[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39301-39307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-13800]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7222-3]
RIN 2060-AG91
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 29, 1999, we published the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (Generic MACT) Standards, which
promulgated standards for four major hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
source categories (i.e., acetal resins (AR) production, acrylic and
modacrylic fiber (AMF) production, hydrogen fluoride (HF) production,
and polycarbonate (PC) production). In September 1999, a petition for
review of the June 1999 Generic MACT rule was filed by the General
Electric Company in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. The petitioner raised a concern regarding a
recordkeeping provision in the promulgated rule. Subsequently, the
petitioner raised an additional issue concerning the promulgated
definition for ``process vent,'' and identified some editorial, cross-
reference, and wording errors. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, EPA
has agreed to revisions addressing each of these issues. EPA is
effectuating this agreement through a direct final rule because we
consider these revisions to be noncontroversial, and we anticipate no
adverse comment.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on July 29, 2002
without further notice, unless significant adverse comments are
received by July 8, 2002, or by July 22, 2002, if a public hearing is
requested. See the proposed rule in this Federal Register for
information on the hearing. If significant adverse comments are
received, we will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, submit written comments
(in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention: Docket No. A-97-17, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by
courier, submit comments (in duplicate, if possible) to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention: Docket No.
A-97-17, Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460. We request that a separate copy of each public comment also be
sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David W. Markwordt, Policy,
Planning, and Standards Group (MC439-04), Emission Standards Division,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-0837,
electronic mail (e-mail): [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. We are publishing this action as a
direct final rule because we view the amendments as noncontroversial
and do not anticipate adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules
section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal in the event that adverse comments are
filed.
If we receive any significant adverse comments, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will
not institute a second comment period on this direct final rule. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of the
administrative record compiled by the EPA in the development of this
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards
and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).) The regulatory text and other materials related
to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may
be mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. You may
also obtain docket indexes by facsimile, as described on the Office of
Air and Radiation, Docket and
[[Page 39302]]
Information Center Website at http://www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/docket/faxlist.html. Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in
the docket, an electronic copy of this action will also be available
through the WWW. Following signature, a copy of the action will be
posted on the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN at EPA's web site provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If
more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities affected
by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS* Regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... 25199 Producers of
homopolymers and/or
copolymers of
alternating
oxymethylene units.
Producers of either
acrylic fiber or
modacrylic fiber
synthetics composed of
acrylonitrile (AN)
units.
Producers of
polycarbonate.
Industry....................... 325188 Producers of, and
recoverers of HF by
reacting calcium
fluoride with sulfuric
acid. For the purpose
of implementing the
rule, HF production is
not a process that
produces gaseous HF
for direct reaction
with hydrated aluminum
to form aluminum
fluoride (i.e., the HF
is not recovered as an
intermediate or final
product prior to
reacting with the
hydrated aluminum).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Information Classification System
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers likely to be interested in the revisions to the
regulation. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR Sec. 63.1103 of the promulgated rule. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of these amendments to a particular entity,
consult the appropriate EPA Regional Office representative. Judicial
Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this
direct final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by August 6,
2002. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this
rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by this
direct final rule may not be challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
I. What Is the Background for the Proposed Amendments?
On June 29, 1999, we published the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (Generic MACT) Standards, 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart YY, which promulgated standards for four major hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) source categories (i.e., acetal resins (AR)
production, acrylic and modacrylic fiber (AMF) production, hydrogen
fluoride (HF) production, and polycarbonate (PC) production). 64 FR
34921. On November 22, 1999, we published some corrections to the final
rule. 64 FR 63709.
In September 1999, the General Electric Company (GE) filed a
petition for review of the June 1999 Generic MACT rule in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. General Electric
Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 99-1353 (D.C.
Circuit). In its petition, GE raised an initial concern regarding the
recordkeeping provision in 40 CFR 63.1109(c). Subsequently, GE also
raised an issue concerning the promulgated definition for ``process
vent'' in 40 CFR 63.1101, which EPA determined could only be properly
resolved in conjunction with similar issues which were being considered
with respect to some other MACT standards. GE also identified some
other editorial, cross-reference, and wording errors which had not been
corrected in the November 22, 1999 rulemaking.
