Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334-0074
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources
Posted Date: 2009-10-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register: October 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 208)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 56007-56056]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29oc09-26]                         

[[Page 56007]]

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

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 
Manufacturing Area Sources; Final Rule

[[Page 56008]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334; FRL-8972-6]
RIN 2060-AM19

 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for the control of 
hazardous air pollutants for nine area source categories in the 
chemical manufacturing sector: Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides 
Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production, Industrial 
Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, Industrial Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic 
Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing, 
Pharmaceutical Production, and Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. The 
standards and associated requirements for the nine area source 
categories are combined in one subpart. This final rule establishes 
emission standards in the form of management practices for each 
chemical manufacturing process unit as well as emission limits for 
certain subcategories of process vents and storage tanks. The rule also 
establishes management practices and other emission reduction 
requirements for subcategories of wastewater systems and heat exchange 
systems.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information 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, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Coatings and 
Chemicals Group (E143-01), Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: 
(919) 541-5402; fax number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail address: 
mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. 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?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for this Final Rule
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    A. Applicability
    B. Emission Standards
    C. Initial Compliance
    D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)
    F. Title V
IV. Summary of Final Rule
    A. Applicability
    B. Compliance Dates
    C. Standards
    D. Initial Compliance Requirements
    E. Continuous Compliance Requirements
    F. Notifications, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Applicability
    B. Compliance Dates
    C. Standards
    D. Initial Compliance Demonstrations
    E. Monitoring Requirements
    F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    G. Requirements During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and 
Malfunction (SSM)
    H. Title V Permitting
VI. Impacts of Final Area Source Standards
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy 
impacts?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this 
action are shown in the table below. This final rule applies to each 
chemical manufacturing process unit (CMPU) that uses as feedstocks,\1\ 
generates as byproducts, or produces as products any of the following 
15 hazardous air pollutants (HAP): 1,3-butadiene; 1,3-dichloropropene; 
acetaldehyde; chloroform; ethylene dichloride; methylene chloride; 
hexachlorobenzene; hydrazine; quinoline (i.e., ``chemical manufacturing 
organic urban HAP'' or ``Table 1\2\ organic HAP''); or compounds of 
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel (i.e., 
``chemical manufacturing metal urban HAP'' or ``Table 1 metal HAP''). 
Consistent with the proposed rule, the standards do not apply to 
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP (i.e., hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and 
hydrogen fluoride) at affected sources, except when these HAP are 
generated in combustion-based emission control devices that are used to 
meet the proposed standards for organic HAP on Table 1.\3\ The affected 
source for this rule is the facility-wide collection of CMPUs that use, 
generate, or produce one or more of the Table 1 HAP and the wastewater 
systems and heat exchange systems associated with the CMPUs that use 
Table 1 HAP. A CMPU includes all process equipment and activities 
involved in the production of a material described by North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 325.\4\ If a CMPU uses, 
generates, or

[[Page 56009]]

produces one of the chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP listed 
above, then the standards apply to all listed Clean Air Act (CAA) 
section 112(b) organic HAP emitted from that CMPU. Similarly, if a CMPU 
uses, generates, or produces one of the chemical manufacturing metal 
urban HAP listed above, then the standards apply to all listed CAA 
section 112(b) metal HAP emitted from that CMPU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Feedstocks are reactants, solvents, or any other additives 
to the process.
    \2\ ``Table 1'' refers to Table 1 in the final rule.
    \3\ Collectively, the Table 1 organic and metal HAP are referred 
to as the ``chemical manufacturing urban HAP'' or ``Table 1 HAP.''
    \4\ The CMPU is defined by a facility's production of materials 
described by NAICS code 325. A facility producing such a material 
(or family of materials) may use more than one train or series of 
equipment to make it. All equipment (i.e., unit operation) used to 
produce a specific product (as well as all the vents and activities 
associated with making this product) are considered to be part of a 
single CMPU for purposes of this rule. For example, facility X makes 
a pharmaceutical product that requires the use of methylene chloride 
as a solvent. The product is produced in any of three different size 
reactors, depending on the quantity needed or equipment 
availability. All of the reactors; other process equipment (e.g., 
for separation, drying, etc.); connecting piping and related pumps, 
valves, etc.; storage tanks; transfer operations; surge control 
vessels; bottoms receivers; and other activities (e.g., routine 
cleaning) are part of a single CMPU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this 
action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
       Industry category          NAICS code\1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing.........             325  Chemical manufacturing
                                                  area sources that use
                                                  as feedstock, generate
                                                  as byproduct, or
                                                  produce as product,
                                                  any of the HAP subject
                                                  to this subpart except
                                                  for: (1) Processes
                                                  classified in NAICS
                                                  Code 325222, 325314,
                                                  or 325413; (2)
                                                  processes subject to
                                                  standards for other
                                                  listed area source
                                                  categories \2\ in
                                                  NAICS 325; (3) certain
                                                  fabricating
                                                  operations; (4)
                                                  manufacture of
                                                  photographic film,
                                                  paper, and plate where
                                                  material is coated or
                                                  contains chemicals
                                                  (but the manufacture
                                                  of the photographic
                                                  chemicals is
                                                  regulated); and (5)
                                                  manufacture of
                                                  radioactive elements
                                                  or isotopes, radium
                                                  chloride, radium
                                                  luminous compounds,
                                                  strontium, and
                                                  uranium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ The source categories in NAICS 325 for which other area source
  standards apply are: Acrylic Fibers/Modacrylic Fibers Production,
  Chemical Preparation, Carbon Black, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium
  Compounds, Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, Paint and
  Allied Coatings, and Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing.

    Area sources in NAICS 325 not specifically identified in the chart 
above may also be affected by this action. To determine whether your 
chemical manufacturing area source is regulated by this action, you 
should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11494 of subpart 
VVVVVV (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources). For additional information about 
applicability provisions, see sections III.A, IV.A, and V.A of this 
preamble. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority 
for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 
63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information 
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final 
rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 
December 28, 2009. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of this rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person 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 Information for This Final Rule

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major 
and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA 
section 112(c). A major source is any stationary source that emits or 
has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single 
HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a 
stationary source that is not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999) (Strategy). Specifically, 
in the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential 
health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 
urban HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) of the CAA requires EPA to list 
sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that 
area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 
HAP are subject to regulation. We selected the nine chemical 
manufacturing area source categories based on these requirements. A 
primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in 
cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT) 
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' 
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the 
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which 
describes GACT as:

[[Page 56010]]

    * * * methods, practices, and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories that have many small 
businesses.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards 
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine 
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable 
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, 
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major 
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies 
and practices could be considered generally available for the area 
source category at issue. Finally, as we have already noted, in 
determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the 
costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and 
management practices on that category.
    We are issuing these national emission standards in response to a 
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for nine 
source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and 
(k)(3)(B) by October 16, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, 
D.D.C., March 2006).

III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

A. Applicability

    In the proposed rule, we proposed that the affected source include 
the entire facility if the facility emitted any of the chemical 
manufacturing urban HAP. Specifically, under the proposal, all process 
vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, wastewater systems, and 
cooling towers at the facility would be subject to the standards if any 
emissions source at the facility emitted one of the chemical 
manufacturing urban HAP. In response to comments, we narrowed the scope 
of applicability of this final rule, and we made several changes to 
clarify the applicability provisions. The most significant change is 
that only CMPU that emit one or more of the 15 chemical manufacturing 
urban HAP and the wastewater systems and heat exchange systems 
associated with those CMPUs are subject to the rule. A CMPU includes 
all process equipment and activities involved in the production of a 
material (or family of materials) described by NAICS code 325. 
Additionally, a CMPU includes each surge control vessel, bottoms 
receiver, pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling 
connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, storage 
tank, transfer rack, and instrumentation system associated with the 
production of a subject NAICS 325 material. The final rule provides 
that a CMPU consists of one or more processing steps used in the 
production of the subject NAICS 325 material.
    The final rule further specifies that each CMPU within an affected 
source that emits one of the chemical manufacturing urban HAP is 
subject only to requirements that apply to the same type of HAP that 
triggered applicability, not requirements for all types of HAP. For 
example, a CMPU that uses only chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP 
is required to control all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP. Similarly, a 
CMPU that uses only chemical manufacturing metal urban HAP is required 
to control all CAA section 112(b) metal HAP. For the purposes of this 
provision, hydrazine is considered to be an organic HAP.
    In response to comments, we are clarifying that the rule does not 
extend to structural items (e.g., piping) and items that exist as 
``articles'' as defined in 40 CFR 372.3, and are used under normal 
conditions, because these items do not emit any HAP, including the 
chemical manufacturing urban HAP.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Article'' means a manufactured item: ``(1) Which is formed 
to a specific shape or design during manufacture; (2) which has end 
use functions dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design 
during end use; and (3) which does not release a toxic chemical 
under normal conditions of processing or use of that item at the 
facility or establishment.'' 40 CFR 372.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Emission Standards

1. Management Practices
    EPA proposed management practices for a number of emission points, 
including for process vents (batch, continuous, and metal HAP); storage 
tanks; transfer operations; and equipment leaks. The proposed 
management practices for process vents included covering all process 
tanks and mixing vessels during operation; maintaining covers in the 
closed position on all openings and access points in other process 
vessels; conducting quarterly inspections to check for leaks from the 
process vessels and determining the integrity of the process vessels 
and ensuring covers are being used; and repairing leaks within 15 days. 
EPA proposed these management practice requirements for all affected 
sources. For storage tanks, EPA proposed GACT as management practices 
consisting of quarterly inspections for leaks, minimizing and promptly 
cleaning up spills, and ensuring all openings and access points are 
closed for all storage tanks. For transfer operations, EPA proposed to 
minimize emissions using management practices, such as minimizing 
spills, cleaning up spills promptly, covering open containers when not 
in use, and minimizing discharges to open waste collection systems.
    In the final rule, the separate proposed management practices for 
process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, and equipment leaks 
were consolidated and simplified into one comprehensive set of 
management practices that are applicable to each CMPU. The 
comprehensive management practices in the final rule include 
requirements to equip each process vessel with a cover or lid that must 
be in place at all times when the vessel contains HAP, except for 
material addition and sampling. The management practices also include 
sensory-based inspections of process vessels and equipment in each 
CMPU. Changes to management practices specific to small heat exchange 
systems are described in section III.B.2.f of this preamble.
2. Emission Limits and Emission Control Requirements
a. Continuous Process Vents and Batch Process Vents
    For continuous process vents with a total resource effectiveness 
(TRE) index of 1 or less, EPA proposed management practices and 95 
percent emission reduction of organic HAP emissions. After 
consideration of the public comments, we are finalizing management 
practices and the 95 percent emission reduction requirement for organic 
HAP emissions from continuous process vents. Based on public comments, 
the final rule includes a definition of continuous process vent that is 
based on the process vent definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart F of 
the Hazardous Organics NESHAP (HON). In addition, the final rule 
includes a mass emission threshold of 0.1 pound per hour (lb/hr) or 
less, below which the TRE index calculation is not required.
    For facilities with batch process vents, EPA proposed management 
practices and a 90 percent organic HAP emission

[[Page 56011]]

reduction if the collective uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions 
from the sum of all batch process vents within the affected facility 
was 19,000 pounds per year (lbs/yr) or greater. The final rule requires 
management practices and 85 percent control (90 percent for new 
sources) if the total organic uncontrolled HAP emissions from batch 
process vents within a CMPU are 10,000 lbs/yr or greater. We 
established the control efficiency of 85 percent as GACT for existing 
area sources based on additional information provided by commenters. 
Under the final rule, emissions from any batch process vents may be 
estimated based on process knowledge, engineering assessment, and/or 
test data. The proposed requirement to use the calculation methodology 
in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) for certain types of emission episodes is 
not required, but it is authorized under the final rule. The final rule 
also includes an expanded definition of batch process vent that 
includes examples of batch process vents and lists types of equipment 
and gas streams that are not batch process vents.
b. Metal HAP Process Vents
    EPA proposed management practices and 95 percent metal HAP emission 
reduction if the collective uncontrolled total metal HAP emissions from 
the sum of all metal HAP process vents was greater than 400 lbs/yr on a 
facility-wide basis. In addition to the 400 lbs/yr level, EPA co-
proposed a metal HAP threshold level of 100 lbs/yr on a facility-wide 
basis, and asked for public comment on the appropriate threshold to use 
for purposes of subcategorizing metal HAP process vents based on the 
factors discussed in the proposed rule. For metal HAP process vents 
with total uncontrolled metal HAP emissions less than the threshold, 
management practices would be required to reduce HAP emissions. After 
considering public comments, the final rule requires management 
practices and 95 percent reduction in metal HAP emissions from each 
CMPU with uncontrolled metal HAP process vent emissions of 400 lbs/yr 
or greater.
c. Storage Tanks
    The proposed rule cross-referenced the thresholds for control, as 
well as the standards and compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Kb. The final rule replaces the references to subpart Kb with 
references to the standards and compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 
63, subparts SS and WW and by directly specifying the applicable 
thresholds for control in Table 5 to the final rule. The capacity and 
maximum true vapor pressure thresholds for control in the final rule 
are the same as at proposal, but the final rule specifies that the 
maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) threshold is to be based on the 
organic HAP content of the stored liquid, not the volatile organic 
liquid (VOL) content as specified in subpart Kb. As in other NESHAP, we 
intended to require MTVP determinations based on the organic HAP 
content in the stored liquid, but we inadvertently neglected to 
override the reference to VOL in the MTVP definition in subpart Kb. The 
standards and compliance procedures are essentially the same as at 
proposal, but the final rule references standards and compliance 
procedures in 40 CFR part 63 (Subparts SS and WW, and the General 
Provisions, Subpart A). The final rule also includes a vapor balancing 
compliance alternative that provides at least equivalent levels of HAP 
emission reductions as the GACT requirements that we are finalizing. 
Based on public comments, we have determined that GACT for storage 
tanks that vent to a control device includes alternative procedures 
during periods of planned routine maintenance of the control device. 
Therefore, the final rule specifies that no material may be added to 
the storage tank during periods of planned routine maintenance, and 
periods of planned routine maintenance may not exceed 240 hours per 
year (hrs/yr).
    Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers were included in the 
proposed definition of storage tank because we proposed that these 
types of vessels would be subject to the same standards as storage 
tanks. Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers remain subject to 
the storage tank standards in the final rule. However, based on public 
comments, we removed surge control vessels and bottoms receivers from 
the definition of storage tank, and instead explicitly specify in 
section 63.11496(h) of the final rule that the storage tank standards 
apply to surge control vessels and bottoms receivers that meet the 
applicability criteria for storage tanks set forth in Table 5 of the 
final rule. All storage tanks that store liquid containing organic HAP 
and are part of a CMPU subject to the final rule are subject to the 
management practice requirements. In addition, the definition of 
storage tank in the final rule is changed to make the definition 
consistent with definitions in other NESHAP such as the Miscellaneous 
Organic NESHAP (MON), HON, and Pharmaceutical maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT) standards by excluding wastewater storage 
tanks and tanks storing liquid containing organic HAP only as 
impurities.
d. Wastewater
    EPA proposed to subcategorize wastewater streams based on the size 
of the wastewater stream and determined that large wastewater streams 
were those with partially soluble HAP (PSHAP) concentrations of 10,000 
parts per million by weight (ppmw) or greater. For wastewater streams 
with PSHAP concentrations of less than 10,000 ppmw discharge, we 
proposed as GACT to send the wastewater stream to an onsite or offsite 
wastewater treatment process, and, for wastewater streams containing 
PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater, we proposed as GACT use 
of gravity separation or other techniques to separate organic and water 
layers and to send the water layer to a wastewater treatment process. 
We proposed that the organic layer must be recovered and reused in a 
process, used as a fuel, or disposed of as hazardous waste.
    Based on comments, we are revising our subcategorization 
determination to account for wastewater streams with PSHAP 
concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater that do not have a separate 
organic layer. The separation techniques that we established as GACT 
for larger wastewater streams will not work for wastewater streams that 
contain only a water phase. For this reason, we are also now 
considering the type of stream in our subcategorization determination 
to account for the wastewater streams that do not separate at PSHAP 
concentrations of 10,000 ppmw. In the final rule, the larger wastewater 
stream subcategory is defined as those wastewater streams with PSHAP 
concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater that also have a separate 
organic layer.
    As stated above, the proposed GACT requirement for a wastewater 
stream that contains PSHAP concentrations of 10,000 ppmw or greater was 
to separate the stream into the organic and aqueous phase and treat 
them according to the requirements in the proposed standards. The final 
rule retains these provisions for the newly defined large wastewater 
systems subcategory and also provides an alternative compliance option 
to hard-pipe the total stream to a combustion unit or other onsite 
hazardous waste treatment facility (or to a tank from which it is 
collected and shipped offsite). This alternative provides at least 
equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions as the emission control 
requirements contained in this proposed rule. We are also finalizing 
the proposed requirement

[[Page 56012]]

for single phase wastewater streams and the aqueous phase for two phase 
streams that requires the wastewater streams be sent to a wastewater 
treatment process.
    Based on public comments, we also revised the definition of 
wastewater stream to be consistent with MON and HON wastewater stream 
definitions.
e. Transfer Operations
    EPA proposed that management practices to minimize evaporation 
losses and use of submerged loading were GACT for transfer operations. 
After considering public comments on the transfer operations 
requirements, we have replaced in some cases and revised in others the 
management practices for transfer operations and are promulgating a 
comprehensive management practice requirement (see discussion in 
section III.B.1 of this preamble), which includes inspection of 
transfer operations. In addition to the management practices, we have 
determined that GACT for most material transfers is the use of 
submerged loading or bottom loading. In response to public comments, we 
have added an alternative compliance option to route emissions to a 
fuel gas system or process in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
SS. This alternative provides at least equivalent levels of HAP 
emission reductions as the GACT requirements that we are finalizing.
    Based on public comments, we have also determined that submerged or 
bottom loading is neither general industry practice nor GACT for the 
transfer of reactive and resinous materials because sources do not 
currently employ submerged or bottom loading for these materials due to 
operational issues. Therefore, the final rule defines reactive and 
resinous materials and requires sources to include in the initial 
Notifications of Compliance Status a list of any materials that meet 
these definitions. Source must also keep records of the use of these 
materials and report in the semiannual compliance report the use of any 
additional resinous or reactive materials occurring during the 
reporting period. Reactive materials are defined in the final rule as 
energetics, organic peroxides, and other unstable chemicals such as 
chemicals that react violently with water and chemicals that vigorously 
polymerize, decompose, condense, or become self-reactive under 
conditions of pressure or temperature. Resinous materials are defined 
in the final rule as viscous, high-boiling point material resembling 
pitch or tar that sticks to or hardens in the fill pipe under normal 
transfer conditions.
f. Heat Exchange Systems
    The proposed rule used the term ``cooling tower'' systems; however, 
we intended to regulate ``heat exchange'' systems as is consistent with 
the HON. We also intended to include ``once-through'' systems as part 
of the affected source. Therefore, the final rule uses the term ``heat 
exchange system'' in place of the proposed term ``cooling tower 
system.'' The final rule also includes a definition of ``heat exchange 
system'' that is consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 63.101 of the 
HON and clearly specifies that once-through systems are included.
    After considering public comments, we have retained the proposed 
inspection and leak repair requirements for small heat exchange systems 
and monitoring and leak repair requirements for large heat exchange 
systems as the GACT requirements in the final rule. The proposed rule 
also required compliance with 40 CFR 63.104(a), and several commenters 
did not understand what that requirement meant. To address the 
confusion caused by the proposed rule, we clarified in the final rule 
that heat exchange systems meeting the conditions set forth in 40 CFR 
63.104(a) are not subject to the inspection or monitoring requirements 
contained in the final rule, as that is what we intended when we 
proposed the rule.
    As a compliance alternative to the requirement to perform repairs 
after an inspection of a small heat exchange system reveals indications 
of a potential leak into cooling water, the final rule also allows the 
owner or operator to demonstrate that the HAP concentration in the 
cooling water does not constitute a leak, as defined in 40 CFR 
63.104(b)(6). For both large and small heat exchange systems, the final 
rule also allows compliance with the HON heat exchange system 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.104(b) or (c). For equipment that meets 
Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements in 21 CFR part 
211, the physical integrity of the reactor may be used as the surrogate 
indicator of heat exchange system leaks under 40 CFR 63.104(c). These 
compliance alternatives provide at least equivalent levels of HAP 
emission reductions as the emission control requirements contained in 
this final rule.
g. Equipment Leaks
    As discussed in section III.B.1 of this preamble, the proposed 
equipment leak requirements have been incorporated as part of the 
management practice requirements that apply to each CMPU subject to the 
final rule. However, following review of public comments, we added an 
alternative for equipment leaks in the final rule that allows an owner 
or operator to use Method 21 in lieu of sensory-based leak detection. 
Method 21 is at least equivalent to the leak inspection requirements we 
are finalizing in this rule.
h. Overlapping Rules
    The final rule specifies that when equipment at an affected source 
is subject to both this rule and the provisions of another rule, 
compliance with the requirements of the other rule constitutes 
compliance with this final rule for the subject equipment if the owner 
or operator determines that the other emission control, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and/or reporting requirements provide at least 
equivalent levels of HAP emission reductions and compliance assurance 
as the requirements in the final rule. For example, if the control 
requirements in the other rule are at least as stringent as those 
provided in this rule, but the monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting 
requirement in the other rule are not as stringent or comprehensive, 
the source may comply with the control requirements from the other 
rule, but must comply with the more stringent monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this rule. The final rule 
requires a source that is subject to overlapping standards to identify 
in its Notification of Compliance Status all of the alternative 
requirements with which the source will be complying and provide an 
explanation of why the selected requirement is more stringent than this 
rule. The final rule also states that sources are responsible for 
making accurate determinations concerning the more stringent standard 
and noncompliance with this rule is not excused if it is later 
determined that the source was in error in its initial notification of 
compliance and, as a result, is violating this rule. Compliance with 
this rule is the responsibility of the affected source regardless of 
any notification of compliance.

C. Initial Compliance

    For some control devices, the proposed rule allowed initial 
compliance to be demonstrated using either design evaluations or 
performance tests, but performance tests were required for certain 
other control devices. In response to comments, the final rule allows 
design evaluations as an alternative to performance tests for all 
control devices.

[[Page 56013]]

    To clarify the initial compliance requirements for batch process 
vents and continuous process vents, some of the language from 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart FFFF that was referenced in Table 2 to the proposed 
rule has been written directly into 40 CFR 63.11496(g) of the final 
rule.

D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

    The proposed rule referenced parts of the General Provisions as 
well as subparts SS, FFFF, and NNNNNN in 40 CFR part 63 for all control 
device monitoring requirements. With two exceptions, these monitoring 
requirements are retained in the final rule. One change in the final 
rule is that pH may be measured once per day rather than continuously 
for any halogen scrubber. The second change from proposal is that Table 
9 to the final rule specifies that 40 CFR 63.8(a)(2) does not apply to 
affected sources under this rule. We made this change so that EPA 
Performance Specification 17 (PS-17) and EPA Quality Assurance 
Procedure 4, when finalized, will not apply to affected sources under 
this rule.
    In addition to monitoring requirements, the proposed rule 
referenced recordkeeping requirements in several other rules. To 
clarify these requirements, 40 CFR 63.11501(c) of the final rule lists 
all of the recordkeeping requirements and references the specific 
section in each rule that requires it. The notification and reporting 
requirements have also been revised in the final rule. For example, 
additional notification requirements have been incorporated into the 
final rule for certain transfer operations and overlapping rules as 
discussed above.

E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)

    During the comment period of the proposed rule, the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated two 
provisions in EPA's CAA Section 112 regulations governing the emissions 
of HAP during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Specifically, the 
Court vacated 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of 
a regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General Provisions Rule,'' 
that EPA promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated 
into CAA Section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, 
these two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with 
the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during 
periods of SSM.
    Industry intervenors appealed the December 2008 Sierra Club 
decision by filing petitions for rehearing. On July 30, 2009, the 
District of Columbia Circuit denied these petitions. On August 5, 2009, 
EPA filed a motion seeking a 60-day stay of the mandate. On August 6, 
2009, industry intervenors filed a motion to stay the mandate pending 
their appeal of the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The 
Court recently denied industry intervenors' motion to stay the mandate 
and granted EPA's motion, directing the Clerk of the Court not to issue 
the mandate prior to October 6, 2009. Until the District of Columbia 
Circuit issues the mandate effectuating the vacatur, 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 
and (h)(1) remain in effect.
    The proposed rule included a reference to 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 
(h)(1). In light of Sierra Club v. EPA, we revised Table 9, which 
addresses the applicability of the Part 63 General Provisions to the 
source categories at issue in this rule, to state that 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) do not apply. As such, the final emission 
standards summarized in section IV of this preamble apply at all times. 
As noted in section IV of this preamble, we are setting a separate 
emission standard for the nine source categories at issue here that 
applies to continuous process vents during periods of startup and 
shutdown, and that standard is 85 percent control, instead of the 95 
percent control required at all other times. We are establishing a 
separate emission standard for these periods because they are 
characterized by activities such as the filling, emptying, and inerting 
of vessels, which generally result in significantly different emissions 
than normal operations. As for batch processes, startup and shutdown 
are part of their normal operations and, therefore, are already 
addressed by the standards. In addition, storage tanks, heat exchange 
systems, and transfer operations do not include startup and shutdown 
activities.
    We have also added language making clear that, to the extent this 
rule incorporates by reference emission standards from other CAA 
section 112(d) rules, and those rules contain an exemption from the 
applicable emission standard during periods of SSM, that exemption does 
not apply for purposes of this rule.

F. Title V

    Pursuant to section 502(a) of the CAA, the Administrator may ``in 
the Administrator's discretion and consistent with the applicable 
provisions of [the Act], promulgate regulations to exempt one or more 
[non-major] source categories (in whole or in part) from the 
requirements of [title V] if the Administrator finds that compliance 
with such requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily 
burdensome on such categories. * * *'' We proposed to exempt the 
sources in the chemical manufacturing area source categories subject to 
this rule from compliance with the requirements of title V. Since 
proposal, we have reconsidered the proposed exemption and determined 
that it is not appropriate to finalize the exemption for certain 
synthetic area sources. Specifically, in proposing the exemption for 
these categories, we did not consider the large number of synthetic 
area sources that reduced their HAP emissions to below the major source 
thresholds by installing air pollution control devices. The oversight 
occurred because most sources subject to the other area source rules 
that exempted facilities from title V permitting have very low 
emissions before control (and most emit metal HAP). Conversely, for the 
chemical manufacturing area source category, we estimate 75 facilities 
are synthetic area sources for HAP and at least 10 percent of these 
facilities have uncontrolled HAP emissions over 100 tpy. Therefore, in 
the final rule, title V permits are required for area sources in the 
nine chemical manufacturing source categories that are synthetic area 
sources by virtue of the fact that they have reduced their HAP 
emissions to below the major source thresholds by installing air 
pollution control devices. We are, however, finalizing the exemption 
from the requirements of title V for those synthetic area sources that 
limited their HAP emissions to below the major source thresholds solely 
by complying with operational limits (e.g., limiting the hours the 
facility can operate) and for natural area sources, which are sources 
that neither installed controls nor took operational limits to become 
an area source. The analysis in the proposed rule finding that 
compliance with title V is unnecessarily burdensome on these source 
categories remains accurate for the sources we are exempting.
    Based on our additional review of the source categories since 
proposal, we conclude that exemption for the synthetic area sources 
that installed controls is not appropriate given the facts associated 
with these sources as set forth below, and we do not believe title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome on these area sources. Unlike many other area

[[Page 56014]]

source categories that we have exempted from title V while implementing 
the requirements of CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), the nine 
chemical manufacturing area source categories include a large number of 
synthetic area sources that installed air pollution controls to become 
area sources. We evaluated other area source categories and determined 
that most sources subject to the other area source rules that exempted 
facilities from title V permitting have very low emissions before 
control. For the chemical manufacturing area source categories, we 
estimate that at least seven of the 47 facilities that are synthetic 
area sources for HAP by virtue of installing controls would have 
uncontrolled HAP emissions over 100 tons per year. Synthetic area 
sources that installed controls represent more than 10 percent of the 
total number of sources that will be subject to the final rule. In 
fact, these sources are much more like the major sources of HAP subject 
to the HON and the MON. In addition, many of these sources are located 
in cities, and often in close proximity to residential and commercial 
centers where large numbers of people live and work. The record also 
indicates that many of these synthetic area sources have significantly 
higher emissions potential when uncontrolled than the other sources in 
the nine chemical manufacturing area source categories. For example, we 
have identified seven facilities that have uncontrolled emissions that 
exceed 100 tpy.
    For these reasons, we believe that the additional public 
participation and compliance benefits of additional informational, 
monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements that 
exist in title V should be the same for a major source that installed a 
control device after 1990 to become an area source as for a source that 
is major and installed a control device to comply with an applicable 
major source NESHAP, and thereby reduced emissions below major source 
levels (10 tpy of a single HAP or 25 tpy of total HAP). Many of the 
synthetic area sources that became area sources by virtue of installing 
add-on controls are large facilities with comprehensive compliance 
programs in place because their uncontrolled emissions would far exceed 
the major source threshold. We maintain that requiring additional 
public involvement and compliance assurance requirements through title 
V is important to ensure that these sources are maintaining their 
emissions at the area source level and, while there is some burden on 
the affected facilities, we think that the burden is not significant 
because these facilities are generally larger and more sophisticated 
than the natural area sources and sources that took operational limits 
to become area sources.
    For these reasons above, we have decided not to finalize the title 
V exemption for these facilities. The final rule requires title V 
permits for major sources of HAP emissions that installed controls 
after 1990 to become area sources of HAP emissions. We estimate that 
approximately 150 sources that will be subject to this rule are 
required to have title V permits because of criteria pollutants and the 
final rule will require an additional 47 affected area sources to 
obtain title V permits.
    We are not requiring title V permits for sources that reduced their 
emissions to area source levels by taking operational restrictions, 
such as restricting hours of operation or production, or for natural 
area sources. We conclude that our analysis in the proposed rule that 
title V is unnecessarily burdensome for sources in the Chemical 
Manufacturing source categories remains accurate for the sources we are 
exempting.

