY

THIS FINAL ACTION

NESHAP and source 

category NESHAP NAICS1code 

Sewage Treatment Facilities.Subpart VVV ..... 221320 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by the final 

action for the source category listed. The 

standards are directly applicable to the 

affected sources. Federal, state, local, 

and tribal governments are affected as 

discussed below. By definition, a POTW 

is owned by a municipality, state, 

intermunicipal or interstate agency, or 

any department, agency, or 

instrumentality of the federal 

government (see 40 CFR 63.1595 of 

subpart VVV). To determine whether 

your facility is affected, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in the 

POTW NESHAP. Specifically, if a 

POTW is a Group 2 POTW1 that is a 

major source of hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) emissions or a Group 1 POTW 

regardless of the HAP emissions, and 

the POTW meets the criteria for 

development and implementation of a 

pretreatment program according to 40 

CFR 403.8, then the POTW is affected 

by these standards. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

any aspect of this NESHAP, please 

contact the appropriate person listed in 

the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

Internet. Following signature by the 

EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a 

copy of this final action at http://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/publicly-owned-treatmentworks-potw-national-emissionstandards. Following publication in the 

Federal Register, the EPA will post the 

Federal Register version and key 

technical documents at this same Web 

site. 

Additional information is available on 

the RTR Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

This information includes an overview 

of the RTR program, links to project 

Web sites for the RTR source categories, 

and detailed emissions and other data 

we used as inputs to the risk 

assessments. 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

307(b)(1), judicial review of this final 

action is available only by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by December 26, 2017. 

Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 

requirements established by this final 

rule may not be challenged separately in 

any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by the EPA to enforce the 

requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that only an objection 

to a rule or procedure which was raised 

with reasonable specificity during the 

period for public comment (including 

any public hearing) may be raised 

during judicial review. This section also 

provides a mechanism for the EPA to 

reconsider the rule if the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to the 

Administrator that it was impracticable 

to raise such objection within the period 

for public comment or if the grounds for 

such objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule. Any person seeking 

to make such a demonstration should 

submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 

the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 

EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South 

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to 

both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of HAP from stationary 

sources. In the first stage, we must 

identify categories of sources emitting 

one or more of the HAP listed in CAA 

section 112(b) and then promulgate 

technology-based NESHAP for those 

sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that 

emit, or have the potential to emit, any 

single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year 

(tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. For major sources, 

these standards are commonly referred 

to as maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards and must 

reflect the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements, 

and non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts). In developing 

MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) 

directs the EPA to consider the 

application of measures, processes, 

methods, systems, or techniques, 

including but not limited to those that 

reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP 

emissions through process changes, 

substitution of materials, or other 

modifications; enclose systems or 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49515 

2The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit has affirmed this approach of 

implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA 

determines that the existing technology-based 

standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then 

the Agency is free to readopt those standards during 

the residual risk rulemaking.’’). 

processes to eliminate emissions; 

collect, capture, or treat HAP when 

released from a process, stack, storage, 

or fugitive emissions point; are design, 

equipment, work practice, or 

operational standards; or any 

combination of the above. 

For these MACT standards, the statute 

specifies certain minimum stringency 

requirements, which are referred to as 

MACT floor requirements, and which 

may not be based on cost 

considerations. See CAA section 

112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT 

floor cannot be less stringent than the 

emission control achieved in practice by 

the best-controlled similar source. The 

MACT standards for existing sources 

can be less stringent than floors for new 

sources, but they cannot be less 

stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor under CAA section 

112(d)(2). We may establish standards 

more stringent than the floor, based on 

the consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

In the second stage of the regulatory 

process, the CAA requires the EPA to 

undertake two different analyses, which 

we refer to as the technology review and 

the residual risk review. Under the 

technology review, we must review the 

technology-based standards and revise 

them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years, pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the 

residual risk review, we must evaluate 

the risk to public health remaining after 

application of the technology-based 

standards and revise the standards, if 

necessary, to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health or to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect. 

The residual risk review is required 

within 8 years after promulgation of the 

technology-based standards, pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f). In conducting the 

residual risk review, if the EPA 

determines that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, it is not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(f).2 For more 

information on the statutory authority 

for this rule, see the proposed rule 

published on December 27, 2016 (81 FR 

95352). 

B. What is the POTW source category 

and how does the NESHAP regulate 

HAP emissions from the source 

category? 

1. Definition of the POTW Source 

Category and the Affected Source 

The EPA promulgated the NESHAP 

for the POTW source category 

(henceforth referred to as the ‘‘POTW 

NESHAP’’) on October 26, 1999 (64 FR 

57572). The standards are codified at 40 

CFR part 63, subpart VVV. The POTW 

NESHAP was amended on October 21, 

2002 (67 FR 64742). As amended in 

2002, the POTW source category 

consists of new and existing POTW 

treatment plants that are located at a 

POTW that is a major source of HAP 

emissions and that meets the criteria for 

development and implementation of a 

pretreatment program as defined by 40 

CFR 403.8 under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). Additional information about 

the National Pretreatment Program can 

be found in the December 27, 2016, RTR 

proposal (81 FR 95374). The source 

category covered by this MACT 

standard currently includes thirteen 

facilities. 

As used in this regulation, the term 

POTW refers to both any POTW that is 

owned by a state, municipality, or 

intermunicipal or interstate agency and, 

therefore, eligible to receive grant 

assistance under the Subchapter II of the 

CWA, and any federally owned 

treatment works as that term is 

described in section 3023 of the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act. For more 

information see the December 27, 2016, 

RTR proposal (81 FR 95352). The source 

category includes any intercepting 

sewers, outfall sewers, sewage 

collection systems, pumping, power, 

and other equipment. The wastewater 

treated by these facilities is generated by 

industrial, commercial, and domestic 

sources. 

2. Applicability of the 2002 POTW 

NESHAP 

The 2002 POTW NESHAP is 

subcategorized based on whether the 

POTW is providing treatment for 

wastewaters received from an industrial 

user as the means by which that 

industrial user complies with another 

NESHAP. The 2002 POTW NESHAP 

defined an ‘‘industrial POTW’’ as ‘‘a 

POTW that accepts a waste stream 

regulated by another NESHAP and 

provides treatment and controls as an 

agent for the industrial discharger. The 

industrial discharger complies with its 

NESHAP by using the treatment and 

controls located at the POTW. For 

example, an industry discharges its 

benzene-containing waste stream to the 

POTW for treatment to comply with 40 

CFR part 61, subpart FF—National 

Emission Standards for Benzene Waste 

Operations. This definition does not 

include POTW treating waste streams 

not specifically regulated under another 

NESHAP.’’ An ‘‘industrial POTW’’ is 

subject to the 2002 POTW NESHAP 

regardless of the HAP emissions (i.e., 

the POTW does not have to be a major 

source). In contrast, a ‘‘non-industrial 

POTW’’ was defined in the 2002 POTW 

NESHAP as ‘‘a POTW that does not 

meet the definition of an industrial 

POTW as defined above.’’ A ‘‘nonindustrial POTW’’ must be a major 

source to be subject to the 2002 POTW 

NESHAP. For more information, see the 

December 27, 2016, RTR proposal (81 

FR 95357). 

3. HAP Emitted and HAP Emission 

Points 

The amount and type of HAP emitted 

from a POTW is dependent on the 

composition of the wastewater streams 

discharged to a POTW by industrial 

users. The primary HAP emitted from 

the POTW that were identified as 

subject to the POTW NESHAP include 

acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, chloroform, 

ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, 

methanol, methylene chloride, 

tetratchloroethylene, toluene, and 

xylenes. The HAP present in the 

wastewater entering a POTW can 

biodegrade, adhere to sewage sludge, 

volatilize to the air, or pass through 

(remain in the wastewater discharge) to 

receiving waters. Emissions can occur at 

any point at the POTW, including 

collection systems and wastewater 

treatment units located at the POTW 

treatment plant. 

4. Regulation of HAP Emissions in the 

2002 POTW NESHAP 

The POTW NESHAP specifies 

requirements for the industial and nonindustrial POTW subcategories. Under 

the 2002 POTW NESHAP, an existing 

‘‘industrial POTW’’ must meet the 

requirements of the industrial user’s 

NESHAP. A new or reconstructed 

‘‘industrial POTW’’ must meet the 

requirements of the industrial user’s 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49516 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

NESHAP or the requirements for new or 

reconstructed non-industrial POTW, 

whichever is more stringent. 

There are no control requirements in 

the 2002 POTW NESHAP for existing 

‘‘non-industrial POTW.’’ However, new 

or reconstructed ‘‘non-industrial 

POTW’’ must equip each treatment unit 

up to, but not including, the secondary 

influent pumping station, with a cover. 

In addition, all covered units, except the 

primary clarifier, must route the air in 

the headspace above the surface of the 

wastewater to a control device that 

meets the requirements for closed-vent 

systems and control devices found in 

the NESHAP from Off-Site Waste and 

Recovery Operations (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart DD). As an alternative, a new or 

reconstructed ‘‘non-industrial POTW’’ 

can demonstrate that all units up to, but 

not including, the secondary influent 

pumping station emit a HAP fraction of 

0.014 or less. The HAP fraction emitted 

is the fraction of HAP in the wastewater 

entering the POTW that is emitted to the 

atmosphere. For additional information, 

see the December 27, 2016, RTR 

proposal (81 FR 95357). 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

POTW source category in our December 

27, 2016, RTR proposal? 

On December 27, 2016, the EPA 

published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register for the POTW 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV, 

that took into consideration the RTR 

analyses. In the proposed rule, we 

proposed that the risks are acceptable 

and the current standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health. Additionally, we did not 

identify any developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies for 

the POTW source category as part of the 

technology review. During this 

rulemaking, we evaluated other 

revisions to the 2002 POTW NESHAP 

outside of the RTR. We proposed to 

revise the names and definitions of the 

industrial and non-industrial 

subcategories to be called Group 1 and 

Group 2 POTW. We also proposed to 

include requirements to limit emissions 

from collection systems and the POTW 

treatment plant; requirements for 

existing, new, or reconstructed Group 1 

POTW to comply with both the 

requirements in the POTW NESHAP 

and those in the applicable NESHAP for 

which the POTW acts as a control agent; 

and HAP emission limits for existing 

Group 2 POTW. In addition, we 

proposed to clarify the applicability 

criteria; require initial notification for 

existing Group 1 and Group 2 POTW; 

revise regulatory provisions pertaining 

to emissions during periods of SSM; add 

requirements for electronic reporting; 

and make other miscellaneous edits and 

technical corrections. 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 for the 

POTW source category. This action also 

finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, 

including revised names and definitions 

of the subcategories, clarified 

applicability criteria, revised regulatory 

provisions pertaining to emissions 

during periods or SSM, initial 

notification requirements for existing 

Group 1 and Group 2 POTW, 

requirements for new or reconstructed 

Group 1 POTW to comply with both the 

requirements in the POTW NESHAP 

and those in the applicable NESHAP for 

which the POTW acts as a control agent, 

requirements for electronic reporting, 

and other miscellaneous edits and 

technical corrections. As explained in 

section IV of this preamble, we are not 

taking final action at this time on 

several provisions that were proposed, 

including standards for pretreatment, 

the inclusion of collection systems in 

the major source determination, and the 

HAP fraction emission limit for existing 

Group 1 and Group 2 POTW. 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the POTW 

source category? 

We determined that risks resulting 

from emissions from the POTW source 

category are acceptable. Specifically, the 

maximum individual cancer risk (MIR) 

is 2-in-1 million based on allowable 

emissions and 1-in-1 million based on 

actual emissions, well below the 

presumptive limit of acceptability (100- 

in-1 million), and other health 

information indicates there is no 

appreciable risk of adverse chronic or 

acute non-cancer health effects due to 

HAP emissions from the source 

category. Additionally, emissions of 2- 

methylnaphthalene, the only HAP 

emitted from the POTW source category 

that is known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB– 

HAP), did not exceed the worst-case 

Tier I screening emission rate or any 

ecological benchmarks. Therefore, 

revisions to the standards are not 

necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable 

level or to prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. Further, 

considering risk and non-risk factors, 

we determined that the 2002 POTW 

NESHAP requirements provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health. Therefore, we are not finalizing 

revisions to the standards under CAA 

section 112(f)(2). 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

POTW source category? 

We determined that there are no 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that warrant 

revisions to the MACT standards for this 

source category. Therefore, we are not 

finalizing revisions to the MACT 

standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction? 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 

552 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA 

has established standards in this rule 

that apply at all times. We have revised 

Table 1 to Subpart VVV of Part 63 (the 

General Provisions applicability table) 

in several respects to eliminate the 

incorporation of those General 

Provisions that stated or were tied to the 

SSM exemption. These revisions to 

Table 1 are explained in detail in the 

proposed rule preamble at 81 FR 95780– 

95782. Further, in conjunction with the 

elimination of the incorporation of these 

General Provisions requirements, we 

have (1) added a general duty to 

minimize emissions in 40 CFR 

63.1582(e) and 63.1586(e), see 81 FR at 

95380 (col. 2–3); (2) incorporated 

performance testing requirements for 

control devices in 40 CFR 63.694, see 81 

FR at 95781 (col. 1); (3) added language 

to Table 1 related to monitoring that is 

identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) (which is 

no longer incorporated) but with certain 

revisions to reflect the ending of the 

SSM plan requirement, see 81 FR at 

95381 (col. 2); (4) made the 

recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 

63.696(h) and 63.1589(d) applicable to 

periods that were previously covered by 

SSM-related provisions, see 81 FR 

95381 (col. 2–3); and (5) amended the 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR 

63.1590 which, in conjunction with the 

existing reporting requirements in 40 

CFR 63.693 and 63.1590(a), will 

adequately provide for reporting that 

was previously governed by SSMrelated provisions, see 81 FR at 95382. 