GE and EPA subsequently entered into settlement discussions. In a
settlement agreement which was lodged with the D.C. Circuit Court on
March 13, 2002, EPA agreed to propose changes to the Generic MACT
standards addressing each of the issues raised by GE. EPA also stated
its intention to effectuate these changes through direct final
rulemaking. EPA provided notice and an opportunity for comment on the
proposed settlement agreement on March 22, 2002. 67 FR 13326.
II. What Are the Proposed Amendments?
1. Recordkeeping Requirements
In its petition for review, GE initially cited only one issue,
which involves a change in the recordkeeping provisions in Section
63.1109(c) that we made between the proposed and final rules. As
currently promulgated, that section states that ``all records required
to be maintained by this subpart or a subpart referenced by this
subpart shall be maintained in such a manner that they can be accessed
within 2 hours and are suitable for inspection.'' At proposal, Section
63.1109(c) stated that ``all records required to be maintained by this
subpart or a subpart referenced by this subpart shall be maintained in
such a manner that they can be readily accessed and are suitable for
inspection.'' We added the 2-hour time constraint between proposal and
promulgation, rather than allowing records to be ``readily accessed,''
believing that we were introducing a reasonable time constraint that
clarified what we meant by ``readily accessed.'' Based on feedback from
the petitioners, we agreed to remove this time constraint as it was
demonstrated to us that the 2-hour time constraint is not reasonable in
all cases. Therefore, today's action restores the language we
originally proposed.
2. Process Vent Definition
On October 14, 1998, we proposed the following ``process vent''
definition (63 FR 55178):
Process vent means a gas stream that is continuously discharged
during operation of the unit within a manufacturing process unit
that meets the applicability criteria of this subpart. Process vents
include gas streams that are either discharged directly to the
atmosphere or after diversion through a product recovery device.
Process vents exclude relief valve discharges and leaks from
equipment regulated under this subpart.
We received comments on the proposed definition from two
commenters. One commenter stated that a process vent is a piece of
equipment but that our proposed definition defined a process vent as a
continuous gas stream. The commenter requested that
[[Page 39303]]
the definition be modified to become a definition for a process vent
stream.
Another commenter requested that the term ``organic HAP'' be used
in the definition of process vent. This commenter also requested that
storage vessels be expressly excluded from the definition, along with
low organic HAP streams, and suggested an alternative definition. The
alternative definition that the commenter provided follows:
Process vent means a gas stream containing greater than 0.005
weight percent organic HAP that is continuously discharged during
operation of the unit within a manufacturing process unit that meets
the applicability criteria of this subpart. Process vents include
gas streams that are either discharged directly to the atmosphere or
are discharged to the atmosphere after diversion through a product
recovery device. Process vents exclude relief valve dischargers,
emissions from storage tanks, and leaks from equipment regulated
under this subpart.
After considering the comments, we revised the definition at
promulgation to the following:
Process vent means a piece of equipment that processes a gas
stream (both batch and continuous streams) during operation of the
unit within a manufacturing process unit that meets the
applicability criteria of this subpart. Process vents process gas
streams that are either discharged directly to the atmosphere or are
discharged to the atmosphere after diversion through a product
recovery device. Process vents include vents from distillate
receivers, product separators, and ejector-condensers. Process vents
exclude relief valve discharges and leaks from equipment regulated
under this subpart. Process vents that process gas streams
containing less than or equal to 0.005 weight-percent organic HAP
are not subject to the process vent requirements of this subpart.
During settlement discussions, GE raised certain concerns regarding
the effect of the process vent definition as it was promulgated. At the
time, EPA was also considering similar issues with respect to the
national emission standards for organic hazardous air pollutants from
the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry for process vent,
storage vessels, transfer operation, and wastewater. EPA and GE
ultimately agreed on a revised definition which addresses the concerns
expressed by GE and is also consistent with the approach we adopted in
the other rulemakings.