IV. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability

    The final NESHAP applies to each CMPU that is located at an area 
source of HAP emissions that uses as feedstocks, generates as 
byproducts, or produces as products any of the Table 1 HAP, where the 
Table 1 HAP are present in the feedstocks or are generated and present 
in the process fluid at concentrations greater than 0.1 percent for 
carcinogens, as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, and greater than 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens. A CMPU 
includes all process equipment, vents, and activities involved in the 
production of a material described by NAICS code 325, and it consists 
of one or more unit operations and all associated recovery devices. A 
CMPU also includes each surge control vessel, bottoms receiver, pump, 
compressor, agitator, pressure relief device or valve, sampling 
connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, storage 
tank, transfer rack, and instrumentation system associated with the 
production of NAICS code 325 materials. An affected source is the 
facility-wide collection of all CMPUs that use, generate, or produce 
one or more Table 1 HAP. An affected source also includes each heat 
exchange system and wastewater system that is associated with any CMPU 
that uses, generates, or produces one or more Table 1 HAP.
    The nine chemical manufacturing area source categories include 
production of most of the materials classified under NAICS 325. The 
final rule specifies applicability based on CMPUs that are used to 
produce chemicals classified under NAICS 325, except for production of 
materials in NAICS 325 that are subject to other area source standards, 
as specified in the rule, see 40 CFR 63.11494(c)(1), and specific 
operations that are not considered to be chemical manufacturing, such 
as photographic paper (NAICS 325992), as described in 40 CFR 
63.11494(c)(2) of the final rule.
    To be subject to the rule, the CMPU must use as feedstocks, 
generate as byproducts, or produce as products any of the 15 chemical 
manufacturing urban HAP. If the CMPU is subject to the final rule, the 
standards apply to all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP emitted from the 
CMPU and all CAA section 112(b) metal HAP emitted from the CMPU, 
depending on the type of HAP that triggers applicability under the 
rule. Specifically, a CMPU using only Table 1 organic HAP is required 
to control all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP from the CMPU, a CMPU 
using only Table 1 metal HAP is required to control all CAA section 
112(b) metal HAP from the CMPU, and a CMPU using both metal and organic 
Table 1 HAP is required to control all CAA section 112(b) metal and 
organic HAP

B. Compliance Dates

    All existing area source facilities with operations subject to this 
final rule must comply with the final rule requirements for their 
existing operations no later than October 29, 2012. A new area source 
must comply with the final rule requirements by October 29, 2009 or 
upon startup, whichever is later. For the purposes of determining 
compliance with the rule, a new source is a source that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after October 6, 2008.

C. Standards

    For each CMPU that is part of an affected source, the final rule 
requires you to implement management practices that apply to all 
process equipment and other equipment (e.g., pumps, valves, and 
connectors) in the CMPU. In addition to the management practices, the 
final rule requires compliance with numerical emission limits and 
additional emission control requirements for certain process vents, 
storage tanks, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, wastewater 
systems,

[[Page 56015]]

and heat exchange systems that meet specified conditions. Management 
practice requirements and all numerical emission limits and other 
emission control requirements, except the emission limit for batch 
process vents, are the same at existing and new sources.
1. Management Practices
    Owners and operators of CMPUs subject to this rule are required to 
comply with the following management practice requirements. All process 
vessels must be equipped with a cover or lid that is in place at all 
times when the vessel contains HAP, except for material addition and 
sampling. Transfer of liquids containing chemical manufacturing organic 
urban HAP to tank trucks or railcars must be conducted using submerged 
loading or bottom loading, except for reactive or resinous materials. 
You must identify each reactive or resinous material in your 
Notification of Compliance Status or the semiannual compliance report 
that covers the period when the material is first transferred. You must 
also conduct inspections of equipment within the CMPU quarterly to 
demonstrate compliance with the above management practices and confirm 
that all CMPU are sound and free of leaks. Any leaks must be repaired 
within 15 days of finding the leak or you must document the reason for 
the delay. In addition, you must keep records of the inspection dates, 
inspection results, and the dates of equipment repairs.
    Owners or operators of small heat exchange systems that are part of 
a CMPU subject to this subpart with a cooling water flow rate of less 
than 8,000 gallons per minute (gal/min) and that do not meet the 
criteria in 40 CFR 63.104(a) are required to develop a heat exchange 
system inspection plan that describes the inspections that will be 
performed to identify hydrocarbons in the cooling water. The 
inspections must be conducted quarterly and may include a number of 
sensory inspection options for determining indications of a leak, such 
as visible floating hydrocarbon, hydrocarbon odor, discolored water, or 
chemical addition rates. You must either perform repairs to eliminate 
indications of a leak or take samples and determine there is no leak 
(as defined in 40 CFR 63.104(b)(6)). Repairs must be completed within 
45 days after the inspection during which you observe indications of a 
leak, or you must document the reason for the delay. In addition, you 
must keep records of the heat exchange system inspection dates, 
inspection results, and the dates of leak repairs.
    As an alternative to the management practice requirements for small 
heat exchange systems, the final rule allows compliance with the 
requirements for large heat exchange systems with flow rates of 8,000 
gal/min or greater (i.e., the HON heat exchange system requirements in 
40 CFR 63.104(b) or (c)).
2. Standards for Batch Process Vents
    Owners and operators of a CMPU with collective uncontrolled organic 
HAP emissions greater than or equal to 10,000 lbs/yr from all batch 
process vents associated with an affected CMPU must meet emission 
limits for the organic HAP emissions. Examples of batch process vents 
include, but are not limited to, vents on reactors, filters, 
centrifuges, condensers used for product recovery, and process tanks. 
These vents include intermittent emissions from continuous operations 
as well as emissions from batch operations.
    For an existing source, one control option is to reduce the 
collective uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the CMPU by at least 
85 percent by venting emissions from a sufficient number of vents 
through one or more closed vent system to any combination of control 
devices (excluding a flare). Alternatively, you may route uncontrolled 
organic HAP emissions from one or more batch process vents within the 
CMPU through one or more closed vent systems and meet an outlet 
concentration limit of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) (as total 
organic carbon or total organic HAP) or through a closed vent system to 
a flare, and comply with the 85 percent reduction for the remaining 
vents in the CMPU. For a new source, the requirements are the same as 
for an existing source, except the required reduction is 90 percent 
instead of 85 percent.
    When halogenated organic HAP compounds from batch process vents are 
controlled by combustion, you must also reduce the hydrogen halide and 
halogen HAP generated in the combustion device by at least 95 percent, 
to no more than 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr), or to no more than 20 
ppmv. As an alternative to post-combustion halogen control, you may 
instead reduce the halogen atom mass emissions prior to the combustion 
device to no more than 0.45 kg/hr or 20 ppmv.
3. Standards for Continuous Process Vents
    We are finalizing the proposed GACT requirements for organic HAP 
emissions from each continuous process vent with a TRE index value less 
than or equal to 1.0. Specifically, organic HAP emissions from each 
continuous process vent with a TRE index value less than or equal to 
1.0 must meet any one of several emission control alternatives. One 
option is to reduce the organic HAP emissions by at least 95 percent by 
routing through a closed vent system to one or more control devices. 
Alternatively, you may route the emissions to a flare, or you may meet 
the concentration option described above for batch process vents. 
Because a continuous process vent is determined after the last recovery 
device, another option is to use a recovery device from which the vent 
stream is determined to have a TRE greater than 1.0. In addition, we 
are establishing a requirement to reduce the organic HAP emissions from 
continuous process vents with a TRE less than 1.0 by at least 85 
percent during periods of startup and shutdown. Halogenated organic 
emissions from continuous process vents are subject to the same 
requirements described above for halogenated organic HAP emissions from 
batch process vents.
4. Standards for Metal HAP Process Vents
    Owners and operators are required to reduce metal HAP emissions by 
at least 95 percent from each CMPU with uncontrolled metal HAP 
emissions of 400 lbs/yr or more. The metal HAP process vent emissions 
must be routed through a closed-vent system to a control device.
5. Standards for Storage Tanks, Surge Control Vessels, and Bottoms 
Receivers
    We are finalizing the proposed emission controls for emissions from 
storage tanks, surge control vessels, and bottoms receivers that have 
(1) a capacity of 40,000 gallons or greater with vapor pressure of 
total organic HAP of 5.2 kilopascals (kPa) or greater and less than 
76.6 kPa or (2) a capacity of 20,000 gallons or greater and less than 
40,000 gallons with vapor pressure of total organic HAP of 27.6 kPa or 
greater and less than 76.6 kPa. Control options in the final rule 
include: (1) Use of an internal or external floating roof; (2) venting 
through a closed vent system to a control device that reduces organic 
HAP emissions by at least 95 percent; (3) vapor balancing to the tank 
truck or railcar from which the tank is filled; (4) routing to a flare; 
or (5) routing to a fuel gas system or process. Storage tanks, surge 
control vessels, and bottoms receivers with capacity of 20,000 gallons 
or greater with vapor pressure of total organic HAP of 76.6 kPa or 
greater must be controlled using any of the above

[[Page 56016]]

options except a floating roof. Storage tanks, surge control vessels, 
or bottoms receivers with a vent stream that contains halogenated 
compounds and that is controlled by combustion must also meet the same 
requirements described above for halogenated batch process vents.
6. Standards for Wastewater Systems
    All wastewater discarded from a CMPU subject to the rule must be 
treated. In addition, each process wastewater stream and each 
maintenance wastewater stream in which the total PSHAP concentration is 
10,000 ppmw or greater, and which contains both an organic and an 
aqueous phase, must be decanted or separated by other techniques. 
Alternatively, wastewater streams that meet these conditions may be 
hard piped to onsite treatment as hazardous waste or hard piped to a 
collection tank or other vessel and shipped offsite for any of the same 
types of treatment. If the wastewater is separated into organic and 
aqueous layers, the organic material must be recycled to a process, 
used as fuel, or disposed of as hazardous waste. The separated aqueous 
phase, like other process wastewater and maintenance wastewater that 
does not separate into an organic and an aqueous phase, must receive 
some type of treatment, either onsite or offsite, as described above.
7. Standards for Heat Exchange Systems
    Owners or operators of heat exchange systems with cooling water 
flow rate of 8,000 gal/min or greater must develop and operate in 
accordance with a monitoring plan that documents the procedures to be 
used to detect leaks of process fluids into cooling water. The plan 
must require monitoring of one or more surrogate indicators or 
monitoring of one or more process parameters or other conditions that 
indicate a leak. You must conduct the monitoring at least quarterly. 
Leaks must be repaired within 45 calendar days after detection unless 
specified conditions for delay of repair are met. You must keep records 
of leaks detected by methods described in your monitoring plan or by 
other methods, and you must keep records of the dates of repairs. A 
compliance alternative has been incorporated into the final rule that 
allows compliance with the HON heat exchange system requirements in 40 
CFR 63.104(b). This alternative provides at least equivalent levels of 
HAP emission reductions as the standards that we are finalizing today.

D. Initial Compliance Requirements

    To demonstrate initial compliance with the management practices in 
the final rule, owners and operators of affected new and existing 
sources must certify that they have implemented all required management 
practices by the compliance date. To demonstrate initial compliance 
with the emissions control requirements, by the compliance date, the 
source must install and have operational, any required add on control 
equipment and/or have implemented any design requirements necessary to 
comply with the applicable standard.
    For batch process vents and metal HAP process vents, owners and 
operators must either calculate uncontrolled emissions or demonstrate 
that organic HAP usage is below 10,000 lb/yr or metal HAP usage is 
below 400 lb/yr. The final rule specifies that HAP emissions or usage 
may be determined based on process knowledge, engineering assessments, 
or test data. For continuous process vents with an organic HAP emission 
rate greater than 0.1 lb/hr, owners and operators must determine the 
TRE index value. For wastewater streams, owners and operators must 
determine if the PSHAP concentration exceeds 10,000 ppmw and contains 
separate aqueous and organic layers. All wastewater stream 
characterization determinations may be based on process knowledge, 
engineering assessments, or test data.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction or 
outlet concentration emission limit in this final rule, owners and 
operators must conduct either a performance test or design evaluation. 
Limits for operating parameters that will be monitored to demonstrate 
ongoing compliance must be established during the performance test or 
design evaluation.

E. Continuous Compliance Requirements

    Quarterly inspections are required to demonstrate compliance with 
the management practice requirements and the standards for large heat 
exchange systems. Storage tanks equipped with floating roofs are also 
subject to periodic inspections and, for external floating roofs, seal 
gap measurements. Control device operating parameters must be 
continuously monitored to demonstrate ongoing compliance with percent 
reduction or outlet concentration emission limits, and the continuous 
presence of a pilot flame must be verified in flares. Closed vent 
systems that convey emissions to a control device must be monitored 
using Method 21 or by audible, visual, or olfactory (AVO) techniques, 
depending on the construction material and the source of the emissions.

F. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    The owner or operator of a new or existing affected source is 
required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions 
to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 9 
of the final rule. Each facility is required to submit an Initial 
Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status according to the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions and 40 CFR 
63.11501 of the final rule. Among other things, the owner or operator 
must submit a compliance report for each semiannual reporting period 
during which a deviation occurred, a leak was not repaired within the 
specified time period, or a process change occurred that affected a 
previous compliance determination or resulted in a new compliance 
determination, including changes in the method of compliance.

V. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We received a total of 35 comments on the proposed rule from 
industry representatives, trade associations, State and Federal 
agencies, industry consultants, one environmental group, and the 
general public during the public comment period. In addition, two 
speakers provided testimony at a public hearing. Sections V.A through 
V.H of this preamble summarize the significant comments and explain our 
response. Other comments addressed minor clarifications to this rule or 
other issues that we did not consider to be significant; these comments 
and our responses to them are provided in the Response to Comments 
Document.

A. Applicability

    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA establish one or 
more de minimis applicability thresholds below which area sources that 
process or emit small amounts of urban HAP would be exempt from the 
rule. For example, some commenters requested a more comprehensive 
version of the proposed concentration thresholds of 0.1 and 1.0 percent 
urban HAP in feedstocks and products that would also apply to fuels, 
by-products, co-products, intermediates, HAP generated in the process, 
and/or catalysts. Other commenters requested a mass-based HAP usage or 
processing threshold (e.g., 2 megagrams per year or 25,000 lbs/yr), 
actual or uncontrolled HAP emissions thresholds between 50

[[Page 56017]]

lbs/yr and 6.25 tpy, a threshold based on the quantity of HAP stored 
onsite (consistent with the criteria that are used to determine 
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 311/312 Tier 2 reporting 
thresholds), or a combination of thresholds.
    Two commenters argued that EPA has legal authority to set de 
minimis applicability thresholds. One commenter noted that the courts 
have determined that EPA has the authority to establish de minimis 
thresholds where the application of the statutory requirements would be 
of trivial or no value environmentally (see Alabama Power Co. v. 
Costle, 636 F 2d 323.360-61; D.C. Cir. 1979). Another commenter noted 
that none of the provisions in the CAA related to EPA's obligation to 
regulate area sources expressly prohibits EPA from using thresholds to 
define the applicability of GACT standards, and they do not implicitly 
mandate that EPA must regulate every HAP emission from an area source.
    Furthermore, one commenter noted that the proposed rule already 
includes de minimis thresholds (the 0.1 percent and 1.0 percent urban 
HAP concentrations in feedstocks and products), and previous rules have 
included de minimis thresholds.
    Response: Regulation of the nine chemical manufacturing area source 
categories is necessary for the Agency to meet the requirements of CAA 
sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) to regulate area source categories 
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP. We listed 
the nine chemical manufacturing area source categories because they 
emit urban HAP and these categories were necessary to satisfy our 
requirement to regulate area sources representing 90 percent of the 
area source emissions of 15 of the 30 urban HAP. Area sources are, by 
definition, smaller sources and we recognize that the nine area source 
categories at issue are comprised of a large number of relatively small 
facilities. But we note that, although area sources individually may 
emit relatively low amounts of HAP, collectively, the level of 
emissions is significant.
    As discussed above and in the preamble to the proposed rule, the 
Agency determined that it was necessary to regulate these nine area 
source categories to fulfill the mandate of CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 
112(k)(3)(B) to regulate area sources accounting for 90 percent of the 
emissions of the urban HAP. In listing the nine chemical manufacturing 
area source categories at issue, the Agency did not condition the 
listing of any of the categories based on a de minimis level of 
emissions of the 15 chemical manufacturing urban HAP, beyond the 
feedstock and product limitations discussed below and in the proposed 
rule. We are, therefore, appropriately issuing emission standards that 
regulate the emissions of the 15 chemical manufacturing urban HAP.
    One commenter noted that EPA has included de minimis concentrations 
of urban HAP in feedstocks and products for purposes of determining 
applicability. In the proposed rule, feedstocks and products were 
defined as materials that contain the Table 1 HAP in concentrations 
greater than 0.1 percent for carcinogens or greater than 1.0 percent 
for noncarcinogens. As we have pointed out in several other area source 
rulemakings, the CAA section 112(k) inventory was primarily based on 
the 1990 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and that is the case for the 
chemical manufacturing area source categories as well. The reporting 
requirements for the TRI do not include de minimis concentrations of 
toxic chemicals in mixtures, as reflected in the above concentration 
levels; therefore, the CAA section 112(k) inventory would not have 
included emissions from operations involving chemicals below these 
concentration levels. See 40 CFR 372.38, Toxic Chemical Release 
Reporting: Community Right-To-Know (Reporting Requirements). 
Accordingly, the percentages noted above define the scope of the listed 
source category; they are not exemptions. We received no adverse 
comment on this issue, and we are finalizing the Table 1 HAP thresholds 
for feedstocks and products in this rule.
    We have reviewed the listing decision for the nine chemical 
manufacturing area source categories and have not identified any 
information suggesting that small sources were not included in our 
listing decision. As such, we do not believe we can satisfy our 
requirement to regulate sources representing 90 percent of the 
emissions of the chemical manufacturing urban HAP unless we subject all 
sources that emit those HAP to regulation in this rule.
    Comment: Many commenters stated that applicability of the affected 
source should be limited to individual emission points, individual 
process units, or the group of process units that involve urban HAP, 
not all chemical manufacturing operations, as was proposed. According 
to the commenters, this change is needed in order to alleviate burden 
and establish a cost-effective rule, particularly for specialty batch 
manufacturers that may operate processes that use an urban HAP 
infrequently. Commenters stated that EPA is not required to regulate 
HAP other than the 15 chemical manufacturing urban HAP needed to meet 
the 90 percent threshold. One commenter disagreed with EPA's basis for 
establishing the two batch process vent subcategories where EPA 
concluded that emissions > 19,000 lbs/yr represents solvent based, high 
production volume processes with concentrated emission streams. The 
commenter stated that this is only valid when applied to individual 
processes, but invalid when applied to entire sites. Another commenter 
stated that specialty chemical manufacturers would be 
disproportionately impacted by the proposed rule because of frequent 
variations and changes in product lines along with the unique aspects 
of batch processing. This commenter stated that specialty chemical 
producers will have to use thermal oxidizers with halogen controls, not 
condensers as EPA assumed, if all chemical manufacturing operations are 
covered. Commenters noted that costs to characterize wastewater streams 
that contain no urban HAP would be significant if all chemical 
manufacturing operations are covered. One commenter also expressed 
concern that a facility-wide grouping of operations is subject to 
various interpretations, which could lead to inconsistent 
implementation among the nine industry sectors covered by the rule. On 
the other hand, several commenters suggested that applicability be 
based on the familiar concept of ``chemical manufacturing process 
units'' as in other rules. Also, several commenters noted that a 
primary concern is that the proposed rule would require compliance 
facility-wide upon startup of any individual process that involves an 
urban HAP and that their concerns would be minimized, if not 
eliminated, if the affected source were based on process units that 
involve urban HAP rather than all chemical manufacturing operations.
    Response: In the preamble to the proposed rule we explained the 
Agency's authority to regulate all HAP, not only urban HAP, for those 
area source categories needed to achieve the 90 percent requirement in 
CAA section 112(c)(3). See 73 FR 58358. In the proposal, we explained 
that we were applying the standards to the entire facility and all HAP 
because the management practice requirements are equally effective for 
all HAP and there is little, if any, additional cost for implementing 
the management practices for all emission sources. In addition, where 
add-on controls are required, demonstrating compliance for total HAP

[[Page 56018]]

is less burdensome than demonstrating compliance for speciated HAP and 
that the controls are equally effective at reducing non-urban HAP 
emissions. We also explained that it was our understanding that process 
vents could be ducted together easily so that the cost for controlling 
HAP emissions from all process vents would not greatly increase if the 
rule so applied. We also assumed when proposing the rule that 
facilities in these categories generally have only one or two processes 
and that the processes are in close proximity to one another and that 
facilities are not changing products or processes on a regular basis.
    Commenters contend that many of our assumptions were in error and 
that if we based rule applicability on a CMPU basis instead of a 
facility wide basis the cost of compliance with the rule and many of 
their concerns would be addressed. As discussed below, based on the 
commenters' suggestion and an evaluation of the industry and costs 
associated with the proposed rule, we have in the final rule defined 
the affected source as the CMPUs that emit the Table 1 HAP and the heat 
exchange systems and wastewater systems associated with those CMPUs 
instead of requiring compliance for the entire facility if one process 
contains Table 1 HAP. As discussed in more detail below, we believe 
that most of our assumptions at proposal remain accurate because of 
this change.
    In addition, as we stated in the proposal, we continue to believe 
that we have the authority to address all CAA section 112(b) organic 
and metal HAP for those CMPUs subject to this final rule. Commenters 
argue that EPA is not legally required to address all HAP, but they do 
not state that the Agency has exceeded its discretion in doing so. For 
the reasons set forth in the proposal, we appropriately exercised our 
discretion to regulate the HAP at issue in this final rule. Moreover, 
the commenter does not refute that the management practices and 
emission limits are equally effective at removing non-urban metal and 
organic HAP, and that demonstrating compliance for total HAP is less 
burdensome than demonstrating compliance for speciated HAP for those 
sources required to install add-on controls. For these reasons, the 
final rule requires area sources to control all 112(b) organic HAP from 
a CMPU that emits a Table 1 organic HAP and control all 112(b) metal 
HAP from a CMPU that emits Table 1 metal HAP, as well as the heat 
exchange systems and wastewater systems associated with those CMPUs.
    At proposal we estimated four facilities would have uncontrolled 
batch process vent emissions greater than 19,000 lbs/yr, we assumed 
condensers could be used to control the emissions, and we estimated the 
total annual control cost would be $0.1 million/yr. We did not consider 
costs for facilities that are currently controlled to levels less than 
the proposed 90 percent level. After reevaluating the data, we estimate 
that 19 facilities have uncontrolled emissions greater than 19,000 lbs/
yr, including the four uncontrolled facilities from the proposed 
analysis and another four facilities with control levels greater than 
90 percent. If we had accounted for facilities with low current control 
levels, assumed centralized thermal oxidizers would be needed, and 
assumed considerably more duct work and related manifolding equipment 
was needed to connect numerous vents from several processes rather than 
only one or two processes, then the costs would be at least $2.1 
million/yr, and the cost-effectiveness would be at least $17,000/ton of 
HAP controlled.
    Because of our misunderstanding of the sources' configuration, we 
significantly underestimated the costs of compliance with the proposed 
rule when we defined the affected source as the entire facility if 
Table 1 HAP was emitted from any process. As stated above, we are 
revising the rule to require compliance only by CMPUs that emit one of 
the Table 1 HAP and heat exchange systems and wastewater systems 
associated with those CMPUs. Under the new construct, the cost and 
technological assumptions we made in the proposal are correct because 
the process vents of a CMPU are most likely to be located in the same 
building or otherwise in close proximity. In addition, estimating HAP 
in process vents and wastewater on a process basis is more consistent 
with normal operating practices for batch processes, and the owner or 
operator can estimate annual emissions by tracking the number of 
batches.
    With this change, we are addressing the concern raised by some 
commenters that for complex facilities (according to a commenter the 
number of processes can exceed 100) costs may be significant for 
ducting all batch vents to a central control device. The change will 
also limit applicability such that the commenters' concern that the 
proposed rule would require compliance facility-wide upon startup of 
any individual process that involves an urban HAP will be eliminated. 
The Agency was mindful of the concern that requiring facility-wide 
compliance for each new process using a Table 1 HAP could affect a 
source's willingness to experiment with new products containing a Table 
1 HAP. In addition, the costs to comply with such a rule would be 
significant and sources would not know whether new product lines would 
be profitable before being developed or whether the attempts to develop 
new products would be successful. Under the final rule, facilities 
using, producing, or generating a Table 1 HAP in a CMPU will only have 
to comply with the rule for that specific CMPU.
    The change in scope of the affected source in the final rule from 
the entire facility to the CMPUs that emit Table 1 HAP is necessary 
because of our incorrect assumptions at proposal, as explained above. 
The actual costs and environmental benefits for the final rule will be 
similar to what was projected in the proposed rule. The rule will 
regulate the same number of facilities, the rule will require add-on 
controls for approximately the same number of units that we estimated 
at the time of proposal, and the rule will achieve comparable 
reductions of HAP and particulate matter (PM) emissions.
    Although commenters agreed that EPA has the authority to regulate 
non-urban HAP, they suggest that the Agency only regulate the Table 1 
HAP to reduce the burden and costs of compliance for some area sources. 
We believe we have addressed these concerns by redefining the affected 
source to be on a CMPU basis. If the CMPU uses, generates, or produces 
one of the chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP, then the standards 
apply to all CAA section 112(b) organic HAP in the affected CMPU. 
Similarly, if the CMPU uses, generates, or produces one of the chemical 
manufacturing metal urban HAP, then the standards apply to all CAA 
section 112(b) metal HAP in the process units and the associated vents. 
We continue to believe that the costs of controlling all organic or 
metal HAP, as applicable, are reasonable. We find here, as we explained 
at proposal, that the management practices and control requirements in 
this rule that reduce urban organic HAP and urban metal HAP from the 
affected sources are equally affective at reducing all CAA section 
112(b) organic HAP or metal HAP, respectively.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested exempting biological products 
(NAICS 325414), tall oil recovery systems, and carbon monoxide so that 
the area source rule is consistent with the MON. One commenter 
requested that the rule explicitly state whether or not it applies to 
ethanol production facilities.
    Response: We have not exempted the cited processes, including 
industrial ethanol production, because they are

[[Page 56019]]

included in the scope of the nine listed area source categories (NAICS 
325). However, the rule does not apply to beverage alcohol production, 
which is in NAICS 312.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that facilities not be 
required to consider the presence of urban metal HAP in catalysts when 
determining applicability of the rule because the catalysts remain 
unchanged in the process equipment for significant periods of time, and 
their use results in little, if any, emissions. One commenter observed 
that, for catalysts, the potential for emissions is only from their 
production and recycling, not their use in fixed beds.
    Other commenters requested exemptions for other forms of metals 
(e.g., in nutrients for biological processes and metals in piping).
    Response: We are concerned only with metal HAP emissions. Metal HAP 
in structures and metal HAP existing as articles (as defined in 40 CFR 
372.3), where no metal HAP is released to the atmosphere, are not 
covered by this rule. However, if the use of catalysts in the processes 
results in Table 1 metal HAP emissions from the CMPU, then the CMPU is 
subject to the applicable standards for the affected CMPU. If the 
commenters' assessment of the level of emissions is accurate, 
management practices would likely apply in these cases because the 
sources would likely not fall within the subcategory for which add-on 
emission controls are required.

B. Compliance Dates

    Comment: Several commenters requested adequate compliance time for 
existing sources that do not become subject to the rule until a change 
introduces urban HAP for the first time after promulgation of the final 
rule or the initial compliance date. The commenters indicated that such 
a situation would occur if a facility (1) adds a new process, with or 
without new equipment, that introduces an urban HAP, or (2) makes a 
process change that introduces an urban HAP (perhaps unexpectedly as an 
impurity in a feedstock or generated as a byproduct). Several 
commenters also requested adequate compliance time for new sources.
    Response: The rule has a compliance period of 3 years for existing 
sources as authorized in the Part 63 General Provisions and section 
112(i)(3) of the CAA. New processes at an existing source, whether for 
a new process unit or to expand an existing process unit, would become 
part of the existing source. If an existing source starts using a Table 
1 HAP after the compliance date for existing sources has passed, the 
affected CMPU must comply with the standards at the time the new 
process begins. New sources must be in compliance upon startup or the 
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, 
whichever is later.

C. Standards

1. General Issues
    Comment: One commenter stated that, while the CAA gives the Agency 
the authority to issue GACT standards under section 112(d)(5) for area 
sources, EPA's decision to issue GACT standards instead of MACT 
standards is only valid if the Agency provides a rational explanation 
to support the decision. The commenter further stated that EPA provided 
no explanation for its decision to issue GACT standards instead of MACT 
standards and that this alone makes the Agency's decision arbitrary and 
capricious. The commenter also maintains that the Agency evaluated 
proposed GACT measures by considering only cost-effectiveness. The 
commenter states that the Agency rejected on cost-effectiveness grounds 
the control options for the following emission sources: continuous 
process vents with a TRE greater than 1; batch process vents for 
facilities emitting less than 19,000 lbs/yr of organic HAP emissions; 
metal HAP process vents for facilities emitting less than 100 lbs/yr; 
cooling tower systems with cooling water flow rates less than 8,000 
gal/min; equipment leaks; and transfer operations. The commenter 
maintains that the statute does not direct EPA to set standards based 
on cost-effectiveness, and that the Agency cannot and does not argue 
that the control measures that were rejected are not appropriate for 
application by chemical manufacturing plants. The commenter also argues 
that the Agency does not claim that the economic impacts are too great, 
explain how profitable the plants are, or how economically significant 
the controls would be on the sources if required in this rule. The 
commenter maintains that EPA based its decision only on the Agency's 
views on cost-effectiveness and that EPA's views on this issue are not 
relevant under CAA section 112(d)(5) and, therefore, the standards are 
unlawful.
    Response: As the commenter recognizes, in CAA section 112(d)(5), 
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission 
standards for area sources. Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(5), which 
is entitled ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:

    With respect only to categories and subcategories of area 
sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the 
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph 
(2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate 
standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories 
or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available 
control technologies or management practices by such sources to 
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

See CAA section 112(d)(5) (Emphasis added).
    There are two critical aspects to CAA section 112(d)(5). First, CAA 
section 112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of 
area sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c). The commenter does 
not dispute that EPA listed the nine area source categories noted above 
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). Second, CAA section 112(d)(5) 
provides that, for area sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), 
EPA ``may, in lieu of '' the authorities provided in CAA section 
112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to promulgate standards pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(5). CAA Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission 
standards established under that provision ``require the maximum degree 
of reduction in emissions'' of HAP (also known as MACT). CAA section 
112(d)(3), in turn, defines what constitutes the ``maximum degree of 
reduction in emissions'' for new and existing sources. See CAA section 
112(d)(3).\6\ Webster's dictionary defines the phrase ``in lieu of '' 
to mean ``in the place of '' or ``instead of.'' See Webster's II New 
Riverside University (1994). Thus, CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA 
to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) that provide for 
the use of GACT, instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does not set any condition 
precedent for issuing standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) other than 
that the area source category or subcategory at issue must be

[[Page 56020]]

one that EPA listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), which is the case 
here.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(3) sets the minimum degree 
of emission reduction that MACT standards must achieve, which is 
known as the MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of emission 
reduction shall not be less stringent than the emission control that 
is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, and 
for existing sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be 
less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for which the 
Administrator has emissions information. CAA Section 112(d)(2) 
directs EPA to consider whether more stringent emission reductions 
(so called beyond-the-floor limits) are technologically achievable 
considering, among other things, the cost of achieving the emission 
reduction.
    \7\ CAA Section 112(d)(5) also references CAA section 112(f). 
See CAA section 112(f)(5) (entitled ``Area Sources'' and providing 
that EPA is not required to conduct a review or promulgate standards 
under CAA section 112(f) for any area source category or subcategory 
listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3), and for which an emission 
standard is issued pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for issuing 
GACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards. 
The commenter is incorrect, however. Had Congress intended that EPA 
first conduct a MACT analysis for each area source category, and only 
if cost or some other reason made applying the MACT standard 
inappropriate for the category, would EPA be able to issue a standard 
under CAA section 112(d)(5), Congress would have stated so expressly in 
CAA section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to conduct any MACT 
analysis, floor analysis, or beyond-the-floor analysis, before the 
Agency could issue a CAA section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress 
authorized EPA to issue GACT standards for area source categories 
listed under CAA section 112(c), and that is precisely what EPA has 
done in this rulemaking.
    Although EPA has no obligation to justify why it is issuing a GACT 
standard for an area source category as opposed to a MACT standard, we 
did explain at proposal that being able to consider costs and economic 
impacts is important when establishing standards for categories like 
these with many small sources. Furthermore, EPA must set a GACT 
standard that is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 
112(d)(5) and have a reasoned basis for its GACT determination. As 
explained in the proposed rule and below, in determining what 
constitutes GACT for a particular area source category, EPA evaluates 
the control technologies and management practices that reduce HAP 
emissions that are generally available for the area source category. 
See 73 FR 58354. The legislative history supporting CAA section 
112(d)(5) provides that EPA may consider costs in determining what 
constitutes GACT for the area source category.\8\ EPA cannot consider 
cost in setting MACT floors, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3). 
Congress plainly recognized that area sources differ from major 
sources, which is why Congress permitted EPA to consider costs in 
setting GACT standards for area sources under CAA section 112(d)(5), 
but did not permit that consideration in setting MACT floors for major 
sources. This important dichotomy between CAA section 112(d)(3) and CAA 
section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress sought to do 
precisely what the title of CAA section 112(d)(5) states--provide EPA 
the authority to issue ``[a]lternative standards for area sources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Additional information on the definition of ``generally 
available control technology or management practices'' (GACT) is 
found in the Senate report on the 1990 amendments to the CAA (S. 
Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st session. 171-172). That report 
states that GACT is to encompass:
    * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the commenter's claim, EPA properly issued 
standards for the area source categories at issue here under CAA 
section 112(d)(5), and cost-effectiveness was not the only 
consideration in setting the standards. As stated in the preamble to 
the proposed rule:

    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the 
control technologies and management practices that are generally 
available to the area sources in the source category. We also 
consider the standards applicable to major sources in the same 
industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and 
management practices are transferable and generally available to 
area sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider 
technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar 
categories to determine whether such technologies and practices 
could be considered generally available for the area source category 
at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT for a 
particular area source category, we consider the costs and economic 
impacts of available control technologies and management practices 
on that category.