D. What other changes have been made 

to the NESHAP? 

1. Applicability Criteria 

The EPA is not revising the 

applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

VVV as proposed on December 27, 2016. 

Instead, the EPA is finalizing minor 

clarifying changes to the applicability 

criteria that are in the 2002 POTW 

NESHAP. The renaming of the 

subcategories (from ‘‘industrial’’ to 

‘‘Group 1’’ and from ‘‘non-industrial’’ to 

‘‘Group 2) and the definitions of Group 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49517 

1 and Group 2 POTW are being finalized 

as proposed, and as discussed below. 

However, for clarification, the EPA has 

removed the statements regarding 

ownership and operation of POTW in 

regards to which POTW are required to 

develop and implement a pretreatment 

program as defined by 40 CFR 403.8. 

This change clarifies that any Group 1 

POTW (regardless of HAP emissions) or 

Group 2 POTW that is a major source of 

HAP is subject to the POTW NESHAP 

if the POTW also meets the criteria for 

development and implementation of a 

pretreatment program, regardless of 

whether the POTW, state, or other entity 

implements the pretreatment program. 

2. Names and Definitions of the 

Subcategories 

As proposed, the EPA is revising the 

names and definitions for the 

subcategories identified in the POTW 

NESHAP. The EPA is renaming an 

‘‘industrial POTW treatment plant’’ as a 

‘‘Group 1’’ POTW treatment plant and a 

‘‘non-industrial POTW treatment plant’’ 

as a ‘‘Group 2’’ POTW treatment plant. 

The EPA expects that this clarification 

will address any confusion that could 

have been caused by the previous 

subcategory names ‘‘industrial POTW 

treatment plant’’ and ‘‘non-industrial 

treatment plant’’ because POTW in both 

subcategories treat wastewater from 

industrial users. The key difference 

between Group 1 and Group 2 is that a 

Group 1 POTW acts as an agent for an 

industrial user by accepting and 

controling the industrial user’s waste 

stream regulated under another 

NESHAP. By contrast, a Group 2 POTW 

may treat the waste stream from an 

industrial user, but does not act as the 

industrial user’s agent to comply with 

another NESHAP. 

3. Initial Notification Requirements for 

Existing Group 1 and Group 2 POTW 

In the final rule (40 CFR 63.1586(a)), 

existing Group 1 and Group 2 POTW 

treatment plants must comply with the 

initial notification requirements in 40 

CFR 63.1591(a) of subpart VVV. This 

notification requirement was not 

required for these existing sources in the 

2002 POTW NESHAP, but was proposed 

in the December 27, 2016, proposal, and 

is consistent with notification 

requirements that were applicable to 

new or reconstructed Group 2 sources 

under the 2002 POTW NESHAP. 

4. Requirements for New Group 1 

POTW 

The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, 

the requirement that new Group 1 

POTW comply with both the 

requirements of the other NESHAP for 

which they act as an agent of control for 

an industrial user and the requirements 

for new Group 2 POTW in this final 

rule. The requirements for new Group 2 

POTW are unchanged from the 2002 

POTW NESHAP and provide the option 

of complying with either (a) cover all 

primary treatment units and route 

emissions through a closed vent system 

to a control device or (b) meet a HAP 

fraction emission limit of 0.014 for 

emissions from all primary treatment 

units. 

5. Requirements for Electronic 

Reporting 

The EPA is finalizing electronic 

reporting requirements for new POTW 

consistent with the proposed rule. 

Specifically, new POTW must 

electroncally submit all annual reports 

and certain performance test reports. 

The EPA believes that the electronic 

submittal of these reports will increase 

the usefulness of data contained in 

those reports, is in keeping with current 

trends in data availability, will further 

assist in the protection of public health 

and the environment, and will 

ultimately result in less burden on the 

regulated community. 

6. Other Miscellaneous Edits and 

Technical Corrections 

The EPA is finalizing the following 

technical corrections as proposed: 

• Revising all references to ‘‘new or 

reconstructed POTW’’ to refer to ‘‘new 

POTW’’ because the definition of ‘‘new’’ 

includes reconstructed POTW. 

• Combining text from 40 CFR 

63.1581 and 63.1582 because the 

language was redundant and confusing. 

This includes revising 40 CFR 63.1581 

to include all combined text and 

revising 40 CFR 63.1583(c) to include 

the text from the current 40 CR 

63.1582(c). 

• Revising 40 CFR 63.1586(b)(1) to 

require covers ‘‘designed and operated 

to prevent exposure of the wastewater to 

the atmosphere’’ instead of ‘‘designed 

and operated to minimize exposure of 

the wastewater to the atmosphere.’’ This 

clarification has also been made to the 

definition of ‘‘cover’’ in 40 CFR 63.1595. 

• Revising 40 CFR 63.1587 to include 

compliance requirements that are 

currently found in 40 CFR 64.1584 and 

63.1587, and deleting 40 CFR 63.1584. 

• Clarifying the method for 

calculating the HAP fraction emitted 

and moving the detailed instructions for 

calculating the HAP fraction emitted 

from 40 CFR 63.1588(c)(4) to 40 CFR 

63.1588(c)(3). The requirements 

remaining in 40 CFR 63.1588(c)(4) 

address monitoring for continuous 

compliance. 

• Revising 40 CFR 63.1588(a)(3) to 

clarify that a cover defect must be 

repaired within 45 ‘‘calendar’’ days; 

currently the paragraph says ‘‘45 days.’’ 

• Adding definitions of existing 

source/POTW and new source/POTW to 

40 CFR 63.1595 to clarify the date that 

determines whether a POTW is existing 

or new. 

• Renaming the title of 40 CFR 

63.1588 to ‘‘How do Group 1 and Group 

2 POTW treatment plants demonstrate 

compliance?’’ from ‘‘What inspections 

must I conduct?’’ The new title better 

reflects the contents of this section. 

• Removing the details on how to 

calculate the HAP fraction emitted from 

the definition of HAP fraction emitted. 

The procedure for how to calculate the 

HAP fraction emitted is provided within 

the text of the rule. Having a 

summarized version of this procedure in 

the definition could cause confusion. 

• Revising two references to dates to 

insert the actual dates. The phrase ‘‘six 

months after October 26, 1999’’ was 

replaced with ‘‘April 26, 2000’’; and the 

phrase ‘‘60 days after October 26, 1999’’ 

was replaced with ‘‘December 27, 

1999.’’ These changes do not result in a 

change in the date, but only clarify the 

specific dates being referenced. 

• Clarifying that the reports required 

in 40 CFR 63.1589(b)(1) include the 

records associated with the HAP loading 

and not just the records associated with 

the HAP emissions determination. 

• Removing the definition of 

‘‘Reconstruction’’ in 40 CFR 63.1595 as 

‘‘Reconstruction’’ is already defined in 

the General Provisions of 40 CFR 63.2. 

E. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards? 

The revisions to the MACT standards 

being promulgated in this action are 

effective on October 26, 2017. 

The compliance date for existing 

Group 1 POTW is found in the 

applicable NESHAP for which the 

industrial user is subject to wastewater 

requirements. The compliance date for 

existing Group 2 POTW constructed or 

reconstructed on or before December 1, 

1998, remains April 26, 2000. While we 

do not expect any additional existing 

Group 1 or Group 2 POTW beyond the 

13 identified, we have chosen to include 

an additional compliance date of 

October 26, 2018 for existing Group 1 

and Group 2 sources to submit their 

initial notification. We understand from 

public comments that POTW are 

evaluating their potential emissions and 

additional POTW may find they are 

subject to the rule. These POTW are 

only required to submit a notification 

that they are subject to the rule, and the 

additional time given for compliance of 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49518 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

3This report is an update to the residual risk 

report provided at proposal, Residual Risk 

Assessment for Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

Source Category in Support of the December 2016 

Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, 

available in the docket. 

this notification submittal will provide 

time for completion of the necessary 

emission calculations. The 13 existing 

sources that are subject to the rule and 

were previously identified have already 

met this notification requirement and do 

not need to resubmit a notification. New 

sources constructed or reconstructed 

after December 27, 2016, must comply 

with all of the standards immediately 

upon the effective date of the standard, 

October 26, 2017, or upon startup, 

whichever is later. While we did not 

identify any new sources that are 

subject to the rule since the original rule 

was published in 1999, we are including 

a transition period until October 26, 

2020 for any new sources constructed or 

reconstructed between December 1, 

1998, and December 27, 2016, to comply 

with the revisions in this rule. 

F. What are the requirements for 

submission of annual reports and 

performance test data to the EPA? 

As we proposed, the EPA is finalizing 

the requirement for owners and 

operators of POTW to submit electronic 

copies of certain required performance 

test reports and annual reports through 

the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The 

electronic submittal of the reports 

addressed in this rulemaking will 

increase the usefulness of the data 

contained in those reports, is in keeping 

with current trends in data availability 

and transparency, will further assist in 

the protection of public health and the 

environment, will improve compliance 

by facilitating the ability of regulated 

facilities to demonstrate compliance 

with requirements and by facilitating 

the ability of delegated state, local, 

tribal, and territorial air agencies and 

the EPA to assess and determine 

compliance, and will ultimately reduce 

burden on regulated facilities, delegated 

air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic 

reporting also eliminates paper-based, 

manual processes, thereby saving time 

and resources, simplifying data entry, 

eliminating redundancies, minimizing 

data reporting errors, and providing data 

quickly and accurately to the affected 

facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the 

public. 

The EPA Web site that stores the 

submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, is 

easily accessible and provides a userfriendly interface. By making records, 

data, and reports addressed in this 

rulemaking readily available, the EPA, 

the regulated community, and the 

public will benefit when the EPA 

conducts its CAA-required technology 

reviews. As a result of having reports 

readily accessible, our ability to carry 

out comprehensive reviews will 

increase and be achieved within a 

shorter period of time. 

We anticipate fewer or less substantial 

Information Collection Requests (ICRs) 

in conjunction with prospective CAArequired technology reviews may be 

needed, which results in a decrease in 

time spent by industry to respond to 

data collection requests. We also expect 

the ICRs to contain less extensive stack 

testing provisions, as we will already 

have stack test data electronically. 

Reduced testing requirements would be 

a cost savings to industry. The EPA 

should also be able to conduct these 

required reviews more quickly. While 

the regulated community may benefit 

from a reduced burden of ICRs, the 

general public benefits from the 

agency’s ability to provide these 

required reviews more quickly, resulting 

in increased public health and 

environmental protection. 

Air agencies, as well as the EPA, can 

benefit from more streamlined and 

automated review of the electronically 

submitted data. Standardizing report 

formats allows air agencies to review 

reports and data more quickly. Having 

reports and associated data in electronic 

format facilitates review through the use 

of software ‘‘search’’ options, as well as 

the downloading and analyzing of data 

in spreadsheet format. Additionally, air 

agencies and the EPA can access reports 

wherever and whenever they want or 

need, as long as they have access to the 

Internet. The ability to access and 

review reports electronically assists air 

agencies in determining compliance 

with applicable regulations more 

quickly and accurately, potentially 

allowing a faster response to violations, 

which could minimize harmful air 

emissions. This benefits both air 

agencies and the general public. 

For a more thorough discussion of 

electronic reporting required by this 

rule, see the discussion in the preamble 

of the proposal. In summary, in addition 

to supporting regulation development, 

control strategy development, and other 

air pollution control activities, having 

an electronic database populated with 

performance test data will save 

industry, air agencies, and the EPA 

significant time, money, and effort 

while improving the quality of emission 

inventories and air quality regulations 

and enhancing the public’s access to 

this important information. 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

POTW source category? 

For each decision or amendment, this 

section provides a description of what 

we proposed and what we are finalizing, 

the EPA’s rationale for the final 

decisions and amendments, and a 

summary of key comments and 

responses. Comments not discussed in 

this preamble, comment summaries, and 

the EPA’s responses can be found in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in the docket 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 

0490). 

A. Residual Risk Review for the POTW 

Source Category 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we 

conducted a residual risk review and 

presented the results of the review, 

along with our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety, in the December 27, 

2016, RTR proposal (81 FR 95372). The 

residual risk review for the POTW 

source category included assessment of 

cancer risk, chronic non-cancer risk, 

and acute non-cancer risk due to 

inhalation exposure, as well as 

multipathway exposure risk and 

environmental risk. The results of the 

risk assessment are presented briefly in 

this preamble and in more detail in the 

residual risk document, Residual Risk 

Assessment for Publicly Owned 

Treatment Works Source Category in 

Support of the October 2017 Risk and 

Technology Review Final Rule,3 which 

is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

The results indicated that maximum 

inhalation cancer risk to the individual 

most exposed is 2-in-1 million based on 

allowable emissions and 1-in-1 million 

based on actual emissions, which is 

well below the presumptive limit of 

acceptability (i.e., 100-in-1 million). In 

addition, the maximum chronic 

noncancer target organ specific hazard 

index (TOSHI) due to inhalation 

exposures is less than 1. The evaluation 

of acute noncancer risk, which was 

conservative, showed a hazard quotient 

at or below 1 for all but one POTW. 

Based on the results of the screening 

analyses for human multipathway 

exposure to, and environmental impacts 

from, PB–HAP, we also concluded that 

the cancer risk to the individual most 

exposed through ingestion is below the 

level of concern and no ecological 

benchmarks are exceeded. The facilitywide cancer and noncancer risks were 

estimated based on the actual emissions 

from all sources at the identified POTW 

(both MACT and non-MACT sources). 