We agreed to propose changes to the definition of ``process vent''
as follows: (1) Amending the definition to specifically exclude gas
streams subject to other requirements under the Generic MACT (40 CFR
part 63, subpart YY) (e.g., gas streams from waste management units);
(2) deleting the second sentence of the promulgated definition for
process vent, which does not add anything that the definition for
``unit operation'' does not already address; and (3) making some
clarifying grammatical changes. After incorporating these revisions,
the new definition will read as follows:
Process vent means the point of discharge to the atmosphere (or
the point of entry into a control device, if any) of a gas stream
from a unit operation within a source category subject to this
subpart. Process vents exclude the following gas stream discharges:
(1) Relief valve discharges;
(2) Leaks from equipment subject to this subpart;
(3) Gas streams exiting a control device complying with this
subpart;
(4) Gas streams transferred to other processes (on-site or off-
site) for reaction or other use in another process (i.e., for
chemical value as a product, isolated intermediate, byproduct, or
co-product for heat value);
(5) Gas streams transferred for fuel value (i.e., net positive
heating value), use, reuse, or sale for fuel value, use, or reuse;
(6) Gas streams from storage vessels or transfer racks subject
to this subpart;
(7) Gas streams from waste management units subject to this
subpart;
(8) Gas streams from wastewater streams subject to this subpart;
and
(9) Gas streams exiting process analyzers; and
(10) Gas stream discharges that contain less than or equal to
0.005 weight-percent total organic HAP.
The revised ``process vent'' definition is consistent with our
original intent, and we believe that the revision will not change the
number of affected sources, the number of emission points subject to
control, or the required level of control. The clearer definition also
may preclude the need for certain applicability determinations, thereby
reducing the burden on State and local agencies implementing the rule.
3. Cross-Reference, Editorial and Wording Amendments
GE also identified some editorial (e.g., typos, type set), cross-
reference and wording errors in the final rule which were not corrected
in the technical corrections we promulgated on November 22, 1999. We
are amending the rule to correct these errors with today's action.
For example, as promulgated, Sec. 63.1104(d)(3) incorrectly uses
the word ``produce.'' The correct and intended word is ``product.'' For
another example, Table 5 of Sec. 63.1103(d), item 6, uses the
mathematical symbol of ``[le].'' The correct and intended mathematical
symbol is ``[ge].'' Table 5 of Sec. 63.1103(d), item 6, also contains a
superscript error, where a letter should be superscript that is not.
Today's action corrects these typeset errors.
III. Why Are We Publishing These amendments as a Direct Final Rule?
EPA has decided that it is appropriate to effectuate the proposed
changes to the Generic MACT standards through direct final rulemaking.
We think that these amendments are consistent with our original intent,
and we do not expect them to affect which sources are subject to the
rule, or to alter the control requirements applicable to those sources.
Because we view these amendments as noncontroversial, we do not
anticipate any adverse comment. Moreover, because the compliance date
for many facilities subject to the standards is July 1, 2002, we think
the public interest will be served if these changes can be made
effective prior to that compliance date.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined
that the amendments do not constitute a ``significant regulatory
action'' because they do not meet any of the above criteria.
Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements for the Generic MACT
[[Page 39304]]
standards for acetal resins production, acrylic and modacrylic fiber
production, hydrogen fluoride production, and polycarbonate production
were submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by
EPA (ICR No. 1891.03) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by
mail at U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection
Strategies Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460, by email at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672.
By U.S. Postal Service, send comments on the ICR to the Director,
Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or by courier, send comments on the
ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T),
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6143, Washington, DC 20460 (202)
566-1700); a copy may also be downloaded at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
This approval expires September 30, 2002.
Today's direct final rule amendments have no impact on the
information collection burden estimates made previously. Consequently,
the ICR has not been revised.
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
The direct final rule amendments do not have federalism
implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Today's action corrects errors and clarifies the applicability of the
rule. There are minimal, if any, impacts associated with this action.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the direct final rule
amendments.
D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
The direct final rule amendments do not have tribal implications,
as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own or
operate facilities affected by the Generic MACT. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to the direct final rule amendments.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that the direct final rule amendments
contain no Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, the amendments
are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that the amendments contain no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because they contain no requirements that apply to
such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, the direct
final rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of section
203 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's direct final rule
amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business whose parent company has fewer than 1000 employees; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
We believe there will be little or no impact on any small entities
because the direct final rule amendments do not impose additional
requirements but instead either eliminate cross-referencing, editorial,
and wording errors or clarify the applicability of existing
requirements of the MACT standards established for acetal resins
production, acrylic and modacrylic fiber production, hydrogen fluoride
production, and polycarbonate production. We have, therefore, concluded
that today's direct final rule amendments will not have a significant
[[Page 39305]]
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA), (Pub. L. 104-113) (March 7, 1996) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in
their regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The direct final rule amendments do not establish or modify
technical standards in the existing rule and do not require sources to
take substantive steps that are appropriate to the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The direct final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order
13045 because they are not an economically significant regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order 12866. In addition, the EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks. The direct final rule
amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are
based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
I. 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 the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
the direct rule amendments and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the 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).
J. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
The direct final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulation That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they
are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous air
pollutants, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 23, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart YY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable
Control Technology Standards
2. Section 63.1101 is amended by revising the definitions for
``combined vent stream'', ``process unit'' and ``process vent'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1101 Definitions.
* * * * *
Combined vent stream means a process vent that is comprised of at
least one gas stream from a batch unit operation manifolded with at
least one gas stream from a continuous unit operation.
* * * * *
Process unit means the equipment assembled and connected by pipes
or ducts to process raw and/or intermediate materials and to
manufacture an intended product. A process unit includes more than one
unit operation.
* * * * *
Process vent means the point of discharge to the atmosphere (or the
point of entry into a control device, if any) of a gas stream from a
unit operation within a source category subject to this subpart.
Process vent excludes the following gas stream discharges:
(1) Relief valve discharges;
(2) Leaks from equipment subject to this subpart;
(3) Gas streams exiting a control device complying with this
subpart;
(4) Gas streams transferred to other processes (on-site or off-
site) for reaction or other use in another process (i.e., for chemical
value as a product, isolated intermediate, byproduct, or co-product for
heat value);
(5) Gas streams transferred for fuel value (i.e., net positive
heating value), use, reuse, or sale for fuel value, use, or reuse;
(6) Gas streams from storage vessels or transfer racks subject to
this subpart;
(7) Gas streams from waste management units subject to this
subpart;
(8) Gas streams from wastewater streams subject to this subpart;
(9) Gas streams exiting process analyzers; and
(10) Gas stream discharges that contain less than or equal to 0.005
weight-percent total organic HAP.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 63.1103, paragraph (d)(3) is amended by:
a. Revising entry ``6'' of Table 5 to Sec. 63.1103(d);
b. Revising entries ``4'' and ``5'' of Table 6 to Sec. 63.1103(d);
and
c. Revising footnote ``b'' of Table 6 to Sec. 63.1103(d).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1103 Source category-specific applicability, definitions, and
requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
[[Page 39306]]
Table 5 to Sec. 63.1103(d).--What Are My Requirements if I Own or
Operate a Polycarbonate Production Existing Affected Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
6. Equipment as defined The equipment Comply with the
under Sec. 63.1101. contains or requirements of
contacts [ge] 5 subpart TT
weight-percent (national emission
total organic HAP standards for
\e\, and operates equipment leaks
[ge] 300 hours per (control level 1))
year. or subpart UU
(national emission
standards for
equipment leaks
(control level 2))
of this part.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 to Sec. 63.1103(d).--What Are My Requirements if I Own or
Operate a Polycarbonate Production New Affected Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
4. A process vent from The vent stream has a. Reduce emissions
continuous unit operations a TRE \b\ \c\ of total organic
or a combined vent stream [le]9.6. HAP by 98 weight-
\a\. percent; or reduce
total organic HAP
to a concentration
of 20 parts per
million by volume;
whichever is less
stringent, by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
meeting the
requirements of
subpart SS, as
specified in Sec.
63.982(a)(2)
(process vent
requirements) of
this part; and Vent
emissions through a
closed vent system
to a halogen
reduction device
meeting the
requirements of
subpart SS, Sec.
63.994, of this
part that reduces
hydrogen halides
and halogens by 99
weight-percent or
to less than 0.45
kilograms per
hourd,\d\,
whichever is less
stringent; or
b. Reduce the
process vent
halogen atom mass
emission rate to
less than 0.45
kilograms per hour
by venting
emissions through a
closed vent system
to a halogen
reduction device
meeting the
requirements of
subpart SS, Sec.