73 FR 58354, October 6, 2008.

    As the commenter noted, EPA proposed emission standards for eight 
identified emission sources at chemical manufacturing area sources: 
Continuous process vents; batch process vents; metal HAP process vents; 
storage tanks; cooling tower systems; equipment leaks; transfer 
operations; and wastewater systems. We also proposed to subcategorize 
continuous process vents, batch process vents, metal HAP process vents, 
storage tanks, cooling tower systems, and wastewater systems based on 
variations of the size and type of the facility or the affected 
operation. We reviewed the GACT applied at area sources in the chemical 
manufacturing source categories at issue for each of the emission 
sources covered in the proposed rule. In determining what was generally 
available, we first considered what was generally available for each 
category or subcategory of emission source based on what was being 
applied at facilities or for emissions sources of a similar size and/or 
type of facility or emission source. For example, for continuous 
process vents, we considered what controls and management practices 
were in place for units with a TRE greater than 1 and what controls and 
management practices were in place for units with a TRE less than 1. 
For batch process vents, we considered what controls and management 
practices were in place at facilities that emitted more than 19,000 
lbs/yr of organic HAP emissions and what controls and management 
practices were in place at facilities that emitted less than 19,000 
lbs/yr of organic HAP emissions. We also considered the control 
technologies and management practices employed by chemical 
manufacturing area sources already subject to standards, by facilities 
in other areas source categories, and by chemical manufacturing major 
sources. 73 FR 58366.
    After determining what controls and management practices were 
generally available to the emission sources in the nine source 
categories at issue, we considered the costs and economic impacts 
associated with requiring the various controls and management practices 
before determining what constituted GACT for each emission source. The 
Agency specifically considered the cost-effectiveness of the different 
control technologies and management practices on the categories and 
subcategories of emission sources as a means of evaluating the costs of 
those emission standards. EPA evaluated the controls and management 
practices that were generally available and, in certain circumstances, 
determined that GACT was not add-on controls because the cost-
effectiveness of such controls would not have been reasonable if 
applied to all facilities or emission sources in a given category or 
subcategory.
    Contrary to the commenter's assertions, the Agency's consideration 
of cost-effectiveness in establishing GACT and the Agency's views on 
what is a cost-effective requirement under CAA section 112(d)(5) are 
relevant. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit has stated that cost-effectiveness is a reasonable 
measure of cost as long as the statute does not mandate a specific 
method of determining cost. See Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 349 U.S. App. D.C. 
118, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Finding EPA's decision to 
consider costs on a per ton of emissions removed basis reasonable 
because CAA section 213 did not mandate a specific method of cost 
analysis). CAA section 112(d)(5) does

[[Page 56021]]

not mandate a specific method for considering cost when setting GACT 
standards.
    The commenter has provided no information to support the argument 
that add-on control requirements for process vents, storage tanks, and 
heat exchange systems are generally available for all such emission 
sources in each of the subcategories. The commenter also failed to 
provide any information indicating that our cost-effectiveness 
determinations were unreasonable and, likewise, failed to provide any 
information concerning the economic impacts associated with requiring 
the standards that the commenter suggests represent GACT. The commenter 
appears to take issue with the manner in which the Agency establishes 
GACT but provides no alternative approach, instead only attacking the 
Agency's consideration of cost (i.e., cost-effectiveness) as a 
consideration in the establishment of GACT. The Agency proposed GACT 
standards for the nine chemical manufacturing area source categories 
and subcategories that were established consistent with the 
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(5).
    Comment: To avoid duplicative and conflicting requirements and to 
minimize burden, several commenters requested clarification of 
requirements when parts of an affected source under the area source 
NESHAP are also subject to requirements under other rules. 
Collectively, the commenters requested that the final rule address 
overlap with Part 60 NSPS in subparts Kb, VV, VVa, DDD, III, NNN, RRR, 
and the proposed YYY; Part 61 NESHAP in subparts V (as referenced from 
subparts F and J), L, Y, BB, and FF; subparts AA, BB, and CC in parts 
264 and 265; State and local leak detection and repair (LDAR) 
requirements; other area source rules; and permit requirements that 
incorporate MACT standards. The commenters made three types of 
suggestions: (1) Specify that compliance with provisions in the other 
rule demonstrates compliance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart VVVVVV, (2) allow compliance with whichever rule is the most 
stringent, or (3) exempt sources from the requirements in the area 
source rule when another rule applies. For example, one commenter 
requested that compliance with any existing Federal, State, local, or 
permitted LDAR requirements be allowed to demonstrate compliance with 
the subpart VVVVVV equipment leak standards, provided the current 
requirements are at least as stringent as the final subpart VVVVVV 
standards. This commenter also requested exclusions from the wastewater 
standards for any wastewater stream that is subject to 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart FF, whether or not treatment is required under subpart FF, and 
for any wastewater streams that become subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart YYY after the compliance date of subpart YYY. Another commenter 
stated that when more than one area source rule applies, sources should 
be allowed to opt for compliance with the more stringent requirements.
    Response: Provisions regarding overlap between 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart VVVVVV and other rules are included in the final rule. 
Compliance with provisions in overlapping rules as a means of 
demonstrating compliance with this final rule is allowed to the extent 
that requirements in the overlapping rule are at least as stringent as 
the requirements in subpart VVVVVV. For example, if the emission 
limits, monitoring requirements, and associated recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements in the overlapping rule are all at least as 
stringent as the requirements in subpart VVVVVV, then compliance with 
the overlapping rule demonstrates compliance with subpart VVVVVV. 
Conversely, if all of the provisions in subpart VVVVVV are more 
stringent than the corresponding requirements in the overlapping rule, 
then the final rule requires compliance with all of the provisions in 
subpart VVVVVV. In all other situations where some provisions in the 
overlapping rule are more stringent and others are less stringent than 
those in this final rule, an owner or operator may demonstrate 
compliance with the final rule by complying with all of the most 
stringent requirements, whichever rule they are from. Specifically, to 
comply with any requirement (emission limit, monitoring requirement, 
recordkeeping requirement, and/or reporting requirement) in an 
overlapping rule as an alternative to the requirement in subpart 
VVVVVV, an owner or operator must first determine that the requirement 
in the overlapping rule is at least as stringent as the corresponding 
requirement in subpart VVVVVV. This determination also must be 
documented in the notification of compliance status or, for processes 
added in the future, in the semiannual compliance report that covers 
the period when the process starts up. The final rule also states that 
sources are responsible for making accurate determinations concerning 
the more stringent standard and noncompliance with this rule is not 
excused if it is later determined that the source was in error in its 
initial notification of compliance and, as a result, is violating this 
rule. Compliance with this rule is the responsibility of the affected 
source regardless of any notification of compliance or semiannual 
compliance report.
    Although the final rule includes these provisions for minimizing 
the compliance burden associated with overlapping rules, we did not 
include all of the commenters' other suggestions, for the reasons 
discussed below.
    We disagree with one commenter's suggestion that a wastewater 
stream subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, but exempt from treatment 
under subpart FF should also be exempt from treatment requirements 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV. The subpart FF requirements apply 
to the benzene content of the stream (or the total benzene in all 
waste). The benzene content has no relationship to the urban HAP (or 
other PSHAP) content of the stream. Therefore, treatment in accordance 
with subpart FF satisfies the treatment requirement under the final 
rule, but a stream that contains PSHAP and is exempt from treatment 
under subpart FF must receive treatment under this final rule.
    40 CFR part 63, Subpart VVVVVV and another area source rule should 
never apply at the same time because the affected sources do not 
overlap. However, equipment could be subject to subpart VVVVVV and 
either the chemical preparations or paint and allied products area 
source rules at different times depending on what is being produced. In 
these situations, sources should comply with each rule, whenever it is 
applicable. Alternatively, the owner or operator may determine the most 
stringent requirements in the applicable rules and comply with that 
combination of requirements at all times.
    Coke by-product recovery plants are not part of the chemical 
manufacturing area source category (i.e., they are described by NAICS 
324199, All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing); 
therefore, 40 CFR part 61, subpart L does not overlap with 40 CFR part 
63, subpart VVVVVV.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed management 
practice requirements for process vents and storage tanks should not be 
finalized. Each of these commenters objected to the management practice 
requirements for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The proposed 
requirements are not GACT because they are not industry practice, are 
not required in other rules, achieve little or no emission reduction, 
and cost more than EPA has estimated;

[[Page 56022]]

(2) some equipment is not designed to operate with covers or enclosed, 
often because to do so would jeopardize the physical integrity of the 
unit (i.e., pressure/vacuum vents on storage tanks); and/or (3) the 
requirements duplicate and/or potentially conflict with the proposed 
requirements for equipment leaks.
    Several commenters made additional points. Two commenters stated 
that operating under vacuum should be exempted from or allowed as an 
alternative to having all closure mechanisms in the closed position. 
One commenter stated that equipment integrity verification procedures 
that are part of CGMP required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 
for pharmaceutical production processes should be recognized as an 
acceptable alternative to the management practices. One commenter 
requested an exemption from inspection requirements for inaccessible 
and unsafe openings, and another commenter noted that the burden 
estimates did not appear to reflect the cost to inspect openings that 
are not generally accessible. One commenter stated that, in order to 
protect themselves against disagreements with enforcement agencies, 
facilities will feel the need to use instrument-based LDAR techniques 
instead of the required sensory-based inspections.
    One commenter indicated that facilities supplement applicable 
equipment leak regulations by having operation personnel watch for AVO 
indications of a hydrocarbon leak during their rounds, but they do not 
specifically check ``openings'' in equipment. Another commenter 
suggested that EPA rely on the equipment leak provisions because many 
of the elements in the proposed management practice requirements are 
already addressed in the equipment leak provisions.
    Several commenters presented estimates of the level of effort and 
costs to implement the proposed management practices. One commenter 
estimated that total setup and training time would involve 100 hours 
for operations personnel, 20 hours of technical time, and 10 hours of 
administrative support. This commenter also estimated 20 to 40 hours to 
conduct each inspection, and an additional 5 to 10 hours of 
administrative support per inspection to manage the program.
    A second commenter estimated 40 hours of engineering time to 
develop the initial list of openings and equipment, and 4 hours per 
year to maintain the list. In addition, this commenter estimated each 
inspection would take 24 hours of technician time, and a cost of 
several thousand dollars would be incurred for scaffolding and man-lift 
rentals. Overall, this commenter estimated the average cost to be about 
$6,000/yr per facility; however, the commenter estimated the cost for 
one facility would be cut by a factor of 5 if the rule applied only to 
processes using or emitting urban HAP rather than all processes.
    A third commenter estimated the cost for process vent inspections 
to be about $1,200/yr rather than the $300/yr estimated by EPA because 
of the potentially large number of process vents that would have to be 
considered under the proposed applicability requirements.
    A fourth commenter estimated 4 hours per process for setup of the 
data management system, 1.25 hours per inspection per process, and a 
contractor fee of $125/hr.
    Response: In consideration of the specific comments on management 
practices as well as comments above regarding the scope of the affected 
source, we have made several changes to the proposed management 
practices. We made these changes because the proposed management 
practice requirements were redundant for CMPU with both batch and 
continuous process vents because the proposed requirements for both 
emission points applied to all process equipment. In addition, a more 
streamlined approach reduces the compliance burden without causing an 
increase in emissions.
    In the final rule, the various proposed management practices for 
process vents, equipment leaks, transfer operations, and storage tanks 
were consolidated and simplified into one comprehensive set of 
management practices that are applicable to each affected CMPU. The 
comprehensive management practices in the final rule include 
requirements to equip each vessel with a cover or lid that must be in 
place when the vessel contains HAP (except for material addition and 
sampling) and to conduct sensory inspections for leaks throughout each 
affected CMPU on a quarterly basis. The proposed inspections for 
equipment leaks are included without change in the final management 
practice requirements, but the final rule also requires comparable 
inspections for leaks from process equipment in a CMPU (e.g., reactors, 
distillation units, process tanks) and for storage tanks that are part 
of a CMPU and that store liquid that contains any Table 1 organic urban 
HAP.
    We have also reevaluated the costs of the management practices. In 
the proposal, we estimated the cost of inspections for equipment leaks 
to be $1,187 per year per affected facility. This estimate included 
initial costs of $1,200 for 15 hours for planning and training that 
were annualized over 10 years plus estimated costs for quarterly 
inspection, recordkeeping, and program administration. The average time 
for an inspection and related recordkeeping was estimated to be 2 hours 
(8 hours per year) per facility, and an additional 7 hours per year 
were estimated for administration. We also estimated in the proposal 
that management practice inspections for batch process vents, 
continuous process vents, metal HAP process vents, and storage tanks 
each would take four hours per year, and that recordkeeping related to 
the inspections would require 1 hour per year. The total cost per 
inspection was estimated to be $276 per year (or $1,100/yr for a 
facility with all four types of emission points). This total is 
consistent with the low end of the range presented by commenters.
    As discussed in sections III.A and V.A of this preamble, the final 
rule includes a narrower definition of the affected source and we 
believe that this will result in a lower level of effort for conducting 
the inspections required by the management practices. Instead of 
facility-wide inspections as anticipated at proposal, the final rule 
requires inspections only for CMPUs that use, generate or produce Table 
1 urban HAP. Therefore, we think that the overall estimates from 
commenters are higher than warranted for the final rule. This is 
supported by one commenter's estimate of $240/yr (instead of $1,200/yr) 
for management practice costs if the inspections apply only to process 
units containing chemical manufacturing urban HAP.
    The overall time estimated for the final management practice 
requirements is less than the total time for the proposed equipment 
leak inspections and management practices for process vents and storage 
tanks. This is due to fewer process units being subject to management 
practice requirements under the final rule. For the final standards, we 
assumed 3 hours for each inspection of an average affected facility 
with organic HAP and 2 hours for each inspection of an average facility 
with metal HAP. The estimated time is lower for facilities with metal 
HAP because the inspections will be focused more on openings than on 
leak points (e.g., inspections of pumps and valves are not relevant 
because metal HAP is only released from process units). We also assumed 
2 hours per year for recordkeeping at an average facility. Overall, the 
inspection and recordkeeping time was estimated to be

[[Page 56023]]

14 hrs/yr per facility for organic HAP and 10 hrs/yr per facility for 
metal HAP. We also estimated that the average initial planning and 
setup costs for management practices is the same as the proposed 
estimate for the equipment leak inspections. As a result, the total 
cost was estimated to be $1,500 per year for an affected facility with 
organic HAP and $1,200 per year for an affected facility with metal HAP 
emissions. These estimates are in reasonable agreement with the 
estimates of costs for management practices put forth by several of the 
commenters that suggested the applicability of the rule be based on the 
CMPUs using Table 1 HAP as opposed to the entire facility as in the 
proposed rule.
    One commenter stated that some equipment is not designed to operate 
with covers or enclosed, often because to do so would jeopardize the 
physical integrity of the unit, but the commenter only listed pressure/
vacuum vents on storage tanks. Because pressure/vacuum vents are not 
openings as we contemplate them in the final rule, and are instead part 
of the necessary design of certain tanks used for storage, we have 
determined that there is no need to amend the final rule to address 
this comment.
2. Batch and Continuous Process Vents
    Comment: One commenter supported the proposed GACT control level of 
90 percent for batch process vents as a reasonable approach for 
pharmaceutical manufacturing area sources. Other commenters, however, 
stated that the proposed control levels for both batch process vents 
and continuous process vents are too high to be GACT. According to one 
commenter, most State implementation plans (e.g., Ohio) contain 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) requirements that set control efficiency between 81 
and 90 percent. Instead of using combustion controls that are typical 
at major sources, this commenter further stated that area sources most 
likely use condensers, carbon adsorption systems, or other material 
recovery systems, which have emission removal efficiencies in the 85 to 
95 percent range. Therefore, the commenter encouraged EPA to adopt 85 
percent removal as GACT for both batch process vents and continuous 
process vents. According to another commenter, the control level at 
existing sources should be set at 90 percent for combustion devices 
other than flares and 80 percent for process condensers. This commenter 
noted that a condenser at one of their facilities is permitted for 85 
percent control and pointed out that the efficiency of condensers 
varies with changes in ambient temperature, humidity, and the type and 
concentration of HAP in the emission stream.
    In addition to (or instead of) changing the required control level, 
several commenters suggested that existing controls be grandfathered 
because it would not be cost-effective to replace them. For example, 
one commenter suggested grandfathering any control equipment currently 
in compliance with State air pollution rules and permits until the next 
reconstruction or replacement of the control device or 10 years after 
the effective date of the rule, whichever occurs first. Another 
commenter requested grandfathering provisions for control devices 
achieving at least 80 percent reductions, either voluntarily or in 
accordance with State rules or permits. Another commenter stated that 
EPA should grandfather controls installed recently to meet RACT 
requirements.
    Response: Based on comments received on the control efficiency 
requirements, we have reviewed and revised the GACT analysis for batch 
process vents. At proposal, detailed information on the control levels 
achieved at area sources was limited. Because we had limited control 
information, we pointed to various control level data at major source 
facilities in the source categories of interest and we assumed that 
these major source controls were used at or were transferable to area 
sources. Multiple commenters pointed out that the control efficiency 
requirement in the proposal was too high and reflective of major 
sources only and was not consistent with the typical control 
efficiencies achieved for batch process vents at their area source 
facilities. Multiple comments provided information that the control 
efficiency at area sources was lower than the control levels achieved 
at major sources. Commenters stated that control efficiency at an area 
source is in the range of 81 percent to 95 percent. Commenters also 
noted that area sources use condensers and recovery systems with 
control efficiencies lower than 90 percent. Based on a revised cost 
analysis, which considers existing control devices and efficiencies, we 
have determined that the GACT control efficiency for existing batch 
process vents should be 85 percent. We estimated that 13 process units 
that will be subject to the emission limit for batch process vents in 
the final rule are not already controlled to at least 85 percent. The 
total annual costs to control the batch process vents in these process 
units are estimated to be $360,000 and the cost-effectiveness is 
estimated to be $8,500/ton organic HAP. We do not have sufficient 
information to estimate the number of process units that have batch 
process vents controlled to levels between 85 percent and 90 percent. 
Based on the comments, there may be many such processes. However, if 
there are as few as two such processes (i.e., total of 15 process units 
controlled to less than 90 percent), the total annual costs are 
estimated to be $0.43 million/yr, and the incremental cost-
effectiveness relative to the 85 percent control option is estimated to 
be $13,500/ton. This cost is unreasonable; therefore, we have 
determined GACT for batch process vents at existing sources is 85 
percent control and not 90 percent control. We are finalizing the 
proposed requirements for batch process vents at new sources (90 
percent control) because the estimated cost-effectiveness relative to 
uncontrolled vents is reasonable ($2,300/ton as proposed).
    The commenters have provided no legal analysis in support of their 
request that we grandfather existing controls as suggested. However, 
given the change to the control requirements for batch vents, we 
believe we have resolved the commenters' concerns with the proposed 
rule and established final GACT standards that reflect the efficiencies 
generally available at area sources. We have not revised the GACT 
control efficiency for new batch process vents or new and existing 
continuous process vents because we continue to believe that the 
standards that we are finalizing are generally available and reasonable 
from a cost perspective.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the MON batch process 
vent definition be used to be consistent with the preamble, database, 
other regulations applicable to chemical manufacturing, and general 
industry practice. Another commenter requested exclusions from the 
definition for the following: Opening of a safety device, heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning exhaust vents, storage tank vents, 
and wastewater treatment unit vents.
    One commenter asked that EPA exclude emissions from bottles and 
other containers from the batch process vent definition. According to 
the commenter, emissions from these containers are negligible and 
controlling them was not considered in the rulemaking record, is not 
cost-effective, and does not reflect GACT.
    Response: As noted in the response to a comment about 
subcategorization of batch process vents later in this section,

[[Page 56024]]

applicability and standards for control of batch process vents in the 
final rule are consistent with the MON. Therefore, the definition for 
the term ``batch process vent'' is very similar to the definition of 
this term in the MON. A key feature of this definition is that it cites 
examples of equipment with emissions that may be batch process vents, 
and it specifies types of streams that are not batch process vents. For 
example, the definition states that storage tanks, surge control 
vessels, and bottoms receivers do not have batch process vents (because 
they are classified separately and subject to separate standards). 
Process tanks, however, do have batch process vents. Process tanks 
collect material discharged from a feedstock storage tank or unit 
operation within the process, discharge the material to another unit 
operation or product storage tank, have emissions related to the 
characteristics of the batch cycle, and do not accumulate product over 
multiple batches.
    Comment: Several commenters asked that 40 CFR 63.11496(a)(1) be 
revised to allow alternatives to the referenced emissions calculations 
procedures in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) of the Pharmaceuticals Production 
NESHAP because the referenced procedures are difficult, costly, and do 
not allow the use of historical information. For example, one commenter 
requested that area sources be allowed to use mass balances, other 
calculation methodologies published by EPA (such as AP-42 and control 
techniques guidelines), and other technically acceptable methods 
(otherwise, the commenter estimated that small sources would need to 
spend $5,000 to $10,000 for emission estimation software).
    Two commenters encouraged EPA to allow use of the emissions 
calculations procedures in 40 CFR 63.1323(b) and (e) of the Polymers 
and Resins IV NESHAP. One commenter asked that calculation procedures 
in the Batch Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) document be allowed, 
and another commenter asked that area sources be allowed to use (1) 
engineering estimates (in accordance with 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii)) for 
any calculation rather than only if the 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) 
procedures do not apply, (2) existing emissions calculations developed 
for compliance with a State or Federal rule for batch process vents, 
and (3) procedures to back-calculate uncontrolled emissions using inlet 
HAP and VOC concentrations based on controlled outlet permit limits, 
control removal capability, or knowledge of HAP and VOC concentrations 
in the vent (if not indicated in permit).
    Response: Emissions must be calculated to determine whether the 
batch process vents are in the subcategory of greater than or equal to 
uncontrolled emissions of 10,000 lbs/yr, which requires management 
practices and compliance with emissions limits and control 
requirements, or in the subcategory of less than 10,000 lbs/yr of 
uncontrolled emissions, which requires only management practices for 
the process. For the purpose of this determination at area sources, we 
have concluded that all of the methods suggested by the commenters to 
calculate uncontrolled emissions at area sources are acceptable. Having 
choices also reduces the burden on affected sources. Therefore, the 
final rule specifies that organic HAP emissions from batch process 
vents may be estimated using process knowledge, engineering 
assessments, or test data. The procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.1257 
of subpart GGG, in the Polymers and Resins IV rule, or in the Batch ACT 
are classified as engineering assessments.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the GACT analysis for batch 
process vents is flawed and inconsistent with rule applicability. The 
commenter noted that batch process vent control requirements should be 
on a process unit basis to better reflect the Agency's analysis, 
industry practice, and GACT. This commenter also stated that the 
control threshold of 19,000 lb/yr HAP emissions for batch process vents 
is GACT, but only if EPA adopts a process unit basis.
    Another commenter asked that EPA sharply limit control requirements 
for process vents in order to achieve GACT. To do this, the commenter 
suggested limiting source applicability to a process unit basis, 
setting a threshold for control at 10,000 lbs/yr/process as in MON, and 
requiring only management practices for all affected process units 
below 10,000 lbs/yr/process.
    Response: It appears the commenters are addressing the basis for 
the proposed subcategorization of batch process vents. As we noted in 
the preamble for the proposed rule, the CAA provides EPA authority to 
distinguish among classes, types or sizes of sources within a source 
category. For the proposal, we concluded that ``factors relating to the 
type of operation (high solvent use) and size of operation (based on 
the number of batches) provide a reasonable basis for 
subcategorization'' of batch process vents. The commenters did not 
address application of these factors directly, but they stated that 
control requirements should be applied on a process unit basis. The 
process unit construct is consistent with standards for batch process 
vents in several MACT standards. We have considered this point in 
response to comments on applicability and concluded that the factors we 
considered at proposal in support of our subcategorization 
determinations for the entire facility apply equally to individual 
CMPUs. Furthermore, as noted above, the affected source for the final 
rule is defined as the collection of specific CMPUs that use, generate, 
or produce Table 1 HAP rather than the entire chemical manufacturing 
operations. Therefore, for the final rule, we determined that 
establishing subcategories based on individual CMPUs is also 
appropriate.
    For the proposal, we ``considered the relative emissions reduction 
and costs for the area sources in the category in determining the 
appropriate emissions level at which to subcategorize the batch process 
vents.'' Specifically, we established two subcategories based on 
whether the total organic HAP emissions from all batch process vents in 
the entire affected source are less than 19,000 lbs/yr or equal to or 
greater than 19,000 lbs/yr. One commenter stated that this threshold is 
reasonable, but only if it is applied to an individual CMPU. Another 
commenter suggested using a threshold of 10,000 lbs/yr per CMPU.
    We considered both suggestions. We do not believe 19,000 lbs/yr per 
CMPU is appropriate because the 19,000 lb threshold was intended to 
represent emissions from multiple CMPUs, several of which may not be 
part of the affected source under the final rule because we changed the 
scope of the rule to cover only those CMPUs that emit one of the 
chemical manufacturing urban HAP. Based on the results of a survey of 
five facilities by one commenter, area sources have, on average, two 
CMPUs that use, generate, or produce Table 1 HAP. Facilities in the MON 
database with urban HAP emissions also had an average of two process 
units with urban HAP emissions. A threshold of 10,000 lbs/yr per 
process was also used in the MON and that provides indicia of the size 
of a CMPU because the MON applies to major sources of HAP. Furthermore, 
as discussed in the response to another comment in this section, the 
estimated costs to meet an 85 percent control requirement for existing 
CMPUs with uncontrolled organic HAP emissions equal to or greater than 
10,000 lbs/yr are reasonable ($8,700/ton). Therefore, we have 
established two subcategories for