The results indicated the cancer risk to 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49519 

the individual most exposed is no 

greater than 10-in-1 million and the 

noncancer TOSHI is less than 1. 

Considering the above information, as 

well as other relevant non-health factors 

under the Benzene NESHAP analysis 

codified in CAA 112(f)(2)(B), we 

proposed that the risk is acceptable and 

the requirements in the 2002 POTW 

NESHAP provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health and 

prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. 

The risk assessment conducted for the 

POTW proposal estimated cancer, 

chronic noncancer, and acute noncancer 

risk for six of the 13 facilities in the 

source category and is summarized and 

referenced above. We confirmed the 

existence of seven additional POTW 

subject to the rule that were identified 

through public comments. For these 

seven POTW, we conducted a facilitywide risk assessment of potential cancer 

and chronic noncancer health effects. 

The results of this assessment indicate 

that all seven POTW have a facilitywide noncancer TOSHI less than 1, four 

of the POTW have a facility-wide cancer 

risk estimated less than 1-in-1 million, 

and three of the POTW have a facilitywide cancer risk estimated at or above 

10-in-1 million. The highest facilitywide MIR was 60-in-1 million driven by 

formaldehyde from internal combustion 

engines which are covered under the 

NESHAP for the Stationary 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines source category. For this POTW 

with the highest facility-wide MIR, the 

facility-wide emissions of formaldehyde 

are 22 tpy while the source category 

emissions of formaldehyde are 0.0026 

tpy, which indicates that almost 100 

percent of the estimated cancer risk is 

from emissions sources that are not part 

of the POTW source category. This ratio 

of source category emissions relative to 

facility-wide emissions of formaldehyde 

is the same for the other two POTW 

with facility-wide cancer risk estimated 

at or above 10-in-1 million. Therefore, it 

is reasonable to conclude that all 13 

POTW have estimated cancer risk close 

to or below 1-in-1 million from source 

category emissions and we retain our 

proposed determination that risk is 

acceptable. Further, as discussed in the 

December 27, 2016, RTR proposal (81 

FR 95373), we retain our determination 

that, considering the costs, economic 

impacts and technological feasibility of 

additional standards to reduce risk 

further, the 2002 POTW NESHAP 

provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health and prevents an 

adverse environmental effect. Details of 

this risk assessment are described in the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

Source Category in Support of the 

October 2017 Risk and Technology 

Review Final Rule found in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

Most of the commenters on the 

proposed risk review supported our risk 

acceptability and ample margin of safety 

determinations for the POTW NESHAP. 

Some commenters requested that we 

make changes to our residual risk 

review approach. However, we 

evaluated the comments and 

determined that no changes to our risk 

assessment methods or conclusions are 

warranted. A summary of these 

comments and responses are in the 

comment summary and response 

document, available in the docket for 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2016–0490). 

Since proposal, our risk assessment 

has been broadened to include 

additional POTW; however, the 

conclusions of our risk assessment and 

our determinations regarding risk 

acceptability, ample margin of safety, 

and adverse environmental effects have 

not changed. For the reasons explained 

in the proposed rule and discussed 

above, we determined that the risks 

from the POTW source category are 

acceptable, and that the current 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health and 

prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. 

B. Technology Review for the POTW 

Source Category 

As described in the December 27, 

2016, RTR proposal (81 FR 95373), and 

as provided by CAA section 112(d)(6), 

our technology review focused on 

identifying developments in the 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies for the POTW source 

category. We concluded that there are 

two different control options that may 

be used at a POTW to reduce HAP 

emissions: pretreatment programs and 

add-on controls (i.e., covers or covers 

vented to a control device). While we 

proposed specific revisions to the 

standards, none of those revisions were 

the result of any identified 

developments in practices, processes, or 

control technologies beyond the 

programs and controls already in use at 

the time of the promulgation of the 

original 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV 

rulemaking. 

Comment: We received various 

comments related to the information 

evaluated for the proposal. Two 

commenters stated that there is no 

technical basis that requires the EPA to 

revise the standards since there have 

been no technology advances since 1998 

that warrant a change in the original 

MACT analysis. Several commenters 

provided additional information on 

specific control technologies, including 

biofilters, caustic scrubbers, and carbon 

absorbers. One of these commenters 

stated that biofilters are not reliable 

control devices in the context of a 

POTW because they are designed for 

stable operating conditions. In contrast, 

another commenter provided 

information that biofilters might have 

the ability to reduce HAP in addition to 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). Additional 

comments on the technology review can 

be found in section 3 of the response to 

comments document in the docket for 

this rule (EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0490). 

Response: The EPA conducted a 

literature review and evaluated 

available studies and publications on 

the use of add-on controls and process 

modifications that are used to reduce 

emissions from POTW wastewater 

collection and treatment operations. As 

noted by the commenters, these 

technologies include biotrickling filters, 

the use of covers and ducting of the 

headspace vent stream to caustic 

scrubbers and carbon adsorbers, and 

biofiltration/biofilters. These types of 

technologies have been used historically 

at POTW where they provide a 

relatively high degree of H2S control for 

the purpose of preventing odor. As 

documented in the technology review 

memorandum and reflected in the 

comments received on the proposed 

rule, the efficacy of these technologies 

to reduce HAP emissions is highly 

variable and dependent on site-specific 

operating parameters. Our conclusion is 

that the experience with biofilters for 

controlling organics at POTW is at the 

experimental and pilot scale and that 

this technology has not been 

demonstrated to be commercially 

available and effective for controlling 

the range of HAP emitted by POTW. 

Thus, we do not consider this 

technology to be a development in 

practices, processes, or control 

technologies for purposes of this 

technology review. Scrubbers are 

generally not used to control emissions 

of organic constituents, and while 

carbon adsorbers may be effective at 

HAP control in certain applications, as 

used in POTW, they are generally not 

designed for HAP control. Nevertheless, 

40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV allows 

flexibility for POTW to develop sitespecific control strategies to meet any 

applicable requirements, and such 

strategies could include the use of 

biologic filters and carbon adsorbers 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49520 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

that can achieve the required control 

levels. 

As stated in section III.B of this 

preamble, we did not identify any 

developments in practices, processes, or 

control technology with respect to 

programs and controls already in use 

when the 2002 POTW NESHAP was 

promulgated that warrant revisions to 

the standards as part of the technology 

review of the POTW NESHAP. 

C. Applicability Criteria 

The 2002 POTW NESHAP established 

three criteria (40 CFR 63.1580(a)(1), (2), 

and (3)) for determining what POTW are 

subject to the rule. Specifically, the 

following criteria must all be true: (1) 

You own or operate a POTW that 

includes a POTW treatment plant; (2) 

the POTW is a major source of HAP 

emissions, or an industrial POTW 

regardless of the HAP emissions; and (3) 

the POTW is required to develop and 

implement a pretreatment program as 

defined by 40 CFR 403.8. The EPA 

proposed to revise the applicability 

criteria in order to clarify the original 

intent of the rule. Specifically, we 

proposed to revise the first and second 

criteria in 40 CFR 63.1580(a)(1) and (2) 

to state that your POTW is subject to the 

POTW NESHAP if ‘‘(1) You own or 

operate a POTW that is a major source 

of HAP emissions; or (2) you own or 

operate a Group 1 POTW regardless of 

whether or not it is a major source of 

HAP.’’ As stated in the proposal, we 

proposed this revision because we 

found several instances where a POTW 

might not realize they are subject to the 

standards, or where the applicability 

criteria could be misinterpreted to 

exclude facilities that are covered by the 

rule. See 81 FR 95377. 

The third applicability criterion in the 

2002 POTW NESHAP states that ‘‘(3) 

Your POTW is required to develop and 

implement a pretreatment program as 

defined by 40 CFR 403.8 (for a POTW 

owned or operated by a municipality, 

state, or intermunicipal or interstate 

agency), or your POTW would meet the 

general criteria for development and 

implementation of a pretreatment 

program (for a POTW owned or 

operated by a department, agency, or 

instrumentality of the Federal 

government).’’ We proposed revising the 

third criterion in 40 CFR 63.1580(a)(3) 

to state ‘‘You are subject to this subpart 

if your POTW has a design capacity to 

treat at least 5 million gallons of 

wastewater per day (MGD) and treats 

wastewater from an industrial user, and 

either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) is true.’’ 

This proposed revision removed the 

requirement that a POTW must already 

have a pretreatment program in place in 

order to be subject to the rule. The 

proposed revisions were intended to 

clarify the intent of the rule, which was 

to limit applicability to POTW that treat 

at least 5 MGD and wastewater from 

industrial users. 

Comment: We received numerous 

comments that raised specific concerns 

related to these proposed changes. First, 

commenters disagreed that the proposed 

changes were necessary and stated that 

the proposed changes created confusion 

and changed the scope of affected 

sources. One commenter stated that the 

applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

VVV has been well-defined for over 17 

years, and if sources are confused, the 

EPA has methods to correct any 

confusion without making rule changes. 

Several commenters specifically 

objected to the proposed change that 

removed pretreatment from the third 

applicability criterion and made it a 

requirement of the rule. These 

commenters stated that removing 

pretreatment as an applicability 

criterion and making it a requirement 

changes the source category that the 

EPA intended to control. One state 

commented that this proposed change 

would cause an additional 12 POTW in 

their state to become subject to the rule. 

The commenter explained that because 

the state (not the POTW) implements 

the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) 

pretreatment program, the original rule 

does not apply to any POTW in that 

state. 

Response: As stated in the proposal, 

the EPA did not intend to expand the 

applicability criteria from the 2002 

POTW NESHAP. After consideration of 

the comments received, we agree that 

implementing the proposed changes to 

rule applicability could have caused 

confusion among the regulated 

community without a demonstrable 

environmental benefit. Therefore, at this 

time, we are not making any substantive 

change to the 2002 POTW NESHAP 

third applicability criterion and are not 

adopting the proposed applicability 

criterion of 5 MGD. However, it is 

important to note that the requirements 

in the National Pretreatment Program do 

establish a 5 MGD threshold for 

applicability. 

In response to the apparent potential 

for misinterpretation of the regulatory 

text that is reflected in the state’s 

comment, we are making one minor 

change to clarify our interpretation and 

the intent of 40 CFR 63.1580(a)(3). In 

developing the 2002 POTW NESHAP, 

we wrote the rule to apply to POTW that 

receive a significant amount of HAPcontaining waste from industrial or 

commercial facilities. In developing the 

rule language, we sought to define such 

POTW by using a regulatory criterion 

that was already established and well 

understood in the industry. We selected 

the criterion that the POTW be subject 

to a pretreatment program under the 

NPDES program because this criterion 

would encompass industrial and 

commercial wastes with HAP that pass 

through the POTW untreated and that 

could present a safety or health concern 

to POTW workers. In adopting this 

criterion, we did not limit applicability 

based on the entity that administers the 

program. In other words, the criterion 

encompasses every POTW that receives 

a waste stream that is subject to 

pretreatment standards, regardless of 

whether the standards are prescribed by 

the POTW itself or by a state or federal 

regulatory body. Thus, to make sure that 

the regulatory text is properly read, we 

have revised 40 CFR 63.1581(a)(3) to 

make clear that a POTW is subject to 

this rule if either (1) the POTW is 

required to develop and implement a 

pretreatment program as defined by 40 

CFR 403.8, or (2) the POTW meets the 

general criteria for development and 

implementation of a pretreatment 

program, even if does not develop and 

implement the pretreatment program 

itself. Specifically, we have removed the 

parenthetical text in 40 CFR 

63.1580(a)(3) that limited the first part 

of the third criterion to POTW owned or 

operated by a municipality, state, or 

intermunicipal or interstate agency and 

limited the second part of the third 

criterion to POTW owned or operated 

by a department, agency, or 

instrumentality of the federal 

government. 

D. Emissions From Collection Systems 

In the 2016 proposal, we stated that 

HAP emissions from collection systems 

should be included when determining 

whether the POTW is a major source, 

and therefore, subject to the rule. 

Specifically, we stated that the 2002 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 

63.1580(a)(2) provided that emissions 

from the entire POTW source category 

must be considered when determining 

whether the POTW is a major source of 

HAP emissions, and not just the 

emissions from the POTW treatment 

plant (i.e., the portion of the POTW 

designed to provide treatment of 

municipal sewage or industrial waste). 

Comment: Several commenters 

opposed including emissions from 

collection systems in the determination 

of whether a POTW is a major source. 

The commenters stated that collection 

systems/sewers may include hundreds 

or thousands of miles of sewers and 

other equipment, are not always under 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49521 

the jurisdiction of the POTW, and are 

typically owned by another entity. 

We also received comments that 

stated the inclusion of emissions from 

collection systems for major source 

determination is inconsistent with the 

federal definition of a major source. One 

commenter stated that expansion of the 

major source definition to include 

collection sewers as part of the affected 

source is not authorized under section 

112 of the CAA. The commenter also 

stated that the equipment that collect 

and convey wastewater to a POTW 

treatment plant do not reasonably 

constitute a ‘‘building, structure, 

facility, or installation’’ as specified in 

the definition of a stationary source in 

section 112(a)(3) of the CAA, are clearly 

not within a contiguous area under 

common control, and should not be 

considered a single source. Commenters 

noted that the determination of a major 

source of HAP emissions should be 

limited to emission sources within the 

fence line of each treatment plant, 

which would be consistent with the fact 

that the emission fraction requirement 

of the proposed POTW NESHAP is 

limited to emissions within the 

treatment plant. Further, one 

commenter contended that excluding 

collection system emissions in POTW 

major source determinations is also 

supported by Alabama Power Co. v. 