63.994 (halogen
reduction device
requirements) of
this part; and
Reduce emissions of
total organic HAP
by 98 weight-
percent; or reduce
total organic HAP
or TOC to a
concentration of 20
parts per million
by volume;
whichever is less
stringent, by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
meeting the
requirements of
subpart SS, as
specified in Sec.
63.982(a)(2)
(process vent
requirements) of
this part; or
c. Achieve and
maintain a TRE
index value greater
than 9.6.
5. Equipment as defined The equipment Comply with the
under Sec. 63.1101. contains or requirements of
contacts [ge] 5 subpart TT
weight-percent (national emission
total organic HPA standards for
\e\, and operates equipment leaks
[ge] 300 hours per (control level 1))
year. or subpart UU
(national emission
standards for
equipment leaks
(control level 2))
of this part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
\b\ The TRE equation coefficients for halogenated streams (Table 1 of
Sec. 63.1104(j)(1) of this subpart) shall be used to calculate the
TRE index value.
\c\ The TRE is determined according to the procedures specified in Sec.
63.1104(j). If a dryer is manifolded with such vents, and the vent is
routed to a recovery, recapture, or combustion device, then the TRE
index value for the vent must be calculated based on the properties of
the vent stream (including the contribution of the dryer). If a dryer
is manifolded with other vents and not routed to a recovery,
recapture, or combustion device, then the TRE index value must be
calculated excluding the contributions of the dryer. The TRE index
value for the dryer must be calculated separately in this case.
\d\ The mass emission rate of halogen atoms contained in organic
compounds is determined according to the procedures specified in Sec.
63.1104(i).
* * * *
* * *
[[Page 39307]]
4. Section 63.1104 is amended by:
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c);
b. Revising paragraph (d)(3);
c. Revising the definition of the term for Dj in
paragraph (g)(1); and
d. Revising Table 1 in paragraph (j)(1).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1104 Process vents from continuous unit operations:
applicability assessment procedures and methods.
* * * * *
(c) Applicability assessment requirement. The TOC or organic HAP
concentrations, process vent volumetric flow rates, process vent
heating values, process vent TOC or organic HAP emission rates,
halogenated process vent determinations, process vent TRE index values,
and engineering assessments for process vent control applicability
assessment requirements are to be determined during maximum
representative operating conditions for the process, except as provided
in paragraph (d) of this section, or unless the Administrator specifies
or approves alternate operating conditions. * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Necessitating that the owner or operator make product in excess
of demand.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
Dj=Concentration on a wet basis of compound j in parts per
million, as measured by procedures indicated in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section. For process vents that pass through a final steam jet and
are not condensed, the moisture is assumed to be 2.3 percent by volume.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
Table 1 of Sec. 63.1104(j)(1).--Coefficients for Total Resource Effectiveness a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values of coefficients
Existing or new? Halogenated vent Control device -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stream? basis A B C D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing............. Yes.................. Thermal 3.995 5.200x10-2 -1.769x10-3 9.700x10 -4
Incinerator and
Scrubber.
No................... Flare........... 1.935 3.660x10 -1 -7.687x10 -3 -7.333x10 -4
Thermal 1.492 6.267x10 -2 3.177x10 -2 -1.159x10 -3
Incinerator 0
Percent
Recovery.
Thermal 2.519 1.183x10 -2 1.300x10 -2 4.790x10 -2
Incinerator 70
Percent
Recovery.
New.................. Yes.................. Thermal 1.0895 1.417x10 -2 -4.822x10 -4 2.645x10 -4
Incinerator and
Scrubber.
No................... Flare........... 5.276x10 -1 9.98x10 -2 -2.096x10 -3 2.000x10 -4
Therman 4.068x10 -1 1.71x10 -2 8.664x10 -3 -3.162x10 -4
Incinerator 0
Percent
Recovery.
Thermal 6.868x10 -1 3.209x10 -3 3.546x10 -3 1.306x10 -2
Incinerator 70
Percent
Recovery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Use according to procedures outlined in this section.
MJ/scm = Mega Joules per standard cubic meter.
scm/min = Standard cubic meters per minute.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.1109 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1109 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Availability of records. All records required to be maintained
by this subpart or a subpart referenced by this subpart shall be
maintained in such a manner that they can be readily accessed and are
suitable for inspection.* * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-13800 Filed 6-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P