[[Page 56025]]

the final rule. One subcategory is for batch process vents with 
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions less than 10,000 lbs/yr per CMPU, 
and the other is for batch process vents with uncontrolled organic HAP 
emissions equal to or greater than 10,000 lbs/yr per CMPU.
    Comment: Three commenters suggested that the definition of 
``continuous process vent'' should be consistent with the definitions 
in other rules such as the HON, MON, and/or Generic MACT (40 CFR part 
63, subpart YY). One commenter requested this change because the 
proposed definition does not reflect the description given in the 
preamble, the supporting analyses, the rulemaking database, industry 
practice, or other chemical industry regulations. Another commenter 
requested that definitions for items that are exempted from the 
definition of ``continuous process vent'' such as ``relief device or 
valve'' and ``equipment leak'' be added to the rule.
    Response: The final rule includes a definition for ``continuous 
process vent'' that is consistent with the definition of ``process 
vent'' in 40 CFR 63.101 and 40 CFR 63.107 of the HON. Terms or items in 
the definition mentioned by the commenters have the same meaning given 
in the HON.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that small continuous process 
vents (i.e., <0.1 lb/hr and <800 lbs/yr) be exempt from requirements to 
calculate a TRE value because the commenter estimated that the lowest 
TRE index for a HAP emission stream with these characteristics would be 
30 or higher. Another commenter estimated the burden of establishing 
the variables needed to calculate the TRE index to be at least 4 hours 
per process vent.
    Response: We have considered this issue and determined that, at an 
emission rate of 0.1 lb/hr, the TRE will be well above 1.0 regardless 
of other characteristics of the stream (e.g., type of HAP, HAP 
concentration, and ratio of HAP to total VOC). The minimum TRE is 
obtained for streams with high concentrations of organic compounds. For 
streams containing common non-halogenated HAP (i.e., benzene, toluene, 
and/or methanol), the lowest TRE values were determined to be between 
16 and 30. As the concentration of these HAP decreases (due to 
increased air and other VOC in the emission stream) the TRE increases, 
typically to values above 30, as noted by the commenter. For streams 
with the halogenated compound methylene chloride, the minimum and 
typical TRE values were determined to be over 80. Therefore, to 
minimize the burden of characterizing streams, the final standards 
specify that calculation of the TRE is not required if the organic HAP 
emission rate is less than 0.1 lb/hr. We did not include a 
corresponding annual mass limit (i.e., 800 lbs/yr, which is 
approximately equal to 0.1 lb/hr venting continuously for an entire 
year) because the TRE varies with changes in the operating hours per 
year. For a process that operates only a few weeks during the year, 
emissions of 800 lbs could result in a TRE less than 1.0.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the impacts analysis for batch 
process vents is unrealistic and incomplete. According to this 
commenter, a more appropriate cost evaluation would include several 
batch vents per process, several processes per site, and either 
multiple control devices or expensive collection systems. In addition, 
the commenter stated that the cost analysis for incinerators should 
include the cost of halogen scrubbers when halogenated organics (e.g., 
methylene chloride) are controlled in the incinerator. The commenter 
further stated that more widespread use of combustion devices in place 
of or in addition to existing scrubbers and condensers would be needed 
to meet the facility-wide 90 percent reduction requirement. Even if 
existing controls are grandfathered, the commenter stated all sites 
with emissions in the subcategory subject to control would incur costs 
to meet performance test, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements.
    One commenter stated that the impacts analysis for continuous 
process vents must include costs associated with existing controls, 
including control upgrades, performance tests, monitoring, and 
recordkeeping and reporting. Even with grandfathering of controls, all 
continuous process vents with TRE <=1.0 would have to meet performance 
test, monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
    Response: We have reevaluated the costs for control of batch 
process vents because the final rule applies to a smaller affected 
source than the proposed rule. We have also reevaluated the costs 
because the analysis in the proposed rule did not account for 
facilities that are achieving some level of control, but less than the 
required percent reduction. As stated above, we have also redefined 
GACT as 85 percent control for existing batch process units (90 percent 
for new units) that have uncontrolled organic HAP emissions equal to or 
greater than 10,000 lbs/yr, and our cost analysis at proposal was based 
on 90 percent control for batch process vents subject to emission 
limits.
    In reevaluation of the costs, we concluded that information 
regarding the number of CMPU per area source, the number of CMPU with 
emissions of chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP, the fraction of 
total organic HAP emissions from batch process vents in process units 
with chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP, the typical control 
levels, flow rates, concentrations, operating hours, and other relevant 
data are either lacking or limited. Therefore, information from the 
baseline facility database from development of the MON was extrapolated 
to area sources. Details of this revised analysis are in the docket, 
but a summary of the analysis is set forth below.
    We estimated that four facilities have uncontrolled batch process 
vent emissions from one CMPU with emissions greater than 10,000 lbs/yr 
per process. Another seven facilities have an estimated one or two 
CMPUs per facility with batch process vent emissions (for a total of 
nine CMPUs at the seven facilities) controlled to some level less than 
85 percent. Information available to EPA indicates that each CMPU at 
the remaining facilities that have chemical manufacturing organic urban 
HAP emissions have uncontrolled batch process vent emissions less than 
10,000 lbs/yr.
    Based on this analysis, we estimated that the capital cost to add 
controls for the 13 CMPUs at 11 facilities that do not meet the 85 
percent standard is $390,000, and the annual cost is $370,000/yr. These 
costs are based on the use of condensers. We do not believe 
incinerators will be needed, as suggested by a commenter, because the 
final standards apply to individual CMPUs (rather than facility-wide), 
and the required control for existing batch process vents (85 percent) 
can be averaged over all batch process vents within the CMPU. Because 
the analysis is based on the use of condensers, halogen reduction 
devices are not needed and have not been included in the analysis. 
Costs for performance tests (or design evaluations), monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting are included in the final information 
collection request, not this cost analysis. The estimated HAP 
reductions are 43 tpy (versus 45 tpy at proposal). Thus, the cost-
effectiveness is $8,700/ton of organic HAP reduced, which we consider 
to be reasonable for GACT.
    For continuous process vents, we have not changed the cost impacts 
to include control equipment upgrades. Typically, if a continuous 
process vent is controlled in the absence of a regulatory driver, the 
vent has relatively

[[Page 56026]]

large emissions. We anticipate that such controls will be achieving the 
required 95 percent reduction requirement. Performance test, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs are estimated in the 
information collection request. We have updated these costs in two 
ways. First, we increased the number of affected facilities that must 
conduct initial and ongoing compliance to include facilities with 
controlled continuous process vents. Second, we increased the 
percentage of facilities that will conduct design evaluations instead 
of performance tests because the final rule allows design evaluations 
for all control devices used to reduce emissions from continuous 
process vents. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs are 
minimal in the current information collection request because it covers 
only the 3 years after the promulgation date. Most existing sources 
will not be in compliance during this time because the compliance date 
is 3 years after promulgation. Subsequent information collection 
requests will have higher costs for these activities.
3. Metal HAP Process Vents
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that EPA apply the 
threshold for control on a vent basis rather than facility-wide because 
the commenters interpreted the impacts analysis as applying to model 
plants where all emissions were assumed to come from a single vent and 
routed to a single control device. Two commenters noted that, unlike 
organic HAP, particulate-containing emission streams can be ducted only 
small distances. Numerous commenters recommended using the proposed 400 
lbs/yr threshold for control rather than the alternative proposed 
threshold of 100 lbs/yr because the incremental cost to lower the 
threshold from 400 lbs/yr to 100 lbs/yr is unreasonable at an 
incremental cost-effectiveness of $33,660 per ton of particulate and 
$442,000 per ton of metal HAP.
    Response: After careful consideration, we have decided to set the 
threshold for the subcategory of metal HAP process vents that are 
subject to emission limits of 95 percent reduction at the proposed 
level of 400 lbs/yr, for each CMPU that emits a Table 1 metal HAP (not 
the entire facility, as proposed). We selected the CMPU basis rather 
than the proposed facility-wide basis for the same reasons as for 
organic HAP process vents (see response above), although we estimate 
that a higher percentage of facilities that emit Table 1 metal HAP 
subject to this control requirement have only a single process that 
emits metal HAP, which means the affected source on a CMPU basis under 
the final rule may be the same as the facility-wide affected source 
under the proposed rule.\9\ For example, the four largest emitters all 
make electrolytic manganese dioxide. Even if these facilities make the 
product in multiple processing ``lines,'' they have only a single CMPU 
under the rule because a CMPU is defined based on the product produced. 
Many other facilities make inorganic pigments, catalysts, or animal 
feed products. These facilities likely make a number of products with 
slight variations that are grouped in ``families'' that qualify as a 
single CMPU under the rule. For example, these manufacturers may make a 
variety of similar products that differ only in the form or purity of 
the final product (such as powders versus pellets), or the animal feed 
products may differ only in the specific mix of additives. But in each 
case, the metal HAP feedstock is the same, the processing steps and 
emissions are comparable, and the end-use or functionality of each 
product is the same; therefore, the activities would all be part of a 
single CMPU under this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We assumed at proposal that facilities emitting Table 1 
metal HAP would generally have one process so the change of affected 
source from the facility to the CMPU does not require us to 
reevaluate our subcategorization determination as with the change in 
batch process subcategories. The factors we considered in 
establishing the subcategories for metal HAP process vents at 
proposal still apply under this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we stated above, the final rule requires consideration of 
emissions from all vents associated with a CMPU when determining if the 
threshold for the 400 lbs/yr or greater subcategory is exceeded. We did 
not base the threshold for the subcategory on the emissions levels from 
individual vents because the CMPU may emit metal HAP from a number of 
different steps such as roasting, calcining, grinding, blending, 
drying, and packaging. The end result of basing the emission rate 
threshold on a vent basis would be to drastically reduce the urban HAP 
emission reductions under the rule.
    Under the final rule, we estimate that up to 3 of the 30 facilities 
with uncontrolled metal HAP emissions greater than 400 lbs/yr on a 
facility basis may not be part of the subcategory when the threshold is 
applied on a CMPU basis.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, as part of our 
subcategorization discussion, we determined that the level of metal HAP 
emissions from the vents is a function of the purpose for which the 
metal HAP is present in the process. We found that emissions varied 
according to whether the metal HAP were intended to be incorporated 
into the product of the chemical manufacturing process and that metal 
HAP emissions from those types of facilities were generally larger 
where the metal was incorporated into the product. We also identified 
some vents that emit larger amounts of metal HAP, even though the metal 
HAP is not incorporated into the final product, and we determined that, 
in those circumstances, there were likely higher metal HAP emissions 
because of the large size of the facility or because the facility is 
using raw materials and/or fuel with higher levels of metal HAP 
impurities. We concluded that it was appropriate to base the 
subcategory on the amount of emissions of metal HAP from the process 
vents as a proxy for the type and size of the vent. In determining the 
appropriate emissions level, we considered relative emissions 
reductions and costs to the affected area sources and co-proposed 
subcategorizing based on either 100 lbs/yr or 400 lbs/yr of metal HAP 
emissions. We received no adverse comments on the proposed 
subcategorization approach.
    The preamble to the proposed rule stated that costs for both the 
100 lbs/yr and 400 lbs/yr thresholds are comparable to costs for PM 
control in other area source rules and for mobile sources. However, as 
noted above, numerous commenters stated that the incremental costs do 
not justify the 100 lbs/yr threshold and recommended selecting the 400 
lbs/yr threshold. We recognize that the incremental cost for PM would 
be at the high end of the range of costs for other area source rules. 
The high incremental cost-effectiveness reflects a small incremental PM 
reduction (40 tpy from 25 facilities), and, in regards to the basis for 
the subcategory, the 400 lbs/yr level indicates a much higher emission 
potential (i.e., size of facility) and we have decided that the 400 
lbs/yr threshold best defines the subcategory. We received no adverse 
comments on the proposed 400 lbs/yr threshold.
4. Storage Tanks
    Comment: Two commenters asked that the storage tank requirements be 
based on the organic HAP partial vapor pressure instead of the VOL 
vapor pressure, as specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb because it 
is the HAP that are subject to standards.
    Response: Most rules in 40 CFR part 63 (i.e., NESHAP rules) 
establish MTVP thresholds for total organic HAP because HAP is the 
regulated pollutant.

[[Page 56027]]

This area source rule also regulates only HAP. As with the other rules, 
we intended to base the MTVP thresholds in the proposed rule on organic 
HAP, but we inadvertently neglected to override the provisions in the 
referenced section of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb that specify the 
threshold is based on the MTVP of the entire VOL. We have corrected 
this error in the final rule. Table 5 to the final rule specifies all 
applicable thresholds, and each MTVP threshold is based on the organic 
HAP vapor pressure.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the definition of 
``storage tank'' be changed to match the language in the preamble to 
the proposed rule and/or definitions in MACT rules. Specific requested 
changes included: (1) Exclude wastewater storage because wastewater 
storage tanks are included under the wastewater provisions (similar to 
other MACT standards); (2) exclude bottoms receivers and surge control 
vessels because these vessels are typically used in the chemical 
industry as process vessels; (3) exclude process tanks to be consistent 
with language in the MON; (4) exclude waste tanks because they are 
ancillary to the process and are typically subject to regulation under 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR Parts 264/265 
and Subpart BB); and (5) limit the definition to tanks that store 
liquid that contains any of the urban HAP listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart VVVVVV, not all HAP.
    Response: We have considered the comments and determined that using 
similar definitions across the multiple standards is appropriate. The 
definition in the final rule is consistent with the preamble and 
definitions in the MON, the HON, and the Pharmaceutical MACT. The 
definition of ``storage tank'' in the final rule excludes tanks storing 
organic liquids containing HAP only as impurities. It excludes process 
tanks because these tanks are subject to the process vent standards. 
Wastewater tanks are excluded from the definition of ``storage tank.'' 
It also excludes surge control vessels and bottoms receivers because 
these vessels are associated with continuous process operations; note, 
however, that, as in the proposed rule, they are subject to the same 
standards as storage tanks (i.e., all are subject to management 
practice requirements, and controls are required for those that contain 
Table 1 HAP and meet the same size and MTVP thresholds specified for 
storage tanks).
    Comment: Several commenters asked that the rule include alternative 
storage tank control options such as vapor balancing, the procedures 
specified in 40 CFR part 63 subparts WW and SS, and the procedures 
specified in the Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR) (40 CFR part 65, 
subpart C).
    Response: Vapor balancing is a technique whereby the vapor space of 
the storage tank is connected to the vapor space of a tank truck or 
railcar that contains liquid that will be transferred to the storage 
tank. As liquid from the tank truck or rail car is transferred to the 
storage tank, vapors displaced from the storage tank are routed back to 
the tank truck or railcar. This technique has been determined to 
provide at least equivalent reductions in HAP emissions as the use of 
an internal or external floating roof or routing displaced vapor to a 
control device, provided several conditions are met: (1) The tank vent 
pressure setting must be high enough to prevent breathing losses, (2) 
the tank truck or railcar must be vapor tight, and (3) the tank truck 
or railcar cleaning or reloading facility must also vapor balance or 
route the collected vapors to a control device.
    The tank vent pressure setting must be high enough to prevent 
breathing losses because vapor balancing controls only the working loss 
emissions that are generated by filling the tank. As discussed in the 
preamble to proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG (69 FR 
19161, April 10, 2000), we determined that a setting of at least 2.5 
lbs per square inch gage will eliminate breathing losses from tanks.
    If a system is leak-tight and very little or no air is drawn into 
the system to become saturated with HAP, a source of emissions is 
essentially eliminated. To ensure that the tank truck or rail car is 
vapor-tight, the vapor balancing provisions in MACT rules (e.g., 40 CFR 
63.1253(f) of the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP) require tank 
trucks and railcars to have a current certification in accordance with 
the U.S. Department of Transportation pressure test requirements of 49 
CFR part 180 for tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for railcars. To further 
ensure the system is leak tight, the vapor balancing provisions in MACT 
rules require that pressure relief devices on the storage tank and the 
railcar or tank truck from which the storage tank is filled shall not 
open during loading. To ensure that the applicable emission limit is 
met, vapor balancing provisions in MACT rules require that the cleaning 
or reloading facility shall implement vapor balancing when filling the 
tank truck or railcar or the tank truck or railcar shall be connected 
to a closed-vent system with a control device that reduces emissions by 
the required amount. Because GACT for storage tanks in the subcategory 
of larger tanks storing liquids with higher vapor pressures for which 
an emission control device is required at chemical manufacturing area 
sources is equivalent to the NESHAP requirements applicable to MON and 
HON facilities, we determined that vapor balancing requirements of the 
MON and HON also achieves HAP emission reductions at least equivalent 
to the emission reductions required by the standards set forth in this 
final rule. Therefore, the final rule allows vapor balancing in 
accordance with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.2470(e) of the MON as a 
compliance option for storage tanks at chemical manufacturing area 
sources.
    Subpart WW in part 63 includes design, operational, and inspection 
requirements for internal and external floating roofs that are 
comparable to the GACT requirements that are based on 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Kb. The primary difference between the two subparts is that 
subpart WW allows up to 10 years to come into full compliance with seal 
and deck fitting control requirements if the tank is currently equipped 
with a floating roof that does not meet these requirements. In the 
preamble to the final Gasoline Distribution Area Source NESHAP (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart BBBBBB) (73 FR 1926, January 10, 2008), we determined 
that the requirements in subpart WW are equivalent to the GACT 
requirements that were based on subpart Kb for gasoline distribution 
facilities. Since the GACT requirements for chemical manufacturing area 
sources are also based on subpart Kb requirements, implementing the 
subpart WW requirements at chemical manufacturing area sources also 
will achieve HAP reductions that are at least equivalent to the HAP 
reductions resulting from implementing the subpart Kb requirements. 
Therefore, the final rule allows compliance with subpart WW as an 
alternative compliance option, but without the 10 year compliance 
period. All storage tanks must be in full compliance by the relevant 
compliance date, as set forth in this final rule.
    40 CFR part 63, subpart SS contains provisions for flare and non-
flare control devices that are comparable to the requirements for 
control devices in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. For example, both 
require the closed-vent system to operate with no detectable emissions 
as indicated by an instrument reading less than 500 parts per million 
(ppm) above background and visual inspections; subpart SS may even be 
more stringent in that it requires bypass monitoring and it specifies 
how frequently to conduct both instrument and visual inspections. Both 
subpart Kb

[[Page 56028]]

and subpart SS require the owner or operator to demonstrate initial 
compliance based on a design evaluation, although subpart SS provides 
more details of what to consider in the design evaluation, and subpart 
SS explicitly allows performance test results as a means to demonstrate 
initial compliance. Both subpart Kb and subpart SS also require the 
owner or operator to develop and operate in accordance with an 
operating or monitoring plan that specifies what parameter(s) will be 
monitored to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the percent reduction 
emission limit. Based on these similarities, we have determined that 
compliance with subpart SS will achieve HAP emission reductions at 
least equivalent to the reductions achieved by compliance with subpart 
Kb. Therefore, the final rule allows compliance with subpart SS as an 
alternative compliance option.
    The CAR was developed as an alternative for facilities to comply 
with a single rule in place of a variety of different new source 
performance standards (NSPS) and NESHAP rules. We do not think it is 
appropriate to allow compliance with the CAR as an alternative for area 
sources subject to this final rule because 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
VVVVVV is the only NESHAP that applies to most chemical manufacturing 
area sources. While we are not including compliance with the CAR as an 
option, the final rule includes provisions that allow an owner or 
operator to comply with the most stringent requirements from both an 
overlapping rule and the final subpart VVVVVV as a means of 
demonstrating compliance with the final rule.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA significantly 
underestimated the number of storage tank controls that will be 
required and, thus, the capital cost and burden. Based on their review 
of Docket Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334-0008, the commenters concluded 
that EPA only considered controls for tanks storing urban HAP. However, 
as drafted, the proposed rule requires control of all storage vessels 
at a site meeting the size and vapor pressure criteria and storing any 
material containing any HAP above impurity levels.
    Response: As discussed above, the final rule applies only to 
storage tanks that are part of a CMPU in the affected source and that 
contain a chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP. Although management 
practices are required for all storage tanks that are part of an 
affected CMPU, add-on controls are required only for tanks that meet 
specified size and organic HAP vapor pressure thresholds. Many of these 
tanks are likely already subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and 
already in compliance. We believe that the number of tanks that will be 
subject to the control requirement applicable to the subcategory for 
large storage tanks under the final rule is consistent with the 
proposed impacts analysis.
5. Wastewater
    Comment: Numerous commenters requested changes to the definition of 
``wastewater'' to clarify which streams are included and to limit the 
scope of the term. Each of the commenters requested one or more of the 
following changes: (1) Clarify that wastewater streams are water that 
is discarded from the CMPU or control device (or, alternatively, the 
chemical manufacturing operations), not from the affected source; (2) 
specify that the water must contain PSHAP, not any HAP listed in Table 
9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G; (3) specify that wastewater must be at 
least 50 percent water or ``primarily'' water; (4) include flow and HAP 
concentration thresholds; (5) identify types of water streams that are 
not considered wastewater, as in the preamble to the proposed rule and 
previous MACT rules; and/or (6) make the definition consistent with the 
definition of wastewater in previous MACT rules.
    Response: We have considered the comments and decided that using 
similar definitions across the multiple standards is appropriate. The 
definition in the final rule includes most of the suggestions made by 
commenters and is consistent with definitions in the MON and the HON. 
However, the definition does not include a minimum water percentage. As 
in the HON and other NESHAP, EPA intends to regulate as wastewater any 
stream that: (1) Exits process unit equipment; and (2) meets the 
concentration and flow rate criteria that are specified in the 
definition because such wastewater streams have a significant potential 
for emissions and should, therefore, be regulated.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the solubility in water of some 
PSHAP is greater than 10,000 ppmw. Therefore, the commenter requested 
that decanting not be required if no separable organic phase is present 
in the wastewater stream.
    Response: Based on the comments and our additional analysis, we 
have determined it is appropriate to redefine the subcategories of 
wastewater. Specifically, we are amending the subcategories to account 
for wastewater that has 10,000 ppmw or greater concentration of PSHAP 
but does not have a water phase and an organic phase. In the proposed 
rule, we determined that removal of the organic layer by gravity 
separation was GACT, but gravity separation is not feasible for 
wastewater that does not contain separate organic and water phases. 
Under the final rule, we are establishing one subcategory based on both 
the PSHAP concentration of 10,000 ppmw or greater and the presence of a 
separate organic phase. Wastewater with a PSHAP concentration of 10,000 
ppmw or greater, but without a separate organic phase, and wastewater 
with a PSHAP concentration of less than 10,000 ppmw represent the other 
subcategory.
    As in the proposed rule, we have determined that GACT is removal of 
a separate organic layer by gravity separation when the PSHAP 
concentration exceeds 10,000 ppmw and there is a separate organic 
phase. The treatment requirements in the final rule for both the 
organic and wastewater phases are consistent with the requirement set 
forth in the proposed rule.
    Comment: Several commenters requested additional compliance options 
for streams that contain more than 10,000 ppmw PSHAP, particularly for 
wastewater that is collected for shipment offsite for treatment or 
disposal. For example, one commenter recommended that decanting be 
required only when the aqueous phase will be sent to on-site or offsite 
treatment, but facilities should not have to separate a free organic 
phase from wastewater that is managed in recycle, energy use, or 
hazardous disposal operations that either have integral organic phase 
separation or do not require such separation before recycle, energy 
use, or disposal. Another commenter stated that wastewater sent to a 
permitted wastewater treatment facility (such as a publicly owned 
treatment works (POTW)) should be exempt. Another commenter stated that 
separation should not be required for wastewater collected for shipment 
offsite to be treated by a RCRA-permitted hazardous waste incinerator, 
a POTW, or oil recycling operations. According to one commenter, the 
rule should allow both direct piping to biological treatment and 
combustion of the entire stream without separating out the water phase, 
and another commenter added that combustion should be allowed for 
streams that contain small amounts of water relative to the organic 
phase. One commenter also noted that other separation techniques, such 
as stripping or distillation, may be more effective than

[[Page 56029]]

decanting, and some oil-water separators do not rely on the principle 
of gravity.
    Response: The final rule contains provisions for alternative 
control of organic HAP from streams with >10,000 ppmw PSHAP. The final 
rule allows: (1) Several separation techniques; (2) hard piping to an 
on-site hazardous waste treatment unit; or (3) shipment offsite for any 
similar treatment. These compliance options are included in Table 6 of 
the final rule and provide at least equivalent emission reductions. The 
other alternatives cited by the commenters may not provide at least 
equivalent emission reductions as the final rule and, therefore, we are 
not including them in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the proposed requirements for 
wastewater streams that contain >10,000 ppmw of PSHAP are not GACT 
because the actual costs are significantly higher than EPA estimated. 
According to the commenter, EPA's impacts analysis omitted the cost to 
determine the partially soluble HAP concentration in each wastewater 
stream, which ranged from 10 to 250 streams per facility at facilities 
the commenter surveyed.
    Response: In the burden analysis for the information collection 
requirements for the proposed rule, we estimated compliance 
demonstration costs assuming that all area sources with organic urban 
HAP would have wastewater. We also assumed that a typical area source 
would spend 20 hours characterizing the wastewater (e.g., based on 
knowledge of the wastewater), and that 50 percent of the facilities 
would conduct sampling and analysis for an average of 10 streams. The 
cost of analysis was assumed to be $435. The total cost was estimated 
to be $169,400 per year for characterizing the streams according to 
process knowledge and $210,400 per year for sampling and analysis.
    For the final burden estimate, we believe the number of streams 
will be lower than the 10 estimated at proposal because only those 
wastewater streams that are discarded from a CMPU that uses, generates, 
or produces chemical manufacturing organic urban HAP are part of the 
affected source for the final standards. According to one commenter, 
the average number of points of determination for five surveyed 
facilities is approximately two wastewater streams per process. We are 
estimating two CMPUs per facility and 2 points of determination per 
CMPU for a total of four process streams per facility.
    The final rule allows PSHAP concentration to be determined based on 
either process knowledge or sampling and analysis. We assumed that 50 
percent of facilities would perform sampling and analysis and the other 
50 percent would rely on process knowledge. For the process knowledge 
approach, we assumed 20 hours of in-house labor per facility at a total 
cost of $1,750, as in the proposed analysis. However, we corrected an 
error in the proposed analysis and applied this cost to only 50 percent 
of the facilities rather than all of them for the final rule. For the 
sampling and analysis approach, we assumed $435 per sample for analysis 
and 20 hours of time for a contractor ($125 per hour labor rate) to 
collect one sample per wastewater stream per facility; thus, the total 
cost of this approach is estimated to be $4,240 per year per facility. 
We assumed one sample per stream because one sample would be sufficient 
to meet the compliance requirements. The estimate of 20 hours at $125 
per hour is based on a commenter's estimate for retrieving four 
samples. One commenter noted that the cost of triplicate analysis is 
approximately $885. Assuming that the average cost per sample is not 
based on the number of samples, the cost on a per sample basis would be 
$295. We retained the $435 sampling cost used at proposal for 
consistency and to be somewhat conservative in our estimate.
    The total respondent burden for the final wastewater standards was 
estimated to be $84,700 per year for characterizing the streams 
according to process knowledge and $205,100 per year for sampling and 
analysis, which we believe is reasonable. The overall respondent burden 
for wastewater streams has decreased by $90,000 from proposal to the 
final standards.
    Comment: According to several commenters, decanting is not 
justified for small streams, given the expense of the equipment and the 
small potential benefit. For example, one commenter indicated the 
capital and operating cost for a facility could exceed $100,000 while 
achieving only minimal emissions reductions because of low throughput 
or low volatility of the HAP. Another commenter requested that streams 
containing up to 200 lbs/yr of PSHAP be excluded from the decanting 
requirement.
    One commenter stated that small streams that contact only highly 
insoluble materials and streams that are excluded from the definition 
of wastewater in other rules should not be subject to the treatment 
requirement because such streams are not currently treated, the cost 
and burden to treat such streams were not considered in the rulemaking 
record and, therefore, treatment for all streams cannot be GACT.
    Response: The revised definition of wastewater clarifies the types 
of water discharges that are wastewater. With the changes to the final 
rule for wastewater systems, we do not agree that our cost estimates 
are in error and that there will be additional costs incurred to meet 
the treatment requirements in the final rule.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed maintenance 
wastewater requirements and stated that the wastewater requirements 
should be limited to process wastewater. One commenter stated that the 
proposed requirement to decant the organic phase from maintenance 
wastewater is particularly problematic because maintenance wastewater 
is often generated in small volumes and collected in various vessels 
prior to on-site or offsite energy recovery, reuse, or recycling. The 
maintenance wastewater is not discharged directly into an individual 
drain system. The commenter pointed out that decanting these streams 
first would add a second transfer step, which would increase the 
emissions potential relative to the current operating practice.
    Response: By adding the compliance options discussed above, we have 
addressed industry concerns regarding wastewater generated in small 
quantities, wastewater that is reused or recycled, and wastewater 
shipped offsite. For example, instead of requiring only decanting, the 
final rule allows an owner or operator the alternative to collect a 
small wastewater stream and send it to an offsite hazardous waste 
treatment facility. This option applies to maintenance wastewater as 
well as to process wastewater. Considering the requirements of the 
final rule, we see no reason to distinguish between a process 
wastewater stream and a maintenance wastewater stream.
6. Transfer Operations
    Comment: One commenter stated that the data and analysis supporting 
the proposed rule demonstrate that the controls currently in place at 
chemical manufacturing area sources are already GACT and that no 
additional requirements are justified. The commenter indicated the rule 
should be revised to incorporate criteria that reflect the submerged 
fill or equivalent controls currently in place and should impose no 
additional requirements. This commenter also stated the management 
practice requirements that are based on requirements for transfer at 
gasoline distribution facilities should be deleted. According to the 
commenter, these requirements generally are not

[[Page 56030]]

GACT (because they impose significant cost but achieve no emission 
reduction), are unclear, and conflict with other requirements and 
regulations. The commenter provided labor hour estimates for the 
various management practice tasks and estimated that the total cost 
would be more than 10 times higher than EPA estimated.
    Response: As discussed in section III of this preamble, the 
management practice requirements have been revised in the final rule to 
better reflect what is generally available for these categories. Upon 
review of the comments, we recognized that the proposed management 
practice requirements were redundant for CMPU with both batch and 
continuous process vents because the proposed requirements for both 
emission points applied to all process equipment. In this final rule, 
the various proposed management practices for process vents, equipment 
leaks, transfer operations, and storage tanks were consolidated and 
simplified into one comprehensive set of management practices that are 
applicable to each affected CMPU. The comprehensive management 
practices in the final rule include requirements to equip each vessel 
with a cover or lid that must be in place when the vessel contains HAP 
(except for material addition and sampling) and to conduct sensory 
inspections for leaks throughout each affected CMPU on a quarterly 
basis. The proposed inspections for equipment leaks are included 
without change in the final management practice requirements, but the 
final rule also requires comparable inspections for leaks from process 
equipment in a CMPU (e.g., reactors, distillation units, process tanks) 
and for storage tanks that are part of a CMPU and that store liquid 
that contains any Table 1 organic urban HAP.
    For transfer operations, we retained in the final rule the 
requirement to use submerged/bottom filling or other controls for all 
loading of tank trucks and railcars (excluding reactive and resinous 
materials). As the commenter noted, the combination of these loading 
procedures and process unit-wide management practices is consistent 
with operation at most area sources and has been determined to be GACT, 
unlike the proposed requirements that were based on the requirements in 
the gasoline distribution rule. Therefore, the final standards 
generally do not impose many additional requirements except for the few 
facilities that may not already be implementing these procedures. 
Although emissions from transfer operations are less than emissions 
from other emission points at chemical manufacturing area sources, we 
believe that the reason for this is, in part, that most facilities are 
implementing submerged loading or other control techniques. The 
standards ensure that these practices continue.
    Comment: Three commenters requested that the submerged (and bottom) 
fill requirement be deleted for transfer of resins because of 
operational and safety concerns. One commenter noted that resins can 
stratify and some of the layers formed might be flammable. Another 
commenter noted that submerged fill may be dangerous for certain resins 
and polymers, particularly those that contain styrene. The third 
commenter noted that the Amino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP (40 CFR part 
63, subpart OOO) has no requirements for transfer of resins because EPA 
determined that the resins contain insignificant quantities of HAP and 
are not cost-effective to regulate. One commenter also requested an 
exemption from the submerged/bottom loading requirement for loading of 
all reactive, viscous, and sticky materials due to safety concerns, the 
fact that such procedures are not general industry practice, and 
because past efforts have shown the liquids stick and sometimes harden 
in the fill pipe, resulting in a significant expense to replace the 
fill pipe and dispose of the hardened material as a RCRA hazardous 
waste.
    Response: In response to commenters concerns, we reevaluated types 
of liquid transfers to determine GACT for transfers of the types of 
materials described by the commenters. We determined that submerged 
loading is not a generally available industry practice for transferring 
reactive or resinous materials for the reasons articulated by the 
commenters. To address this issue, the final rule specifies that 
submerged or bottom loading is not required for reactive or resinous 
material. However, transfer operations associated with these materials 
must comply with the other management practices.
7. Heat Exchange Systems
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should regulate cooling 
towers where process fluid contains not less than 5- or 10-percent HAP 
to keep applicability consistent with historic LDAR applicability 
criteria and to minimize burden. Other commenters stated only re-
circulating cooling towers serving process heat exchangers containing 5 
percent by weight organic HAP that could leak into the water should be 
subject to cooling tower requirements.
    Two commenters requested EPA clarify whether ``once-through'' 
cooling systems, comfort cooling towers, or other non-process cooling 
towers are excluded. These commenters suggested that exemptions in the 
HON under 40 CFR 63.104(a) be included in the rule, with some 
modifications, and that the exemptions apply to all cooling towers, not 
only those with >8,000 gal/min circulation rates.
    Response: Although the proposed rule used the term ``cooling 
tower'' systems, we intended it to mean ``heat exchange'' systems as is 
consistent with the HON. Furthermore, the language in item 5.b of Table 
2 to the proposed rule required affected sources to comply with the 
requirements contained in 40 CFR 63.104(a)(1) through (6) of the HON. 
That provision listed systems that were not subject to the proposed 
rule (i.e., systems with cooling water side pressure that is at least 
35 kPa greater than the process side, systems with intervening fluids 
with <5 weight percent total HAP, systems used to cool process fluids 
containing <5 weight percent HAP [as specified in Table 4 of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart F for recirculating systems, and as specified in Table 
9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G for once-through systems], and once-
through systems that meet specified National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System permit requirements).
    Therefore, the final standards for heat exchange systems apply to 
all heat exchange systems that are part of the affected source and that 
do not meet conditions in 40 CFR 63.104(a) of the HON. The heat 
exchange systems covered by the final rule are also exactly the same as 
the cooling tower systems we intended to cover under the proposal and 
on which our cost and emission reduction estimates were based.
    While a commenter noted that once-through systems are exempted in 
the HON, it should be noted that the HON covers both recirculating and 
once-through heat exchange systems under the 40 CFR 63.104 heat 
exchange system requirements. Consistent with the proposal, the final 
rule applies to once-through cooling waters in accordance with 40 CFR 
63.104(a).
    We believe that control of once-through heat exchanger cooling 
systems is appropriate for several reasons. Emissions of volatile HAP 
occur readily from open water sources. While the stripping process may 
not be as fast as in a cooling tower, once-through cooling water will 
have a much longer exposure to the atmosphere than a system with a 
cooling tower. While the emissions may occur over a longer time period, 
all