Costle and EPA’s response to that 

decision. 

Commenters also noted that the 

emission data reviewed by the EPA in 

developing the proposed rule 

represented the HAP emissions from the 

POTW treatment plant only. One 

commenter noted that the risk 

assessment did not include emissions 

from collection systems. Several 

commenters disagreed with the EPA’s 

statement in the preamble to the 

proposed rule that collection systems 

may have significant HAP emissions. 

Some commenters suggested that 

emissions from collection systems are 

insignificant and in some cases 

collection systems are operated under a 

vacuum to control odors. However, 

none of the commenters provided data 

to demonstrate the level of HAP 

emissions from collection systems. 

Response: Considering these 

comments, the EPA is not taking final 

action at this time on any changes to the 

emission sources that must be 

considered when determining if a 

POTW is a major source of HAP 

emissions. Specifically, the EPA is not 

taking action on whether emissions 

from collection systems should be 

included in the total HAP emissions 

from a POTW. The determination of 

source boundaries is a site-specific and 

often a complex determination. 

Facilities work with their permitting 

authority to consider factors such as 

whether activities and equipment are in 

a contiguous area and whether they are 

under common control. In 

contemplating the comments, the EPA 

has decided that we do not have enough 

information on individual POTW, 

including information on the 

jurisdiction of the control of collection 

system equipment or information on 

whether this equipment should be 

considered contiguous with the POTW 

treatment plant. Also, data on HAP 

emissions from collection systems are 

not well understood, and we are not 

aware of accepted methods for 

measuring or calculating emissions from 

collection systems at this time. In 

addition, we understand that these 

source boundary determinations have 

already been made for the 

approximately 16,000 POTW through 

Title V applicability assessment. For 

these reasons, we are not taking final 

action at this time to change these 

determinations. We may take action in 

the future if we obtain additional 

information on source boundary issues 

(i.e., common control, contiguous area), 

HAP emissions, and other information 

related to the issues described above. 

With respect to new sources, we 

expect new sources to consult their 

permitting authorities on these matters 

as they plan for new construction. The 

EPA considers these determinations on 

source boundaries to be appropriately 

under the jurisdiction of the permitting 

authority. Accordingly, to avoid 

regulatory disruption, this final rule 

takes no action to change the definition 

of POTW. The definition of POTW 

remains the same as originally 

promulgated and continues to include 

‘‘. . . any intercepting sewers, outfall 

sewers, sewage collection systems, 

pumping, power and other equipment.’’ 

Likewise, we are not taking final action 

at this time to revise the originally 

promulgated definition of the affected 

source. The definition of affected source 

continues to mean the ‘‘group of all 

equipment that comprise the POTW 

treatment plant.’’ 

E. Pretreatment Requirements 

As stated in section IV.C of this 

preamble, the EPA proposed removing 

pretreatment from the applicability 

criteria and making it a control 

requirement for new and existing 

sources. We proposed adding 

pretreatment requirements in the rule 

because pretreatment would reduce 

HAP emissions from the entire source 

category (i.e., collection systems and the 

treatment plant) by limiting the quantity 

of HAP in the wastewater before it is 

discharged to the collection system. The 

intent of this requirement was to reduce 

the pollutant loading into the POTW in 

order to reduce emissions throughout all 

stages of treatment. 

Comment: Several commenters 

objected to the EPA requiring a 

pretreatment program for HAP 

emissions. Commenters disagreed with 

the EPA’s contention that a pretreatment 

program will reduce emissions of HAP 

by reducing the presence of toxic gases. 

Specifically, commenters noted that a 

‘‘pretreatment program under CAA 

Section 112 is not the same as a 

pretreatment program under the Clean 

Water Act (CWA)’’, as 40 CFR 403 

authorizes POTW to set pretreatment 

requirements for air contaminants for 

worker and plant safety, and to prevent 

interference and pass through. One 

commenter contended that the proposed 

rule expands the CAA regulatory 

framework into the CWA National 

Pretreatment Program without a legal 

basis. 

Additionally, several commenters 

opposed requiring POTW to develop 

local limits and expressed concerns 

about the way in which local limits 

should be determined. Instead, 

commenters suggested that the EPA 

establish wastewater concentration 

limits for HAP to identify pollutants 

that may need local limits. One 

commenter stated that the EPA should 

either ‘‘regulate industrial users directly 

for HAP or provide technically-based 

wastewater concentrations for HAP that 

POTW could use for screening (where 

analytical methods exist under 40 CFR 

part 136)’’ to determine the need for 

establishing local limits. 

Commenters also expressed concerns 

about the costs related to requiring 

pretreatment programs wherein POTW 

evaluate and set local limits for volatile 

organic HAP. The commenters stated 

that developing local limits to identify 

pollutants of concern, as well as identify 

potential pretreatment controls, would 

require significant time and that the 

significant costs these requirements 

would impose on POTW have not been 

quantified or justified. In contrast, one 

commenter stated that categorical limits 

set by the EPA pursuant to the CWA for 

certain industries could merit 

consideration, but additional analysis is 

required. 

Response: In response to these 

comments, we are not taking final action 

at this time to require pretreatment as a 

control requirement for the revised 

NESHAP. As explained in section IV.C 

of this preamble, we are not changing 

the applicability criteria for 40 CFR part 

63, subpart VVV. The existence of a 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49522 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

pretreatment program under the CWA 

will continue to be one of the three rule 

applicability criteria. 

The EPA Office of Water is 

responsible for administering the 

pretreatment program and updates the 

requirements of the pretreatment 

program based on the best available 

technology and taking into account cost 

effectiveness. As the pretreatment 

requirements are modified through 

future updates, additional HAP 

reductions may occur. Because all of the 

POTW that are subject to the rule 

already have pretreatment programs, 

specifically requiring pretreatment 

under the NESHAP would not reduce 

HAP emissions further, but could cause 

confusion and increase compliance 

costs. Thus, we are not finalizing any 

revisions at this time to impose 

additional pretreatment requirements 

prior to discharging a wastewater stream 

to a receiving POTW. Pretreatment will 

continue to be handled under the 

authority of the CWA. By retaining the 

existing regulatory structure of the 

NESHAP, the EPA avoids redundancy 

and confusion in having pretreatment 

requirements included in both air and 

water permits. 

F. HAP Fraction Emitted for Existing 

Group 1 and Group 2 Sources 

In the 2016 proposal, we proposed 

that existing Group 1 and Group 2 

POTW operate with an annual rolling 

average HAP fraction emitted from 

primary treatment units of 0.08 or less. 

As stated in the proposal, we believed 

that the existing POTW we knew about 

could meet this standard without the 

need for additional control. 

Comment: We received numerous 

comments that opposed the proposed 

HAP fraction emission limit, and we 

received additional data to suggest the 

proposed 0.08 HAP fraction limit was 

not appropriate and did not accurately 

account for variability in HAP loading at 

individual POTW. 

Several commenters objected that 

merely doubling the single largest HAP 

fractions from the two available sources 

was not a scientifically or statistically 

valid method for setting the emission 

limit and stated that the EPA had 

provided no support for using the 2x 

factor to account for variability of 

emissions. For example, the 

commenters collectively pointed out 

that the two POTW on which the 

proposed standard was based were 

operating at half capacity, that the 

available data represent merely a 

snapshot in time, that other potentially 

regulated POTW might emit higher HAP 

fractions, and that the specific 

combination of HAP measured by the 

two POTW might not be representative 

of HAP emitted by other POTW. One 

commenter suggested that due to the 

uncertainty associated with such a small 

data set, the EPA should use a larger 

multiplier for setting a standard. 

Additionally, commenters stated that 

the EPA had underestimated the cost of 

achieving compliance with the 0.08 

HAP fraction emitted standard. 

Specifically, commenters stated that in 

order to comply, they would incur 

capital and operating costs, in addition 

to the recordkeeping and reporting costs 

that the EPA accounted for in the 

proposal. One commenter stated that 

they would potentially need to install 

covers and controls in order to meet the 

HAP fraction emitted limit, which 

would be an expense of $20 to $30 

million with negligible emission 

reductions. Two commenters argued 

that the compliance cost for the 

proposed standard was not warranted 

given the low public health risk that the 

EPA estimated. Commenters further 

recommended that the EPA gather more 

complete data from the universe of 

affected sources, conduct statistical 

analysis of those data, and determine a 

suitable standard based on an 

acceptable level of risk and variability of 

the data. 

Response: After reviewing public 

comments and re-evaluating our 

analysis, we are not taking final action 

to adopt the 0.08 HAP fraction emitted 

limit for existing Group 1 and Group 2 

POTW at this time. The proposed HAP 

fraction emitted limit did not reflect the 

performance or application of a specific 

control technology. At proposal, we 

envisioned this limit as an enforceable 

numerical limit that would ensure 

performance consistent with that being 

achieved by existing sources. However, 

after consideration of the information 

provided in public comment, we now 

recognize that we do not have the 

comprehensive data on existing POTW 

that are necessary to conduct a 

sufficiently robust analysis. The HAP 

fraction emitted by different POTW is 

influenced by individual HAP vapor 

pressures, pollutant loadings, HAP 

concentrations, sample measurement 

and analytical techniques, and ambient 

conditions, which differ from POTW to 

POTW. Testing of influent loadings is 

limited by applicable test methods, by 

compounds identified by dischargers, 

and by the HAP for which air permits 

require sampling. Without sufficient 

data, we cannot determine an 

appropriate HAP fraction emitted limit, 

considering the variability in operating 

conditions that is likely to occur across 

even well-operated POTW. Moreover, at 

this time, we are unable to analyze the 

control costs for all affected sources or 

the emissions reductions that might be 

achieved. For all of these reasons, we 

are not taking final action on the 

proposed 0.08 HAP fraction at this time, 

but we may in the future consider 

promulgating a limit if we obtain further 

information on the issues discussed 

above. 

G. New and Existing Group 1 POTW 

In addition to proposing a HAP 

fraction for existing Group 1 POTW, we 

also proposed other changes to the 

requirements for Group 1 POTW. 

The 2002 POTW NESHAP required 

existing Group 1 POTW to comply only 

with the requirements of the other 

NESHAP for which they are acting as an 

agent of control for the industrial user. 

We proposed that existing Group 1 

POTW must meet both the requirements 

of the other NESHAP for which they are 

acting as an agent of control for an 

industrial user and the proposed 

requirements for existing Group 2 

POTW in the POTW NESHAP (i.e., the 

proposed 0.08 HAP fraction emitted 

limit discussed in IV.F, above). 

The 2002 POTW NESHAP required 

new and reconstructed (which we are 

now referring to as ‘‘new’’) Group 1 

POTW to comply with the more 

stringent of the following: (1) The 

requirements of the other NESHAP for 

which they are acting as an agent of 

control for the industrial user; or (2) the 

requirements applicable to new Group 2 

POTW, which allowed the POTW to 

choose to meet either a requirement to 

(a) cover all equipment and route 

emissions through a closed vent system 

to a control device; or (b) meet a HAP 

fraction emission limit of 0.014 for 

emissions from all primary treatment 

units. We proposed that new Group 1 

POTW comply with the other NESHAP 

for which they are acting as an agent of 

control for an industrial user and the 

requirements for new Group 2 POTW in 

the 2002 POTW NESHAP. (Note that we 

did not propose, and are not finalizing, 

any revisions to the requirements for 

new Group 2 POTW.) 

1. Existing Group 1 POTW 

Comment: We received comments 

from one of the existing Group 1 POTW 

that expressed concern that by imposing 

the HAP fraction emitted limit on the 

existing Group 1 POTW with no 

alternative compliance option, the EPA 

had ignored existing POTW with covers 

and controls already in place. The 

commenter stated that new Group 1 

POTW have the option of either 

installing covers or complying with the 

HAP fraction limit. However, the EPA 

did not provide that flexibility to 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49523 

4See section IV.A of this preamble for an 

explanation of the residual risk assessment. 

existing Group 1 POTW, thereby 

imposing an additional HAP fraction 

limit without a cover option and more 

onerous recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. The commenter stated 

that the EPA should provide existing 

Group 1 POTW that already use covers 

the option of adding controls in lieu of 

complying with a HAP fraction limit. 

Response: The EPA is not taking final 

action on the proposed changes for 

existing Group 1 sources at this time. As 

explained in section IV.F of this 

preamble, we are not setting a HAP 

fraction limit for existing Group 1 or 

Group 2 POTW at this time; therefore, 

no additional requirements are being 

added for existing Group 1 POTW in the 

POTW NESHAP. Thus, as required by 

the 2002 POTW NESHAP, an existing 

Group 1 POTW must comply with the 

control requirements as specified in the 

appropriate NESHAP for the industrial 

user(s). 

2. New Group 1 POTW 

We did not receive any comment on 

our proposed revision to the 

requirements for new Group 1 POTW. 

We proposed, and are finalizing, that 

new Group 1 POTW must (1) meet the 

requirements of the other NESHAP for 

which they act as an agent of control for 

an industrial user and (2) either (a) 

cover all equipment and route emissions 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device or (b) meet a HAP 

fraction emission limit of 0.014 for 

emissions from all primary treatment 

units. See 81 FR 95375 for our rationale 

for this change. Because we received no 

adverse comment on our proposal, we 

are finalizing these requirements as 

proposed. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected facilities? 

The EPA estimates, based on the 

responses to the 2015 ICR, the 2011 and 

2014 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI), and public comments received, 

that there are 13 POTW that are engaged 

in treatment of industrial wastewater 

and are currently subject to the POTW 

NESHAP. Two of these facilities are 

considered Group 1 POTW, while the 

remaining eleven are considered Group 

2 POTW. All 13 currently subject to the 

POTW NESHAP have already met the 

notification requirements for existing 

Group 1 and Group 2 POTW. The EPA 

is not currently aware of any planned 

new Group 1 or Group 2 POTW that will 

be constructed or any existing Group 1 

or Group 2 POTW that will be 

reconstructed. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

The EPA estimates that annual 

organic HAP emissions from the 13 

POTW subject to the rule are 

approximately 35 tpy. We expect no 

emissions of inorganic HAP from this 

category. The EPA does not anticipate 

any additional emission reductions from 

the final changes to the rule, and there 

are no anticipated new or reconstructed 

facilities. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

The 13 entities subject to this 

proposal will incur only minimal costs 

related to familiarizing themselves with 

this rule—estimated to be a one-time 

total cost of $790 for all 13 entities. For 

further information on the requirements 

of this rule, see section IV of this 

preamble. For further information on 

the costs associated with the 

requirements of this rule, see the 

document titled Economic Impact 

Analysis for the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works Risk 

and Technology Review, in the docket. 

The memorandum titled Technology 

Review Memorandum for the Publicly 

Owned Treatment Works Source 

Category, in the docket for this action, 

presents costs estimated associated with 

the regulatory options that were not 

selected for inclusion in this final rule 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 

0490). 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

The economic impact analysis is 

designed to inform decision makers 

about the potential economic 

consequences of a regulatory action. For 

this rule, the EPA estimated the annual 

cost of recordkeeping and reporting as a 

percentage of reported sewage fees 

received by the affected POTW. For the 

revisions promulgated in this final rule, 

costs are expected to be less than 0.001 

percent of collected sewage fees, based 

on publicly available financial reports 

from the fiscal year ending in 2015 for 

the affected entities. 

In addition, the EPA performed a 

screening analysis for impacts on small 

businesses by comparing estimated 

population served by the affected 

entities to the population limit set forth 

by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration. The screening analysis 

found that the population served for all 

affected entities is greater than the limit 

qualifying a public entity as a small 

business. 

More information and details of the 

EPA’s analysis of the economic impacts, 

including the conclusions stated above, 

are provided in the technical document, 

Final Economic Impact Analysis for the 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants Risk and 

Technology Review, which is available 

in the docket for this final rule (Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0490). 

E. What are the benefits? 

We do not anticipate any significant 

reductions in HAP emissions as a result 

of these final amendments. However, we 

think that the amendments will help to 

enhance the clarity of the rule, which 

can improve compliance and minimize 

emissions. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

We examined the potential for any 

environmental justice concerns that 

might be associated with this source 

category by performing a demographic 

analysis of the population close to the 

six POTW that were modeled for source 

category risk.4 In this analysis, we 

evaluated the distribution of HAPrelated cancer and non-cancer risks 

from the POTW source category across 

different social, demographic, and 

economic groups within the populations 

living near facilities identified as having 

the highest risks. The methodology and 

the results of the demographic analyses 

are included in a technical report, Risk 

and Technology Review—Analysis of 

Socio-Economic Factors for Populations 

Living Near POTW Facilities, available 

in the docket for this action (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0490). The 

results for various demographic groups 

are based on the estimated risks from 

actual emissions levels for the 

population living within 50 kilometers 

(km) of the facilities. 

The results of the POTW source 

category demographic analysis indicate 

that actual emissions from the source 

category expose no person to a cancer 

risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 

1. Therefore, we conclude that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. However, this final rule 

may provide additional benefits to these 

demographic groups by improving the 

compliance and implementation of the 

NESHAP. The demographics of the 

population living within 50 km of 

POTW can be found in Table 2 of the 

document titled Risk and Technology 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49524 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Review—Analysis of Socio-Economic 

Factors for Populations Living Near 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works, 

available in the docket for this final rule 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 

0490). 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

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 results of the POTW 

source category demographic analysis 

indicate that actual emissions from the 

source category expose no person to a 

cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or 

to a chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater 

than 1. Therefore, the analysis shows 

that actual emissions from the POTW 

source category are not expected to have 

an adverse human health effect on 

children. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.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. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not an Executive Order 

13771 regulatory action because this 

action is not significant under Executive 

Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this rule have been submitted for 

approval to the OMB under the PRA. 

The ICR document that the EPA 

prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 1891.08. You can find a copy of 

the ICR in the docket for this rule, and 

it is briefly summarized here. The 

information collection requirements are 

not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. 

The information to be collected 

includes the initial notification that the 

POTW is subject to the rule. However, 

as stated in this preamble, the 13 

sources that we already know about 

have already met this initial notification 

requirement and are not required to 

submit an additional notification. The 

information will be used to identify 

sources subject to the standards. 

Respondents/affected entities: The 

respondents to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are owners and 

operators of POTW. The NAICS code for 

the respondents affected by the standard 

is 221320 (Sewage Treatment Facilities), 

which corresponds to the United States 

Standard Industrial Classification code 

4952 (Sewerage Systems). 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Respondents are obligated to respond in 

accordance with the notification 

requirements under 40 CFR 63.1591(a). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

Zero. 

Frequency of response: One response. 

Total estimated burden: 0 hours (per 

year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $0 (per year), 

includes $0 annualized capital or 

operation and maintenance costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

D. 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. There are no small entities 

affected in this regulated industry. See 

the technical document, Final Economic 

Impact Analysis for the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment 

Works Risk and Technology Review, 

which is available in the docket for this 

final rule (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2016–0490) for more detail. 

E. 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. 

F. 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. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. As discussed in section 

II.B.1 of this preamble, we have 

identified only 13 POTW that are 

subject to this final rule and none of 

those POTW are owned or operated by 

tribal governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The 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. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in sections 

III.A and B and sections IV.A and B of 

this preamble and the Residual Risk 

Report memorandum contained in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

I. 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. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. 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). 

The documentation for this decision 

is contained in section III.A.6 of this 

preamble and in the corresponding 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49525 

technical report, Risk and Technology 

Review—Analysis of Socio-Economic 

Factors for Populations Living Near 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works, 

available in the docket for this action. 

The proximity results indicate, for eight 

of the 11 demographic categories, that 

the population percentages within 5 km 

and 50 km of source category emissions 

are greater than the corresponding 

national percentage for those same 

demographics. However, the results of 

the risk analysis presented in section 

III.A.6 of this preamble and in the 

corresponding technical report indicate 

that actual emissions from the source 

category expose no person to a cancer 

risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 

1. 

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 16, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends part 63 of title 40, 

chapter I, 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. 

■ 2. Part 63 is amended by revising 

subpart VVV to read as follows: 

Subpart VVV—National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly 

Owned Treatment Works 

Applicability 

Sec. 

63.1580 Am I subject to this subpart? 

63.1581 Does the subpart distinguish 

between different types of POTW 

treatment plants? 

Requirements for Group 1 POTW Treatment 

Plants 

63.1582 [Reserved] 

63.1583 What are the emission points and 

control requirements for a Group 1 

POTW treatment plant? 

63.1584 [Reserved] 

63.1585 How does a Group 1 POTW 

treatment plant demonstrate 

compliance? 

Requirements for Group 1 and Group 2 

POTW Treatment Plants 

63.1586 What are the emission points and 

control requirements for a Group 1 or 

Group 2 POTW? 

63.1587 When do I have to comply? 

63.1588 How do Group 1 and Group 2 

POTW treatment plants demonstrate 

compliance? 

63.1589 What records must I keep? 

63.1590 What reports must I submit? 

63.1591 What are my notification 

requirements? 

63.1592 Which General Provisions apply to 

my POTW treatment plant? 

63.1593 [Reserved] 

63.1594 Who enforces this subpart? 

63.1595 List of definitions. 

Table 1 to Subpart VVV of Part 63— 

Applicability of 40 CFR part 63 General 

Provisions to Subpart VVV 

Table 2 to Subpart VVV of Part 63— 

Compliance Dates and Requirements 

Subpart VVV—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment 

Works 

Applicability 

§ 63.1580 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

the following are all true: 

(1) You own or operate a publicly 

owned treatment works (POTW) that 

includes an affected source (§ 63.1595); 

(2) The affected source is located at a 

Group 2 POTW which is a major source 

of HAP emissions, or at any Group 1 

POTW regardless of whether or not it is 

a major source of HAP; and 

(3) Your POTW is required to develop 

and implement a pretreatment program 

as defined by 40 CFR 403.8, or your 

POTW meets the general criteria for 

development and implementation of a 

pretreatment program. 

(b) If your existing POTW treatment 

plant is not located at a major source as 

of October 26, 1999, but thereafter 

becomes a major source for any reason 

other than reconstruction, then, for the 

purpose of this subpart, your POTW 

treatment plant would be considered an 

existing source. 

Note to paragraph (b): See § 63.2 of the 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (NESHAP) General Provisions 

in subpart A of this part for the definitions 

of major source and area source. 

(c) If you commence construction or 

reconstruction of your POTW treatment 

plant after December 1, 1998, then the 

requirements for a new POTW apply. 

§ 63.1581 Does the subpart distinguish 

between different types of POTW treatment 

plants? 

Yes, POTW treatment plants are 

divided into two subcategories: Group 1 

POTW treatment plants and Group 2 

POTW treatment plants, as described in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section. 

(a) Your POTW is a Group 1 POTW 

treatment plant if an industrial user 

complies with its NESHAP by using the 

treatment and controls located at your 

POTW treatment plant. Your POTW 

treatment plant accepts the regulated 

waste stream and provides treatment 

and controls as an agent for the 

industrial user. Group 1 POTW 

treatment plant is defined in § 63.1595. 

(b) Your POTW is a Group 2 POTW 

treatment plant if your POTW treats 

wastewater that is not subject to control 

by another NESHAP or the industrial 

user does not comply with its NESHAP 

by using the treatment and controls 

located at your POTW treatment plant. 

‘‘Group 2 POTW treatment plant’’ is 

defined in § 63.1595. 

(c) If, in the future, an industrial user 

complies with its NESHAP by using the 

treatment and controls located at your 

POTW treatment plant, then your Group 

2 POTW treatment plant becomes a 

Group 1 POTW treatment plant on the 

date your POTW begins treating that 

regulated industrial wastewater stream. 

Requirements for Group 1 POTW 

Treatment Plants 

§ 63.1582 [Reserved] 

§ 63.1583 What are the emission points 

and control requirements for a Group 1 

POTW treatment plant? 

(a) The emission points and control 

requirements for an existing Group 1 

POTW treatment plant are specified in 

the appropriate NESHAP for the 

industrial user(s). 

(b) The emission points and control 

requirements for a new Group 1 POTW 

treatment plant are both those specified 

by the appropriate NESHAP which 

apply to the industrial user(s) who 

discharge their waste for treatment to 

the POTW, and those emission points 

and control requirements set forth in 

§ 63.1586(b) or (c), as applicable. 

(c) If your existing or new Group 1 

POTW treatment plant accepts one or 

more specific regulated industrial waste 

streams as part of compliance with one 

or more other NESHAP, then you are 

subject to all the requirements of each 

appropriate NESHAP for each waste 

stream. 

(d) At all times, the POTW must 

operate and maintain any affected 

source, including associated air 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49526 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the POTW to make any further efforts to 

reduce emissions if levels required by 

the applicable standard have been 

achieved. Determination of whether a 

source is operating in compliance with 

operation and maintenance 

requirements will be based on 

information available to the 

Administrator, which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

§ 63.1584 [Reserved] 

§ 63.1585 How does a Group 1 POTW 

treatment plant demonstrate compliance? 

(a) An existing Group 1 POTW 

treatment plant demonstrates 

compliance by operating treatment and 

control devices which meet all 

requirements specified in the 

appropriate NESHAP. Requirements 

may include performance tests, routine 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting. 

(b) A new Group 1 POTW treatment 

plant demonstrates compliance by 

operating treatment and control devices 

which meet all requirements specified 

in the appropriate NESHAP and by 

meeting the requirements specified in 

§ 63.1586, as applicable, as well as the 

applicable requirements in §§ 63.1588 

through 63.1595. 

Requirements for Group 1 and Group 2 

POTW Treatment Plants 

§ 63.1586 What are the emission points 

and control requirements for a Group 1 or 

Group 2 POTW? 

(a) An existing Group 1 or Group 2 

POTW treatment plant must comply 

with the initial notification 

requirements in § 63.1591(a). 

(b) Cover and control standard. 

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of 

this section, new Group 1 and Group 2 

POTW treatment plants must install 

covers on the emission points up to, but 

not including, the secondary influent 

pumping station or the secondary 

treatment units. These emission points 

are treatment units that include, but are 

not limited to, influent waste stream 

conveyance channels, bar screens, grit 

chambers, grinders, pump stations, 

aerated feeder channels, primary 

clarifiers, primary effluent channels, 

and primary screening stations. In 

addition, all covered units, except 

primary clarifiers, must have the air in 

the headspace underneath the cover 

ducted to a control device in accordance 

with the standards for closed-vent 

systems and control devices in § 63.693 

of subpart DD—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from Off-site Waste and Recovery 

Operations of this part, except you may 

substitute visual inspections for leak 

detection rather than Method 21 of 

appendix A–7 of part 60 of this chapter. 