[[Page 56031]]

available scientific evidence and fate modeling studies of open water 
systems leads us to conclude that essentially all volatile HAP will be 
released into the atmosphere. Therefore, we see no reason why HAP leaks 
from heat exchange systems into once-through cooling water should be 
treated any differently than HAP leaks from heat exchange systems that 
have cooling towers.
    For the final rule, we clarify that heat exchange systems are part 
of the affected source and specifically address once-through cooling 
systems. We have included a definition of ``heat exchange system'' as 
in the HON. These changes clarify the applicable requirements and also 
clarify that comfort cooling towers and any other non-process cooling 
towers are not subject to standards.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that the management practice 
requirement for systems with <8,000 gal/min circulation rate should be 
clarified. These commenters requested that area sources be allowed to 
sample to determine if indications of a leak identified by an 
inspection actually reflect a leak that is large enough to justify a 
costly repair or a process shutdown. Because Sec.  63.104(b) of the HON 
defines a leak as 1 ppm, and this level was also used in the impacts 
analysis for the proposed standards, the commenters requested that area 
sources be allowed to determine if this condition is met before being 
required to repair after an inspection reveals indications of a leak.
    Response: The final rule specifies that the owner or operator must 
either eliminate indications of a potential leak or demonstrate that 
the HAP concentration in the cooling water does not constitute a leak, 
as defined in 40 CFR 63.104(b)(6). If the concentration threshold is 
not met, the system is assumed not to be leaking, and no other 
requirements apply for that inspection cycle. We believe this is 
appropriate because HAP may be inadvertently introduced to the heat 
exchange system in ways other than through a leak. Requiring the 
facility to cease operations based on minimal HAP present is not GACT 
as it would create considerable cost with virtually no HAP reductions. 
In addition, an alternative has been added for small heat exchange 
systems to allow compliance with the same requirements that apply to 
large heat exchange systems instead of the requirements that would 
otherwise apply to the small heat exchange system.
    Comment: One commenter stated the costs estimated for the cooling 
tower requirements are significantly underestimated and suggested 
several specific revisions to the cost analysis involving the number of 
cooling towers per site, number of samples to be collected, operator 
sampling time, and sample analysis costs. Specifically, commenters 
suggested that EPA should: Assume two cooling towers per site; assume 
four samples per quarter for Options 2 and 3 because many cooling 
towers have several return headers that each must be monitored and 
because both inlet and outlet monitoring will be required for many 
cooling towers to account for organic cooling tower additives, heavy 
HAP and soluble HAP which build up in the system; operator sampling 
time should be 1 hour under Options 2 and 3; sampling of total 
hydrocarbons or surrogate species costs $200 to $400 per sample under 
Option 2; sampling for HAP speciation requires multiple samples or gas 
chromatography/mass spectroscopy for $300 to $800 per analysis; HON 
procedures require triplicate samples; and add cost associated with 
check samples and identifying the source of the leak.
    Response: We have made several revisions to the costs based on 
comments and to correct omissions at proposal. While commenters 
suggested that there are two cooling towers at each facility, after 
limiting the affected source to CMPUs and associated heat exchange 
systems and wastewater systems that use, produce, or generate chemical 
manufacturing urban HAP, it is likely that area sources have one 
cooling tower (or heat exchange system) in the affected source. Option 
1 in both the proposed and final analyses is a quarterly sensory 
inspection and leak repair program, and Option 2 consists of the 
requirements for surrogate monitoring and leak repair in 40 CFR 
63.104(c) of the HON. As discussed in section III.B.2.f of this 
preamble, the Option 1 requirements were determined to be GACT for 
small heat exchange systems, and the Option 2 requirements were 
determined to be GACT for large heat exchange systems.
    For the final Option 2 cost analysis, we increased the number of 
quarterly samples as suggested by one commenter, i.e., increased the 
number to be taken from one sample to three samples, given that some 
operators will monitor the heat exchange exit stream before the outlet 
cooling water is manifolded with other streams. We included a 1-hour 
sampling time for Option 2, as suggested by a commenter. We also 
revised the recordkeeping time to 1 hour per quarter for both Options 1 
and 2 because the type and amount of information to be recorded are 
comparable under the two options. We inadvertently omitted the labor 
costs to conduct the quarterly sensory inspections for Option 1 at 
proposal and have included those cost estimates in the final analysis.
    We did not incorporate other suggested changes from the commenters 
in the final impacts analysis. One suggestion was to incorporate costs 
for identifying the specific source of the leak. However, with the 
changes noted above regarding the monitoring of individual heat 
exchangers, i.e., conducting three samples per quarterly event at heat 
exchanger exits rather than one sample at a manifolded location, we 
assumed that no additional cost would be associated with finding the 
specific leaking heat exchanger because the leak will be easier to 
locate based on HAP concentrations in the samples taken at different 
locations. Other suggested changes were to include costs for ``water 
sampling,'' monitoring both inlet and outlet locations, and conducting 
sampling in triplicate. We did not include costs for these activities 
because they are not required under either Option 1 or Option 2. An 
owner or operator may elect to conduct monitoring in accordance with 40 
CFR 63.104(b) of the HON, which does require sampling at the inlet and 
outlet of each heat exchange system and in triplicate, but we did not 
include costs for compliance with these procedures because we do not 
expect many facilities to choose to comply with this option. Similarly, 
facilities that choose to conduct water sampling to meet the surrogate 
indicator monitoring under Option 2 could incur additional lab analysis 
costs and would perhaps choose to take two or three samples; however it 
is not required by the rule.
8. Equipment Leaks
    Comment: One commenter requested that the rule allow use of Method 
21 as an option to confirm that AVO indication of a leak is or is not 
actually a leak, i.e., less than 10,000 ppmv, as is consistent with 
HON. Another commenter asked that Method 21 inspections be allowed in 
lieu of sensory inspections.
    Response: The final rule allows Method 21 inspections in lieu of 
sensory inspections. This alternative is equivalent to the method in 
the proposed rule at detecting organic HAP leaks. The leak definition 
in the final rule for Method 21 is set at 500 ppmv, the most stringent 
level used in any Federal LDAR program.

D. Initial Compliance Demonstrations

    Comment: Three commenters requested that sources be allowed to 
demonstrate initial compliance using

[[Page 56032]]

design evaluations (or a combination of design evaluation, engineering 
calculation, or information from the equipment supplier) as an 
alternative to performance testing for any control device and any type 
of HAP, not just under the conditions where it is already allowed in 
the MON and 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. One commenter also stated that 
sources should be allowed to designate vents as having a TRE <1.0 and 
allow engineering estimates as an alternative to testing in all cases 
(rather than requiring testing when estimating procedures result in a 
TRE between 1.0 and 4.0). These commenters stated that this would be a 
way to reduce burden and costs while having little impact on emissions 
reductions, and they pointed out that, in some cases, testing is 
impossible (e.g., at the inlet to sintered metal filters that are used 
to control particulate emissions from storage bins). One commenter 
added that some problems that area sources with limited testing 
experience are likely to encounter include the need to modify sampling 
methods, the lack of inlet sampling ports and the lack of a location 
that will allow ports to meet EPA Method 1 location requirements, and 
difficulty sampling inlet streams due to toxicity or flammability of 
the gas.
    Response: Performance tests provide the greatest assurance that 
required control levels are being achieved. However, they can be costly 
(>$20,000 per test). Design evaluations based on engineering principles 
are allowed in the MON and other MACT rules for small control devices 
primarily due to cost considerations and the limited emission potential 
from small control devices. Considering the cost of testing and the 
fact that overall emissions from area sources are much lower than 
emissions from major sources, we do not think a requirement for testing 
at area sources is justified. Therefore, the final rule specifies that 
design evaluations may be used to demonstrate initial compliance with 
any organic HAP emission limits, hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
emission limits for scrubbers associated with combustion controls for 
halogenated vent streams, and metal HAP emission limits.
    The final rule also does not require compliance with the referenced 
requirements in Sec.  63.115(d)(1)(ii) that specify the owner or 
operator must either perform measurements to verify that the TRE 
determined using an engineering assessment is really between 1 and 4 or 
consider the TRE to be <1; thus, an engineering assessment is 
sufficient to determine the TRE in this range.

E. Monitoring Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters urged EPA to specify that the proposed 
PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 do not apply to chemical 
manufacturing area sources because the burden and cost of these 
requirements is significant. Another commenter stated that the costs 
for complying with the proposed PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance 
Procedure 4 need to be considered in the impacts analysis if they are 
to apply to chemical manufacturing area sources. One commenter noted 
that sophisticated instrumentation systems, centralized computer data 
systems, and on-site instrumentation specialists would be needed to 
comply with the proposed PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 
requirements.
    Response: PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 have not been 
finalized. As one commenter pointed out, these requirements go beyond 
existing MACT and NSPS standards, area sources in the categories being 
regulated today do not generally comply with these procedures, and the 
costs to comply with PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 are 
not reasonable. For these reasons, PS-17 and EPA Quality Assurance 
Procedure 4 do not apply to affected sources under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart VVVVVV.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Comment: Two commenters stated that imposing almost all 40 CFR part 
63 General Provisions is overly burdensome and unjustified, because 
area sources have limited technical expertise and staff resources and 
small emission potential compared to major sources. For example, one 
commenter indicated that the ``negative'' records required by 40 CFR 
63.1(b)(3) and 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3) should be indicated as ``No'' in 
Table 4; the performance testing and monitoring provisions in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SS should supersede 40 CFR 63.7 and 40 CFR 63.8; and 
only the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions, not the 40 CFR part 60 
General Provisions, should apply.
    Response: In consideration of these comments, we have reviewed the 
General Provisions and made a few minor changes to Table 9 of the final 
rule with respect to recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
(Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart VVVVVV). We determined 
that 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2) does not apply because the rule references the 
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS for certain control device 
compliance requirements, and 40 CFR 63.997(c)(1) of subpart SS contains 
performance testing schedule requirements that are comparable, although 
slightly more descriptive, than the schedule requirements in 40 CFR 
63.7(a)(2). To ensure that area sources do not have to comply with PS-
17 and EPA Quality Assurance Procedure 4 when they are finalized, we 
determined that 40 CFR 63.8(a)(2) does not apply. We also specify in 
Table 9 that references to SSM in the General Provisions requirements 
for recordkeeping and reporting do not apply. Finally, we determined 
that the notification of changes to information already provided that 
is required by 40 CFR 63.9(j) does not apply because it is redundant 
with 40 CFR 63.11501(d)(4) of the final rule, which specifies that 
notifications of process changes that affect a compliance 
determination, result in a new compliance determination, or change the 
method of compliance must be reported in the semi-annual compliance 
reports.
    In addition to the changes in Table 9, we also added a statement in 
40 CFR 63.11501(a) of the final rule to clarify that an affected source 
must only comply with those Part 63 General Provisions as specified in 
40 CFR Table 9. The General Provisions in other Parts, such as Part 60, 
do not apply except to the extent that a source is subject to an 
overlapping requirement, and that requirement calls for compliance with 
the General Provisions of another part.

G. Requirements During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 
(SSM)

    Comment: Several commenters suggested changes to simplify and 
reduce the burden of SSM requirements. One commenter stated that no 
special reporting should be required after an SSM event if the SSM plan 
was followed, and sources should not have to submit revised plans if 
the plan is modified in a timely fashion. One commenter recommended 
that 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV explicitly state that emission 
limits and control requirements do not apply during SSM periods. Three 
commenters stated that facilities subject only to management practice 
requirements should not be required to develop an SSM plan because no 
purpose is served by requiring an SSM plan for anything that does not 
impact required controls.
    One commenter stated EPA should simplify SSM reporting requirements 
by: (1) Waiving immediate reporting as required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5); 
(2) requiring the information required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) to be 
recorded and maintained onsite and submitted in the periodic report; 
(3) requiring SSM

[[Page 56033]]

reporting only if excess emissions occurred and they did not follow 
their SSM plan; and (4) allowing SSM reporting to be consolidated with 
semiannual compliance reports.
    One commenter stated that Table 4 should indicate that the 
immediate reporting requirements and separate SSM reports required in 
40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) and (iv) do not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
VVVVVV, and that failure to follow the SSM plan during an event where 
there are excess emissions should be reported in the deviation report. 
This commenter also requested that EPA use time and labor rate 
assumptions provided by the commenter in revised burden estimates 
related to SSM plans.
    This same commenter stated that EPA developed the emission 
limitations and work practices in the proposed rule without considering 
any emission data during SSM of control or process equipment. As such, 
the EPA cannot legally impose the emission limitations required during 
normal operations on sources during periods of SSM. The commenter 
points out that EPA may set a standard based on GACT or management 
practices, and management practices is the most appropriate requirement 
for SSM. The commenter suggests provisions of the HON be used as a 
model for SSM management practices. The commenter also requested that 
EPA clarify that area sources may take all actions necessary to ensure 
that sources operate safely at all times, including during SSM events, 
by including language similar to that in the MON in regards to opening 
a safety device.
    Another commenter also submitted comments in response to the court 
decision on SSM issues. The commenter submitted additional compliance 
options that would show compliance at all times, including periods of 
SSM because, according to the commenter, these periods are not steady 
state conditions and, therefore, operating parameter limits determined 
through performance testing or engineering evaluations would not be 
indicative of those periods. The commenter stated that SSM provisions 
should still be included in the final rulemaking for area sources. 
Alternatives suggested by the commenter include demonstration of 
compliance of emission limit using a long term rolling average; conduct 
performance testing for periods of startup and shutdown; allow use of 
storage tank when control device is not operational if tank is not 
filled and has a tight fitting cover; run no new batches until 
malfunction is over; and ensure that the control device is at normal 
operating conditions before the process is started.
    Response: Table 9 to the final rule (Table 4 to the proposed rule) 
contains references to the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions and lists 
the applicability of the General Provisions to the sources subject to 
the rule. As explained above, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, the 
Court vacated 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1). In light of this court 
decision, we revised Table 9 to state that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) 
do not apply. Table 9 also states that the requirements for SSM plans 
and reports in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) do not apply. 
The final emission standards summarized in section IV above apply at 
all times. As noted in sections III and IV above, we are establishing a 
separate emission standard for periods of startup and shutdown for 
continuous process vents for the nine source categories at issue here, 
because these periods are characterized by activities, such as the 
filling of vessels and the inerting of vessels, and these activities 
generally result in significantly different emissions than normal 
operations. See Sierra Club, 551 F.3d at 1027 (recognizing that the CAA 
does not require EPA to set a single emission standard under CAA 
section 112(d) that applies during all operating periods).
    Some commenters complain that EPA failed to consider emissions data 
during startup and shutdown, and that EPA should set different 
standards for these periods. EPA is limited to the emissions 
information before it, which, of course, includes any information 
provided by the commenters. In this case, EPA carefully analyzed all of 
the emissions information before it, including that provided by 
commenters, and concluded that only continuous vents presented a 
situation where a separate standard during startup and shutdown was 
appropriate. Although EPA recognizes that startup and shutdown events 
associated with a continuous process can impact the quantity of 
wastewater sent to the wastewater system, these events do not warrant a 
separate standard for wastewater systems. The final GACT standards for 
wastewater systems appropriately control HAP emissions, and the 
commenters have not provided any data or other information that would 
justify a separate standard for wastewater systems. Contrary to the 
commenters' assertion, for batch processing, startup and shutdown are 
considered part of normal operations. Storage tanks, heat exchange 
systems, and transfer operations also do not undergo startup and 
shutdown activities.
    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA has established CAA section 
112(d) compliant standards in this rule that apply continuously. The 
standards, as described above, apply at all times. In establishing the 
standards in this rule, EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown 
periods and has established different standards for such periods where 
appropriate. Periods of start-up, normal operations, and shut-down are 
all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Batch 
processes start up and shutdown as part of their routine process and 
continuous process operations undergo startups and shutdowns for a 
variety of reasons, including changes in product demand or product 
line, and upgrading of equipment. By contrast, a malfunction is defined 
as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of 
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or a 
process to operate in a normal or usual manner * * * '' 40 CFR 63.2. 
EPA has properly accounted for different periods of operation in 
establishing the standards in this rule. EPA does not view malfunctions 
as a distinct operating mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur 
at such times do not need to be factored into development of CAA 
section 112(d) standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. 
Thus, EPA is not setting separate standards for malfunctions in this 
rule, as the commenters requested.
    Further, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating 
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take into account 
malfunctions in setting CAA section 112(d) standards. Because, by 
definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events, it would be 
difficult to set a standard that would account for the myriad of 
different emissions that could occur during malfunctions. In addition, 
the type, frequency, and duration of the malfunctions may differ 
significantly between sources. Furthermore, emissions during 
malfunctions can substantially exceed the level of emissions during 
start-up, shut-down, and normal operations. Finally, setting an 
emissions standard that accounts for all different types of 
malfunctions could allow a source to emit excessive quantities of 
uncontrolled pollution.
    Commenters raised a concern that certain malfunctions necessitate 
the opening of a safety device to avoid damage to equipment or injury 
to personnel working at the site. EPA shares the commenters' concerns 
that plants must be operated safely and that

[[Page 56034]]

plant operators should run their facilities in a safe manner.

H. Title V Permitting

    As discussed above in section III.F, we are not finalizing the 
exemption from title V requirements for those sources that became area 
sources by installing emission controls. We maintain, as explained 
below in this response to significant comments, that we properly 
applied the test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily 
burdensome on the other sources subject to this NESHAP and we are 
finalizing that exemption in this rulemaking.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the Agency's proposal to exempt 
the nine area source categories from title V requirements is unlawful 
and arbitrary. The commenter states that section 502(a) of the CAA 
authorizes EPA to exempt area source categories from title V permitting 
requirements if the Administrator finds that compliance with such 
requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily 
burdensome.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7661a(a). The commenter notes that EPA 
did not claim that title V requirements are impracticable or infeasible 
for any of the source categories it proposes to exempt, but that EPA 
instead relied entirely on its claim that title V would be 
``unnecessarily burdensome.''
    Response: We have reconsidered our proposed exemption for major 
sources that installed controls to become area sources after 1990. 
Based on our additional review of the source categories since proposal, 
we conclude that exemption for these synthetic area sources is not 
appropriate as discussed above in section III.F. We are finalizing the 
exemption for synthetic area sources that took operational limits and 
for natural minor sources.
    Section 502(a) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that:

    * * * [t]he Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion 
and consistent with the applicable provisions of this chapter, 
promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories (in 
whole or in part) from the requirements of this subsection if the 
Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such 
categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any major 
source from such regulations.

See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a).

    The statute plainly vests the Administrator with discretion to 
determine when it is appropriate to exempt non-major (i.e., area) 
sources of air pollution from the requirements of title V. The 
commenter correctly notes that EPA based the proposed exemptions solely 
on a determination that title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' and 
did not rely on whether the requirements of title V are 
``impracticable'' or ``infeasible'', which are alternative bases for 
exempting area sources from title V.
    To the extent the commenter is asserting that EPA must determine 
that all three criteria in CAA section 502 are met before an area 
source category can be exempted from title V, the commenter misreads 
the statute. The statute expressly provides that EPA may exempt an area 
source category from title V requirements if EPA determines that the 
requirements are ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily 
burdensome.'' See CAA section 502 (emphasis added). If Congress had 
wanted to require that all three criteria be met before a category 
could be exempted from title V, it would have stated so by using the 
word ``and,'' in place of ``or.''
    Comment: One commenter stated that in order to demonstrate that 
compliance with title V would be ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA must 
show, among other things, that the ``burden'' of compliance is 
unnecessary. According to the commenter, by promulgating title V, 
Congress indicated that it viewed the burden imposed by its 
requirements as necessary, as a general rule. The commenter maintained 
that the title V requirements provide many benefits that Congress 
viewed as necessary. Thus, in the commenter's view, EPA must show why, 
for any given category, special circumstances make compliance 
unnecessary. The commenter believed that EPA has not made that showing 
for any of the categories it proposes to exempt.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's characterization 
of the demonstration required for determining that title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for an area source category. As stated above, 
the CAA provides the Administrator discretion to exempt an area source 
category from title V if he determines that compliance with title V 
requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily 
burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 502(a). In 
December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a four-
factor balancing test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily 
burdensome for a particular area source category, such that an 
exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 
2005 (``Exemption Rule''). In addition to interpreting the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and developing the four-factor balancing 
test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to certain area source 
categories.
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular 
area source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in 
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area 
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would 
impose significant burdens on the area source category, and whether the 
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in 
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) 
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category 
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in 
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) 
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that 
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source 
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether 
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily 
burdensome on an area source category, we considered, consistent 
with the guidance provided by the legislative history of CAA section 
502(a), whether exempting the area source category would adversely 
affect public health, welfare, or the environment. See 70 FR 75326, 
December 19, 2005. As shown above, after conducting the four-factor 
balancing test and determining that title V requirements would be 
unnecessarily burdensome on the area source categories at issue 
here, we examined whether the exemption from title V would adversely 
affect public health, welfare, and the environment, and found that 
it would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained 
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or 
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given 
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those 
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be 
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section 
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, we concluded that not all 
of the four factors must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to 
determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular 
area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in 
combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together,

[[Page 56035]]

support an exemption from title V for a particular source category.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA must show * * * that the 
``burden'' of compliance is unnecessary.'' This is not, however, one of 
the four factors that we developed in the Exemption Rule in 
interpreting the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502, 
but rather a new test that the commenter maintains EPA ``must'' meet in 
determining what is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502. 
EPA did not re-open its interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' in CAA section 502 in the October 6, 2008 proposed rule 
for the categories at issue in this rule. Rather, we applied the four-
factor balancing test articulated in the Exemption Rule to the source 
categories for which we proposed title V exemptions. Had we sought to 
re-open our interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in 
CAA section 502 and modify it from what was articulated in the 
Exemption Rule, we would have stated so in the October 6, 2008, 
proposed rule and solicited comments on a revised interpretation, which 
we did not do. Accordingly, we reject the commenter's attempt to create 
a new test for determining what constitutes ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' under CAA section 502, as that issue falls outside the 
purview of this rulemaking.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ If the commenter objected to our interpretation of the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in the Exemption Rule, it should have 
commented on, and challenged, that rule. Any challenge to the 
Exemption Rule is now time barred by CAA section 307(b). Although we 
received comments on the title V Exemption Rule during the 
rulemaking process, no one sought judicial review of that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we believe that the commenter's position that ``EPA 
must show * * * that the ``burden'' of compliance is unnecessary'' is 
unreasonable and contrary to Congressional intent concerning the 
applicability of title V to area sources. Congress intended to treat 
area sources differently under title V, as it expressly authorized the 
EPA Administrator to exempt such sources from the requirements of title 
V at her discretion. There are several instances throughout the CAA 
where Congress chose to treat major sources differently than non-major 
sources, as it did in CAA section 502. In addition, it is worth noting 
that, although the commenter espouses a new interpretation of the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and attempts to create 
a new test for determining whether the requirements of title V are 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' for an area source category, the commenter 
does not explain why EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance 
with law. We maintain that our interpretation of the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502, as set forth in the 
Exemption Rule, is reasonable.
    Comment: One commenter stated that exempting a source category from 
title V permitting requirements deprives both the public generally and 
individual members of the public who would obtain and use permitting 
information for the benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that 
Congress plainly viewed as necessary. According to the commenter, the 
text and legislative history of the CAA provide that Congress intended 
ordinary citizens to be able to get emissions and compliance 
information about air toxics sources and to be able to use that 
information in enforcement actions and in public policy decisions on a 
State and local level. The commenter stated that Congress did not think 
that enforcement by States or other government entities was enough; if 
it had, Congress would not have enacted the citizen suit provisions, 
and the legislative history of the CAA would not show that Congress 
viewed citizens' access to information and ability to enforce CAA 
requirements as highly important both as an individual right and as a 
crucial means to ensuring compliance. According to the commenter, if a 
source does not have a title V permit, it is difficult or impossible--
depending on the laws, regulations, and practices of the State in which 
the source operates--for a member of the public to obtain relevant 
information about its emissions and compliance status. The commenter 
stated that, likewise, it is difficult or impossible for citizens to 
bring enforcement actions. The commenter continued that EPA does not 
claim--far less demonstrate with substantial evidence, as would be 
required--that citizens would have the same ability to obtain 
compliance and emissions information about sources in the categories it 
proposes to exempt without title V permits. The commenter also said 
that, likewise, EPA does not claim--far less demonstrate with 
substantial evidence -- that citizens would have the same enforcement 
ability. Thus, according to the commenter, the exemptions EPA proposes 
plainly eliminate benefits that Congress thought necessary. The 
commenter claimed that, to justify its exemptions, EPA would have to 
show that the informational and enforcement benefits that Congress 
intended title V to confer--benefits which the commenter argues are 
eliminated by the exemptions--are for some reason unnecessary with 
respect to the categories it proposes to exempt. The commenter 
concluded that EPA does not even acknowledge these benefits of title V, 
far less explain why they are unnecessary, and that for this reason 
alone, EPA's proposed exemptions are unlawful and arbitrary.
    Response: Once again, the commenter attempts to create a new test 
for determining whether the requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' on an area source category. Specifically, the commenter 
argues that EPA does not claim or demonstrate with substantial evidence 
that citizens would have the same access to information and the same 
ability to enforce under these NESHAP, absent title V. The commenter's 
position represents a significant revision of the fourth factor that 
EPA developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. For all of the reasons 
explained above, the commenter's attempt to create a new test for EPA 
to meet in determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
on an area source category cannot be sustained. This rulemaking did not 
re-open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
in CAA section 502. In any event, EPA interpretation is reasonable. 
Furthermore, the commenter's statements do not demonstrate a flaw in 
EPA's application of the four-factor balancing test to the specific 
facts of the sources we are exempting, nor do the comments provide a 
basis for the Agency to reconsider the exemption as we are finalizing 
it.
    EPA reasonably applied the four factors to the facts of the nine 
source categories at issue in this rule, and the commenter has not 
identified any flaw in EPA's application of the four-factor test to the 
nine area source categories at issue here.
    Moreover, as explained in the proposal, we considered 
implementation and enforcement issues in the fourth factor of the four-
factor balancing test. Specifically, the fourth factor of EPA's 
unnecessarily burdensome analysis provides that EPA will consider 
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that 
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP without relying on 
title V permits. See 70 FR 75326.
    In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined that there are 
adequate enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the 
CAA. As stated in

[[Page 56036]]

the proposal, we believe that state-delegated programs are sufficient 
to assure compliance with the NESHAP and that EPA retains authority to 
enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. 73 FR 58373. We also indicated that 
States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, 
and education programs to assist sources, and that these additional 
programs will supplement and enhance the success of compliance with 
this NESHAP. 73 FR 58373. The commenter does not challenge the 
conclusion that there are adequate State and Federal programs in place 
to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the NESHAP. Instead, the 
commenter provides an unsubstantiated assertion that information about 
compliance by the area sources with these NESHAP will not be as 
accessible to the public as information provided to a State pursuant to 
title V. In fact, the commenter does not provide any information that 
States will treat information submitted under these NESHAP differently 
than information submitted pursuant to a title V permit.
    Even accepting the commenter's assertions that it is more difficult 
for citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent a title V permit, in 
evaluating the fourth factor in EPA's balancing test, EPA concluded 
that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in 
place to enforce the NESHAP. The commenter has provided no information 
to the contrary or explained how the absence of title V actually 
impairs the ability of citizens to enforce the provisions of the 
NESHAP. Furthermore, the fourth factor is one factor that we evaluated 
in determining if the title V requirements were unnecessarily 
burdensome. As explained above, we considered that factor together with 
the other factors and determined that it was appropriate to finalize 
the proposed exemptions for natural area sources and synthetic area 
sources that took operational limits in the source categories at issue 
in this rule, but we are not finalizing the title V exemption for 
sources that became synthetic area sources through the use of add-on 
controls for the reasons set forth above in section III.F.
    Comment: One commenter explained that title V provides important 
monitoring benefits, and, according to the commenter, EPA assumes that 
title V monitoring would not add any monitoring requirements beyond 
those required by the regulations for each category. The commenter said 
that, in its proposal, EPA proposed to require ``management practices, 
which are practices that are currently used at most facilities, for 
most subcategories (73 FR 58372).'' The commenter further states that 
``EPA argues that its proposed standard, including these practices, 
`provides monitoring in the form of recordkeeping that will assure 
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule.' '' Id. The 
commenter maintains that EPA made conclusory assertions and that the 
Agency failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that the proposed 
monitoring requirements will assure compliance with the NESHAP for the 
exempt sources. The commenter stated that, for this reason, as well, 
its claim that title V requirements are ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is 
arbitrary and capricious, and its exemption is unlawful and arbitrary 
and capricious.
    Response: As noted in the earlier comment, EPA used the four-factor 
test to determine if title V requirements were unnecessarily 
burdensome. In the first factor, EPA considers whether imposition of 
title V requirements would result in significant improvements to the 
compliance requirements that are proposed for the area source 
categories. See 70 FR 75323. It is in the context of this first factor 
that EPA evaluates the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements of the proposed NESHAP to determine the extent to which 
those requirements are consistent with the requirements of title V. See 
70 FR 75323.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA argues that its proposed standard, 
including these practices, `provides monitoring in the form of 
recordkeeping that will assure compliance with the requirements of the 
proposed rule.' '' The commenter has taken a phrase from the preamble 
out of context to imply that EPA has only required monitoring in the 
form of recordkeeping. In the proposal, we stated:

    The proposed rule requires implementation of certain management 
practices, which are practices that are currently used at most 
facilities, for most subcategories, and add on controls and other 
requirements, in addition to management practices for other 
subcategories of sources. The proposed rule requires direct 
monitoring of emissions or control device parameters, both 
continuous and periodic, recordkeeping that also may serve as 
monitoring, and deviation and other semi-annual reporting to assure 
compliance with these requirements.
    The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V 
exemption. For the management practices, this proposed standard 
provides monitoring in the form of recordkeeping that would assure 
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. Monitoring by 
means other than recordkeeping for the management practices is not 
practical or appropriate. Records are required to ensure that the 
management practices are followed. The proposed rule requires the 
owner or operator to record the date and results of inspections, as 
well as any actions taken in response to findings of the 
inspections. The records are required to be maintained as 
checklists, logbooks and/or inspection forms. The rule also requires 
emission limit requirements for some subcategories. Monitoring of 
control device or recovery device operating parameters using CPMS or 
periodic monitoring is required to assure compliance with these 
emission limits.

See 73 FR 58372.

    We nowhere state or imply that the only monitoring required for the 
rule is in the form of recordkeeping. As the above excerpt states, we 
required continuous and periodic direct monitoring of emission control 
devices and recovery devices when the rule requires the installation of 
such controls in addition to the recordkeeping that serves as 
monitoring for the management practices. The commenter does not provide 
any evidence that contradicts the conclusion that the proposed 
monitoring requirements are sufficient to assure compliance with the 
standards in the rule.
    Based on the foregoing, we considered whether title V monitoring 
requirements would lead to significant improvements in the monitoring 
requirements in the proposed NESHAP and determined that they would not. 
We believe that the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in this area source rule can assure compliance for those 
sources we are exempting.
    For the reasons described above and in the proposed rule, the first 
factor supports an exemption. Assuming, for arguments sake, that the 
first factor alone cannot support the exemption, the four-factor 
balancing test requires EPA to examine the factors, in combination, and 
determine whether the factors, viewed together, weigh in favor of 
exemption. See 70 FR 75326. As explained above, we determined that the 
factors, weighed together, support title V exemption for the natural 
area sources and synthetic area sources that took operational limits in 
these source categories.
    Comment: One commenter believes EPA argued that its own belief that 
title V is a ``significant burden'' on area sources further justifies 
its exemption (73 FR 58372-58373). According to the commenter, 
regardless of whether EPA regards the burden as ``significant,'' the 
Agency may not exempt a category from compliance with title V 
requirements unless compliance is ``unnecessarily burdensome.'' The 
commenter stated that, in any event, EPA's claims about

[[Page 56037]]

the alleged significance of the burden of compliance is entirely 
conclusory and could be applied equally to any major or area source 
category. The commenter also stated that the Agency does not show that 
the compliance burden is especially great for any of the sources it 
proposes to exempt, and, thus, does not demonstrate that the alleged 
burden necessitates treating them differently from other categories by 
exempting them from compliance with title V requirements.
    Response: The commenter appears to take issue with the formulation 
of the second factor of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically, 
the commenter states that EPA must determine that title V compliance is 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and not a ``significant burden,'' as 
expressed in the second factor of the four-factor balancing test.
    As we have stated before, at proposal we found the burden placed on 
these sources in complying with the title V requirements is significant 
when we applied the four-factor balancing test.\12\ We note that the 
commenter in other parts of its comments on the title V exemptions 
argues that EPA must demonstrate that every title V requirement is 
``unnecessary'' for a particular source category before an exemption 
can be granted, but makes no mention of the ``burden'' of those 
requirements on area sources, but here the commenter argues that 
``significant burden'' is not appropriate for the second factor. 
Notwithstanding the commenter's inconsistency, as explained above, the 
four-factor balancing test was established in the Exemption Rule and we 
did not re-open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' in this rule. As explained above, we maintain that the 
Agency's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' as 
set forth in the Exemption Rule and reiterated in the proposal to this 
rule, is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As discussed in Section III above, since proposal, we have 
reconsidered the proposed exemption for synthetic area sources that 
became area sources by virtue of installing add-on controls and 
determined that these sources are generally larger and more 
sophisticated sources and, that for these and other reasons, the 
burden on these sources would not be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the commenter's assertions, we properly analyzed the 
second factor of the four-factor balancing test. See 70 FR 75320. Under 
that factor, EPA considers whether title V permitting would impose a 
significant burden on the area source categories, and whether that 
burden would be aggravated by any difficulty that the sources may have 
in obtaining assistance from the permitting agencies. See 70 FR 75324. 
The commenter appears to assert that the second factor must be 
satisfied for EPA to exempt an area source category from title V, but, 
as explained above, the four factors are considered in combination. We 
have concluded that the second factor, in combination with the other 
factors, supports an exemption for the chemical manufacturing area 
sources that we are exempting from compliance with title V in this 
final rule.
    Therefore, we disagree with the commenter's assertion that EPA's 
finding (i.e., that the burden of obtaining a title V permit is 
significant, does not equate to the required finding that the burden is 
unnecessary) is misplaced. While EPA could have found that the second 
factor alone could justify the exemption for the sources we are 
exempting in this rule, EPA found that the other three factors also 
support exempting these sources from the title V requirements because 
the permitting requirements are unnecessarily burdensome for the 
chemical manufacturing area sources we are exempting.
    Comment: According to one commenter, EPA argued that compliance 
with title V would not yield any gains in compliance with underlying 
requirements in the relevant NESHAP (73 FR 58373). The commenter stated 
that EPA's conclusory claim could be made equally with respect to any 
major or area source category. According to the commenter, the Agency 
provides no specific reasons to believe--with respect to any of the 
categories it proposes to exempt--that the additional informational, 
monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements that 
exist in title V, but not in these NESHAP, would not provide additional 
compliance benefits. The commenter also stated that the only basis for 
EPA's claim is, apparently, its beliefs that those additional 
requirements never confer additional compliance benefits. According to 
the commenter, by advancing such argument, EPA merely seeks to elevate 
its own policy judgment over Congress' decisions reflected in the CAA's 
text and legislative history.
    Response: The commenter mischaracterizes the first and third 
factors of the four-factor balancing test and takes out of context 
certain statements in the proposed rule concerning the factors used in 
the balancing test to determine if imposition of title V permit 
requirements is unnecessarily burdensome for the source categories. The 
commenter also mischaracterizes the first factor of the four-factor 
balancing test with regard to determining whether imposition of title V 
would result in significant improvements in compliance. In addition, 
the commenter mischaracterizes the analysis in the third factor of the 
balancing test which instructs EPA to take into account any gains in 
compliance that would result from the imposition of the title V 
requirements.
    First, EPA nowhere states, nor does it believe, that title V never 
confers additional compliance benefits as the commenter asserts. In 
fact, our decision to not exempt synthetic area sources that installed 
add-on controls was based, in part, on our determination that the 
additional public participation and oversight attendant to title V 
permitting was appropriate for those sources. While EPA recognizes that 
requiring a title V permit offers additional compliance options, the 
statute provides EPA with the discretion to evaluate whether compliance 
with title V would be unnecessarily burdensome to specific area 
sources. For the sources we are exempting, we conclude that requiring 
title V permits would be unnecessarily burdensome.
    Second, the commenter mischaracterizes the first factor by 
asserting that EPA must demonstrate that title V will provide no 
additional compliance benefits. The first factor calls for a 
consideration of ``whether title V would result in significant 
improvements to the compliance requirements, including monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source 
category.'' Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the inquiry 
under the first factor is not whether title V will provide any 
compliance benefit, but rather whether it will provide significant 
improvements in compliance requirements.
    The monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 
rule are sufficient to assure compliance with the requirements of this 
rule for the sources we are exempting, consistent with the goal in 
title V permitting. For example, in the Notification of Compliance 
Status report, the source must certify that it has implemented 
management practices, and, if necessary, installed controls and 
established monitoring parameters. See 40 CFR 63.11501 in the final 
rule. The source must also submit deviation reports to the permitting 
agency every 6 months if there has been a deviation in the requirements 
of the rule. See 40 CFR 63.11501 in the final rule. The requirements in 
the final rule provide sufficient basis to assure compliance,

[[Page 56038]]

and EPA does not believe that the title V requirements, if applicable 
to the sources that we are exempting, would offer significant 
improvements in the compliance of the sources with the rule.
    Third, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our statements in 
the proposed rule concerning our application of the third factor. Under 
the third factor, EPA evaluates ``whether the costs of title V 
permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking into 
consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for 
such sources.'' Contrary to what the commenter alleges, EPA did not 
state in the proposed rule that compliance with title V would not yield 
any gains in compliance with the underlying requirements in the 
relevant NESHAP, nor does factor three require such a determination.
    Instead, consistent with the third factor, we considered whether 
the costs of title V are justified in light of any potential gains in 
compliance. In other words, EPA considers the costs of title V 
permitting requirements, including consideration of any improvement in 
compliance above what the rule requires. In considering the third 
factor, we stated, in part, that, ``[b]ecause the costs, both economic 
and non-economic, of compliance with title V are high, and the 
potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not 
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor 
supports title V exemptions for these area source categories.'' See 73 
FR 58373.
    Most importantly, EPA considered all four factors in the balancing 
test in determining whether title V was unnecessarily burdensome on the 
area source categories we are exempting from title V in this final 
rule. As stated above, we have determined that title V is appropriate 
for synthetic area sources that installed add-on controls and we are 
not finalizing the exemption for those sources. As to the remaining 
sources, the commenter's statements do not demonstrate a flaw in EPA's 
application of the four-factor balancing test to the specific facts of 
the sources we are exempting, nor do the comments provide sufficient 
basis for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to exempt the natural 
area sources and synthetic area sources that took operational limits to 
maintain HAP below major source levels.
    Comment: According to one commenter, EPA argued that alternative 
State implementation and enforcement programs assure compliance with 
the underlying NESHAP without relying on title V permits (73 FR 58373). 
The commenter stated that again, EPA's claim is entirely conclusory and 
generic. The commenter also stated that ``the Agency does not identify 
any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with respect to 
these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major and area source 
NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V compliance is 
unnecessary'' (emphasis added). Instead, according to the commenter, 
EPA merely pointed to existing State requirements and the potential for 
actions by States and EPA that are generally applicable to all 
categories (along with some small business and voluntary programs). The 
commenter said that, absent a showing by EPA that distinguishes the 
sources it proposes to exempt from other sources, the Agency's argument 
boils down to the generic and conclusory claim that it generally views 
title V requirements as unnecessary. The commenter stated that, while 
this may be EPA's view, it was not Congress' view when Congress enacted 
title V, and a general view that title V is unnecessary, does not 
suffice to show that title V compliance is unnecessarily burdensome.
    Response: Contrary to the commenters' assertions, EPA does believe 
that title V is appropriate under certain circumstances. Indeed, we are 
not finalizing the title V exemption for synthetic area sources that 
became area sources by virtue of installing add-on controls. However, 
given the facts associated with the remainder of the sources in the 
categories, we think that exemption from title V is appropriate for 
those sources.
    In this comment, the commenter again takes issue with the Agency's 
test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome, as 
developed in the Exemption Rule. Our interpretation of the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is not the subject of this rulemaking. In 
any event, as explained above, we believe the Agency's interpretation 
of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is a reasonable one. To the 
extent the commenter asserts that our application of the fourth factor 
is flawed, we disagree. The fourth factor involves a determination as 
to whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place 
that are sufficient to assure compliance with the rule without relying 
on the title V permits. In discussing the fourth factor in the 
proposal, EPA states that, prior to delegating implementation and 
enforcement to a State, EPA must ensure that the State has programs in 
place to enforce the rule. EPA believes that these programs will be 
sufficient to assure compliance with the rule. EPA also retains 
authority to enforce this NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113, 
and 114. EPA also noted other factors in the proposal that together are 
sufficient to assure compliance with this area source NESHAP.
    The commenter argues that EPA cannot exempt any of the area sources 
in these categories from title V permitting requirements because 
``[t]he agency does not identify any aspect of any of the underlying 
NESHAP showing that with respect to these specific NESHAP--unlike all 
the other major and area source NESHAP it has issued without title V 
exemptions--title V compliance is unnecessary'' (emphasis added). As an 
initial matter, EPA cannot exempt major sources from title V 
permitting. 42 U.S.C. 502(a). As for area sources, the standard that 
the commenter proposes--that EPA must show that ``title V compliance is 
unnecessary''--is not consistent with the standard the Agency 
established in the Exemption Rule and applied in the proposed rule in 
determining if title V requirements are unnecessarily burdensome.
    Furthermore, we disagree that the basis for excluding the chemical 
manufacturing area sources we are exempting from title V requirements 
is generally applicable to sources in any source category. As explained 
in the proposal preamble and above, we balanced the four factors 
considering the facts and circumstances of the nine source categories 
at issue in this rule. For example, in assessing whether the costs of 
requiring the sources to obtain a title V permit was burdensome, we 
concluded that the high relative costs would not be justified given 
that there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance, 
particularly for sources that are required to comply only with the 
management practice requirements contained in the final rule. Almost 
all of the sources we are exempting from title V are required to comply 
only with management practices.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, as EPA concedes, the 
legislative history of the CAA shows that Congress did not intend EPA 
to exempt source categories from compliance with title V unless doing 
so would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the 
environment. Furthermore, the commenter stated that EPA conceded this 
point. See 73 FR 58373. Nonetheless, according to the commenter, EPA 
does not make any showing that its exemptions would not have adverse 
impacts on health, welfare, and the environment. The commenter stated 
that, instead, EPA offered only the conclusory assertion that ``the 
level

[[Page 56039]]

of control would remain the same'' whether title V permits are required 
or not (73 FR 58373). The commenter continued by stating that EPA 
relied entirely on the conclusory arguments advanced elsewhere in its 
proposal that compliance with title V would not yield additional 
compliance with the underlying NESHAP. The commenter stated that those 
arguments are wrong for the reasons given above, and, therefore, EPA's 
claims about public health, welfare, and the environment are wrong too. 
The commenter also stated that Congress enacted title V for a reason: 
To assure compliance with all applicable requirements and to empower 
citizens to get information and enforce the CAA. The commenter said 
that those benefits--of which EPA's proposed rule deprives the public--
would improve compliance with the underlying standards and, thus, have 
benefits for public health, welfare, and the environment. According to 
the commenter, EPA has not demonstrated that these benefits are 
unnecessary with respect to any specific source category, but again, 
simply rests on its own apparent belief that they are never necessary. 
The commenter concluded, for the reasons given above, that the attempt 
to substitute EPA's judgment for Congress' is unlawful and arbitrary.
    Response: Congress gave the Administrator the authority to exempt 
area sources from compliance with title V if, in his or her discretion, 
the Administrator ``finds that compliance with [title V] is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.'' See CAA 
section 502(a). EPA has interpreted one of the three justifications for 
exempting area sources, ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' as requiring 
consideration of the four factors discussed above. At proposal, EPA 
applied these four factors to the nine chemical manufacturing area 
source categories subject to this rule and concluded that requiring 
title V for these area source categories would be unnecessarily 
burdensome. We maintain that this conclusion is accurate for the 
sources we are exempting in this rule.
    In addition to determining that title V would be unnecessarily 
burdensome on the area source categories for which we proposed 
exemptions, as in the Exemption Rule, EPA also considered, consistent 
with our interpretation of the legislative history, whether exempting 
the area source categories would adversely affect public health, 
welfare, or the environment. As explained in the proposal preamble, we 
concluded that exempting the area source categories at issue in this 
rule would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the 
environment because the level of control would be the same even if 
title V applied. We further explained in the proposal preamble that the 
title V permit program does not generally impose new substantive air 
quality control requirements on sources, but instead requires that 
certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to 
determining compliance with applicable requirements. The commenter has 
not provided any information to demonstrate that the exemption from 
title V that we are finalizing will adversely affect public health, 
welfare, or the environment.

VI. Impacts of the Final Area Source Standards

A. What are the air impacts?

    We estimate that the final standard will reduce organic HAP 
emissions by 207 tpy and metal HAP by 41 tpy from the baseline level, 
for an overall HAP emission reduction of 248 tpy from the baseline. 
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the estimated HAP reductions under 
the final standards for each type of emission point.

          Table 1--Estimated Nationwide HAP Emission Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    HAP emission      Urban HAP emission
         Emission point            reduction (tpy)     reduction (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batch process vents............                 <43                 13
Continuous process vents.......                 <29                  9
Metal HAP process vents........                  41                 38
Storage tanks..................                   5                  5
Heat exchange systems..........                  79                 24
Transfer operations............                   1                  0.2
Wastewater systems.............                  51                 16
                                ----------------------------------------
    Total......................                 248                105
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the cost impacts?

    The total capital cost of the final standard is estimated at $2.8 
million. The total annualized cost of the final standard, including the 
annualized cost of capital equipment, is estimated at $3.2 million/yr. 
Additional information on our impact estimates on the sources is 
available in the docket (See Docket Number EPA-HQ--OAR-2008-0334.)

C. What are the economic impacts?

    The final standard is estimated to impact a total of approximately 
450 existing source facilities and 27 new sources in the next 3 years. 
Many of the facilities affected by this final rule are small entities. 
Our analyses indicate that the final rule will not impose a significant 
adverse impact on any facilities, large or small. The average cost for 
each chemical manufacturing industry is projected to be less than 0.06 
percent of average sales. In addition, the average costs in each 
industry are projected to be less than 0.2 percent of average sales for 
the smallest facilities within each industry (i.e., facilities with 50 
to 99 employees).

D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?

    The secondary impacts would include energy impacts associated with 
direct operation of combustion control devices, energy impacts 
associated with the generation of electricity to operate control 
devices, and solid waste generated as a result of the metal HAP 
emissions collected. Organic materials that are recovered from 
wastewater using gravity separation techniques would also be a solid 
waste if the material could not be reused in a process or as fuel.
    We estimate that an additional 175 megawatt-hr/yr of electricity 
and 260,000 standard cubic feet per year of natural gas will be needed 
to operate control devices. We estimate that an additional 1.7 tpy of 
criteria pollutants will be generated from the combustion of natural 
gas in combustion control devices and from the combustion of coal to 
generate electricity. We estimate that controlling metal HAP emissions 
will generate an additional 580 tpy of solid

[[Page 56040]]

waste, including about 41 tpy of HAP metals. An estimated 8 tpy of 
organic material will be recovered from wastewater using gravity 
separation techniques.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise 
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive 
Order 12866, and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 
have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are 
based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions to part 
63. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory 
pursuant to section 113 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 
submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements 
for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according 
to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 
CFR part 2, subpart B.
    This final NESHAP requires chemical manufacturing area sources to 
submit an initial notification of applicability, Notification of 
Compliance Status report, performance test results, and semiannual 
compliance reports. The semiannual compliance reports are only required 
to be submitted if any deviations from any requirements in the rule 
occurred during the applicable semiannual reporting period. Area 
sources must also estimate emissions from batch process vents and metal 
HAP process vents, determine the TRE for continuous process vents, 
identify and characterize the PSHAP concentration in wastewater 
streams, prepare a heat exchange system monitoring plan, conduct design 
evaluations to determine control efficiency, and conduct inspections 
for leaks.
    Records will be required to demonstrate compliance with the TRE 
calculation requirements for continuous process vents, batch and metal 
process vent emissions estimation requirements, inspections and vapor 
pressure calculations for storage tanks, wastewater HAP concentration 
requirements, and management practice inspection records for each CMPU.
    The annual burden associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements for this information collection, averaged 
over the first 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to total 10,566 labor 
hours per year at a cost of $803,906. Capital/startup costs for 
performance tests and monitoring equipment were annualized and 
estimated at $69,484/yr; operation and maintenance costs for the 
monitoring equipment were estimated at $28,787/yr. The costs 
attributable to the final standards are associated with the initial 
compliance demonstration, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this 
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets 
the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses 
found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500, 750, or 1,000 employees 
depending on the specific NAICS Code under subcategory 325); (2) a 
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, 
town, school district, or special district with a population of less 
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule is estimated to impact a total of approximately 450 chemical 
manufacturing area sources; more than 150 of these facilities are 
estimated to be small entities. An economic impacts analysis was 
performed to compare the control costs associated with producing a 
product at facilities in the various chemical manufacturing industries 
to the average value of shipments from such facilities. In all 
industries, the average costs are projected to be less than 0.07 
percent of average sales. For the smallest facilities in each industry 
(those with 50 to 99 employees), the average costs are all projected to 
be less than 0.2 percent of average sales. Thus, any price increases or 
loss of profit would be quite small.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this final rule on small entities. The 
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout 
the sources engaged in chemical manufacturing, and in many cases only 
require management practices. The standards require only the 
recordkeeping and reporting needed to demonstrate and verify 
compliance.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
The total annual cost of the rule is estimated at $3.2 million/yr. This 
final rule is not expected to impact State, local, or tribal 
governments. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final rule 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no 
obligations upon them, and would not result in expenditures by them of 
$100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on 
them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States,

[[Page 56041]]

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final 
rule does not impose any requirements on State and local governments. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 
imposes requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources 
and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply 
to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the 
Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 
solely on technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this 
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy impacts.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This action involves technical standards. EPA cites the following 
standards: EPA Methods 5 and 5D in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3 and EPA 
Method 29 in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-8. Therefore, EPA conducted a 
search to identify potentially applicable VCS. No applicable VCS were 
identified for EPA Methods 5D and 29. The search identified four VCS as 
possible alternatives to EPA Method 5. EPA determined that these four 
standards were impractical alternatives to the EPA test methods. 
Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this 
purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the 4 methods are 
discussed in a memorandum included in the docket for this action.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any 
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in 
the final rule.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined 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. The final rule increases the level of environmental 
protection for all affected populations without having any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population. The nationwide standards will reduce HAP emissions and thus 
decrease the amount of emissions to which all affected populations are 
exposed.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General 
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final 
rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the 
United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 
the United States prior to publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective on 
October 29, 2009.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 16, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart VVVVVV to read as follows:

Subpart VVVVVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

63.11494 What are the applicability requirements and compliance 
dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.11495 What are the management practices and other requirements?
63.11496 What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
process vents?
63.11497 What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
storage tanks?
63.11498 What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
wastewater systems?

[[Page 56042]]

63.11499 What are the standards and compliance requirements for heat 
exchange systems?
63.11500 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is 
subject to both this subpart and another Federal standard?
63.11501 What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11502 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11503 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

Tables to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Hazardous Air Pollutants Used 
to Determine Applicability of Chemical Manufacturing Operations
Table 2 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance 
Requirements for Batch Process Vents
Table 3 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance 
Requirements for Continuous Process Vents
Table 4 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance 
Requirements for Metal HAP Process Vents
Table 5 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance 
Requirements for Storage Tanks
Table 6 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance 
Requirements for Wastewater Systems
Table 7 to subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Partially Soluble HAP
Table 8 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance 
Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
Table 9 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart VVVVVV

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.  63.11494  What are the applicability requirements and compliance 
dates?

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you are 
subject to this subpart if you own or operate a chemical manufacturing 
process unit (CMPU) that meets the conditions specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) The CMPU uses as feedstocks, generates as byproducts, or 
produces as products any of the hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed 
in Table 1 to this subpart (Table 1 HAP).
    (2) The CMPU is located at an area source of HAP emissions.
    (3) Table 1 HAP are present in feedstocks, or Table 1 HAP are 
generated or produced in the CMPU and are present in process fluid, at 
concentrations greater than 0.1 percent for carcinogens, as defined by 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4), and greater than 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens. To 
determine the Table 1 HAP content of feedstocks, you may rely on 
formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the 
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the material. If the 
concentration in an MSDS is presented as a range, use the upper bound 
of the range.
    (b) A CMPU includes all process vessels, equipment, and activities 
necessary to operate a chemical manufacturing process that produces a 
material or a family of materials described by North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code 325. A CMPU consists of one or more 
unit operations and any associated recovery devices. A CMPU also 
includes each storage tank, transfer operation, surge control vessel, 
and bottoms receiver associated with the production of such NAICS code 
325 materials.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to the operations specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Affected sources under the following chemical manufacturing 
area source categories listed pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 
112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) that are subject to area source 
standards under this part:
    (i) Manufacture of Paint and Allied Products, subject to subpart 
CCCCCCC of this part.
    (ii) Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants, 
subject to subpart IIIII of this part.
    (iii) Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, subject to 
subpart DDDDDD of this part.
    (iv) Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, subject to subpart 
LLLLLL of this part.
    (v) Carbon Black Production, subject to subpart MMMMMM of this 
part.
    (vi) Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds, 
subject to subpart NNNNNN of this part.
    (2) Production of the following chemical manufacturing materials 
described in NAICS code 325:
    (i) Manufacture of radioactive elements or isotopes, radium 
chloride, radium luminous compounds, strontium, uranium.
    (ii) Manufacture of photographic film, paper, and plate where the 
material is coated with or contains chemicals. This subpart does apply 
to the manufacture of photographic chemicals.
    (iii) Fabricating operations (such as spinning or compressing a 
solid polymer into its end use); compounding operations (in which 
blending, melting, and resolidification of a solid polymer product 
occurs for the purpose of incorporating additives, colorants, or 
stabilizers); and extrusion and drawing operations (converting an 
already produced solid polymer into a different shape by melting or 
mixing the polymer and then forcing it or pulling it through an orifice 
to create an extruded product). An operation is subject if it involves 
processing with Table 1 HAP solvent or if an intended purpose of the 
operation is to remove residual Table 1 HAP monomer.
    (iv) Manufacture of chemicals classified in NAICS code 325222, 
325314, 325413, or 325998.
    (3) Research and development facilities, as defined in CAA section 
112(c)(7).
    (4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories.
    (5) Ancillary activities, as defined in Sec.  63.11502(b).
    (6) Metal HAP in structures or existing as articles as defined in 
40 CFR 372.3.
    (d) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. 
The affected source is the facility-wide collection of CMPUs and each 
heat exchange system and wastewater system associated with a CMPU that 
meets the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 
A CMPU using only Table 1 organic HAP is required to control only total 
CAA section 112(b) organic HAP. A CMPU using only Table 1 metal HAP is 
required to control only total CAA section 112(b) metal HAP.
    (1) An affected source is an existing source if you commenced 
construction or reconstruction of the affected source before October 6, 
2008.
    (2) An affected source is a new source if you commenced 
construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after 
October 6, 2008.
    (e) Any source that was a major source and installed a control 
device on a CMPU after November 15, 1990, and, as a result, became an 
area source under 40 CFR part 63 is required to obtain a permit under 
40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71. Otherwise, you are exempt from the 
obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, 
provided you are not otherwise required by law to obtain a permit under 
40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the previous 
sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this 
subpart.
    (f) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no 
later than October 29, 2012.
    (g) If you start up a new affected source on or before October 29, 
2009, you must achieve compliance with the

[[Page 56043]]

applicable provisions of this subpart no later than October 29, 2009.
    (h) If you start up a new affected source after October 29, 2009, 
you must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon 
startup of your affected source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements

Sec.  63.11495  What are the management practices and other 
requirements?

    (a) Management practices. If you have a CMPU subject to this 
subpart, you must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) Each process vessel in organic HAP service or metal HAP service 
must be equipped with a cover or lid that must be in place at all times 
when the vessel contains HAP, except for material addition and 
sampling.
    (2) You must use any of the methods listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 
through (iv) of this section to control total organic HAP emissions 
from transfer of liquids containing Table 1 organic HAP to tank trucks 
or railcars. You are not required to comply with this paragraph (a)(2) 
if you have notified the Administrator in your initial notification 
that a material is reactive or resinous, and you will not be able to 
comply with any of the methods in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of 
this section for the transfer of such material.
    (i) Use submerged loading or bottom loading.
    (ii) Route emissions to a fuel gas system or process in accordance 
with Sec.  63.982(d) of subpart SS.
    (iii) Vapor balance back to the storage tank or another storage 
tank connected by a common header.
    (iv) Vent through a closed-vent system to a control device.
    (3) You must conduct inspections of process vessels and equipment 
for each CMPU in organic HAP service or metal HAP service at least 
quarterly to demonstrate compliance with these requirements and to 
determine that the process vessels and equipment are sound and free of 
leaks. For these inspections, detection methods incorporating sight, 
sound, or smell are acceptable. The inspection must include direct and 
proximal (thorough) inspection of all areas of potential leak within 
the CMPU. Indications of a leak identified using such method 
constitutes a leak unless you demonstrate that the indications of a 
leak are due to a condition other than loss of HAP. Alternatively, 
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, with a leak definition of 
500 parts per million by volume (ppmv), may be used for detection of 
leaks or to determine if the indications of a leak are due to a 
condition other than loss of HAP. If indications of a leak are 
determined not to be HAP in one quarterly monitoring period, you must 
still perform the inspection and demonstration in the next quarterly 
monitoring period. Inspections must be conducted while the subject CMPU 
is operating. No inspection is required in a calendar quarter during 
which the subject CMPU does not operate for the entire calendar quarter 
and is not in organic HAP service or metal HAP service. If the CMPU 
operates at all during a calendar quarter, an inspection is required.
    (4) You must repair any leak within 15 calendar days after 
detection of the leak, or document the reason for any delay of repair. 
For the purposes of this paragraph (a)(4), a leak will be considered 
``repaired'' if a condition specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i), (ii), or 
(iii) of this section is met.
    (i) The visual, audible, olfactory, or other indications of a leak 
to the atmosphere have been eliminated, or
    (ii) No bubbles are observed at potential leak sites during a leak 
check using soap solution, or
    (iii) The system will hold a test pressure.
    (5) You must keep records of the dates and results of each 
inspection event, the dates of equipment repairs, and, if applicable, 
the reasons for any delay in repair.
    (b) Small heat exchange systems. For each heat exchange system 
subject to this subpart with a cooling water flow rate less than 8,000 
gallons per minute (gal/min) and not meeting one or more of the 
conditions in Sec.  63.104(a), you must comply with paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section, or as an alternative, you may comply with 
any one of the requirements in Item 1.a or 1.b of Table 8 to this 
subpart.
    (1) You must develop and operate in accordance with a heat exchange 
system inspection plan. The plan must describe the inspections to be 
performed that will provide evidence of hydrocarbons in the cooling 
water. Among other things, inspections may include checks for visible 
floating hydrocarbon on the water, hydrocarbon odor, discolored water, 
and/or chemical addition rates. You must conduct inspections at least 
once per quarter, even if the previous inspection determined that the 
indications of a leak did not constitute a leak as defined by Sec.  
63.104(b)(6).
    (2) You must perform repairs to eliminate the leak and any 
indications of a leak or demonstrate that the HAP concentration in the 
cooling water does not constitute a leak, as defined by Sec.  
63.104(b)(6), within 45 calendar days after indications of the leak are 
identified, or you must document the reason for any delay of repair in 
your next semiannual compliance report.
    (3) You must keep records of the dates and results of each 
inspection, documentation of any demonstrations that indications of a 
leak do not constitute a leak, the dates of leak repairs, and, if 
applicable, the reasons for any delay in repair.
    (c) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions in subparts 
that are referenced in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not 
apply.

Sec.  63.11496  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
process vents?

    (a) Organic HAP Emissions from Batch Process Vents. You must comply 
with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section 
for organic HAP emissions from your batch process vents for each CMPU 
using Table 1 organic HAP. If uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from 
all batch process vents from a CMPU subject to this subpart are equal 
to or greater than 10,000 pounds per year (lb/yr), you must also comply 
with the emission limits and other requirements in Table 2 to this 
subpart.
    (1) You must determine the sum of actual organic HAP emissions from 
all of your batch process vents within a CMPU subject to this subpart 
using process knowledge, engineering assessment, or test data. 
Emissions for a standard batch in a process may be used to represent 
actual emissions from each batch in that process. You must maintain 
records of the calculations. Calculations of annual emissions are not 
required if you meet the emission standards for batch process vents in 
Table 2 to this subpart.
    (2) As an alternative to calculating actual emissions for each 
affected CMPU at your facility, you may elect to estimate emissions for 
each CMPU based on the emissions for the worst-case CMPU. The worst-
case CMPU means the CMPU at the affected source with the highest 
organic HAP emissions per batch. The worst-case emissions per batch are 
used with the number of batches run for other affected CMPU. Process 
knowledge, engineering assessment, or test data may be used to identify 
the worst-case process. You must keep records of the information and 
procedures used to identify the worst-case process.
    (3) If your current estimate is that emissions from batch process 
vents from a CMPU are less than 10,000 pounds per

[[Page 56044]]

year (lb/yr), then you must keep a record of the number of batches of 
each process operated per month. Also, you must reevaluate your total 
emissions from batch process vents prior to making any process changes 
that affect emission calculations in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section. If projected emissions increase to 10,000 lb/yr or more, you 
must be in compliance options for batch process vents in Table 2 to 
this subpart upon initiating operation under the new operating 
conditions. You must maintain records documenting the results of all 
updated emissions calculations.
    (4) As an alternative to determining the HAP emissions, you may 
elect to demonstrate that the amount of organic HAP used in the process 
is less than 10,000 lb/yr. You must keep monthly records of the organic 
HAP usage.
    (b) Organic HAP Emissions from Continuous Process Vents. You must 
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section for organic HAP emissions from your continuous process vents 
for each CMPU subject to this subpart using Table 1 organic HAP. If the 
total resource-effectiveness (TRE) index value for a continuous process 
vent is less than or equal to 1.0, you must also comply with the 
emission limits and other requirements in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (1) You must determine the TRE index value according to the 
procedures in Sec.  63.115(d), except as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You are not required to calculate the TRE index value if you 
control emissions in accordance with Table 3 to this subpart.
    (ii) Sections 63.115(d)(1)(i) and (ii) are not applicable for the 
purposes of this paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
    (iii) You may assume the TRE for a vent stream is > 1.0 if the 
amount of organic HAP emitted in the vent stream is less than 0.1 pound 
per hour.
    (2) If the current TRE index value is greater than 1, you must 
recalculate the TRE index value before you make any process or 
operational change that affects parameters in the calculation. If the 
recalculated TRE is less than or equal to 1.0, then you must comply 
with one of the compliance options for continuous process vents in 
Table 3 to this subpart before operating under the new operating 
conditions. You must maintain records of all TRE calculations.
    (3) If a recovery device as defined in Sec.  63.11502 is used to 
maintain the TRE index value at a level greater than 1.0 and less than 
or equal to 4.0, you must comply with Sec.  63.982(e) and the 
requirements specified therein.
    (c) Combined Streams. If you combine organic HAP emissions from 
batch process vents and continuous process vents, you must comply with 
the more stringent standard in Table 2 or Table 3 to this subpart that 
applies to any portion of the combined stream, or you must comply with 
Table 2 for the batch process vents and Table 3 for the continuous 
process vents. The TRE index value for continuous process vents and the 
annual emissions from batch process vents shall be determined for the 
individual streams before they are combined, and prior to any control, 
in order to determine the most stringent applicable requirements.
    (d) Combustion of Halogenated Streams. If you use a combustion 
device to comply with the emission limits for organic HAP from a 
halogenated batch process vent or a halogenated continuous process 
vent, you must use a halogen reduction device to meet the emission 
limit in either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section and in 
accordance with Sec.  63.994 and the requirements referenced therein.
    (1) Reduce overall emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
after the combustion device by greater than or equal to 95 percent, to 
less than or equal to 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr), or to a 
concentration less than or equal to 20 parts per million by volume 
(ppmv).
    (2) Reduce the halogen atom mass emission rate before the 
combustion device to less than or equal to 0.45 kg/hr or to a 
concentration less than or equal to 20 ppmv.
    (e) Alternative Standard for Organic HAP. Exceptions to the 
requirements for the alternative standard requirements specified in 
Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and Sec.  63.2505 are specified in 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) When Sec.  63.2505 of subpart FFFF refers to Tables 1 and 2 to 
subpart FFFF and Sec. Sec.  63.2455 and 63.2460, it means Tables 2 and 
3 to this subpart and Sec.  63.11496(a) and (b).
    (2) Sections 63.2505(a)(2) and (b)(9) do not apply.
    (3) When Sec.  63.2505(b) references Sec.  63.2445 it means Sec.  
63.11494(f) through (h).
    (4) The requirements for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP apply only 
to hydrogen halide and halogen HAP generated in a combustion device 
that is used to comply with the alternative standard.
    (5) When Sec.  63.1258(b)(5)(ii)(B)(2) refers to a ``notification 
of process change'' report, it means the semi-annual compliance report 
required by Sec.  63.11501(d) for the purposes of this subpart.
    (f) Emissions from Metal HAP Process Vents. You must comply with 
the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section for metal 
HAP emissions from each CMPU using Table 1 metal HAP. If the collective 
uncontrolled metal HAP emissions from all metal HAP process vents from 
a CMPU are equal to or greater than 400 lb/yr, then you must also 
comply with the emission limits and other requirements in Table 4 to 
this subpart and in paragraph (f)(3), (4), or (5) of this section.
    (1) You must determine the sum of metal HAP emissions from all 
metal HAP process vents within a CMPU subject to this subpart, except 
you are not required to determine the annual emissions if you control 
the metal HAP process vents within a CMPU in accordance with Table 4 to 
this subpart or if you determine your total metal HAP usage in the 
process unit is less than 400 lb/yr. To determine the mass emission 
rate you may use process knowledge, engineering assessment, or test 
data. You must keep records of the emissions calculations.
    (2) If your current estimate is that total uncontrolled metal HAP 
emissions from a CMPU subject to this subpart are less than 400 lb/yr, 
then you must keep records of either the number of batches operated per 
month (batch vents) or the process operating hours (continuous vents). 
Also, you must reevaluate your total emissions before you make any 
process or operational change that affects emissions of metal HAP. If 
projected emissions increase to 400 lb/yr or more, then you must be in 
compliance with one of the options for metal HAP process vents in Table 
4 to this subpart upon initiating operation under the new operating 
conditions. You must keep records of all recalculated emissions 
determinations.
    (3) If you have an existing source subject to the HAP metals 
emission limits specified in Table 4 to this subpart, you must comply 
with the initial compliance and monitoring requirements in paragraphs 
(f)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must keep records of 
monitoring results to demonstrate continuous compliance.
    (i) You must prepare a monitoring plan containing the information 
in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A) through (E) of this section. The plan must 
be maintained on-site and be available on request. You must operate and 
maintain the control device according to a site-specific monitoring 
plan at all times.
    (A) A description of the device;

[[Page 56045]]

    (B) Results of a performance test or engineering assessment 
conducted in accordance with paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section 
verifying the performance of the device for reducing HAP metals or 
particulate matter (PM) to the levels required by this subpart;
    (C) Operation and maintenance plan for the control device 
(including a preventative maintenance schedule consistent with the 
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance) and 
continuous monitoring system.
    (D) A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to 
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits; 
and
    (E) Operating parameter limits based on either monitoring data 
collected during the performance test or established in the engineering 
assessment.
    (ii) You must conduct a performance test or an engineering 
assessment for each CMPU subject to a HAP metals emissions limit in 
Table 4 to this subpart and report the results in your Notification of 
Compliance Status (NOCS) report. If you own or operate an existing 
affected source, you are not required to conduct a performance test if 
a prior performance test was conducted within the 5 years prior to the 
effective date using the same methods specified in paragraph 
(f)(3)(iii) of this section and either no process changes have been 
made since the test, or if you can demonstrate that the results of the 
performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate 
compliance despite process changes. For each performance test, sampling 
must be conducted at both the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
and the test must be conducted under representative process operating 
conditions.
    (iii) If you elect to conduct a performance test, it must be 
conducted according to requirements in Sec.  63.11410(j)(1). As an 
alternative to conducting a performance test using Method 5 or 5D to 
determine the concentration of PM, you may use Method 29 in 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-8 to determine the concentration of HAP metals. You have 
demonstrated initial compliance if the overall reduction of either HAP 
metals or total PM is equal to or greater than 95 percent.
    (4) If you have a new source using a baghouse as a control device, 
you must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system on 
all baghouses used to comply with the HAP metals emissions limit in 
Table 4 to this subpart. You must comply with the testing, monitoring, 
and recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  63.11410(g), (i), and (j)(1), 
except you are not required to submit the monitoring plan required by 
Sec.  63.11410(g)(2) for approval.
    (5) If you have a new source using a control device other than a 
baghouse to comply with the HAP metals emission limits in Table 4 to 
this subpart, you must comply with the initial compliance and 
monitoring requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (g) Exceptions and Alternatives to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS. If 
you are complying with the emission limits and other requirements for 
continuous process vents in Table 3 to this subpart, the provisions in 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) and (9) of this section apply in addition 
to the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. If you are complying 
with the emission limits and other requirements for batch process vents 
in Table 2 to this subpart, the provisions in paragraphs (g)(1) through 
(8) of this section apply in addition to the provisions in subpart SS.
    (1) Requirements for Performance Tests. The requirements specified 
in Sec. Sec.  63.2450(g)(1) through (4) apply instead of or in addition 
to the requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
    (2) Design Evaluation. To determine initial compliance with a 
percent reduction emission limit, you may elect to conduct a design 
evaluation as specified in Sec.  63.1257(a)(1) instead of a performance 
test as specified in subpart SS of this part 63. You must establish the 
value(s) and basis for the operating limits as part of the design 
evaluation. For continuous process vents, the design evaluation must be 
conducted at maximum representative operating conditions for the 
process, unless the Administrator specifies or approves alternate 
operating conditions. For batch process vents, the design evaluation 
must be conducted under worst-case conditions, as specified in Sec.  
63.2460(c)(2).
    (3) Outlet Concentration Correction for Combustion Devices. When 
Sec.  63.997(e)(2)(iii)(C) requires you to correct the measured 
concentration at the outlet of a combustion device to 3 percent oxygen 
if you add supplemental combustion air, the requirements in either 
paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this section apply for the 
purposes of this subpart.
    (i) You must correct the concentration in the gas stream at the 
outlet of the combustion device to 3 percent oxygen if you add 
supplemental gases, as defined in Sec.  63.2550, to the vent stream, 
or;
    (ii) You must correct the measured concentration for supplemental 
gases using Equation 1 of Sec.  63.2460; you may use process knowledge 
and representative operating data to determine the fraction of the 
total flow due to supplemental gas.
    (4) Continuous Parameter Monitoring. The provisions in Sec.  
63.2450(k)(1) through (6) apply in addition to the requirements for 
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) in subpart SS of this 
part 63, except as specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) You may measure pH at least once per day for any halogen 
scrubber within a CMPU subject to this rule.
    (ii) The requirements in Sec.  63.2450(k)(6) to request approval of 
a procedure to monitor operating parameters does not apply for the 
purposes of this subpart. You must provide the required information in 
your NOCS report required by Sec.  63.11501(b).
    (5) Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM). Section 
63.998(b)(2)(iii),(b)(6)(i)(A), and (d)(3) do not apply for the 
purposes of this subpart.
    (6) Excused Excursions. Excused excursions, as defined in subpart 
SS of this part 63, are not allowed.
    (7) Energetics and Organic Peroxides. If an emission stream 
contains energetics or organic peroxides that, for safety reasons, 
cannot meet an applicable emission limit specified in this subpart, 
then you must submit an application to the Administrator explaining why 
an undue safety hazard would be created if the air emission controls 
were installed, and you must describe the procedures that you will 
implement to minimize HAP emissions from these vent streams in lieu of 
the emission limitations in this section.
    (8) Additional Requirements for Batch Process Vents. The provisions 
specified in Sec.  63.2460(c) apply in addition to the provisions in 
subpart SS of this part 63, except as specified in paragraphs (g)(8)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) References to emission limits in Table 2 to subpart FFFF mean 
the emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
    (ii) References to MCPU mean CMPU for purposes of this subpart.
    (iii) Section 63.2460(c)(8) does not apply for the purposes of this 
subpart.
    (9) Parameter Monitoring Averaging Periods. Daily averages required 
in Sec.  63.998(b)(3) apply at all times except during startup and 
shutdown. Separate averages shall be determined for each period of 
startup and period of shutdown.

[[Page 56046]]

    (h) Surge Control Vessels and Bottoms Receivers. For each surge 
control vessel and bottoms receiver that meets the applicability 
criteria for storage tanks specified in Table 5 to this subpart, you 
must meet the emission limits and control requirements specified in 
Table 5 to this subpart.
    (i) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). References to SSM 
provisions in subparts that are referenced in paragraphs (a) through 
(h) of this section or Tables 2 through 5 to this subpart do not apply.

Sec.  63.11497  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
storage tanks?

    (a) You must comply with the emission limits and other requirements 
in Table 5 to this subpart and in paragraph (b) of this section for 
organic HAP emissions from each of your storage tanks that meet the 
applicability criteria in Table 5 to this subpart.
    (b) Planned Routine Maintenance for a Control Device. Operate in 
accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section for 
periods of planned routine maintenance of a control device for storage 
tanks.
    (1) Add no material to the storage tank during periods of planned 
routine maintenance.
    (2) Limit periods of planned routine maintenance for each control 
device (or series of control devices) to no more than 240 hours per 
year (hr/yr), or submit an application to the Administrator requesting 
an extension of this time limit to a total of 360 hr/yr. The 
application must explain why the extension is needed and it must be 
submitted at least 60 days before the 240-hour limit will be exceeded.
    (3) Keep records of the day and time at which planned routine 
maintenance periods begin and end, and keep a record of the type of 
maintenance performed.
    (c) References to SSM provisions in subparts that are referenced in 
paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section or Table 5 to this subpart do not 
apply.

Sec.  63.11498  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
wastewater systems?

    (a) You must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) and 
(2) of this section and in Table 6, Item 1 to this subpart for all 
wastewater streams from a CMPU subject to this subpart. If the 
partially soluble HAP concentration in a wastewater stream is equal to 
or greater than 10,000 parts per million by weight (ppmw) and the 
wastewater stream contains a separate organic phase, then you must also 
comply with Table 6, Item 2 to this subpart for that wastewater stream. 
Partially soluble HAP are listed in Table 7 to this subpart.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you 
must determine the total concentration of partially soluble HAP in each 
wastewater stream using process knowledge, engineering assessment, or 
test data. Also, you must reevaluate the concentration of partially 
soluble HAP if you make any process or operational change that affects 
the concentration of partially soluble HAP in a wastewater stream.
    (2) You are not required to determine the partially soluble 
concentration in wastewater that is hard piped to a combustion unit or 
hazardous waste treatment unit, and you are not required to determine 
the partially soluble HAP concentration in wastewater that is hard 
piped to a storage tank from which the wastewater is collected and 
shipped offsite for treatment in a combustion unit or hazardous waste 
treatment unit.
    (3) Separated organic material that is recycled to a process is no 
longer wastewater and no longer subject to the wastewater requirements 
after it has been recycled.
    (b) The requirements in Item 2 of Table 6 to this subpart do not 
apply during periods of startup or shutdown. References to SSM 
provisions in subparts that are referenced in paragraph (a) of this 
section or Table 6 to this subpart do not apply.

Sec.  63.11499  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
heat exchange systems?

    (a) If the cooling water flow rate in your heat exchange system is 
equal to or greater than 8,000 gal/min and is not meeting one or more 
of the conditions in Sec.  63.104(a), then you must comply with one of 
the requirements specified in Table 8 to this subpart.
    (b) For equipment that meets Current Good Manufacturing Practice 
(CGMP) requirements of 21 CFR part 211, you may use the physical 
integrity of the reactor as the surrogate indicator of heat exchanger 
system leaks when complying with Item 1.a in Table 8 to this subpart.
    (c) Any reference to SSM provisions in other subparts that are 
referenced in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section or Table 8 to this 
subpart do not apply.

Sec.  63.11500  What compliance options do I have if part of my plant 
is subject to both this subpart and another Federal standard?

    For any CMPU, heat exchange system, or wastewater system subject to 
the provisions of both this subpart and another rule, you may elect to 
comply only with the more stringent provisions as specified in 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. You must consider all 
provisions of the rules, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting. You must identify the subject CMPU, heat exchange system, 
and/or wastewater system, and the provisions with which you will comply 
in your NOCS report required by Sec.  63.11501(b). You also must 
demonstrate in your NOCS report that each provision with which you will 
comply is at least as stringent as the otherwise applicable requirement 
in this subpart VVVVVV. You are responsible for making accurate 
determinations concerning the more stringent standards and 
noncompliance with this rule is not excused if it is later determined 
that your determination was in error and, as a result, you are 
violating this subpart. Compliance with this rule is your 
responsibility and the NOCS report does not alter or affect that 
responsibility.
    (a) Compliance with Other Subparts of this Part 63. If any part of 
a CMPU that is subject to the provisions of this subpart is also 
subject to the provisions of another subpart of 40 CFR part 63, then 
compliance with any of the requirements in the other subpart of this 
part 63 that are at least as stringent as the corresponding 
requirements in this subpart VVVVVV constitutes compliance with this 
subpart VVVVVV.
    (b) Compliance with Subparts of 40 CFR Part 60. If any part of a 
CMPU that is subject to the provisions of this subpart is also subject 
to the provisions of subpart VV, DDD, III, NNN, RRR, or YYY in 40 CFR 
part 60, then compliance with any of the requirements in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart VV, DDD, III, NNN, RRR, or YYY that are at least as 
stringent as the corresponding requirements in this subpart VVVVVV 
constitutes compliance with this subpart VVVVVV.
    (c) Compliance with Subparts of 40 CFR Part 61. If any part of a 
CMPU that is subject to the provisions of this subpart is also subject 
to the provisions of subpart V, Y, BB, or FF of 40 CFR part 61, then 
compliance with any of the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, 
Y, BB, or FF that are at least as stringent as the corresponding 
requirements in this subpart VVVVVV constitutes compliance with this 
subpart VVVVVV.
    (d) Compliance with 40 CFR Parts 260 through 272. If any part of a 
CMPU that is subject to the provisions of this subpart is also subject 
to the provisions of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272, then compliance with 
any of the requirements in 40 CFR part 260

[[Page 56047]]

through 272 rule that are at least as stringent as the corresponding 
requirements in this subpart VVVVVV constitutes compliance with this 
subpart VVVVVV.

Sec.  63.11501  What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?

    (a) General Provisions. You must meet the requirements of the 
General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as shown in Table 9 to 
this subpart. The General Provisions in other parts do not apply except 
when a requirement in an overlapping standard, which you determined is 
at least as stringent as subpart VVVVVV and with which you have opted 
to comply, requires compliance with general provisions in another part.
    (b) Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS). Your NOCS required by 
Sec.  63.9(h) must include the following additional information as 
applicable:
    (1) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official:
    (i) ``This facility complies with the management practices in Sec.  
63.11495.''
    (ii) ``This facility complies with the requirements in Sec.  
63.11496 for HAP emissions from process vents.''
    (iii) ``This facility complies with the requirements in Sec.  
63.11496 and Sec.  63.11497 for surge control vessels, bottoms 
receivers, and storage tanks.''
    (iv) ``This facility complies with the requirements in Sec.  
63.11498 to treat wastewater streams.''
    (v) ``This facility complies with the requirements in Sec.  
63.11499 for heat exchange systems.''
    (2) If you comply with the alternative standard as specified in 
Table 2 to this subpart or Table 3 to this subpart, include the 
information specified in Sec.  63.1258(b)(5), as applicable.
    (3) If you establish an operating limit for a parameter that will 
not be monitored continuously in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
63.11496(g)(4) and 63.2450(k)(6), provide the information as specified 
in Sec. Sec.  63.11496(g)(4) and 63.2450(k)(6).
    (4) A list of all transferred liquids that are reactive or resinous 
materials, as defined in Sec.  63.11502(b).
    (5) If you comply with provisions in an overlapping rule in 
accordance with Sec.  63.11500, identify the affected CMPU, heat 
exchange system, and/or wastewater system; provide a list of the 
specific provisions with which you will comply; and demonstrate that 
the provisions with which you will comply are at least as stringent as 
the otherwise applicable requirements, including monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, in this subpart VVVVVV.
    (c) Recordkeeping. You must maintain files of all information 
required by this subpart for at least 5 years following the date of 
each occurrence according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(1). If 
you are subject, you must comply with the recordkeeping requirements of 
Sec.  63.10(b)(2) and the applicable requirements specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) For each CMPU subject to this subpart you must keep the records 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section, as 
applicable.
    (i) Records of management practice inspections, repairs, and 
reasons for any delay of repair, as specified in Sec.  63.11495(a)(5).
    (ii) Records of small heat exchange system inspections, 
demonstrations of indications of leaks that do not constitute leaks, 
repairs, and reasons for any delay in repair as specified in Sec.  
63.11495(b).
    (iii) If batch process vent emissions are less than 10,000 lb/yr 
for a CMPU, records of batch process vent emission calculations, as 
specified in Sec.  63.11496(a)(1), the number of batches operated each 
month, as specified in Sec.  63.11496(a)(3), and any updated emissions 
calculations, as specified in Sec.  63.11496(a)(3). Alternatively, keep 
records of the worst-case processes or organic HAP usage, as specified 
in Sec.  63.11496(a)(2) and (4), respectively.
    (iv) Records of all TRE calculations for continuous process vents 
as specified in Sec.  63.11496(b)(2).
    (v) Records of metal HAP emission calculations as specified in 
Sec.  63.11496(f)(1) and (2). If total uncontrolled metal HAP process 
vent emissions from a CMPU subject to this subpart are estimated to be 
less than 400 lb/yr, also keep records of either the number of batches 
per month or operating hours, as specified in Sec.  63.11496(f)(2).
    (vi) Records identifying wastewater streams and the type of 
treatment they receive, as specified in Table 6 to this subpart.
    (2) For batch process vents subject to Table 2 to this subpart and 
continuous process vents subject to Table 3 to this subpart, you must 
keep records specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, 
as applicable.
    (i) If you route emissions to a control device other than a flare, 
keep records of performance tests, if applicable, as specified in Sec.  
63.998(a)(2)(ii) and (4), keep records of the monitoring system and the 
monitored parameters, as specified in Sec.  63.998(b) and (c), and keep 
records of the closed-vent system, as specified in Sec.  63.998(d)(1). 
If you use a recovery device to maintain the TRE above 1.0 for a 
continuous process vent, keep records of monitoring parameters during 
the TRE index value determination, as specified in Sec.  63.998(a)(3).
    (ii) If you route emissions to a flare, keep records of the flare 
compliance assessment, as specified in Sec.  63.998(a)(1)(i), keep 
records of the pilot flame monitoring, as specified in Sec.  
63.998(a)(1)(ii) and (iii), and keep records of the closed-vent system, 
as specified in Sec.  63.998(d)(1).
    (3) For metal HAP process vents subject to Table 4 to this subpart, 
you must keep records specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (i) For a new source using a control device other than a baghouse 
and for any existing source, maintain a monitoring plan, as specified 
in Sec.  63.11496(f)(3)(i), and keep records of monitoring results, as 
specified in Sec.  63.11496(f)(3).
    (ii) For a new source using a baghouse to control metal HAP 
emissions, keep a site-specific monitoring plan, as specified in 
Sec. Sec.  63.11496(f)(4) and 63.11410(g), and keep records of bag leak 
detection systems, as specified in Sec. Sec.  63.11496(f)(4) and 
63.11410(g)(4).
    (4) For each storage tank subject to Table 5 to this subpart, you 
must keep records specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (vi) of 
this section, as applicable.
    (i) Keep records of the vessel dimension, capacity, and liquid 
stored, as specified in Sec.  63.1065(a).
    (ii) Keep records of each inspection of an internal floating roof, 
as specified in Sec.  63.1065(b)(1).
    (iii) Keep records of each seal gap measurement for external 
floating roofs, as specified in Sec.  63.1065(b)(2), and keep records 
of inspections of external floating roofs, as specified in Sec.  
63.1065(b)(1).
    (iv) If you vent emissions to a control device other than a flare, 
keep records of the operating plan and measured parameter values, as 
specified in Sec. Sec.  63.985(c) and 63.998(d)(2).
    (v) If you vent emissions to a flare, keep records of all periods 
of operation during which the flare pilot flame is absent, as specified 
in Sec. Sec.  63.987(c) and 63.998(a)(1), and keep records of closed-
vent systems, as specified in Sec.  63.998(d)(1).
    (vi) For periods of planned routine maintenance of a control 
device, keep records of the day and time at which each maintenance 
period begins and ends, and keep records of the type of maintenance 
performed, as specified in Sec.  63.11497(b)(3).

[[Page 56048]]

    (5) For each wastewater stream subject to Item 2 in Table 6 to this 
subpart, keep records of the wastewater stream identification and the 
disposition of the organic phase(s), as specified in Item 2 to Table 6 
to this subpart.
    (6) For each large heat exchange system subject to Table 8 to this 
subpart, you must keep records of detected leaks; the date the leak was 
detected; if demonstrated not to be a leak, the basis for that 
determination; the date of efforts to repair the leak; and the date the 
leak is repaired, as specified in Table 8 to this subpart.
    (7) You must keep a record of all transferred liquids that are 
reactive or resinous materials, as defined in Sec.  63.11502(b), and 
not included in the NOCS.
    (d) Semiannual Compliance Reports. You must submit semiannual 
compliance reports that contain the information specified in paragraphs 
(d)(1) through (7) of this section, as applicable. Reports are required 
only for semiannual periods during which you experienced any of the 
events described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Deviations. You must clearly identify any deviation from the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (2) Delay of Repair for a Large Heat Exchange System. You must 
include the information specified in Sec.  63.104(f)(2) each time you 
invoke the delay of repair provisions for a heat exchange system with a 
cooling water flow rate equal to or greater than 8,000 gal/min.
    (3) Delay of Leak Repair. You must provide the following 
information for each delay of leak repair beyond 15 days for any 
process equipment, storage tank, surge control vessel, bottoms 
receiver, and each delay of leak repair beyond 45 days for any heat 
exchange system with a cooling water flow rate less than 8,000 gal/min: 
information on the date the leak was identified, the reason for the 
delay in repair, and the date the leak was repaired.
    (4) Process Change. You must report each process change that 
affects a compliance determination and submit a new certification of 
compliance with the applicable requirements in accordance with the 
procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (5) Data for the Alternative Standard. If you comply with the 
alternative standard, as specified in Table 2 to this subpart or Table 
3 to this subpart, report the information required in Sec.  
63.1258(b)(5).
    (6) Overlapping Rule Requirements. Report any changes in the 
overlapping provisions with which you comply.
    (7) Reactive and Resinous Materials. Report any transfer of liquids 
that are reactive or resinous materials, as defined in Sec.  
63.11502(b), and not included in the NOCS.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec.  63.11502  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    (a) The following terms used in this subpart have the meaning given 
them in the CAA, Sec.  63.2, subpart SS (Sec.  63.981), subpart WW 
(Sec.  63.1061), 40 CFR 60.111b, subpart F (Sec.  63.101), subpart G 
(Sec.  63.111), subpart FFFF (Sec.  63.2550), as specified after each 
term:

Administrator (Sec.  63.2)
Article (40 CFR 372.3)
Boiler (Sec.  63.111)
Bottoms receiver (Sec.  63.2550)
CAA (Sec.  63.2)
Closed-vent system (Sec.  63.981)
Combustion device (Sec.  63.111)
Commenced (Sec.  63.2)
Compliance date (Sec.  63.2)
Container (Sec.  63.111)
Continuous monitoring system (Sec.  63.2)
Distillation unit (Sec.  63.111)
Emission standard (Sec.  63.2)
EPA (Sec.  63.2)
Family of materials (Sec.  63.2550)
Fill or filling (Sec.  63.111)
Floating roof (Sec.  63.1061)
Fuel gas system (Sec.  63.981)
Halogen atoms (Sec.  63.2550)
Halogenated vent stream (Sec.  63.2550)
Halogens and hydrogen halides (Sec.  63.2550)
Hazardous air pollutant (Sec.  63.2)
Heat exchange system (Sec.  63.101)
Incinerator (Sec.  63.111)
Maintenance wastewater (Sec.  63.2550)
Major source (Sec.  63.2)
Maximum true vapor pressure (Sec.  63.111)
Oil-water separator or organic-water separator (Sec.  63.111)
Operating permit (Sec.  63.101)
Owner or operator (Sec.  63.2)
Performance test (Sec.  63.2)
Permitting authority (Sec.  63.2)
Process condenser (Sec.  63.2550)
Process heater (Sec.  63.111)
Process tank (Sec.  63.2550)
Process wastewater (Sec.  63.101)
Reactor (Sec.  63.111)
Responsible official (Sec.  63.2)
State (Sec.  63.2)
Supplemental gases (Sec.  63.2550)
Surge control vessel (Sec.  63.2550)
Test method (Sec.  63.2)
Unit operation (Sec.  63.101)

    (b) All other terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning 
given them in this section. If a term is defined in the CAA, Sec.  
63.2, subpart SS (Sec.  63.981), subpart WW (Sec.  63.1061), 40 CFR 
60.111b, subpart F (Sec.  63.101), subpart G (Sec.  63.111), or subpart 
FFFF (Sec.  63.2550), and in this section, it shall have the meaning 
given in this section for purposes of this subpart.
    Ancillary activities means boilers, incinerators, and process 
heaters not used to comply with the emission standards in Sec. Sec.  
63.11495 through 63.11500, chillers and other refrigeration systems, 
and other equipment and activities that are not directly involved 
(i.e., they operate within a closed system and materials are not 
combined with process fluids) in the processing of raw materials or the 
manufacturing of a product or intermediates used in the production of 
the product.
    Batch process vent means a vent from a CMPU or vents from multiple 
CMPUs within a process that are manifolded together into a common 
header, through which a HAP-containing gas stream is, or has the 
potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Batch process vents 
include vents with intermittent flow from continuous operations that 
are not combined with any stream that originated as a continuous gas 
stream from the same continuous process. Examples of batch process 
vents include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used for 
product recovery, reactors, filters, centrifuges, and process tanks. 
The following are not batch process vents for the purposes of this 
subpart:
    (1) Continuous process vents;
    (2) Bottoms receivers;
    (3) Surge control vessels;
    (4) Gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas system(s);
    (5) A gas stream routed to other processes for reaction or other 
use in another process (i.e., for chemical value as a product, isolated 
intermediate, byproduct, or coproduct, or for heat value).
    (6) Vents on storage tanks or wastewater systems;
    (7) Drums, pails, and totes; and
    (8) Emission streams from emission episodes that are undiluted and 
uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP are not part of any batch 
process vent. The HAP concentration may be determined using any of the 
following: process knowledge, an engineering assessment, or test data.
    Byproduct means a chemical (liquid, gas, or solid) that is produced 
coincidentally during the production of the product.
    Chemical manufacturing process means all equipment which 
collectively functions to produce a product or isolated intermediate. A 
process includes, but is not limited to any, all, or a combination of 
reaction, recovery, separation, purification, or other

[[Page 56049]]

activity, operation, manufacture, or treatment which are used to 
produce a product or isolated intermediate. A process is also defined 
by the following:
    (1) Routine cleaning operations conducted as part of batch 
operations are considered part of the process;
    (2) Each nondedicated solvent recovery operation is considered a 
single process;
    (3) Each nondedicated formulation operation is considered a single 
process;
    (4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories are not 
considered part of any process;
    (5) Ancillary activities are not considered a process or part of 
any process; and
    (6) The end of a process that produces a solid material is either 
up to and including the dryer or extruder, or for a polymer production 
process without a dryer or extruder, it is up to and including the die 
plate or solid-state reactor, except in two cases. If the dryer, 
extruder, die plate, or solid-state reactor is followed by an operation 
that is designed and operated to remove HAP solvent or residual monomer 
from the solid, then the solvent removal operation is the last step in 
the process. If the dried solid is diluted or mixed with a HAP-based 
solvent, then the solvent removal operation is the last step in the 
process.
    Continuous process vent means a ``process vent'' as defined in 
Sec.  63.101 in subpart F of this part, except:
    (1) The reference in Sec.  63.107(e) to a chemical manufacturing 
process unit that meets the criteria of Sec.  63.100(b) means a CMPU 
that meets the criteria of Sec.  63.11494(a) and (b);
    (2) The reference in Sec.  63.107(h)(2) to subpart H means Sec.  
63.11495(a) for the purposes of this subpart;
    (3) The reference in Sec.  63.107(h)(4) to Sec.  63.113 means 
Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart;
    (4) The reference in Sec.  63.107(h)(7) to Sec.  63.119 means Table 
5 to this subpart, and the reference to Sec.  63.126 does not apply for 
the purposes of this subpart;
    (5) The second sentence in the definition of ``process vent'' in 
Sec.  63.101 does not apply for the purposes of this subpart;
    (6) The references to an ``air oxidation reactor, distillation 
unit, or reactor'' in Sec.  63.107 means any continuous operation for 
the purposes of this subpart;
    (7) Section Sec.  63.107(h)(8) does not apply for the purposes of 
this subpart; and
    (8) A separate determination is required for the emissions from 
each CMPU, even if emission streams from two or more CMPU are combined 
prior to discharge to the atmosphere or to a control device.
    Co-Product means a chemical that is produced during the production 
of another chemical, both for their intended production.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source fails to meet 
any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, 
but not limited to any emissions limitation or management practice; or 
fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an 
applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the 
operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a 
permit.
    Equipment means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief 
device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, 
connector, and instrumentation system in or associated with a CMPU.
    Feedstock means any raw material, reactant, solvent, additive, or 
other material introduced to a CMPU.
    In metal HAP service means that a process vessel or piece of 
equipment either contains or contacts a feedstock, byproduct, or 
product that contains metal HAP.
    In organic HAP service means that a process vessel or piece of 
equipment either contains or contacts a feedstock, byproduct, or 
product that contains an organic HAP.
    Metal HAP means the compounds containing metals listed as HAP in 
section 112(b) of the CAA.
    Metal HAP process vent means the point of discharge to the 
atmosphere (or inlet to a control device, if any) of a metal HAP-
containing gas stream from any CMPU at an affected source.
    Organic HAP means any organic HAP listed in section 112(b) of the 
CAA. For the purposes of requirements in this subpart VVVVVV, hydrazine 
is to be considered an organic HAP.
    Process vessel means each vessel, except hand-held containers, used 
in the processing of raw materials to chemical products. Examples 
include, but are not limited to reactors, distillation units, 
centrifuges, mixing vessels, and process tanks.
    Product means a compound or chemical which is manufactured as the 
intended product of the CMPU. Products include co-products. By-
products, isolated intermediates, impurities, wastes, and trace 
contaminants are not considered products.
    Reactive material means energetics, organic peroxides, and unstable 
chemicals such as chemicals that react violently with water and 
chemicals that vigorously polymerize, decompose, or become self-
reactive under conditions of pressure or temperature.
    Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment capable of 
and normally used for the purpose of recovering organic chemicals or 
metal-containing chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating 
value), use, reuse, or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. Examples 
of equipment that may be recovery devices include absorbers, carbon 
adsorbers, condensers, oil-water separators or organic-water 
separators, or organic removal devices such as decanters, strippers, or 
thin-film evaporation units.
    Resinous material means a viscous, high-boiling point material 
resembling pitch or tar, such as plastic resin, that sticks to or 
hardens in the fill pipe under normal transfer conditions.
    Shutdown, for a unit operation with a continuous process vent, 
means the cessation of the unit operation for any purpose. Shutdown 
begins with the initiation of steps as described in a written standard 
operating procedures (SOP) or shutdown plan to cease normal/stable 
operation (e.g., reducing or immediately stopping feed).
    Startup, for a unit operation with a continuous process vent, means 
the setting in operation of the unit for any purpose. The period of 
startup ends upon completion of the transient, non-equilibrium step at 
the time operating conditions reach steady state for operating 
parameters such as temperature, pressure, composition, feed rate, and 
production rate. Periods of startup described by SOP manuals at the 
affected source may be used to determine the period of startup.
    Storage tank means a tank or other vessel that is used to store 
liquids that contain organic HAP and that are part of a CMPU subject to 
this subpart VVVVVV. The following are not considered storage tanks for 
the purposes of this subpart:
    (1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks, 
railcars, barges, or ships;
    (2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 
kilopascals (kPa) and without emissions to the atmosphere;
    (3) Process tanks;
    (4) Tanks storing organic liquids containing HAP only as 
impurities;
    (5) Surge control vessels;
    (6) Bottoms receivers; and
    (7) Wastewater storage tanks.
    Transfer operations means all product loading into tank trucks and 
rail cars of liquid containing organic HAP from a transfer rack. 
Transfer operations do not

[[Page 56050]]

include the loading to other types of containers such as cans, drums, 
and totes.
    Transfer rack means the system used to load organic liquids into 
tank trucks and railcars at a single geographic site. It includes all 
loading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other 
piping and equipment necessary for the transfer operation. Transfer 
equipment that are physically separate (i.e., do not share common 
piping, valves, and other equipment) are considered to be separate 
transfer racks.
    Wastewater means water that is discarded from a CMPU or control 
device and that contains at least 5 ppmw of any HAP listed in Table 9 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G and has an annual average flow rate of 
0.02 liters per minute. Wastewater means both process wastewater and 
maintenance wastewater that is discarded from a CMPU or control device. 
The following are not considered wastewater for the purposes of this 
subpart:
    (1) Stormwater from segregated sewers;
    (2) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including testing 
of such systems;
    (3) Spills;
    (4) Water from safety showers;
    (5) Samples of a size not greater than reasonably necessary for the 
method of analysis that is used;
    (6) Equipment leaks;
    (7) Wastewater drips from procedures such as disconnecting hoses 
after cleaning lines; and
    (8) Noncontact cooling water.
    Wastewater stream means a single point discharge of wastewater from 
a CMPU or control device.
    Wastewater treatment means chemical, biological, and mechanical 
procedures applied to wastewater to remove or reduce HAP or other 
chemical constituents.

Sec.  63.11503  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or 
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the 
U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or 
tribal agency pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, then that Agency 
has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should 
contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is 
delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency within your State.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the 
U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of a major change to a test method. A ``major change 
to test method'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is 
defined in Sec.  63.90.

Tables to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63

    As required in Sec.  63.11494(a), chemical manufacturing operations 
that process, use, or produce the HAP shown in the following table are 
subject to subpart VVVVVV.

 Table 1 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Hazardous Air Pollutants Used To
      Determine Applicability of Chemical Manufacturing Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Type of HAP                 Chemical name           CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Organic compounds...........  a. 1,3-butadiene.......          106990
                                 b. 1,3-dichloropropene.          542756
                                 c. Acetaldehyde........           75070
                                 d. Chloroform..........           67663
                                 e. Ethylene dichloride.          107062
                                 f. Hexachlorobenzene...          118741
                                 g. Methylene chloride..           75092
                                 h. Quinoline...........           91225
2. Metal compounds.............  a. Arsenic compounds...  ..............
                                 b. Cadmium compounds...  ..............
                                 c. Chromium compounds..  ..............
                                 d. Lead compounds......  ..............
                                 e. Manganese compounds.  ..............
                                 f. Nickel compounds....  ..............
3. Others......................  a. Hydrazine...........          302012
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.11496, you must comply with the 
requirements for batch process vents as shown in the following table.

[[Page 56051]]

  Table 2 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
                  Requirements for Batch Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For * * *              You must * * *         Except * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Batch process vents in a   a. Reduce collective  i. Compliance may be
 CMPU at an existing source    uncontrolled total    based on either
 for which the total organic   organic HAP           total organic HAP
 HAP emissions are equal to    emissions from the    or total organic
 or greater than 10,000 lb/    sum of all batch      carbon (TOC); and
 yr.                           process vents by     ii. As specified in
                               >=85 percent by       Sec.   63.11496(g).
                               weight or to <=20
                               ppmv by routing
                               emissions from a
                               sufficient number
                               of the batch
                               process vents
                               through a closed
                               vent system to any
                               combination of
                               control devices
                               (except a flare) in
                               accordance with the
                               requirements of
                               Sec.   63.982(c)
                               and the
                               requirements
                               referenced therein;
                               or
                              b. Route emissions    i. Not applicable.
                               from batch process
                               vents containing at
                               least 85 percent of
                               the uncontrolled
                               total organic HAP
                               through a closed-
                               vent system to a
                               flare (except that
                               a flare may not be
                               used to control
                               halogenated vent
                               streams) in
                               accordance with the
                               requirements of
                               Sec.   63.982(b)
                               and the
                               requirements
                               referenced therein;
                               or
                              c. Comply with the    i. As specified in
                               alternative           Sec.   63.11496(e)
                               standard specified    of this subpart.
                               in Sec.   63.2505
                               and the
                               requirements
                               referenced therein;
                               or
                              d. Comply with        i. The information
                               combinations of the   specified above for
                               requirements in       Items a., b., and
                               Items a., b., and     c., as applicable.
                               c. of this Table
                               for different
                               groups of batch
                               process vents.
2. Batch process vents in a   a. Comply with any    i. The information
 CMPU at a new source for      of the emission       specified above for
 which the total organic HAP   limits in Items 1.a   Items 1.a., 1.b.,
 emissions are equal to or     through 1.d of this   1.c., and 1.d, as
 greater than 10,000 lb/yr.    Table, except 90      applicable.
                               percent reduction
                               applies instead of
                               85 percent
                               reduction in Item
                               1.a, and 90 percent
                               of the emissions
                               must be routed to a
                               flare instead of 85
                               percent in Item 1.b.
3. Halogenated batch process  a. Comply with the
 vent stream at a new or       requirements for
 existing source that is       halogen scrubbers
 controlled through            in Sec.
 combustion.                   63.11496(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.11496, you must comply with the 
requirements for continuous process vents as shown in the following 
table.

  TABLE 3 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
                Requirements for Continuous Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For * * *              You must * * *         Except * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each continuous process    a. Reduce emissions   i. Compliance may be
 vent with a TRE <=1.0.        of total organic      based on either
                               HAP by >=95 percent   total organic HAP
                               by weight (>=85       or TOC; and
                               percent by weight    ii. As specified in
                               for periods of        Sec.   63.11496(g).
                               startup or
                               shutdown) or to
                               <=20 ppmv by
                               routing emissions
                               through a closed
                               vent system to any
                               combination of
                               control devices
                               (except a flare) in
                               accordance with the
                               requirements of
                               Sec.   63.982(c)(2)
                               and the
                               requirements
                               referenced therein;
                               or
                              b. Reduce emissions   i. Not applicable.
                               of total organic by
                               HAP by routing all
                               emissions through a
                               closed-vent system
                               to a flare (except
                               that a flare may
                               not be used to
                               control halogenated
                               vent streams) in
                               accordance with the
                               requirements of
                               Sec.   63.982(b)
                               and the
                               requirements
                               referenced therein;
                               or
                              c. Comply with the    i. As specified in
                               alternative           Sec.   63.11496(e).
                               standard specified
                               in Sec.   63.2505
                               and the
                               requirements
                               referenced therein.
2. Halogenated vent stream    a. Comply with the
 that is controlled through    requirements for
 combustion.                   halogen scrubbers
                               in Sec.
                               63.11496(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.11496(f), you must comply with the 
requirements for metal HAP process vents as shown in the following 
table.

[[Page 56052]]

  Table 4 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
                Requirements for Metal HAP Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For * * *              You must * * *         Except * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each CMPU with total metal    Reduce collective     Not applicable.
 HAP emissions >=400 lb/yr.    uncontrolled
                               emissions of total
                               metal HAP emissions
                               by >=95 percent by
                               weight by routing
                               emissions from a
                               sufficient number
                               of the metal
                               process vents
                               through a closed-
                               vent system to any
                               combination of
                               control devices,
                               according to the
                               requirements of
                               Sec.
                               63.11496(f)(3),
                               (4), or (5).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.11497, you must comply with the 
requirements for storage tanks as shown in the following table.

  Table 5 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
                     Requirements for Storage Tanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For each * * *            You must * * *         Except * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank with a        a. Comply with the    i. All required
 design capacity >=40,000      requirements of       seals must be
 gallons, storing liquid       subpart WW of this    installed by the
 that contains organic HAP     part;                 compliance date in
 listed in Table 1 to this                           Sec.   63.11494.
 subpart, and for which the
 maximum true vapor pressure
 (MTVP) of total organic HAP
 at the storage temperature
 is >=5.2 kPa and <76.6 kPa.
                              b. Reduce total       i. Compliance may be
                               organic HAP           based on either
                               emissions by >=95     total organic HAP
                               percent by weight     or TOC;
                               by operating and     ii. Comply with the
                               maintaining a         management practice
                               closed-vent system    inspection
                               and control device    requirements in
                               (other than a         Sec.   63.11495 for
                               flare) in             the closed-vent
                               accordance with       system;
                               Sec.                 iii. When the term
                               63.982(c)(1); or      storage vessel is
                                                     used in subpart SS
                                                     of this part, the
                                                     term storage tank,
                                                     surge control
                                                     vessel, or bottoms
                                                     receiver, as
                                                     defined in Sec.
                                                     63.11502 of this
                                                     subpart, applies;
                                                     and
                                                    iv. The requirements
                                                     do not apply during
                                                     periods of planned
                                                     routine maintenance
                                                     of the control
                                                     device, as
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.11497(b).
                              c. Reduce total HAP   i. The requirements
                               emissions by          do not apply during
                               operating and         periods of planned
                               maintaining a         routine maintenance
                               closed-vent system    of the flare, as
                               and a flare in        specified in Sec.
                               accordance with       63.11497(b); and
                               Sec.   63.982(b);    ii. When the term
                               or                    storage vessel is
                                                     used in subpart SS
                                                     of this part, it
                                                     means storage tank,
                                                     surge control
                                                     vessel, or bottoms
                                                     receiver, as
                                                     defined in Sec.
                                                     63.11502 of this
                                                     subpart.
                              d. Vapor balance in   i. Not applicable.
                               accordance with
                               Sec.   63.2470(e);
                               or
                              e. Route emissions    i. When the term
                               to a fuel gas         storage vessel is
                               system or process     used in subpart SS
                               in accordance with    of this part, it
                               the requirements in   means storage tank,
                               Sec.   63.982(d)      surge control
                               and the               vessel, or bottoms
                               requirements          receiver, as
                               referenced therein.   defined in Sec.
                                                     63.11502.
2. Storage tank with a        a. Comply with one    i. The information
 design capacity >=20,000      of the options in     specified above for
 gallons and <40,000           Item 1 of this        Items 1.a., 1.b.,
 gallons, storing liquid       table.                1.c., 1.d, and 1.e,
 that contains organic HAP                           as applicable.
 listed in Table 1 to this
 subpart, and for which the
 MTVP of total organic HAP
 at the storage temperature
 is >=27.6 kPa and <76.6 kPa.
3. Storage tank with a        a. Comply with        i. The information
 design capacity >=20,000      option b, c, d, or    specified above for
 gallons, storing liquid       e in Item 1 of this   Items 1.b., 1.c.,
 that contains organic HAP     table.                1.d, and 1.e, as
 listed in Table 1 to this                           applicable.
 subpart, and for which the
 MTVP of total organic HAP
 at the storage temperature
 is >=76.6 kPa.
4. Storage tank described by  a. Reduce emissions
 Item 1, 2, or 3 in this       of hydrogen halide
 table and emitting a          and halogen HAP by
 halogenated vent stream       >=95 percent by
 that is controlled with a     weight, or to
 combustion device.            <=0.45 kg/hr, or to
                               <=20 ppmv by using
                               a halogen reduction
                               device after the
                               combustion device
                               according to the
                               requirements in
                               Sec.   63.11496(d);
                               or

[[Page 56053]]

                              b. Reduce the
                               halogen atom mass
                               emission rate to
                               <=0.45 kg/hr or to
                               <=20 ppmv by using
                               a halogen reduction
                               device before the
                               combustion device
                               according to the
                               requirements in
                               Sec.   63.11496(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.11498, you must comply with the 
requirements for wastewater systems as shown in the following table.

  Table 6 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
                   Requirements for Wastewater Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For each * * *            You must * * *      And you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wastewater stream........  a. Discharge to       i. Maintain records
                               onsite or offsite     identifying each
                               treatment.            wastewater stream
                                                     and documenting the
                                                     type of treatment
                                                     that it receives.
                                                     Multiple wastewater
                                                     streams with
                                                     similar
                                                     characteristics and
                                                     from the same type
                                                     of activity in a
                                                     CMPU may be grouped
                                                     together for
                                                     recordkeeping
                                                     purposes.
2. Wastewater stream          a. Use a decanter,    i. For the water
 containing partially          steam stripper,       phase, comply with
 soluble HAP at a              thin film             the requirements in
 concentration >=10,000 ppmw   evaporator, or        Item 1 of this
 and separate organic and      distillation unit     table, and
 water phases.                 to separate the      ii. For the organic
                               water phase from      phase(s), recycle
                               the organic           to a process, use
                               phase(s); or          as fuel, or dispose
                                                     as hazardous waste
                                                     either onsite or
                                                     offsite, and
                                                    iii. Keep records of
                                                     the wastewater
                                                     streams subject to
                                                     this requirement
                                                     and the disposition
                                                     of the organic
                                                     phase(s).
                              b. Hard pipe the      i. Keep records of
                               entire wastewater     the wastewater
                               stream to onsite      streams subject to
                               treatment as a        this requirement
                               hazardous waste, or   and the disposition
                               hard pipe the         of the wastewater
                               entire wastewater     streams.
                               stream to a point
                               of transfer for
                               offsite treatment
                               as a hazardous
                               waste.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.11498(a), you must comply with emission 
limits for wastewater streams that contain the partially soluble HAP 
listed in the following table.

       Table 7 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Partially Soluble HAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Partially soluble HAP name                    CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform).................      71556
2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.................................      79345
3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane.....................................      79005
4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride)................      75354
5. 1,2-Dibromoethane.........................................     106934
6. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)..................     107062
7. 1,2-Dichloropropane.......................................      78875
8. 1,3-Dichloropropene.......................................     542756
9. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol.....................................      95954
10. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene......................................     106467
11. 2-Nitropropane...........................................      79469
12. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)..............................     108101
13. Acetaldehyde.............................................      75070
14. Acrolein.................................................     107028
15. Acrylonitrile............................................     107131
16. Allyl chloride...........................................     107051
17. Benzene..................................................      71432
18. Benzyl chloride..........................................     100447
19. Biphenyl.................................................      92524
20. Bromoform (tribromomethane)..............................      75252
21. Bromomethane.............................................      74839
22. Butadiene................................................     106990
23. Carbon disulfide.........................................      75150
24. Chlorobenzene............................................     108907
25. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)............................      75003
26. Chloroform...............................................      67663
27. Chloromethane............................................      74873
28. Chloroprene..............................................     126998
29. Cumene...................................................      98828
30. Dichloroethyl ether......................................     111444
31. Dinitrophenol............................................      51285
32. Epichlorohydrin..........................................     106898
33. Ethyl acrylate...........................................     140885
34. Ethylbenzene.............................................     100414
35. Ethylene oxide...........................................      75218
36. Ethylidene dichloride....................................      75343
37. Hexachlorobenzene........................................     118741
38. Hexachlorobutadiene......................................      87683
39. Hexachloroethane.........................................      67721
40. Methyl methacrylate......................................      80626
41. Methyl-t-butyl ether.....................................    1634044
42. Methylene chloride.......................................      75092
43. N-hexane.................................................     110543
44. N,N-dimethylaniline......................................     121697
45. Naphthalene..............................................      91203
46. Phosgene.................................................      75445
47. Propionaldehyde..........................................     123386
48. Propylene oxide..........................................      75569
49. Styrene..................................................     100425
50. Tetrachloroethylene (per- chloroethylene)................     127184
51. Tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride)................      56235
52. Toluene..................................................     108883
53. Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-)................................     120821
54. Trichloroethylene........................................      79016
55. Trimethylpentane.........................................     540841
56. Vinyl acetate............................................     108054
57. Vinyl chloride...........................................      75014
58. Xylene (m)...............................................     108383
59. Xylene (o)...............................................      95476
60. Xylene (p)...............................................     106423
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.11499, you must comply with the 
requirements for heat exchange systems as shown in the following table.

[[Page 56054]]

  Table 8 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance
                 Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            For * * *               You must * * *       Except * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each heat exchange system      a. Comply with the  i. The reference
 with a cooling water flow rate    monitoring          to monthly
 >=8,000 gal/min and not meeting   requirements in     monitoring for
 one or more of the conditions     Sec.   63.104(c),   the first 6
 in Sec.   63.104(a).              the leak repair     months in Sec.
                                   requirements in     63.104(c)(1)(iii)
                                   Sec.   63.104(d)    does not apply.
                                   and (e), and the    Monitoring shall
                                   recordkeeping and   be no less
                                   reporting           frequent than
                                   requirements in     quarterly;
                                   Sec.   63.104(f);  ii. The reference
                                   or                  in Sec.
                                                       63.104(f)(1) to
                                                       record retention
                                                       requirements in
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.103(c)(1) does
                                                       not apply.
                                                       Records must be
                                                       retained as
                                                       specified in Sec.
                                                        Sec.
                                                       63.10(b)(1) and
                                                       63.11501(c); and
                                                      iii. The reference
                                                       in Sec.
                                                       63.104(f)(2) to
                                                       ``the next semi-
                                                       annual periodic
                                                       report required
                                                       by Sec.
                                                       63.152(c)'' means
                                                       the next semi-
                                                       annual compliance
                                                       report required
                                                       by Sec.
                                                       63.11501(f).
                                  b. Comply with the  i. Not applicable.
                                   heat exchange
                                   system
                                   requirements in
                                   Sec.   63.104(b)
                                   and the
                                   requirements
                                   referenced
                                   therein.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.11501(a), you must comply with the 
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A) as shown in the following table.

           Table 9 to Subpart VVVVVV of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart VVVVVV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Applies to Subpart
             Citation                         Subject                  VVVVVV?                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),         Applicability.............  Yes..................
 (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12)
 (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2),
 (c)(5), (e).
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2),  Reserved..................  No...................
 (c)(3), (c)(4), (d).
63.2..............................  Definitions...............  Yes..................
63.3..............................  Units and Abbreviations...  Yes..................
63.4..............................  Prohibited Activities and   Yes..................
                                     Circumvention.
63.5..............................  Preconstruction Review and  Yes..................
                                     Notification Requirements.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7),     Compliance with Standards   Yes..................
 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5),             and Maintenance
 (e)(1)(iii), (g), (i), (j).         Requirements.
63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d),    Reserved..................  No...................
 (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv).
63.6 (e)(1)(i) and (ii), (e)(3),    SSM Requirements..........  No...................
 and (f)(1).
63.6(h)(1)-(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)-       ..........................  No...................  Subpart VVVVVV does not
 (h)(5)(iii), (h)(6)-(h)(9).                                                            include opacity or
                                                                                        visible emissions (VE)
                                                                                        standards or require a
                                                                                        continuous opacity
                                                                                        monitoring system
                                                                                        (COMS).
63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(4), (c),    Performance Testing         Yes..................
 (e)(4), and (f)-(h).                Requirements.
63.7(a)(2), (b), (d), (e)(1)-(3)..  Performance Testing         Yes/No...............  Requirements apply if
                                     Schedule, Notification of                          conducting test for
                                     Performance Test,                                  metal HAP control;
                                     Performance Testing                                requirements in Sec.
                                     Facilities, and Conduct                            Sec.   63.997(c)(1),
                                     of Performance Tests.                              (d), (e), and
                                                                                        63.999(a)(1) apply, as
                                                                                        referenced in Sec.
                                                                                        63.11496(g), if
                                                                                        conducting test for
                                                                                        organic HAP or hydrogen
                                                                                        halide and halogen HAP
                                                                                        control device.
63.8(a)(1), (a)(4), (b), (c)(1)-    Monitoring Requirements...  Yes..................  References to SSM in Sec.
 (c)(3), (f)(1)-(5).                                                                      63.8(c) do not apply.
63.8(a)(2)........................  Monitoring Requirements...  No...................
63.8(a)(3)........................  Reserved..................  No...................
63.8(c)(4)........................  ..........................  No...................  Continuous parameter
                                                                                        monitoring system (CPMS)
                                                                                        requirements in 40 CFR
                                                                                        part 63, subparts SS and
                                                                                        FFFF are referenced from
                                                                                        Sec.   63.11496.
63.8(c)(5)........................  ..........................  No...................  Subpart VVVVVV does not
                                                                                        require COMS.

[[Page 56055]]

63.8(c)(6)-(c)(8), (d), (e),        ..........................  Yes..................  Requirements apply only
 (f)(6).                                                                                if you use a continuous
                                                                                        emission monitoring
                                                                                        system (CEMS) to
                                                                                        demonstrate compliance
                                                                                        with the alternative
                                                                                        standard in Sec.
                                                                                        63.11496(e). References
                                                                                        to SSM in Sec.   63.8(d)
                                                                                        do not apply.
63.8(g)(1)-(g)(4).................  ..........................  Yes..................  Data reduction
                                                                                        requirements apply only
                                                                                        if you use CEMS to
                                                                                        demonstrate compliance
                                                                                        with alternative
                                                                                        standard in Sec.
                                                                                        63.11496(e). COMS
                                                                                        requirements do not
                                                                                        apply. Requirement in
                                                                                        Sec.   63.8(g)(2) does
                                                                                        not apply because data
                                                                                        reduction for CEMS are
                                                                                        specified in 40 CFR part
                                                                                        63, subpart FFFF.
63.8(g)(5)........................  ..........................  No...................  Data reduction
                                                                                        requirements for CEMS
                                                                                        are specified in 40 CFR
                                                                                        part 63, subpart FFFF,
                                                                                        as referenced from Sec.
                                                                                         63.11496. CPMS
                                                                                        requirements are
                                                                                        specified in 40 CFR part
                                                                                        63, subparts SS and
                                                                                        FFFF, as referenced from
                                                                                        Sec.   63.11496.
63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4),    Notification Requirements.  Yes..................
 (b)(5), (c), (d), (e), (i).
63.9(b)(3), (h)(4)................  Reserved..................  No...................
63.9(f)...........................  ..........................  No...................  Subpart VVVVVV does not
                                                                                        contain opacity or VE
                                                                                        limits.
63.9(g)...........................  ..........................  Yes..................  Additional notification
                                                                                        requirement applies only
                                                                                        if you use CEMS to
                                                                                        demonstrate compliance
                                                                                        with alternative
                                                                                        standard in Sec.
                                                                                        63.11496(e).
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(5)-(h)(6)..  ..........................  Yes..................  Except subpart VVVVVV
                                                                                        does not contain opacity
                                                                                        or VE limits.
63.9(j)...........................  Change in Information       No...................  Notification of process
                                     Already Provided.                                  changes that affect a
                                                                                        compliance determination
                                                                                        are required in Sec.
                                                                                        63.11501(d)(4).
63.10(a)..........................  Recordkeeping Requirements  Yes..................
63.10(b)(1).......................  ..........................  Yes..................
63.10(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(v)..........  ..........................  Yes..................  Any references to SSM do
                                                                                        not apply.
63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), (xi), (xiii)  ..........................  Yes..................  Apply only if you use
                                                                                        CEMS to demonstrate
                                                                                        compliance with
                                                                                        alternative standard in
                                                                                        Sec.   63.11496(e).
63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(b)(2)(ix),        ..........................  Yes..................
 (b)(2)(xii), (b)(2)(xiv).
63.10(b)(3).......................  ..........................  Yes..................
63.10(c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(6),         ..........................  Yes..................  Apply only if you use
 (c)(13)-(c)(14).                                                                       CEMS to demonstrate
                                                                                        compliance with
                                                                                        alternative standard in
                                                                                        Sec.   63.11496(e).
63.10(c)(7)-(c)(8), (c)(10)-        ..........................  Yes..................  Any reference to SSM does
 (c)(12), (c)(15).                                                                      not apply.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9)........  Reserved..................  No...................
63.10(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(4),        Reporting Requirements....  Yes..................
 (e)(1), (e)(2), (f).
63.10(d)(3).......................  ..........................  No...................  Subpart VVVVVV does not
                                                                                        include opacity or VE
                                                                                        limits.
63.10(d)(5).......................  ..........................  No...................
63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2)................  ..........................  Yes..................  Apply only if you use
                                                                                        CEMS to demonstrate
                                                                                        compliance with
                                                                                        alternative standard in
                                                                                        Sec.   63.11496(e).
63.10(e)(3).......................  ..........................  Yes..................
63.10(e)(4).......................  ..........................  No...................  Subpart VVVVVV does not
                                                                                        include opacity or VE
                                                                                        limits.
63.11.............................  Control Device              Yes..................
                                     Requirements.
63.12.............................  State Authorities and       Yes..................
                                     Delegations.
63.13.............................  Addresses.................  Yes..................
63.14.............................  Incorporations by           Yes..................
                                     Reference.
63.15.............................  Availability of             Yes..................
                                     Information and
                                     Confidentiality.
63.16.............................  Performance Track           Yes..................
                                     Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 56056]]

[FR Doc. E9-25576 Filed 10-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P