Covers must meet the following 

requirements: 

(1) Covers must be tightly fitted and 

designed and operated to prevent 

exposure of the wastewater to the 

atmosphere. This includes, but is not 

limited to, the absence of visible cracks, 

holes, or gaps in the roof sections or 

between the roof and the supporting 

wall; broken, cracked, or otherwise 

damaged seals or gaskets on closure 

devices; and broken or missing hatches, 

access covers, caps, or other closure 

devices. 

(2) If wastewater is in a treatment 

unit, each opening in the cover must be 

maintained in a closed, sealed position, 

unless plant personnel are present and 

conducting wastewater or sludge 

sampling, or equipment inspection, 

maintenance, or repair. 

(c) HAP fraction emitted standard. As 

an alternative to the requirements in 

paragraph (b) of this section, a new 

Group 1 and Group 2 POTW treatment 

plant may comply by demonstrating, for 

all emission points up to, but not 

including, the secondary influent 

pumping station or the secondary 

treatment units, that the annual rolling 

average HAP fraction emitted 

(calculated as specified in 

§ 63.1588(c)(3)) does not exceed 0.014. 

You must demonstrate that for your 

POTW treatment plant, the sum of all 

HAP emissions from these units divided 

by the sum of all HAP mass loadings to 

the POTW treatment plant results in an 

annual rolling average of the HAP 

fraction emitted of no greater than 

0.014. You may use any combination of 

pretreatment, wastewater treatment 

plant modifications, and control devices 

to achieve this performance standard. 

(d) At all times, the POTW must 

operate and maintain any affected 

source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the POTW to make any further efforts to 

reduce emissions if the requirements of 

the applicable standard have been met. 

Determination of whether a source is 

operating in compliance with operation 

and maintenance requirements will be 

based on information available to the 

Administrator, which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

§ 63.1587 When do I have to comply? 

Sources subject to this subpart are 

required to achieve compliance on or 

before the dates specified in table 2 of 

this subpart. 

§ 63.1588 How do Group 1 and Group 2 

POTW treatment plants demonstrate 

compliance? 

(a) If you are complying with 

§ 63.1586(b) by using covers, you must 

conduct the following inspections: 

(1) You must visually check the cover 

and its closure devices for defects that 

could result in air emissions. Defects 

include, but are not limited to, visible 

cracks, holes, or gaps in the roof 

sections or between the roof and the 

supporting wall; broken, cracked, or 

otherwise damaged seals or gaskets on 

closure devices; and broken or missing 

hatches, access covers, caps, or other 

closure devices. 

(2) You must perform an initial visual 

inspection within 60 calendar days of 

becoming subject to this NESHAP and 

perform follow-up inspections at least 

once per year, thereafter. 

(3) In the event that you find a defect 

on a cover on a treatment unit in use, 

you must repair the defect within 45 

calendar days. If you cannot repair 

within 45 calendar days, you must 

notify the EPA or the delegated 

authority immediately and report the 

reason for the delay and the date you 

expect to complete the repair. If you 

find a defect on a cover on a treatment 

unit that is not in service, you must 

repair the defect prior to putting the 

treatment unit back in wastewater 

service. 

(b) If you own or operate a control 

device used to meet the requirements 

for § 63.1586(b), you must comply with 

the inspection and monitoring 

requirements of § 63.695(c) of subpart 

DD of this part. 

(c) To comply with the HAP fraction 

emitted standard specified in 

§ 63.1586(c), you must develop, to the 

satisfaction of the Administrator, an 

Inspection and Monitoring Plan. This 

Inspection and Monitoring Plan must 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) A method to determine the 

influent HAP mass loading, i.e., the 

annual mass quantity for each HAP 

entering the wastewater treatment plant. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49527 

(2) A method to determine your 

POTW treatment plant’s annual HAP 

emissions for all units up to, but not 

including, the secondary influent 

pumping station or the secondary 

treatment units. The method you use to 

determine your HAP emissions, such as 

modeling or direct source measurement, 

must: 

(i) Be approved by the Administrator 

for use at your POTW; 

(ii) Account for all factors affecting 

emissions from your POTW treatment 

plant including, but not limited to, 

emissions from wastewater treatment 

units; emissions resulting from 

inspection, maintenance, and repair 

activities; fluctuations (e.g., daily, 

monthly, annual, seasonal) in your 

influent wastewater HAP 

concentrations; annual industrial 

loading; performance of control devices; 

or any other factors that could affect 

your annual HAP emissions; and 

(iii) Include documentation that the 

values and sources of all data, operating 

conditions, assumptions, etc., used in 

your method result in an accurate 

estimation of annual emissions from 

your POTW treatment plant. 

(3) A method to demonstrate that your 

POTW treatment plant meets the HAP 

fraction emitted standard specified in 

§ 63.1586(c), i.e., the sum of all HAP 

emissions from paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section divided by the sum of all HAP 

mass loadings from paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section results in a fraction emitted 

of 0.014 or less to demonstrate 

compliance with § 63.1586(c). The 

Inspection and Monitoring Plan must 

require, at a minimum, that you perform 

the calculations shown in paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i) through (viii) of this section 

within 90 days of the end of each 

month. This calculation shall 

demonstrate that your annual rolling 

average of the HAP fraction emitted is 

0.014 or less when demonstrating 

compliance with § 63.1586(c). 

(i) Determine the average daily flow in 

million gallons per day (MGD) of the 

wastewater entering your POTW 

treatment plant for the month; 

(ii) Determine the flow-weighted 

monthly concentration of each HAP 

listed in Table 1 to subpart DD of this 

part that is reasonably anticipated to be 

present in your influent; 

(iii) Using the information in 

paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, determine a total annual flowweighted loading in pounds per day 

(lbs/day) of each HAP entering your 

POTW treatment plant; 

(iv) Sum up the values for each 

individual HAP loading in paragraph 

(c)(3)(iii) of this section and determine 

a total annual flow-weighted loading 

value (lbs/day) for all HAP entering 

your POTW treatment plant for the 

current month; 

(v) Based on the current month’s 

information in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of 

this section along with source testing 

and emission modeling, for each HAP, 

determine the annual emissions (lbs/ 

day) from all wastewater units up to, but 

not including, secondary treatment 

units; 

(vi) Sum up the values in paragraph 

(c)(3)(v) of this section and calculate the 

total annual emissions value for the 

month for all HAP from all wastewater 

treatment units up to, but not including, 

secondary treatment units; 

(vii) Calculate the HAP fraction 

emitted value for the month, using 

Equation 1 of this section as follows: 

Where: 

femonthly = HAP fraction emitted for the 

previous month 

èE = Total HAP emissions value from 

paragraph (c)(3)(vi) of this section 

èL = Total annual loading from paragraph 

(c)(3)(iv) of this section 

(viii) Average the HAP fraction 

emitted value for the month determined 

in paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section, 

with the values determined for the 

previous 11 months, to calculate an 

annual rolling average of the HAP 

fraction emitted. 

(4) A method to demonstrate, to the 

satisfaction of the Administrator, that 

your POTW treatment plant is in 

continuous compliance with the 

requirements of § 63.1586(c). 

Continuous compliance means that your 

emissions, when averaged over the 

course of a year, do not exceed the level 

of emissions that allows your POTW to 

comply with § 63.1586(c). For example, 

you may identify a parameter(s) that you 

can monitor that assures your 

emissions, when averaged over the 

entire year, will meet the requirements 

in § 63.1586(c). Some example 

parameters that may be considered for 

monitoring include your wastewater 

influent HAP concentration and flow, 

industrial loading from your permitted 

industrial users, and your control device 

performance criteria. Where emission 

reductions are due to proper operation 

of equipment, work practices, or other 

operational procedures, your 

demonstration must specify the 

frequency of inspections and the 

number of days to completion of repairs. 

(d) Prior to receiving approval on the 

Inspection and Monitoring Plan, you 

must follow the plan submitted to the 

Administrator as specified in 

§ 63.1590(f). 

§ 63.1589 What records must I keep? 

(a) To comply with the cover and 

control standard specified in 

§ 63.1586(b), you must prepare and 

maintain the records required in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section: 

(1) A record for each treatment unit 

inspection required by § 63.1588(a). You 

must include a treatment unit 

identification number (or other unique 

identification description as selected by 

you) and the date of inspection. 

(2) For each defect detected during 

inspections required by § 63.1588(a), 

you must record the location of the 

defect, a description of the defect, the 

date of detection, the corrective action 

taken to repair the defect, and the date 

the repair to correct the defect is 

completed. 

(3) If repair of the defect is delayed as 

described in § 63.1588(a)(3), you must 

also record the reason for the delay and 

the date you expect to complete the 

repair. 

(4) If you own or operate a control 

device used to meet the requirements 

for § 63.1586(b), you must comply with 

the recordkeeping requirements of 

§ 63.696(a), (b), (g), and (h). 

(b) To comply with the HAP fraction 

emitted standard specified in 

§ 63.1586(c), you must prepare and 

maintain the records required in 

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

section: 

(1) A record of the methods and data 

used to determine your POTW treatment 

plant’s annual HAP loading and HAP 

emissions as determined in 

§ 63.1588(c)(1) and (2) as part of your 

Inspection and Monitoring Plan; 

(2) A record of the methods and data 

used to determine that your POTW 

treatment plant meets the HAP fraction 

emitted standard of 0.014 or less, as 

determined in § 63.1588(c)(3) as part of 

your Inspection and Monitoring Plan; 

and 

(3) A record of the methods and data 

that demonstrates that your POTW 

treatment plant is in continuous 

compliance with the requirements of 

§ 63.1588(c)(4) to calculate annual 

emissions as specified in your 

Inspection and Monitoring Plan. 

(c) The POTW must record the 

malfunction information specified in 

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

section. 

(1) In the event that an affected unit 

fails to meet an applicable standard, 

record the number of failures. For each 

failure, record the date, time, and 

duration of the failure. 

(2) For each failure to meet an 

applicable standard, record and retain a 

list of the affected sources or equipment, 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULESER26OC17.018</GPH>
49528 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

an estimate of the tons per year of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

(3) Record actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1583(d) or § 63.1586(d) and any 

corrective actions taken to return the 

affected unit to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(d) Any records required to be 

maintained by this part that are 

submitted electronically via the EPA’s 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI) may be 

maintained in electronic format. This 

ability to maintain electronic copies 

does not affect the requirement for 

facilities to make records, data, and 

reports available upon request to a 

delegated air agency or the EPA as part 

of an on-site compliance evaluation. 

§ 63.1590 What reports must I submit? 

(a) An existing Group 1 POTW must 

meet the reporting requirements 

specified in the appropriate NESHAP 

for the industrial user(s). 

(b) A new Group 1 or Group 2 POTW 

must submit annual reports containing 

the information specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section, if 

applicable. You must submit annual 

reports following the procedure 

specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this 

section. For new units, the initial 

annual report is due 15 months after 

your POTW becomes subject to the 

requirements in this subpart and must 

cover the first 12 months of operation 

after your POTW becomes subject to the 

requirements of this subpart. 

Subsequent annual reports are due by 

the same date each year as the initial 

annual report and must contain 

information for the 12-month period 

following the 12-month period included 

in the previous annual report. 

(1) The general information specified 

in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section must be included in all reports. 

(i) The company name, POTW 

treatment plant name, and POTW 

treatment plant address, including 

county where the POTW is located; and 

(ii) Beginning and ending dates of the 

reporting period. 

(2) If you use covers to comply with 

the requirements of § 63.1586(b), you 

must submit the following: 

(i) The dates of each visual inspection 

conducted; 

(ii) The defects found during each 

visual inspection; and 

(iii) For each defect found during a 

visual inspection, how the defects were 

repaired, whether the repair has been 

completed, and either the date each 

repair was completed or the date each 

repair is expected to be completed. 

(3) If you comply with the HAP 

fraction emitted standard in 

§ 63.1586(c), you must submit each 

value of the annual rolling average HAP 

fraction emitted as calculated in 

§ 63.1588(c)(3)(vii) for the period 

covered by the annual report. Identify 

each value by the final month included 

in the calculation. 

(4) If a source fails to meet an 

applicable standard, report such events 

in the annual report. Report the number 

of failures to meet an applicable 

standard. For each instance, report the 

start date, start time, and duration of 

each failure, as well as a list of the 

affected sources or equipment. If you 

comply with the cover and control 

standard in § 63.1586(b), for each 

failure, the report must include the 

percent control achieved. If you comply 

with the HAP fraction emitted standard 

in § 63.1586(c), for each failure, the 

report must include the HAP fraction 

emitted. You must include an estimate 

of the tons per year of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over the emission 

limit and a description of the method 

used to estimate the emissions in the 

report. 

(5) You must submit the report to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13, unless the 

Administrator agrees to or species an 

alternate reporting method. Beginning 

on October 28, 2019 or once the 

reporting form has been available in 

CEDRI for 1 year, whichever is later, you 

must submit subsequent annual reports 

to the EPA via CEDRI. (CEDRI can be 

accessed through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX)(https://cdx.epa.gov/)). 

You must use the appropriate electronic 

report template on the CEDRI Web site 

for this subpart or an alternate 

electronic file format consistent with the 

extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the CEDRI Web site 

(https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/complianceand-emissions-data-reporting-interfacecedri). The date report templates 

become available in CEDRI will be listed 

on the CEDRI Web site. The reports 

must be submitted by the deadline 

specified in this subpart, regardless of 

the method in which the reports are 

submitted. If you claim that some of the 

information required to be submitted via 

CEDRI is confidential business 

information (CBI), you shall submit a 

complete report generated using the 

appropriate form in CEDRI or an 

alternate electronic file consistent with 

the extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the EPA’s CEDRI Web 

site, including information claimed to 

be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, 

or other commonly used electronic 

storage medium to the EPA. The 

electronic medium shall be clearly 

marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ 

OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: 

Group Leader, Measurement Policy 

Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 

Durham, NC 27703. The same file with 

the CBI omitted shall be submitted to 

the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described 

earlier in this paragraph. 

(c) If you own or operate a control 

device used to meet the cover and 

control standard in § 63.1586(b), you 

must submit the notifications and 

reports required by § 63.697(b), 

including a notification of performance 

tests; a performance test report; a 

malfunction report; and a summary 

report. These notifications and reports 

must be submitted to the Administrator, 

except for performance test reports. 

Within 60 calendar days after the date 

of completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 63.2) required by subpart 

DD of this part, you must submit the 

results of the performance test following 

the procedure specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(https://www.epa/gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, 

you must submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA via CEDRI. 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in a file format generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file format consistent with the 

XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site at the time of the test, you must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13 of 

subpart A of this part, unless the 

Administrator agrees to or specifies an 

alternate reporting method. 

(3) If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted under paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section is CBI, you must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, including information claimed to 

be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, 

or other commonly used electronic 

storage medium to the EPA. The 

electronic medium must be clearly 

marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49529 

OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: 

Group Leader, Measurement Policy 

Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 

Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 

alternate file with the CBI omitted must 

be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s 

CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section. 

(d) You must comply with the delay 

of repair reporting required in 

§ 63.1588(a)(3). 

(e) You may apply to the 

Administrator for a waiver of 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements by complying with the 

requirements of § 63.10(f). Electronic 

reporting to the EPA cannot be waived. 

(f) To comply with the HAP fraction 

emitted standard specified in 

§ 63.1586(c), you must submit, for 

approval by the Administrator, an 

Inspection and Monitoring Plan 

explaining your compliance approach 

90 calendar days prior to beginning 

operation of your new POTW or by 

April 24, 2018, whichever is later. 

(g) If you are required to electronically 

submit a report through the CEDRI in 

the EPA’s CDX, and due to a planned or 

actual outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI 

or CDX systems within the period of 

time beginning 5 business days prior to 

the date that the submission is due, you 

will be or are precluded from accessing 

CEDRI or CDX and submitting a 

required report within the time 

prescribed, you may assert a claim of 

EPA system outage for failure to timely 

comply with the reporting requirement. 

You must submit notification to the 

Administrator in writing as soon as 

possible following the date you first 

knew, or through due diligence should 

have known, that the event may cause 

or caused a delay in reporting. You must 

provide to the Administrator a written 

description identifying the date, time 

and length of the outage; a rationale for 

attributing the delay in reporting 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the 

EPA system outage; describe the 

measures taken or to be taken to 

minimize the delay in reporting; and 

identify a date by which you propose to 

report, or if you have already met the 

reporting requirement at the time of the 

notification, the date you reported. In 

any circumstance, the report must be 

submitted electronically as soon as 

possible after the outage is resolved. The 

decision to accept the claim of EPA 

system outage and allow an extension to 

the reporting deadline is solely within 

the discretion of the Administrator. 

(h) If you are required to 

electronically submit a report through 

CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX and a force 

majeure event is about to occur, occurs, 

or has occurred or there are lingering 

effects from such an event within the 

period of time beginning five business 

days prior to the date the submission is 

due, the owner or operator may assert a 

claim of force majeure for failure to 

timely comply with the reporting 

requirement. For the purposes of this 

section, a force majeure event is defined 

as an event that will be or has been 

caused by circumstances beyond the 

control of the affected facility, its 

contractors, or any entity controlled by 

the affected facility that prevents you 

from complying with the requirement to 

submit a report electronically within the 

time period prescribed. Examples of 

such events are acts of nature (e.g., 

hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts 

of war or terrorism, or equipment failure 

or safety hazard beyond the control of 

the affected facility (e.g., large scale 

power outage). If you intend to assert a 

claim of force majeure, you must submit 

notification to the Administrator in 

writing as soon as possible following the 

date you first knew, or through due 

diligence should have known, that the 

event may cause or caused a delay in 

reporting. You must provide to the 

Administrator a written description of 

the force majeure event and a rationale 

for attributing the delay in reporting 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the 

force majeure event; describe the 

measures taken or to be taken to 

minimize the delay in reporting; and 

identify a date by which you propose to 

report, or if you have already met the 

reporting requirement at the time of the 

notification, the date you reported. In 

any circumstance, the reporting must 

occur as soon as possible after the force 

majeure event occurs. The decision to 

accept the claim of force majeure and 

allow an extension to the reporting 

deadline is solely within the discretion 

of the Administrator. 

§ 63.1591 What are my notification 

requirements? 

(a) You must submit an initial 

notification that your POTW treatment 

plant is subject to these standards as 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 

this section. 

(1) If you have an existing Group 1 or 

Group 2 POTW treatment plant, you 

must submit an initial notification by 

October 26, 2018. 

(2) If you have a new Group 1 or 

Group 2 POTW treatment plant, you 

must submit an initial notification upon 

startup. 

(b) The initial notification must 

include the information included in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Your name and address; 

(2) The address (i.e., physical 

location) of your POTW treatment plant; 

(3) An identification of these 

standards as the basis of the notification 

and your POTW treatment plant’s 

compliance date; and 

(4) A brief description of the nature, 

size, design, and method of operation of 

your POTW treatment plant, including 

its operating design capacity and an 

identification of each point of emission 

for each HAP, or if a definitive 

identification is not yet possible, a 

preliminary identification of each point 

of emission for each HAP. 

(c) You must submit a notification of 

compliance status as required in 

§ 63.9(h), as specified below: 

(1) If you comply with § 63.1586(b) 

and use covers on the emission points 

and route air in the headspace 

underneath the cover to a control 

device, you must submit a notification 

of compliance status as specified in 

§ 63.9(h) that includes a description of 

the POTW treatment units and installed 

covers, as well as the information 

required for control devices including 

the performance test results. 

(2) If you comply with § 63.1586(c) by 

meeting the HAP fraction emitted 

standard, submission of the Inspection 

and Monitoring Plan as required in 

§ 63.1588(c) and § 63.1590(f) meets the 

requirement for submitting a 

notification of compliance status report 

in § 63.9(h). 

(d) You must notify the 

Administrator, within 30 calendar days 

of discovering that you are out of 

compliance with an applicable 

requirement of this subpart, including 

the following: 

(1) The requirement to route the air in 

the headspace underneath the cover of 

all units equipped with covers, except 

primary clarifiers, to a control device as 

specified in § 63.1586(b). 

(2) The HAP fraction emitted standard 

as specified in § 63.1586(c). 

(3) The requirement to operate and 

maintain the affected source as specified 

in § 63.1586(d). 

(4) The requirement to inspect covers 

annually and repair defects as specified 

in § 63.1588(a). 

(5) The requirement to comply with 

the inspection and monitoring 

requirements of § 63.695(c) as specified 

in § 63.1588(b). 

(6) The procedures specified in an 

Inspection and Monitoring Plan 

prepared as specified in § 63.1588(c). 

(7) The requirements specified in an 

appropriate NESHAP for which the 

Group 1 POTW treatment plan treats 

regulated industrial waste as specified 

in § 63.1583(a) or (b), as applicable. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49530 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 63.1592 Which General Provisions apply 

to my POTW treatment plant? 

(a) Table 1 to this subpart lists the 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A) which do and do not apply 

to POTW treatment plants. 

(b) Unless a permit is otherwise 

required by law, the owner or operator 

of a Group 1 POTW treatment plant 

which is not a major source is exempt 

from the permitting requirements 

established by 40 CFR part 70. 

§ 63.1593 [Reserved] 

§ 63.1594 Who enforces this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a 

delegated authority such as the 

applicable state, local, or tribal agency. 

If the U.S. EPA Administrator has 

delegated authority to a state, local, or 

tribal agency, then that agency, in 

addition to the U.S. EPA, has the 

authority to implement and enforce this 

subpart. Contact the applicable U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if 

implementation and enforcement of this 

subpart is delegated to a state, local, or 

tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a state, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities 

contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section are retained by the 

Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot 

be delegated to the state, local, or tribal 

agency. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

requirements in §§ 63.1580, 63.1583, 

and 63.1586 through 63.1588. 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and 

(f), as defined in § 63.90, and as required 

in this subpart. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f), as defined in 

§ 63.90, and as required in this subpart. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f), as defined in § 63.90, and as 

required in this subpart. 

(5) Approval of an alternative to any 

electronic reporting to the EPA required 

by this subpart. 

§ 63.1595 List of definitions. 

As used in this subpart: 

Affected source means the group of all 

equipment that comprise the POTW 

treatment plant. 

Cover means a device that prevents or 

reduces air pollutant emissions to the 

atmosphere by forming a continuous 

barrier over the waste material managed 

in a treatment unit. A cover may have 

openings (such as access hatches, 

sampling ports, gauge wells) that are 

necessary for operation, inspection, 

maintenance, and repair of the 

treatment unit on which the cover is 

used. A cover may be a separate piece 

of equipment which can be detached 

and removed from the treatment unit, or 

a cover may be formed by structural 

features permanently integrated into the 

design of the treatment unit. The cover 

and its closure devices must be made of 

suitable materials that will prevent 

exposure of the waste material to the 

atmosphere and will maintain the 

integrity of the cover and its closure 

devices throughout its intended service 

life. 

Existing source or existing POTW 

means a POTW that commenced 

construction on or before December 1, 

1998, and has not been reconstructed 

after December 1, 1998. 

Fraction emitted means the fraction of 

the mass of HAP entering the POTW 

wastewater treatment plant which is 

emitted prior to secondary treatment. 

Group 1 POTW means a POTW that 

accepts a waste stream regulated by 

another NESHAP and provides 

treatment and controls as an agent for 

the industrial user. The industrial user 

complies with its NESHAP by using the 

treatment and controls located at the 

POTW. For example, an industry 

discharges its benzene-containing waste 

stream to the POTW for treatment to 

comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart 

FF—National Emission Standard for 

Benzene Waste Operations. This 

definition does not include POTW 

treating waste streams not specifically 

regulated under another NESHAP. 

Group 2 POTW means a POTW that 

does not meet the definition of a Group 

1 POTW. A Group 2 POTW can treat a 

waste stream that is either: 

(1) Not specifically regulated by 

another NESHAP, or 

(2) From an industrial user that 

complies with the specific wastewater 

requirements in their applicable 

NESHAP prior to discharging the waste 

stream to the POTW. 

Industrial user means a nondomestic 

source introducing any pollutant or 

combination of pollutants into a POTW. 

Industrial users can be commercial or 

industrial facilities whose wastes enter 

local sewers. 

New source or new POTW means any 

POTW that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after December 1, 1998. 

Publicly owned treatment works 

(POTW) means a treatment works, as 

that term is defined by section 112(e)(5) 

of the Clean Air Act, which is owned by 

a municipality (as defined by section 

502(4) of the Clean Water Act), a state, 

an intermunicipal or interstate agency, 

or any department, agency, or 

instrumentality of the federal 

government. This definition includes 

any intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, 

sewage collection systems, pumping, 

power, and other equipment. The 

wastewater treated by these facilities is 

generated by industrial, commercial, 

and domestic sources. As used in this 

subpart, the term POTW refers to both 

any publicly owned treatment works 

which is owned by a state, municipality, 

or intermunicipal or interstate agency 

and, therefore, eligible to receive grant 

assistance under the Subchapter II of the 

Clean Water Act, and any federally 

owned treatment works as that term is 

described in section 3023 of the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act. 

POTW treatment plant means that 

portion of the POTW which is designed 

to provide treatment (including 

recycling and reclamation) of municipal 

sewage and industrial waste. 

Secondary treatment means treatment 

processes, typically biological, designed 

to reduce the concentrations of 

dissolved and colloidal organic matter 

in wastewater. 

Waste and wastewater means a 

material, or spent or used water or 

waste, generated from residential, 

industrial, commercial, mining, or 

agricultural operations or from 

community activities that contain 

dissolved or suspended matter, and that 

is discarded, discharged, or is being 

accumulated, stored, or physically, 

chemically, thermally, or biologically 

treated in a publicly owned treatment 

works. 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART VVV OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART VVV 

General provisions 

reference Applicable to subpart VVV Explanation 

§ 63.1 ........................ ................................................. Applicability. 

§ 63.1(a)(1) ............... Yes .......................................... Terms defined in the Clean Air Act. 

§ 63.1(a)(2) ............... Yes .......................................... General applicability explanation. 

§ 63.1(a)(3) ............... Yes .......................................... Cannot diminish a stricter NESHAP. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49531 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART VVV OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART VVV— 

Continued 

General provisions 

reference Applicable to subpart VVV Explanation 

§ 63.1(a)(4) ............... Yes .......................................... Not repetitive. Doesn’t apply to section 112(r). 

§ 63.1(a)(5) ............... Yes .......................................... Section reserved. 

§ 63.1(a)(6)–(8) ......... Yes .......................................... Contacts and authorities. 

§ 63.1(a)(9) ............... Yes .......................................... Section reserved. 

§ 63.1(a)(10) ............. Yes .......................................... Time period definition. 

§ 63.1(a)(11) ............. Yes .......................................... Postmark explanation. 

§ 63.1(a)(12)–(14) ..... Yes .......................................... Time period changes. Regulation conflict. Force and effect of subpart A. 

§ 63.1(b)(1) ............... Yes .......................................... Initial applicability determination of subpart A. 

§ 63.1(b)(2) ............... Yes .......................................... Section reserved. 

§ 63.1(b)(3) ............... No ........................................... Subpart VVV specifies recordkeeping of records of applicability determination. 

§ 63.1(c)(1) ............... Yes .......................................... Requires compliance with both subparts A and subpart VVV. 

§ 63.1(c)(2)(i) ............ No ........................................... State options regarding title V permit. Unless required by the State, area sources subject to subpart VVV are exempted from permitting requirements. 

§ 63.1(c)(2)(ii)–(iii) .... No ........................................... State options regarding title V permit. 

§ 63.1(c)(3) ............... Yes .......................................... Section reserved. 

§ 63.1(c)(4) ............... Yes .......................................... Extension of compliance. 

§ 63.1(c)(5) ............... No ........................................... Subpart VVV addresses area sources becoming major due to increase in emissions. 

§ 63.1(d) ................... Yes .......................................... Section reserved. 

§ 63.1(e) ................... Yes .......................................... Title V permit before a relevant standard is established. 

§ 63.2 ........................ Yes .......................................... Definitions. 

§ 63.3 ........................ Yes .......................................... Units and abbreviations. 

§ 63.4 ........................ ................................................. Prohibited activities and circumvention. 

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(3) ......... Yes .......................................... Prohibits operation in violation of subpart A. 

§ 63.4(a)(4) ............... Yes .......................................... Section reserved. 

§ 63.4(a)(5) ............... Yes .......................................... Compliance dates. 

§ 63.4(b) ................... Yes .......................................... Circumvention. 

§ 63.4(c) .................... Yes .......................................... Severability. 

§ 63.5 ........................ ................................................. Preconstruction review and notification requirements. 

§ 63.5(a)(1) ............... Yes .......................................... Construction and reconstruction. 

§ 63.5(a)(2) ............... Yes .......................................... New source—effective dates. 

§ 63.5(b)(1) ............... Yes .......................................... New sources subject to relevant standards. 

§ 63.5(b)(2) ............... Yes .......................................... Section reserved. 

§ 63.5(b)(3) ............... Yes .......................................... No new major sources without Administrator approval. 

§ 63.5(b)(4) ............... Yes .......................................... New major source notification. 

§ 63.5(b)(5) ............... Yes .......................................... New major sources must comply. 

§ 63.5(b)(6) ............... Yes .......................................... New equipment added considered part of major source. 

§ 63.5(c) .................... Yes .......................................... Section reserved. 

§ 63.5(d)(1) ............... Yes .......................................... Implementation of section 112(I)(2)—application of approval of new source construction. 

§ 63.5(d)(2) ............... Yes .......................................... Application for approval of construction for new sources listing and describing planned 

air pollution control system. 

§ 63.5(d)(3) ............... Yes .......................................... Application for reconstruction. 

§ 63.5(d)(4) ............... Yes .......................................... Administrator may request additional information. 

§ 63.5(e) ................... Yes .......................................... Approval of reconstruction. 

§ 63.5(f)(1) ................ Yes .......................................... Approval based on State review. 

§ 63.5(f)(2) ................ Yes .......................................... Application deadline. 

§ 63.6 ........................ ................................................. Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements. 

§ 63.6(a) ................... Yes .......................................... Applicability of compliance with standards and maintenance requirements. 

§ 63.6(b) ................... Yes .......................................... Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. 

§ 63.6(c) .................... Yes .......................................... Compliance dates for existing sources apply to existing Group 1 POTW treatment 

plants. 

§ 63.6(d) ................... Yes .......................................... Section reserved. 

§ 63.6(e) ................... Yes, except as noted below ... Operation and maintenance requirements apply to new sources. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............ No ........................................... General duty; See § 63.1583(d) and § 63.1586(d) for general duty requirements. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ........... No ........................................... Requirement to correct malfunctions. 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ............... No ........................................... SSM plans are not required for POTW. 

§ 63.6(f) .................... Yes, except as noted below ... Compliance with non-opacity emission standards applies to new sources.

§ 63.6(f)(1) ................ No ........................................... The POTW standards apply at all times. 

§ 63.6(g) ................... Yes .......................................... Use of alternative non-opacity emission standards applies to new sources. 

§ 63.6(h) ................... No ........................................... POTW treatment plants do not typically have visible emissions. 

§ 63.6(i) ..................... Yes .......................................... Extension of compliance with emission standards applies to new sources. 

§ 63.6(j) ..................... Yes .......................................... Presidential exemption from compliance with emission standards. 

§ 63.7 ........................ ................................................. Performance testing requirements. 

§ 63.7(a) ................... Yes .......................................... Performance testing is required for new sources. 

§ 63.7(b) ................... Yes .......................................... New sources must notify the Administrator of intention to conduct performance testing. 

§ 63.7(c) .................... Yes .......................................... New sources must comply with quality assurance program requirements. 

§ 63.7(d) ................... Yes .......................................... New sources must provide performance testing facilities at the request of the Administrator. 

§ 63.7(e) ................... Yes, except as noted below ... Requirements for conducting performance tests apply to new sources. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ............... No ........................................... The performance testing provisions of § 63.694 for control devices are incorporated by 

reference into subpart DD of this part. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
49532 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART VVV OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART VVV— 

Continued 

General provisions 

reference Applicable to subpart VVV Explanation 

§ 63.7(f) .................... Yes .......................................... New sources may use an alternative test method. 

§ 63.7(g) ................... Yes .......................................... Requirements for data analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting associated with performance testing apply to new sources. 

§ 63.7(h) ................... Yes .......................................... New sources may request a waiver of performance tests. 

§ 63.8 ........................ ................................................. Monitoring requirements. 

§ 63.8(a) ................... Yes .......................................... Applicability of monitoring requirements. 

§ 63.8(b) ................... Yes .......................................... Monitoring shall be conducted by new sources. 

§ 63.8(c) .................... Yes, except as noted below ... New sources shall operate and maintain continuous monitoring systems (CMS). 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ............ No ........................................... See § 63.1583(d) for general duty requirement with respect to minimizing emissions and 

continuous monitoring requirements. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .......... No ........................................... See the applicable CMS quality control requirements under § 63.8(c) and (d). 

§ 63.8(d) ................... Yes, except as noted below ... New sources must develop and implement a CMS quality control program. 

§ 63.8(d)(3) ............... No ........................................... The owner or operator must keep these written procedures on record for the life of the 

affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of 

this part, and make them available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. 

If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator must keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be 

made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 

years after each revision of the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2). 

§ 63.8(e) ................... Yes .......................................... New sources may be required to conduct a performance evaluation of CMS. 

§ 63.8(f) .................... Yes .......................................... New sources may use an alternative monitoring method. 

§ 63.8(g) ................... Yes .......................................... Requirements for reduction of monitoring data. 

§ 63.9 ........................ ................................................. Notification requirements. 

§ 63.9(a) ................... Yes .......................................... Applicability of notification requirements. 

§ 63.9(b) ................... Yes, except as noted below ... Initial notification due February 23, 2000 or 60 days after becoming subject to this subpart. 

§ 63.9(c) .................... Yes .......................................... Request for extension of compliance with subpart VVV. 

§ 63.9(d) ................... Yes .......................................... Notification that source is subject to special compliance requirements as specified in 

§ 63.6(b)(3) and (4). 

§ 63.9(e) ................... Yes .......................................... Notification of performance test. 

§ 63.9(f) .................... No ........................................... POTW treatment plants do not typically have visible emissions. 

§ 63.9(g) ................... Yes .......................................... Additional notification requirements for sources with continuous emission monitoring 

systems. 

§ 63.9(h) ................... Yes, except as noted .............. Notification of compliance status when the source becomes subject to subpart VVV. 

See exceptions in § 63.1591(b). 

§ 63.9(i) ..................... Yes .......................................... Adjustments to time periods or postmark deadlines or submittal and review of required 

communications. 

§ 63.9(j) ..................... Yes .......................................... Change of information already provided to the Administrator. 

§ 63.10 ...................... ................................................. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(a) ................. Yes .......................................... Applicability of notification and reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(b)(1)–(2) ....... Yes, except as noted below ... General recordkeeping requirements. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) .......... No ........................................... Recordkeeping for occurrence and duration of startup and shutdown. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ......... No ........................................... Recordkeeping for failure to meet a standard, see § 63.696. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ........ Yes .......................................... Maintenance records. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv) ........ No ........................................... Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(v) ......... No ........................................... Action taken to minimize emissions during SSM. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ........ Yes .......................................... Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(ix) Yes .......................................... Other CMS requirements. 

§ 63.10(b)(3) ............. No ........................................... Recording requirement for applicability determination. 

§ 63.10(c) .................. Yes, except as noted below ... Additional recordkeeping requirements for sources with continuous monitoring systems. 

§ 63.10(c)(7) ............. No ........................................... See § 63.696(h) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time, and duration; (2) listing of affected 

source or equipment, and an estimate of the tons per year of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. 

§ 63.10(c)(8) ............. No ........................................... See § 63.696(h) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time, and duration; (2) listing of affected 

source or equipment, and an estimate of the tons per year of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. 

§ 63.10(c)(15) ........... No ........................................... Use of SSM plan. 

§ 63.10(d) ................. Yes, except as noted below ... General reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ............. No ........................................... See § 63.697(b) for malfunction reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(e) ................. Yes .......................................... Additional reporting requirements for sources with continuous monitoring systems. 

§ 63.10(f) .................. Yes, except as noted .............. Waiver of recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Electronic reporting to the EPA 

cannot be waived. 

§ 63.11 ...................... Yes .......................................... Control device and equipment leak work practice requirements. 

§ 63.11(a) and (b) ..... Yes .......................................... If a new source uses flares to comply with the requirements of subpart VVV, the requirements of § 63.11 apply. 

§ 63.11(c), (d) and 

(e).

Yes .......................................... Alternative work practice for equipment leaks. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49533 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART VVV OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART VVV— 

Continued 

General provisions 

reference Applicable to subpart VVV Explanation 

§ 63.12 ...................... Yes .......................................... State authority and designation. 

§ 63.13 ...................... Yes .......................................... Addresses of State air pollution control agencies and EPA Regional Offices. 

§ 63.14 ...................... Yes .......................................... Incorporation by reference. 

§ 63.15 ...................... Yes .......................................... Availability of information and confidentiality. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART VVV OF PART 63—COMPLIANCE DATES AND REQUIREMENTS

If the construction/reconstruction 

date is Then the owner or operator must comply with And the owner or operator must achieve compliance 

Group 1 POTW: 

(1) After December 27, 2016 .......... (i) New source requirements in §§ 63.1583(b); 63.1586(b) or (c); and 

63.1588 through 63.1591.

Upon initial startup. 

(2) After December 1, 1998 but on 

or before December 27, 2016.

(i) New source requirements in § 63.1583(b) but instead of complying 

with both requirements (industrial user(s) NESHAP and the POTW 

standards in §§ 63.1586(b) or (c)), you must comply with the most 

stringent requirement1.

Upon initial startup through October 26, 2020. 

(ii) New source requirements in §§ 63.1586(b) or (c); and 63.1588 

through 63.1591.

On or before October 26, 2020. 

(3) On or before December 1, 1998 (i) Existing source requirements in §§ 63.1583(a) ................................. By the compliance date specified 

in the other applicable NESHAP. 

(ii) Existing source requirements in §§ 63.1588 through 63.1591 ......... On or before October 26, 2018. 

Group 2 POTW: 

(4) After December 27, 2016 .......... (i) New source requirements in §§ 63.1586(b) or (c); and 63.1588 

through 63.1591.

Upon initial startup. 

(5) After December 1, 1998 but on 

or before December 27, 2016.

(i) New source requirements in § 63.1586(b) or (c)1 ............................. Upon initial startup through October 26, 2020. 

(ii) New source requirements in §§ 63.1586(b) or (c); and 63.1588 

through 63.1591.

On or before October 26, 2020. 

(6) On or before December 1, 1998 (i) Existing source requirements in §§ 63.1586(a); and 63.1591(a) ...... On or before October 26, 2018. 

1 Note: This represents the new source requirements in the original 1999 NESHAP, which are applicable until October 26, 2020. Between October 26, 2017 and October 26, 2020, you must transition to the new requirements in Table 2 (2)(ii) and (5)(ii) for Group 1 and Group 2 POTW, 

respectively. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23067 Filed 10–25–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0153; SW–FRL– 

9969–73–Region 6] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting a petition 

submitted by ExxonMobil Oil 

Corporation Beaumont Refinery 

(ExxonMobil) to exclude from 

hazardous waste control (or delist) a 

certain solid waste. This final rule 

responds to the petition submitted by 

ExxonMobil to have the secondary 

impoundment basin (SIB) solids 

excluded, or delisted from the definition 

of a hazardous waste. The SIB solids are 

listed as F037 (primary oil/water/solids 

separation sludge); and F038 (secondary 

oil/water/solids separation sludge). 

After careful analysis and evaluation 

of comments submitted by the public, 

the EPA has concluded that the 

petitioned wastes are not hazardous 

waste when disposed of in Subtitle D 

landfills. This exclusion applies to the 

surface impoundment solids generated 

at ExxonMobil’s Beaumont, Texas 

facility. Accordingly, this final rule 

excludes the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills 

but imposes testing conditions to ensure 

that the future-generated wastes remain 

qualified for delisting. 

DATES: Effective October 26, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0153. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information regarding the 

ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery 

petition, contact Michelle Peace at 214– 

665–7430 or by email at 

peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

D. How will Beaumont Refinery manage 

the waste if it is delisted? 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is a ‘‘delisting’’? 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES