[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 135 (Monday, July 16, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38864-38917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12018]
[[Page 38863]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black
Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 38864]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-AR-2006-0897; FRL-8330-1]
RIN 2060-AN44
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black
Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing six national emissions standards for hazardous
air pollutants for seven area source categories. The final emissions
standards and associated requirements for two area source categories
(Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Fabrication) are combined in one subpart. These final rules include
emission standards that reflect the generally available control
technologies or management practices in each of these area source
categories.
DATES: These final rules are effective on July 16, 2007. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these
rules is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July
16, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0897. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 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: Ms. Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2825; fax number: (919)
541-3207; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information presented 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 Final Area Source Standards
III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal
A. NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
Area Sources
B. NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources
C. NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium
Compounds
D. NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and
Fabrication Area Sources
E. NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources
F. NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources
IV. Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title V
Permitting Requirements
A. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
B. Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication
C. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
D. Wood Preserving
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Basis for Area Source Standards
B. Proposed NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
Area Sources
C. Proposed NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources
D. Proposed NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources:
Chromium Compounds
E. Proposed NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and
Fabrication Area Sources
F. Proposed NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area
Sources
G. Proposed NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources
H. Proposed Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from
Title V Permitting Requirements
I. Compliance with Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children
from Environmental Health and Safety Risks
J. Compliance with Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer 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 these
final standards include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS code \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry:
Acrylic and modacrylic fibers 325222........... Area source
production. facilities that
manufacture
polymeric organic
fibers using
acrylonitrile as a
primary monomer.
Carbon black production....... 325182........... Area source
facilities that
manufacture carbon
black using the
furnace, thermal, or
acetylene
decomposition
process.
Chemical manufacturing: 325188........... Area source
chromium compounds. facilities that
produce chromium
compounds,
principally sodium
dichromate, chromic
acid, and chromic
oxide, from chromite
ore.
Flexible polyurethane foam 326150........... Area source
production. facilities that
manufacture foam
made from a
polyurethane
polymer.
[[Page 38865]]
Flexible polyurethane foam 326150........... Area source
fabrication operations. facilities that cut
or bond flexible
polyurethane foam
pieces together or
to other substrates.
Lead acid battery 335911........... Area source
manufacturing. facilities that
manufacture lead
acid storage
batteries made from
lead alloy ingots
and lead oxide.
Wood preserving............... 321114........... Area source
facilities that
treat wood such as
lumber, ties, poles,
posts, or pilings
with a preservative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11393 of
subpart LLLLLL (NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11400 of subpart MMMMMM (NESHAP for Carbon
Black Production Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11407 of subpart NNNNNN
(NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds),
40 CFR 63.11414 of subpart OOOOOO (NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane
Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11421 of
subpart PPPPPP (NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area
Sources), or 40 CFR 63.11428 of subpart QQQQQQ (NESHAP for Wood
Preserving Area Sources). 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 Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
September 14, 2007. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to these final rules 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 these final rules may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
II. Background Information for Final Area Source Standards
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least
30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, as the result of emissions of
area sources,\1\ pose the greatest threat to public health in urban
areas. Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest
potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to
as the ``Urban HAP.'' See 64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3)
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. EPA listed the
source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP
emissions in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.\2\ Sierra Club
sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source
categories listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)
within the time frame specified by the statute. See Sierra Club v.
Johnston, No. 01-1537 (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006, the court issued an
order requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d)
for those area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section
112(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An area source is a stationary source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions that is not a major source. A major source
is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP.
\2\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area source category list
several times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among other things, the order requires that, by June 15, 2007, EPA
complete standards for six area source categories. On April 4, 2007, we
proposed NESHAP for the following seven listed area source categories
that we have selected to meet the June 15, 2007 deadline: (1) Acrylic
and Modacrylic Fibers Production; (2) Carbon Black Production; (3)
Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds; (4) Flexible Polyurethane
Foam Production; (5) Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations;
(6) Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing; and (7) Wood Preserving. See 72 FR
16632. These final NESHAP complete the required regulatory action for
seven area source categories.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under
section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for
area sources ``which provide for the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As explained in the proposed
NESHAP, we are setting standards for these seven area source categories
pursuant to section 112(d)(5). See 72 FR 16638, April 7, 2007.
III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal
This section summarizes the final rules and identifies and
discusses changes since proposal. For changes that were made as a
result of public comments, we have provided detailed explanations of
the changes and the rationale in the responses to comments in section V
of this preamble.
A. NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources
1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
This final rule applies to any existing or new acrylic or
modacrylic fibers production plant that is an area source of HAP. The
owner or operator of an existing area source must comply with all the
requirements of this area source
[[Page 38866]]
NESHAP by January 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new area source
must comply with this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007 or upon
initial startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards
The Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category
was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of the
Urban HAP acrylonitrile (AN). In response to comments, we have revised
the proposed AN requirements for existing area sources to include a new
compliance alternative. We have also revised the compliance provisions
for existing area sources to allow facilities to change the operating
limits for a wet scrubber control device.
Existing area sources. The final standards for existing area
sources apply to emissions from the control devices for polymerization
and monomer recovery process equipment, spinning lines at plants that
do not have a monomer recovery process, and AN storage tanks. As
proposed, we are adopting the State permit requirements applicable to
the one existing area source as the NESHAP for existing acrylic and
modacrylic fibers production area sources.
No changes have been made since proposal to the AN emissions limits
for control devices for polymerization and monomer recovery process
equipment. The AN emissions limit for the control device for
polymerization process equipment is 0.2 pound per hour (lb/hr). The AN
emissions limit for the control device for monomer recovery process
equipment is 0.05 lb/hr.
In response to comments, we have revised the proposed rule to
include an alternative compliance option for existing area sources. The
new compliance option in Sec. 63.11395(b)(3) allows an existing area
source to comply with the same requirements that apply to process vents
for new area sources. Although the two requirements are expressed in
different units, they provide an equivalent level of control.
No changes have been made since proposal to the control device
parameter operating limits for wet scrubbers. The daily average water
flow rate to the wet scrubber control device for polymerization process
equipment must not drop below 50 liters per minute (l/min). For the wet
scrubber control device for monomer recovery process equipment, the
daily average water flow rate must not drop below 30 l/min. We have
revised the proposed standard to include procedures for changing the
operating limits based on the results of a performance test. These
procedures are contained in Sec. 63.11395(k).
As explained in the proposed rule, this rule does not include
requirements for spinning lines for existing sources that remove
residual AN using a monomer recovery process prior to spinning. As
proposed, existing sources that do not have a monomer recovery process
prior to spinning must meet the requirements for spinning lines in 40
CFR part 63, subpart YY.
Acrylonitrile storage tanks meeting certain capacity/vapor pressure
conditions must comply with one of three control options: (1) A fixed
roof in combination with an internal floating roof, (2) an external
floating roof, or (3) a closed vent system and control device.
In response to comments, we are clarifying in the final rule that
process and maintenance wastewater containing AN must be treated in a
wastewater treatment system. We are deleting the definition of
``wastewater'' because we have specifically defined ``process
wastewater'' and ``maintenance wastewater.''
New area sources. No changes have been made to the proposed
emissions standards for new area sources. The final standards apply to
process vents, fiber spinning lines, AN storage tanks, process
wastewater, maintenance wastewater, and equipment leaks. The process
vent requirements apply to each vent stream with an AN concentration of
50 parts per million by volume (ppmv) or greater and a flow rate of
0.005 cubic meters per minute or greater. The owner or operator must
control AN emissions from process vents meeting this threshold by
reducing uncontrolled emissions by 98 weight percent or meeting an
emissions limit of 20 ppmv by venting vapors through a closed vent
system to a recovery device, control device, or flare. The owner or
operator must determine which process vents meet the threshold noted
above by using the procedures and methods in Sec. 63.1104 of subpart
YY.
The emissions limits for fiber spinning lines require the owner or
operator to: (1) Reduce AN emissions by 85 weight-percent (e.g., by
venting emissions from a total enclosure through a closed vent system
to a control device that meets the requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS), (2) reduce AN emissions from the spinning line to 0.5
pounds of AN per ton (lb/ton) of acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced,
or (3) reduce the AN concentration of the spin dope to less than 100
parts per million by weight (ppmw). The requirements in Sec.
63.1103(b)(4) of subpart YY apply to an enclosure for a fiber spinning
line.
For all AN storage vessels at a new area source, the owner or
operator must: (1) Reduce AN emissions by 98 weight-percent by venting
emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control
devices as specified in Sec. 63.982(a)(1) of subpart SS or reduce AN
emissions by 95 weight-percent or greater by venting emissions through
a closed system to a recovery device as specified in Sec. 63.993 of
subpart SS; or (2) comply with the equipment standards for internal or
external floating roofs in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW.
Process wastewater and maintenance wastewater at new sources are
subject to the requirements in Sec. 63.1106(a) and (b) of subpart YY.
We are clarifying that wastewater that contains AN but which is below
the thresholds for control in subpart YY must be treated in a
wastewater treatment system. The owner or operator is also required to
comply with the equipment leak requirements in subpart YY. Subpart YY
applies the requirements in either subpart TT or UU to equipment that
contains or contacts 10 percent by weight or greater of AN and that
operates at least 300 hours per year.
3. Compliance Requirements
No significant changes have been made to the compliance provisions
for existing sources. As proposed, we are including in this final
NESHAP the monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in the State operating permit for the one existing area
source. The only change since proposal is the addition of records of
process and maintenance wastewater streams that are treated in a
wastewater treatment system. Specifically, for existing sources,
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) are required to measure
and record the scrubber water flow rates at least every 15 minutes. The
owner or operator of an existing source must determine compliance with
the daily average operating limits for the scrubber water flow rates on
a monthly basis and submit quarterly compliance reports to EPA or the
delegated authority. Compliance with the operating limits is to be
determined on a monthly basis; quarterly compliance reports also are
required. The owner or operator must keep records of each monthly
compliance determination and retain the records for at least 2 years
following the date of each compliance determination. If the daily
average water flow rate falls below the required operating limit, the
owner or operator must submit a report to EPA or the delegated
authority that identifies the
[[Page 38867]]
exceedance; the owner or operator would be required to submit the
report within 10 days of the exceedance.
The owner or operator of an existing source must conduct a
performance test for each control device for polymerization process
equipment and monomer recovery process equipment. A performance test is
not required for an existing source if a prior performance test has
been conducted using the methods required by this rule, which are the
requirements contained in Sec. 63.1104 of subpart YY, and either no
process changes have been made since the test, or the owner or operator
can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or
without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process
changes.
For AN storage tanks at existing sources, the owner or operator
must comply with the applicable testing, inspection, and notification
procedures in 40 CFR 60.113b(a) and the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 60.115b and 60.116b of subpart Kb. The testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
65, subpart C apply if the owner or operator elected to comply with the
part 65 control option for AN storage tanks. See 40 CFR 60.110b(e).
The owner or operator of an existing area source must comply with
certain notification requirements in Sec. 63.9 of the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These requirements include a
notification of applicability and a notification of compliance status.
In the notification of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h),
the owner or operator of an existing source may certify initial
compliance with the emissions limits based on a previous performance
test if applicable. We have revised the proposed certification of
compliance for the emissions limit to include a certification for the
new alternative compliance option for process vents. The owner or
operator must also certify initial compliance with the NSPS
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
We are also requiring that the owner or operator of an existing
source comply with the requirements for startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) plans, reports, and records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). As
proposed, we are allowing additional time (6 months after promulgation)
to allow for preparation of the plan.
No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance
provisions for new area sources. The owner or operator of a new area
source must perform assessments \3\ to identify affected process vents,
equipment, and wastewater streams; conduct initial performance tests
and/or compliance demonstrations; and comply with the monitoring,
inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in each
applicable subpart. For process vents, the owner or operator must
comply with all testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. For other emissions
sources, the owner or operator must comply with all testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS or WW for AN tanks, and subpart TT or UU for equipment
leaks. Only specified provisions in subpart G apply for process
wastewater and maintenance wastewater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These assessments are used to determine which process vents
and wastewater streams must be controlled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owner or operator of a new area source is also required to
comply with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),
including requirements for notifications; performance tests and
reports; SSM plans and reports; recordkeeping, and reporting. We have
identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63
applicable to existing and new sources.
B. NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources
1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
The final NESHAP applies to each new or existing carbon black
production facility that is an area source of HAP. The owner or
operator of an existing affected source must comply with all the
requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007. The owner or
operator of a new affected source must comply by July 16, 2007 or upon
initial startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards
The Carbon Black Production area source category was listed
pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for regulation for its contribution of
the Urban HAP POM (polycyclic organic matter). We have made no changes
since proposal to the emissions standards for this source category.
This final NESHAP requires the owner or operator of an existing or
new source to control HAP emissions from each carbon black production
main unit filter process vent that has a HAP concentration equal to or
greater than 260 ppmv. The specific control requirements are: (1)
Reduce emissions of HAP by using a flare meeting all the requirements
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS; or (2) reduce total HAP emissions by 98
weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is less, by
venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of
control devices meeting the requirements 40 CFR 63.982(a)(2).
3. Compliance Requirements
We have made no changes to the proposed compliance provisions for
carbon black production area sources. For existing and new area
sources, we are adopting in this final NESHAP the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in subpart YY. The owner or
operator must demonstrate compliance with the emissions limit for
existing and new area sources by monitoring the operating parameters of
the control device or devices selected to comply with the requirements
of the NESHAP.
The owner or operator of an existing or new area source must comply
with the subpart YY notification requirements in 40 CFR 63.1110. In the
notification of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.1110(d), the
owner or operator of an existing source may demonstrate initial
compliance with the emissions standards based on the results of a
performance test that has been previously conducted provided certain
conditions are met (e.g., using the same methods as the test methods in
the final rule).
As proposed, we are requiring that the owner or operator of an
existing area source comply with the SSM requirements in 40 CFR
63.1111. Section 63.1111(a)(1) of subpart YY requires that the source
include provisions for an SSM plan.
C. NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds
1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
The final rule applies to the owner or operator of a new or
existing area source that manufactures chromium compounds. The owner or
operator of an existing area source must comply with all the
requirements of this area source NESHAP by January 16, 2008. The owner
or operator of a new affected source must comply by July 16, 2007 or
upon initial startup, whichever is later. In response to comments, we
have also added a definition of ``chromium compounds manufacturing
facility.''
2. Emissions Standards
The Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds area source category
was listed for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its
[[Page 38868]]
contribution of the Urban HAP chromium. We have not revised the
emissions standards for this area source category since proposal.
However, we have revised Table 1 of subpart NNNNNN to clarify the
regulated process equipment. These changes include revising the title
of Table 1 to refer to emissions sources instead of emissions points,
changing the ``filter for sodium chromate slurry'' to ``residue dryer
system'', changing the ``reactor used to produce chromic acid'' to the
``melter used to produce chromic acid'', and removing the ``sodium
evaporation unit'' from the table. These changes do not affect the
estimated level of emissions control or reduction for the rule.
The final NESHAP requires new and existing facilities to operate a
capture system that collects gases and fumes from each emissions source
and conveys the gases to a PM control device that controls emissions to
the levels required in the rule. Emissions limits for PM, in lb/hr
format, are established based on the process rate of the emissions
source. The PM emissions limits apply to more than 20 emissions sources
in the production of chromium compounds, including sodium chromate,
sodium dichromate, chromic acid, chromic oxide, and chromium dehydrate
at new and existing sources.
3. Compliance Requirements for Existing Area Sources
As proposed, the compliance requirements for existing area sources
are based on the operation and maintenance, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in the title V permit of the area source located
in North Carolina. The title V permit includes requirements for
inspections and maintenance of each type of control device, semiannual
reports of any deviation, and records of control device inspections and
maintenance. The control devices used by the existing area sources in
this source category include baghouses, dry electrostatic
precipitators, wet electrostatic precipitators, and wet scrubbers. The
monitoring requirements for existing area sources consist of inspection
and maintenance requirements specific to the type of control device.
In response to comments, we have revised the proposed requirements
for initial and periodic inspections of control devices in several
respects. The final rule requires an initial inspection for each
installed control device which has operated within 60 days of the
compliance date. An initial inspection for an installed control device
which has not operated within 60 days of the compliance date must be
conducted prior to startup. In addition, we have revised the
requirements for initial inspections of the internal components of
control devices to state that an initial inspection is not required if
an inspection has been performed within the past 24 months (for an
electrostatic precipitator) or within the past 12 months (for a
baghouse or wet scrubber). The proposed requirements for initial
inspections that do not require shutting down the process and control
device, such as inspecting baghouses and ductwork for leaks and
verifying proper operation of electrostatic precipitators and wet
scrubbers, have not been revised. We have also clarified the timing for
periodic inspections by requiring subsequent inspections 12 or 24
months after the last inspections and then annual or biennial
inspections thereafter. We have also revised the final rule to clarify
that the requirements for internal inspections of control devices do
not apply to cyclonic scrubbers installed upstream of electrostatic
precipitators.
For a baghouse, this final NESHAP requires monthly visual
inspections of the system ductwork and baghouse units for leaks. The
plant owner or operator must conduct an annual inspection of the
interior of each baghouse for structural integrity and condition of the
filter fabric. For electrostatic precipitators, plants are required to
conduct: (1) A daily check to verify that the electronic controls for
corona power and rapper operation are functioning, that the corona
wires are energized, and that adequate air pressure is present on the
rapper manifold; (2) a monthly visual inspection of the system
ductwork, cyclones (if applicable), housing unit, and hopper for leaks;
and (3) a biennial internal inspection to determine the condition and
integrity of corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper,
and air diffuser plates. For wet electrostatic precipitators, plants
also must conduct a daily check to verify water flow and a biennial
internal inspection to determine the condition and integrity of plate
wash spray heads. For wet scrubbers, plants are required to conduct:
(1) A daily check to verify water flow to the scrubber; (2) a monthly
visual inspection of the system ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks;
and (3) an annual internal inspection for structural integrity and
condition of the demister and spray nozzle.
The owner or operator of an existing plant must record the results
of each inspection, the results of any maintenance performed on the
control device, and the date and time of each recorded action. The
results of inspections and maintenance of control equipment must be
recorded in a logbook (written or electronic). The logbook must be kept
onsite and made available to the permitting authority upon request. The
owner or operator of an existing plant is required to report any
deviations from the emissions limits or monitoring requirements in a
semiannual report submitted to the permitting authority.
The owner or operator of an existing area source must submit an
initial notification of applicability and a notification of compliance
status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). In the notification of
compliance status required by 40 CFR 63.9(h), the owner or operator
must certify that equipment has been installed and is operating for
each regulated emissions point and that the plant will comply with the
inspection and maintenance requirements. A performance test is not
required if a performance test has been conducted within the past 5
years using the specified test methods, and either no process changes
have been made since the test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate
that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments,
reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes. The final rule
also requires that the owner or operator comply with either the
requirements for SSM plans and reports in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) or with the
requirements in this final rule. The owner or operator is required to
submit a report if an event occurs that results in emissions in excess
of a PM limit and lasts for more than 4 hours.
4. Compliance Requirements for New Area Sources
No changes have been made to the compliance requirements for new
area sources. The owner or operator of a new source must install and
operate a bag leak detection system for each baghouse used to comply
with a PM emissions limit. For additional information on bag leak
detection systems that operate on the triboelectric effect, see
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'', U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
September 1997, EPA-454/R-98-015, NTIS publication number PB98164676.
This document is available from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), 5385 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
The owner or operator of a new source that uses a control device
other than a baghouse must submit a
[[Page 38869]]
monitoring plan to the permitting authority for approval. The plan must
describe the control device, the parameters to be monitored, and the
operating limits for the parameters established during a performance
test.
The owner or operator of a new source is required to demonstrate
initial compliance with each applicable PM emissions limit by
conducting a performance test according to the requirements in 40 CFR
63.7. EPA Method 5 or 5D (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), as applicable,
is to be used to determine the PM emissions. All of the testing,
monitoring, operation and maintenance, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of the part 63 General Provisions apply to a new area
source. We have identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions
of 40 CFR part 63 applicable to existing and new sources.
D. NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication
Area Sources
1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
This final NESHAP applies to both new and existing flexible foam
production and flexible foam fabrication plants that are area sources.
In response to comments, we have revised the compliance dates to allow
more time for certain existing area sources to comply with the NESHAP.
The owner or operator of an existing slabstock flexible polyurethane
foam production-affected source must comply with all of the
requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2008 instead of
July 16, 2007. As proposed, the owner or operator of an existing molded
flexible polyurethane foam production, an existing rebond foam
production, or an existing flexible polyurethane foam fabrication
affected source must comply by July 16, 2007. The owner or operator of
a new area source must comply by July 16, 2007 or at startup, whichever
is later.
2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices
The Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane
Foam Fabrication area source categories were listed pursuant to section
112(c)(3) for their contribution of the Urban HAP methylene chloride.
No changes have been made since proposal to the required emissions
standards and management practices. Table 1 of this preamble summarizes
the various types of foam production and fabrication area sources
covered by this final rule and the corresponding regulatory strategies.
As shown in the table below, slabstock foam producers may still use
limited amounts of methylene chloride as an auxiliary blowing agent
(ABA). The technologies determined to be GACT for slabstock foam
production area sources significantly reduce, but do not always
eliminate the use of methylene chloride as an ABA. Methylene chloride
use is prohibited for other uses at foam production and foam
fabrication facilities.
Table 1.--Foam Production and Fabrication Processes and Corresponding
Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area source types Final regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Slabstock polyurethane foam a. Emission limits for
production. methylene chloride used as an
auxiliary blowing agent (ABA);
b. Controls on storage vessels;
c. Management practices for
equipment leaks; and
d. Prohibition on use of
methylene chloride as an
equipment cleaner; or
Eliminate use of methylene
chloride in slabstock foam
production processes.
2. Molded polyurethane foam production. Prohibit use of methylene
chloride as mold release agent
or equipment cleaner.
3. Rebond foam production.............. Prohibit use of methylene
chloride as mold release
agent.
4. Foam fabrication adhesive use....... Prohibit use of methylene
chloride adhesives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For slabstock foam production area sources, we are requiring
emissions limits and management practices to reduce methylene chloride
emissions from the production line, storage tanks, leaking equipment,
and equipment cleaning. Emissions limits for methylene chloride used as
an ABA are based on a formula which varies depending on the grades of
foam being produced. Vapor balance systems or carbon beds are required
for methylene chloride storage vessels. The management practices
require plants to identify and correct leaking pumps and other
equipment in methylene chloride service. Specifically, owners or
operators must check periodically for equipment leaks (from quarterly
for pumps and valves to annual for connectors) using EPA Method 21 (40
CFR part 60, appendix A). Leaks, which are defined as a reading of
10,000 parts per million (ppm) or greater, must be corrected within 15
days of when they are detected. The use of methylene chloride to clean
mix heads and other equipment is prohibited.
Slabstock foam facilities that do not use any methylene chloride at
the facility are not subject to these emissions limitations and
management practices. Such facilities are, however, required to submit
a one-time report.
This final rule prohibits the use of methylene chloride-based mold
release agents at molded and rebond foam facilities, methylene
chloride-based equipment cleaners at molded foam facilities, and
methylene chloride-based adhesives for foam fabrication.
3. Compliance Requirements
No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance
requirements. Slabstock foam area sources continuing to use methylene
chloride are required to monitor methylene chloride added at slabstock
production mixheads and the methylene chloride contained in and added
to methylene chloride storage tanks. Plants using carbon adsorber
systems to control emissions from methylene chloride storage tanks must
monitor the methylene chloride content of exhaust streams from outlet
vents. Plants using a recovery device to reduce methylene chloride
emissions are required to comply with a recovered methylene chloride
monitoring and recordkeeping program.
The owner or operator of a slabstock foam production area source
that continues to use methylene chloride as an ABA must submit
semiannual reports containing information on allowable and actual
methylene chloride emissions, carbon adsorbers on storage tanks, and
equipment leaks. Owners and operators are also required to submit
annual compliance
[[Page 38870]]
certifications. Records are required to demonstrate compliance,
including a daily operating log of foam runs containing the grades of
foam produced and related data, and records related to storage tanks
and equipment leaks. Slabstock foam plants that do not use any
methylene chloride must submit a one-time certification as part of
their notification of compliance status.
Molded foam, rebond foam, and foam fabrication area source
facilities which operate loop slitters must prepare, and keep on file,
compliance certifications which certify that the facility is not using
the prohibited methylene-chloride based products. The area source
plants must also maintain records documenting that the products they
are using do not contain any methylene chloride. These can be records
that would be kept in the absence of this final rule such as adhesive
usage information and Material Safety Data Sheets. Foam fabrication
area source plants which do not operate loop slitters have no
compliance certification or recordkeeping requirements.
The owner or operator of each slabstock foam affected source that
continues to use methylene chloride and, therefore, is subject to the
methylene chloride emissions limits, is required to comply with several
requirements of the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. We
have identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions that apply
to existing and new sources.
For slabstock foam production facilities that have eliminated the
use of methylene chloride and are not subject to the emissions
limitations in this final rule, we are requiring that owners or
operators submit a notification certifying that they do not use any
methylene chloride. Slabstock foam facilities that choose to use
methylene chloride in the future will be subject to the emission limits
and other requirements discussed above.
E. NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources
1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
This final NESHAP applies to new and existing lead acid battery
manufacturing plants that are area sources. The owner or operator of an
existing source must comply with all the requirements of this area
source NESHAP by July 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new source
must comply with this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007 or at
startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices
The Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category was listed
for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of
the Urban HAP lead and cadmium. As proposed, we are adopting as the
NESHAP for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category the
numerical emissions limits for grid casting, paste mixing, three-
process operations, lead oxide manufacturing, lead reclamation, and
other lead emitting processes in 40 CFR 60.372 of the new source
performance standards (NSPS) for lead acid batteries. These lead
discharge limits are:
0.40 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of
exhaust (mg/m\3\) from grid casting facilities,
1.00 mg/m\3\ from paste mixing facilities,
1.00 mg/m\3\ from three-process operation facilities,
5.0 mg per kilogram of lead feed from lead oxide
manufacturing facilities,
4.50 mg/m\3\ from lead reclamation facilities, and
1.0 mg/m\3\ from any other lead-emitting operations.
We are also adopting the opacity limits from the lead acid battery
NSPS. The opacity of emissions must be no greater than 5 percent from
lead reclamation facilities and no greater than 0 percent from any
affected facility except lead reclamation facilities.
3. Compliance Requirements
At proposal, we stated that we would adopt in this NESHAP the
compliance requirements in the NSPS for lead acid batteries. We
incorrectly stated in the proposal that title V would not add
monitoring to the proposed NESHAP. While that statement was accurate
for emissions units controlled by scrubbing systems, it was not
accurate for emissions units controlled by fabric filters. We
recognized our error during our consideration of comments submitted on
the proposal. We have incorporated the part 63 monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for all emissions units
instead of those in part 60. We concluded that the part 63 General
Provisions are more appropriate for this NESHAP than are the part 60
General Provisions that were proposed. We have also added periodic
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for emissions
units controlled by fabric filters.
We are adopting in this NESHAP the testing and monitoring and
requirements in the NSPS for lead acid batteries. These provisions
include the requirement to conduct a performance test and opacity
measurement for each source. They also require continuous monitoring of
the pressure drop for sources controlled by scrubbing systems. In
addition to these requirements, we added to the final rule daily
recordkeeping and semiannual reporting requirements for emissions units
that are controlled by scrubbing systems.
We added to the final rule monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for emissions units that are controlled by fabric filters.
These requirements direct facilities to conduct semiannual inspections
of fabric filter structure and bags, and to either: (1) Measure and
record the pressure drop across the fabric filter once per day, or (2)
conduct daily visible emission observations. If visible emissions are
detected, the final rule requires that an opacity measurement be made.
A weekly rather than daily alternative monitoring frequency is also
available for emissions units that utilize high efficiency particulate
air (HEPA) filters in combination with fabric filters.
We are also adopting the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements and the initial notification and notification of
compliance requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A). We concluded that the part 63 General Provisions are
more appropriate for this NESHAP than the part 60 General Provisions
that were proposed.
We have clarified the deadline for submission of initial
notifications required by Sec. 63.9 of the General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A). The initial notification of applicability required
for existing facilities is due by November 13, 2007. The notification
of compliance status is due 60 days after the 1 year deadline for
compliance September 15, 2008. We have identified in the final NESHAP
the applicable General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.
The final NESHAP allows existing plants to utilize previously
conducted performance tests, when they are representative of current
conditions, to demonstrate compliance. Plants without representative
prior performance tests are required to conduct performance tests by
180 days after the compliance date.
F. NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources
1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
This final NESHAP applies to new and existing wood preserving
plants
[[Page 38871]]
that are area sources. The owner or operator of an existing source must
comply with all the requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16,
2007. The owner or operator of a new source must comply by July 16,
2007 or at startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices
The Wood Preserving area source category was listed for regulation
under section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of the following Urban
HAP: arsenic, chromium, methylene chloride, and dioxin. The only
changes to the rule made since proposal are clarifications of
applicability and the required management practices.
We are adopting as the NESHAP for the Wood Preserving area source
category the control technologies and management practices that we have
determined are generally available, considering cost, for the wood
preserving industry. We have revised the rule since proposal to clarify
that the management practices and other recordkeeping and notification
requirements in the NESHAP apply to those facilities that are using a
wood preservative containing arsenic, chromium, dioxins, or methylene
chloride.
The NESHAP requires that facilities using a pressure treatment
process use a retort or similarly enclosed vessel for the preservative
treatment of wood involving any wood preservative containing chromium,
arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride. Facilities using a thermal
treatment process involving any wood preservative containing chromium,
arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride are required to use process
treatment tanks equipped with air scavenging systems to capture and
control air emissions.
This final rule also requires facility owners or operators using
any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or
methylene chloride to minimize emissions from process tanks and
equipment (e.g., retorts, other enclosed vessels, and thermal treatment
tanks), as well as storage, handling, and transfer operations. These
standards are to be documented in a management practices plan that must
include, but not be limited to, the following activities:
Minimizing preservative usage;
Maintaining records on the type of treatment process and
types and amounts of wood preservatives used at the facility;
For the pressure treatment process, maintaining charge
records identifying pressure reading(s) inside the retort (or similarly
enclosed vessel, if applicable);
For the thermal treatment process, maintaining records
that an air scavenging system is installed and operated properly during
the treatment process;
For the pressure treatment process, we proposed a
requirement for facilities to fully drain the retort prior to opening
the retort door. In the final rule, we have clarified this provision to
require facilities to fully drain the retort to the extent practicable,
prior to opening the retort door;
Storing treated wood product on drip pads or in a primary
containment area to convey preservative drippage to a collection system
until drippage has ceased;
Promptly collecting any spills; and
Performing relevant corrective actions or preventative
measures in the event of a malfunction before resuming operations.
Existing written standard operating procedures may be used as the
management practices plan if those procedures include the minimum
activities required for a management practices plan.
3. Compliance Requirements
No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance
requirements for wood preserving facilities. Plants that use any wood
preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene
chloride are required to comply with the notification requirements in
the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). This final
rule establishes the content and deadlines for submission of the
notifications. We have explicitly identified in this final NESHAP the
applicable General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.
The final standards require recordkeeping to serve as monitoring
and deviation reporting to demonstrate compliance. The compliance
requirements for new and existing area sources are based on certain
notification requirements in the part 63 General Provisions. The
initial notification of applicability required by 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2)
requires the owner or operator to identify the plant as an area source
subject to the standards. The notification of compliance status
requires the owner or operator to certify compliance with the
standards. No other recordkeeping or reporting requirements in the
General Provisions are applicable.
IV. Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories From Title V Permitting
Requirements
Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may
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'').
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).
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, in the Exemption Rule, we
explained 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
[[Page 38872]]
combination, and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together,
support an exemption from title V for a particular source category.
In response to the proposed rule, we received a comment concerning
the proposed title V exemptions. In response to this comment, we re-
examined the four factors for each of the area source categories for
which we had proposed an exemption. As explained below, after
evaluating the relevant factors, we again conclude that the
requirements of title V would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area
source categories for which we proposed an exemption from title V.
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 section 502(a), whether
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25,
2005. As discussed below in sections IV.A through IV.D of this
preamble, we have determined that the proposed exemptions from title V
would not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment.
We therefore finalize the proposed exemptions in this rule.
A. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
In sections IV.A through IV.D of this preamble, we apply the four-
factor balancing test to determine whether title V is unnecessarily
burdensome on the area source category. Starting with the first factor,
which is to determine whether title V permits would result in
significant improvements to the compliance requirements for the Acrylic
and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category, we compared the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of title V
permitting to those requirements in the final NESHAP. As noted above
(see section III.A of this preamble), the final NESHAP adopts the
compliance requirements in the State-issued permit for the one area
source plant currently in operation.
Specifically, this final rule requires CPMS to measure and record
the water flow rate to the control device (wet scrubber) every 15
minutes and to determine the daily average flow rate. Periodic visual
inspections of AN storage tanks equipped with a fixed roof in
combination with an internal floating roof must be conducted according
to the NSPS requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. This final
rule, therefore, contains both continuous and noncontinuous monitoring
requirements, which constitute periodic monitoring. Under EPA's Final
Rule Interpreting the Scope of Certain Monitoring Requirements for
State and Federal Operating Permits Programs (71 FR 75422, December 15,
2006) (``Interpretive Rule''), if an applicable requirement, such as a
NESHAP, contains periodic testing or instrumental or non-instrumental
monitoring (i.e., periodic monitoring), permitting authorities are not
authorized to assess the sufficiency of or impose new monitoring
requirements on a case-by-case basis; therefore, title V would not
impose additional monitoring requirements on sources in this category.
We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance
compliance through recordkeeping or reporting requirements, including
title V requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation
reports, and an annual compliance certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and
71.6. The final rule for acrylic and modacrylic fibers production
requires the owner or operator to submit an initial certification of
compliance that must be signed by a responsible official. In addition,
the owner or operator must determine compliance with daily average
operating limits for the water flow rates to each control device on a
monthly basis and submit compliance reports to EPA or the delegated
authority on a quarterly basis. Should the daily average water flow
rate to a wet scrubber control device fall below the operating limits,
the plant must notify the delegated authority in writing within 10 days
of the identification of the exceedance. Reports of performance test
results are required. New and existing sources are also required to
comply with the requirements for SSM plans, reports, and records in 40
CFR 63.6(e)(3). When an SSM report must be submitted, it must consist
of a letter, containing the name, title, and signature of the owner or
operator or other responsible official who is certifying its accuracy.
Records are required to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS
inspection and repair requirements for storage tanks in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb. Records are also required for the monthly compliance
determination for scrubber operating limits. The information required
in the final rule is similar to the information that must be provided
in the deviation reports and semiannual monitoring reports required
under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
This final rule does not require an annual compliance certification
report, which is a requirement of a title V permit. See 40 CFR
70.5(c)(9)(iii) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). The EPA believes that the
annual certification reporting requirement is not necessary because the
initial compliance certification and subsequent quarterly reports are
more than adequate to determine compliance for existing sources. New
sources must submit notifications and reports required by the part 63
General Provisions. Moreover, the certifications that new and existing
sources must submit under the part 63 General Provisions and the final
rule include initial notification of compliance status; periodic and
immediate reports under the SSM provisions; and reports of excess
emissions and monitoring system performance.
The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the
final rule for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source
category are substantially equivalent to such requirements under title
V. Therefore, we conclude that title V would not result in significant
improvements to the compliance requirements we are promulgating for
this area source category.
We evaluated factor two to determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area source category and
whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the source
may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. Subjecting
any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that
do not exist outside of the title V program. The EPA estimated that the
average annual cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit
was $7,700 per year per source, including fees, or $38,000 per source
for a 5-year permit period. See Information Collection Request (ICR)
for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number
1587.05. There are certain activities associated with the part 70 and
71 rules that are mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They
include reading and understanding permit program guidance and
regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms;
answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the
application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit;
collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-
month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation
reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of
written, verbal, and
[[Page 38873]]
other communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and
submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications
for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and
submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not
required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual
services of professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help
them understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR
for part 70 may help to understand the overall burdens and costs, as
well as the relative burdens, of each activity described here. Also,
for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70
sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
In considering the second factor for the one existing area source
acrylic and modacrylic fibers plant, we examined the potential economic
resources of the parent company and whether the source would have any
difficulty in obtaining assistance from the permitting authority.
Although this area source plant is small (i.e., it is the smallest of
the four known plants in the source category), the parent company is a
multi-national corporation and is not a small business. In addition,
the plant has worked closely with the State permitting authority to
obtain State operating permits and a designation as a synthetic minor
source, which means the plant must keep HAP emissions below the major
source threshold. The State agency has assigned a staff person who is
specifically responsible for the permitting of sources at the plant.
This staff person is familiar with the production processes, emissions
sources, and permitting requirements for the plant; therefore, the
staff person can provide permitting assistance as needed. Consequently,
we have no evidence that obtaining a title V permit would impose a
significant burden on this particular area source or that the burden
would be aggravated by any difficulty in obtaining assistance from
permitting authorities. However, we do not know what circumstances
would exist for new sources in this category.
The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. While we concluded that the one
existing area source could sustain the cost of title V permit
requirements without a significant economic impact on the company as a
whole, we do not think the costs for the one existing area source are
justified because we do not think title V permitting would lead to
gains in compliance by the source. As discussed above for factor one,
we determined that the compliance requirements of this NESHAP are
substantially equivalent to the requirements of title V. Furthermore,
as discussed below for factor four, there are adequate implementation
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure
compliance with the NESHAP. We conclude, therefore, that the costs of
title V are not justified for the one existing area source in this
category, even though we concluded the costs would not be burdensome on
the existing area source in this category. Furthermore, for new
sources, the requirements of title V may be a significant burden and,
since we have determined consistent with the first factor that there
would not be significant improvements in compliance under title V, we
likewise conclude that the cost would not be justified.
The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure
compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the
proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to
enforce these area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the
State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP.
We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP
anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that title V
permitting is ``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these NESHAP
because the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement
of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to
assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V
permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs required
by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been
exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct
voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs
(compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We
determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance
the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded
that in light of all of the above, that there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with these NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. We do not have similar data for this
rule because we are issuing this final NESHAP today. In the Exemption
Rule, EPA exempted the categories from the requirements of title V
after the NESHAP was issued. Although we do not have the type of
enforcement data we had in the Exemption Rule, we have no reason to
think that States will be less diligent in enforcing this NESHAP. See
70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have adequate programs to enforce
section 112 regulations and provide assurances that it will enforce all
NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program. See 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E. There are State programs in place to enforce this area
source NESHAP and assure compliance with the NESHAP. In light of the
above, we conclude that there are implementation and enforcement
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the
final rule without relying on title V permitting.
Considering the factors in combination supports the finding in the
proposal that title V is unnecessarily burdensome on this area source
category. We found in the proposal and again here that title V would
not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements
applicable to this area source category and that there are adequate
implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance
with the NESHAP. Although we concluded that the cost of title V
permitting would not be burdensome on the one known existing area
source, we cannot conclude that title V would not be a significant
burden on new sources in the category. We also found that the cost is
not justified because we could not identify any potential gains in
compliance within the category if title V were required for this
category. Thus, we conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area
source category.
In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also
[[Page 38874]]
considered, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative
history of section 502(a), whether exempting these area source
categories from title V requirements would adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment. We stated at proposal that
exemption of this area source category from title V requirements would
not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because
the level of control would remain the same even if a title V permit
were required. We continue to believe that there would be no adverse
effects for all of the reasons supporting the exemptions as discussed
above.
Importantly, the title V permit program does not 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. As
stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance
requirements applicable to existing or new area sources. We conclude,
therefore, that exempting this area source category from title V
permitting requirements in the final rule would not adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment.
Moreover, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve
understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve
compliance with the requirements. In this case, placing all
requirements for the one existing area source in a title V permit would
do little to clarify the requirements applicable to that source or
assist it in compliance with those requirements because of the
simplicity of the source and the NESHAP, and the fact that this source
is not subject to other NESHAP or to other requirements under the CAA.
Given that the emissions profile for new sources should be similar to
the existing source, we believe that new sources would be subject to
similar CAA requirements.
For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Acrylic and
Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category from title V
permitting requirements.
B. Flexible Polyurethane Foam and Fabrication
As discussed in the proposal, to determine whether title V permits
would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements
in the final NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam production and
fabrication area source categories (factor one in determining whether
title V permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome''), we compared the
title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to those
requirements in the final NESHAP for these source categories.
This final NESHAP does not contain monitoring or periodic reporting
requirements for molded foam production, rebond foam production, and
foam fabrication facilities that must eliminate the use of methylene
chloride, or for slabstock foam production facilities that elect to
totally eliminate the use of methylene chloride. Since these facilities
have discontinued the use of methylene chloride entirely, Urban HAP
emissions would be reduced without the need for continuous or periodic
monitoring of equipment or operations.
For slabstock foam production facilities still using methylene
chloride as an ABA, the final NESHAP requires the same periodic
monitoring in the form of quantifying methylene chloride usage that
must be performed by major sources. Therefore, title V would not add
any monitoring to the final NESHAP. See the Interpretive Rule (71 FR
75422, December 15, 2006).
We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance
compliance for area sources through recordkeeping or reporting
requirements, including title V requirements for a 6-month monitoring
report, deviation reports, and an annual compliance certification in 40
CFR 70.6 and 71.6. The final NESHAP requires area source foam plants
that have discontinued the use of methylene chloride to certify
compliance with the prohibition on methylene chloride in their
Notification of Compliance Status reports. For slabstock foam plants
still using methylene chloride, the final NESHAP requires the same
recordkeeping or reporting that must be performed by major sources. The
information required in the final reports and records is similar to the
information that must be provided in the deviation reports and required
for title V permitting under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
The final NESHAP requires a report if a deviation occurs, but does
not require periodic compliance reports. The addition of periodic
reports for sources that are subject to monitoring requirements would
not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements
in the final NESHAP for these area source categories. The final NESHAP
does not require an annual compliance certification report for
slabstock facilities that continue to use methylene chloride, as would
be required under a title V permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(c)(9)(iii) and 40
CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA believes that the annual certification reporting
requirement is not necessary because the deviation reports are adequate
to ensure compliance for new and existing sources. Furthermore, even
absent the requirement to submit annual compliance certifications,
sources must comply with all emission standards in the NESHAP. In
conclusion, we do not believe that title V would lead to significant
improvements in the compliance requirements for these categories.
The second factor considered in determining whether title V is
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is whether title V permitting would impose
significant burdens on the flexible polyurethane foam production and
fabrication area sources and whether these burdens would be aggravated
by difficulty they may have in obtaining assistance from permitting
agencies. Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain
burdens and costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. The
EPA estimated that the true average annual cost of obtaining and
complying with a title V permit was $38,500 per source for a 5-year
permit period, including fees. See Information Collection Request for
Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA Number 1587.05.
The EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs
of permitting flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication
area sources; however, there are certain source activities associated
with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are mandatory and
impose burdens on the source. They include reading and understanding
permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and understanding
permit application forms; answering follow-up questions from permitting
authorities after the application is submitted; reviewing and
understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing and submitting
monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis; preparing and
submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the State, which may
include a combination of written, verbal, and other communications
methods; collecting information, preparing, and submitting the annual
compliance certification; preparing applications for permit revisions
every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications
for permit revisions. In
[[Page 38875]]
addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources
obtain the contractual services of professional scientists and
engineers (consultants) to help them understand and meet the permitting
programs' requirements.
The ICR for part 70 further explains the overall burdens and costs,
as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here. Also,
for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70
sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
In the proposal, we stated that we believed the cost of a title V
program would be a significant burden for the area sources in all the
categories that we proposed to exempt. For flexible polyurethane foam
production and fabrication, that conclusion was based on the types of
smaller establishments that make up these categories. We estimate that
over 90 percent of the firms in the NAICS code for these categories are
small businesses, with over half the firms having less than 20
employees. We believe that these small sources will likely lack the
technical resources needed to comprehend and comply with the permitting
requirements and the financial resources needed to hire the necessary
staff or outside consultants. Accordingly, we conclude that title V
would be a significant burden for these categories because almost all
the sources are small businesses with limited resources, and that it
would be difficult for them to meet the numerous requirements
applicable to sources under part 70 or 71, whether they have a standard
or general permit. Also, we are not sure what level of title V related
assistance permitting authorities would be able to provide such small
sources. Thus, for the final rule, we believe factor two supports title
V exemption for flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication
sources because title V compliance would impose a significant economic
and non-economic burden on sources in these categories.
The third factor is whether the costs of title V permitting for
these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. We
concluded after consideration of the first factor that title V would
not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements
in the final rule for flexible polyurethane foam production and
fabrication source categories. We also concluded in our consideration
of the second factor that title V permitting would be a significant
burden on the facilities and that the burden was associated with both
the financial cost of compliance as well as the time and effort that
these small facilities would have to devote to compliance with title V.
Furthermore, as discussed in our consideration of the fourth factor
below, there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in
place sufficient to ensure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the
costs, both economic and non-economic, are burdensome on these sources,
and title V would not lead to significant improvements in compliance
with the NESHAP, we conclude that requiring title V permitting is not
justified for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories.
The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure
compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the
proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to
enforce these area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the
State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP.
We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP
anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that title V
permitting is ``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these NESHAP
because the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement
of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to
assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V
permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs required
by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been
exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct
voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs
(compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We
determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance
the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded
that in light of all of the above, that there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with this NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption
rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the HAP regulations and provide assurances
that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program.
See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E.
In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with the flexible polyurethane foam production and
fabrication NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
Balancing the four factors for these area source categories
strongly supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily
burdensome. We determined in the proposal and above that title V would
not significantly improve the compliance requirements of the NESHAP and
that the requirements of title V would be a significant burden on the
facilities. We also determined that the costs of compliance with title
V would not be justified because it would not likely lead to gains in
compliance with the NESHAP and that there are sufficient implementation
and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance without reliance
on title V. All four factors weigh in favor of exemption, and we
conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for
the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane
Foam Fabrication area source categories.
In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories from
title V requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or
the environment. Exemption of the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production
and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories from
title V requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare,
or the environment because the level of control would remain the same
if a title V permit were required.
[[Page 38876]]
The title V permit program does not 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. As stated in our
consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable
to existing or new area sources. Therefore, we conclude that exempting
the flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication area sources
from title V permitting requirements in these rules will not adversely
affect public health, welfare, or the environment.
Moreover, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve
understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve
compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, we do not
believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the
requirements applicable to these area sources, as the requirements are
not complicated to understand or implement. Furthermore, the sources in
this category are not subject to any other NESHAP or CAA requirements
to combine into one title V permit. For these reasons, we do not find
that title V permitting is necessary to improve understanding of and
achieve compliance with these standards.
For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication
area source categories from title V permitting requirements.
C. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
In the proposal, we discussed whether title V permitting was
``unnecessarily burdensome'' for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
area source category. Factor one in determining whether title V
permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is to determine whether
title V permits would result in significant improvements to the
compliance requirements in the final NESHAP. In this NESHAP, we
proposed adopting the compliance requirements in the NSPS for lead acid
battery manufacturing as the compliance requirements for this area
source category. The final rule includes the same provisions and
requires monitoring, recordkeeping and deviation reporting to ensure
compliance with the NESHAP. Specifically, the final rule requires that
a facility using a scrubbing system install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a monitoring device that measures and records the pressure drop
across the scrubbing system at least once every 15 minutes. Opacity
requirements are zero percent for five of the six emission sources and
five percent for the sixth. In addition to these requirements, we are
adding in the final rule monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for emissions units controlled by fabric filters. These
requirements direct facilities to perform and keep records of
semiannual fabric filter inspections and to either: (1) Measure and
record the pressure drop across the fabric filter once per day or (2)
conduct daily visible emission observations. If visible emissions are
detected, the final rule requires that an opacity measurement be made.
The alternative of weekly monitoring is also available for emissions
units that utilize HEPA filters in combination with fabric filters.
Each facility must demonstrate compliance by either conducting a
performance test or submitting the results of a recent performance test
conducted using the methods and procedures in the final NESHAP. Because
both the continuous and noncontinuous monitoring methods required by
the final NESHAP constitute periodic monitoring, title V would not
result in significant improvements to monitoring in the final NESHAP.
See the Interpretive Rule (71 FR 75422, December 15, 2006).
We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance
compliance through recordkeeping or reporting requirements, including
title V requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation
reports, and an annual compliance certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and
71.6. Records are required to demonstrate compliance. Plants are
required to comply with the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A). The information required in the NESHAP is similar to
the information that must be provided in the deviation reports and
semiannual monitoring reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40
CFR 71.6(a)(3).
The NESHAP for lead acid battery manufacturing requires the owner
or operator to submit an initial certification of compliance that must
be signed by a responsible official. The NESHAP does not require an
annual compliance certification report, as would be required under a
title V permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(c 9)(iii) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA
believes that the title V annual certification reporting requirement is
not necessary because the semiannual reports are adequate to ensure
compliance for new and existing sources. Furthermore, even absent the
requirement to submit annual compliance certifications, sources must
comply with all emission standards in the NESHAP. Therefore, the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the final
NESHAP for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category are
substantially equivalent to requirements under title V. We conclude
that title V would not result in significant improvements to the
compliance requirements for this area source category.
The second factor considered in determining whether title V
permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is whether title V
permitting would impose a significant burden for the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing area source category and whether that burden would be
aggravated by any difficulty these sources may have in obtaining
assistance from permitting agencies. Subjecting any source to title V
permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that do not exist outside
of the title V program. EPA previously estimated that the true average
annual cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was
$38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05.
EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs of
permitting lead acid battery manufacturing area sources; however, there
are certain source activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules.
These activities are mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They
include reading and understanding permit program guidance and
regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms;
answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the
application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit;
collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-
month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation
reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of
written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting
information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance
certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5
years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit
revisions. In addition, although not required by the
[[Page 38877]]
permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual services of
professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help them
understand and meet the permitting programs' requirements.
The ICR for part 70 may help to understand the overall burdens and
costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here.
Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70
sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
In considering the second factor for lead acid battery
manufacturing, we examined the potential economic resources of the
plants and their parent companies and whether they would have any
difficulty in obtaining assistance from the permitting authority. There
are a few multi-national corporations that own several lead acid
battery manufacturing plants that would be subject to this NESHAP, and
those facilities would have resources adequate to absorb the economic
and non-economic burdens associated with complying with the title V
permitting requirements. However, there are many plants that are small
businesses for which the title V permitting requirements would be a
significant burden, both economic and non-economic. In addition to the
small businesses currently subject to the NSPS, there are some small
plants \4\ that are not subject to the NSPS that will be subject to the
NESHAP. These small businesses will be burdened complying with the
NESHAP, even if title V compliance is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The new source performance standard (NSPD) applied only to
plants that produced or had the design capacity to produce in one
day batteries containing an amount of lead equal to or greater than
5.9 megagrams (6.5 tons).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through discussions with the industry trade organization, we have
learned that very few lead acid battery manufacturing facilities
currently are subject to a title V permit for either lead or other
criteria pollutants. Some plants have synthetic minor permits to remain
below the threshold for title V permitting for criteria pollutants. As
such, if title V permits were required the sources would have
difficulty obtaining assistance from the permitting authorities as they
developed and applied for title V permits. This difficulty stems from
the fact that there are about 60 plants in this area source category,
and permitting authorities'' resources are limited. Thus, the
difficulty sources would have obtaining appropriate guidance from
permitting authorities would only increase the already significant
economic and non-economic burdens of title V on the small facilities
with limited resources.
The third factor is whether the costs of title V permitting for
these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. We
evaluated the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting requirements of the
proposed NESHAP when considering the first factor and concluded above
that title V would not lead to significant improvements to the
compliance requirements for this category. In considering the second
factor, we concluded that some of the existing area sources could
comply with the title V permit requirements without a significant
economic impact on the company as a whole. But, we also concluded that
the costs would be a significant burden for small facilities,
particularly those not currently covered by the NSPS because they would
have to comply with the NESHAP and title V simultaneously. In addition,
under the fourth factor below, we find that there are adequate
implementation and enforcement programs in place to enforce the
provisions of the NESHAP. We believe that the costs of compliance with
title V are, therefore, not justified for this area source category
given the little potential for gain in compliance benefits.
The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure
compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the
proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to
enforce these area source NESHAP. While we did not state this in the
proposal, we know that States have been enforcing the NSPS on which the
NESHAP is based for this source category for some time and that the
State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP.
We noted at proposal that EPA retains authority to enforce these
NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that
title V permitting is ``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these
NESHAP because the statutory requirements for implementation and
enforcement of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are
sufficient to assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without
title V permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs
required by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that
have been exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often
conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education
programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by
statute. We determined that these additional programs will supplement
and enhance the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and
concluded that in light of all of the above, that there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with these NESHAP without relying on title V
permitting.
In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption
Rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide
assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the
program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E.
In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with these NESHAP without relying on title V
permitting.
Balancing the four factors for this area source category supports
the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. In
considering the first factor, we concluded that title V would not lead
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements. We
concluded after consideration of the second factor that title V would
impose a significant burden on the small facilities, particularly those
not subject to the NSPS, but that the burden would not be significant
for sources owned by larger companies. We concluded that the costs
would not be justified given the little potential gain in the
compliance likely to occur. We also determined that there are adequate
implementation and enforcement programs in place to enforce the NESHAP
and, furthermore, States have in fact been enforcing the provisions of
the NSPS. All four factors individually support exemption, and
collectively they support the finding in the proposal. Therefore, we
conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily
[[Page 38878]]
burdensome'' for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source
category.
In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area
source category from title V requirements would adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing area source category from title V requirements would not
adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the
level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The
title V permit program does not 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. As stated in our
consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable
to existing or new area sources. There is no evidence in the record
that leads us to question these conclusions. Therefore, we conclude
that exempting the lead acid battery manufacturing area sources from
title V permitting requirements in this rule will not adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment.
Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve
understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve
compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, we do not
believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the
requirements applicable to the lead acid battery manufacturing area
sources. These plants are straightforward in design and are not covered
by regulations with requirements that are very complicated to
understand or implement. The permits we have examined for the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing area source category currently consist of a
single document that applies to all sources and to lead and the other
criteria pollutants emitted. For these reasons, we do not find that
title V permitting is necessary to improve understanding of and achieve
compliance with these standards.
For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing area source category from title V permitting
requirements.
D. Wood Preserving
As discussed in the proposal, we compared the title V monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (factor one) to the
requirements in the NESHAP for the Wood Preserving area source
category. EPA determined that the management practices currently used
at most facilities is GACT and the rule requires recordkeeping that
serves as monitoring and deviation reporting to ensure compliance with
the NESHAP. The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V
exemption because title V is unnecessary to provide adequate monitoring
for wood preserving area sources. Because the NESHAP requires
management practices for certain treatment processes and requires
recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring, additional monitoring
requirements that might be added under title V would be unnecessary to
assure compliance. Monitoring other than recordkeeping is not practical
or appropriate in this case because the requirements are management
practices. Records are required to ensure that the management practices
are followed, including records of the type of preservative treatment
process used, the types and quantities of preservatives used, and
charge records of retort pressure.
As part of the first factor, we have considered the extent to which
title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered
by this final rule through recordkeeping or reporting requirements. For
any affected wood preserving area source facility, the NESHAP requires
an initial notification, a compliance status report, and deviations
must be reported within 30 days. We considered the various title V
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including requirements for a
6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an annual
certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6.
The wood preserving NESHAP also requires affected facilities to
certify compliance with the management practices required by the rule.
In addition, wood preserving facilities must maintain records showing
compliance with the required management practices and report
deviations. The information required in the deviation reports and
records is similar to the information that must be provided in the
deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that title V might impose additional
compliance requirements on this category, but, as stated in the
proposal, we conclude that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the NESHAP for wood preserving are sufficient to ensure
compliance with the provisions of the NESHAP, and title V would not
significantly improve those compliance requirements.
Under the second factor, we determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency.
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. The EPA
estimated that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title
V permit was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including
fees. See Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. The EPA does not
have specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting wood
preserving area sources; however, there are certain source activities
associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are
mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They include reading and
understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and
understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up questions
from permitting authorities after the application is submitted;
reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing
and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis;
preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the
State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other
communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and
submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications
for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and
submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not
required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual
services of professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help
them understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR
for part 70 provides additional information on the overall burdens and
costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here.
Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70
[[Page 38879]]
sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
In assessing the second factor for wood preserving facilities, we
found that over 90 percent of the 393 plants are small businesses, most
with only a few employees. These small sources lack the technical
resources needed to comprehend and comply with permitting requirements
and the financial resources needed to hire the necessary staff or
outside consultants. As discussed above, title V permitting would
impose significant economic and non-economic costs on these area
sources, and, accordingly, we conclude that title V is a significant
burden for sources in this category. Most are small businesses with
limited resources, and under title V they would be subject to numerous
mandatory activities with which they would have difficulty complying,
whether they were issued a standard or a general permit. Furthermore,
given the large number of sources in the category and the relatively
small size, it would likely be difficult for them to obtain assistance
from the permitting authority. Thus, we find that factor two strongly
supports title V exemption for wood preserving facilities.
The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. We explained above under the second
factor that the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with
title V would impose a significant burden on most of the 393 wood
preserving facilities. We also concluded in considering the first
factor that, while title V might impose additional requirements, the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
assure compliance with the management practices imposed in the NESHAP.
In addition, below in our consideration of the fourth factor we find
that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in
place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both
economic and non-economic, of compliance with title V are so 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 wood preserving area sources.
The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the proposal, we
considered whether there are State programs in place to enforce these
area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the State programs
are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP. We also noted
that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP anytime under CAA
sections 112, 113, and 114. We concluded that title V permitting is
``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these NESHAP because the
statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of these
NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to assure
compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V permits. We
also noted that small business assistance programs required by CAA
section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been exempted
from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary
compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance
assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We determined
that these additional programs will supplement and enhance the success
of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded that in light
of all of the above, there are implementation and enforcement programs
in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP
without relying on title V permitting.
In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption
rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide
assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the
program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E.
In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with the Wood Preserving NESHAP without relying on
title V permitting.
Balancing the four factors for this area source category strongly
supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome.
While title V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed,
we concluded that there would not be significant improvements to the
compliance requirements in the NESHAP because the requirements in this
final rule are specifically designed to assure compliance with the
standards and management practices imposed on this area source
category. We also concluded that the economic and non-economic costs of
compliance with title V, in conjunction with the likely difficulty this
large number of small sources would have obtaining assistance from the
permitting authority, would impose a significant burden on the sources.
We determined that the high relative costs would not be justified given
that there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if
title V were required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation
and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP.
Thus, we conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' for the Wood Preserving area source category.
In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered at
proposal, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history
of section 502(a), whether exempting the Wood Preserving area source
category from title V requirements would adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Wood Preserving
area source category from title V requirements would not adversely
affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of
control would remain the same if a permit were required. The title V
permit program does not 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. As stated in our consideration
of factor one for this category, title V would not lead to significant
improvements in the compliance requirements applicable to existing or
new area sources.
Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve
understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve
[[Page 38880]]
compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, placing all
requirements for the sources in a title V permit would do little to
clarify the requirements applicable to the sources or assist them in
compliance with those requirements because of the simplicity of the
sources and the NESHAP, and the fact that these sources are not subject
to other NESHAP or to other requirements under the CAA. We have no
reason to think that new sources would be substantially different from
the existing sources. In addition, we explained in the Exemption Rule
that requiring permits for the large number of area sources could, at
least in the first few years of implementation, potentially adversely
affect public health, welfare, or the environment by shifting State
agency resources away from assuring compliance for major sources with
existing permits to issuing new permits for these area sources,
potentially reducing overall air program effectiveness. For the final
rule, we conclude that title V exemptions for the wood preserving area
sources will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment for all of the reasons explained above.
For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Wood Preserving
area source category from title V permitting requirements.
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
We received a total of 18 comments on the proposed NESHAP from
seven industry trade associations, representatives of eight affected
facilities, one environmental group, and two State agencies during the
public comment period. Sections V.A through V.J of this preamble
provide responses to the significant public comments received on the
proposed NESHAP.
A. Basis for Area Source Standards
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's decision to issue GACT
standards pursuant to section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards
pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), for six of the seven area
source categories at issue in the proposed rule is arbitrary and
capricious because EPA provided no rationale for its decision to issue
GACT standards. The commenter makes this argument for the following six
source categories: Acrylic and modacrylic fibers production, carbon
black production, chemical manufacturing: Chromium compounds, flexible
polyurethane foam production/flexible polyurethane foam fabrication,
and lead acid battery manufacturing.
Response: As the commenter itself recognizes, in section 112(d)(5),
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission
standards for area sources. Specifically, 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. (Emphasis added).
There are two critical aspects to section 112(d)(5). First, section
112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of area
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c). The commenter does not
dispute that EPA listed the six area source categories noted above
pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Second, section 112(d)(5) provides that
for area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c), EPA ``may, in lieu
of'' the authorities provided in section 112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to
promulgate standards pursuant to section 112(d)(5). 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). Section 112(d)(3), in turn, defines what constitutes
the ``maximum degree of reduction in emissions'' for new and existing
sources. See section 112(d)(3). \5\ 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, section
112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to promulgate standards under section
112(d)(5) that provide for the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT), instead of issuing MACT
standards pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does
not set any condition precedent for issuing standards under section
112(d)(5) other than that the area source category or subcategory at
issue must be one that EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is
the case here.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Specifically, 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. Section 112(d)(2) directs
EPA to consider whether more stringent--so called beyond-the-floor
limits--are technologically achievable considering, among other
things, the cost of achieving the emission reduction.
\6\ Section 112(d)(5) also references 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
section 112(f) for any area source category or subcategory listed
pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and for which an emission standard is
issued pursuant to section 112(d)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for issuing
GACT standards under 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 section
112(d)(5), Congress would have stated so expressly in 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 section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress authorized EPA to
issue GACT standards for area source categories listed under section
112(c)(3), 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, EPA
must set a GACT standard that is consistent with the requirements of
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 72 FR 116638. The legislative history supporting section 112(d)(5)
provides that EPA may consider costs in determining what constitutes
generally available control technologies or management practices for
the area source category (GACT).\7\ EPA cannot consider cost in setting
MACT floors,
[[Page 38881]]
pursuant to 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
section 112(d)(5), but did not permit that consideration in setting
MACT floors for major sources. This important dichotomy between section
112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress
sought to do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) states--
provide EPA the authority to issue ``[a]lternative standards for area
sources.'' EPA properly issued standards for the area source categories
at issue here under section 112(d)(5), and as demonstrated below, EPA
has a reasoned basis for each of its GACT determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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 Clean Air
Act (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, even accepting, for arguments sake, the commenter's
assertion that EPA must provide a rationale basis for setting a GACT
standard as opposed to a MACT standard, we did so in the proposed rule.
In the proposal, we explained that we can and do consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT. We also explained that the
facilities in the source categories at issue here are already well
controlled for the Urban HAP for which the source category was listed
pursuant to section 112(c)(3). See 72 FR 16638. We believe the
consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially important for
the well-controlled area sources at issue in this final action because,
given current well-controlled levels, a MACT floor determination, where
costs cannot be considered, could result in only marginal reductions in
emissions at very high costs for modest incremental improvement in
control for the area source category.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's alternative proposal (72
FR 16647) that GACT is no further emissions reduction for existing area
sources in three source categories (chromium compounds manufacturing,
carbon black production, and acrylic and modacrylic fibers production)
is unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter stated that the Agency
provided no basis whatsoever for concluding that GACT is no further
emission reduction. In particular, the commenter claimed that EPA
provided no basis for concluding that: (1) Chromium compounds
manufacturers cannot reduce their emissions of such pollutants through
the use of generally available control measures, (2) carbon black
manufacturers cannot reduce all their emissions of HAP at least to the
98 weight percent reduction or 20 ppmv standards, and (3) acrylic and
modacrylic fibers manufacturers cannot reduce their emissions of HAP at
least to the levels EPA has identified as GACT.
Response: In the preamble to the proposed rule for the Acrylic and
Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category, we solicited
comments as follows:
We are alternatively proposing that GACT for this existing area
source is no further emission reduction. We request comment on the
basis, consistent with section 112(d)(5), for asserting that GACT is
no further control for the existing source. We request comment on
this issue because the standard proposed above will not result in
any emission reductions beyond what is already required by the State
permit to which the existing facility is already subject.
We included the same request for comments in the preamble for the
Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds area source category and the
Carbon Black Production area source category. We are not finalizing
this approach in the final rule. Rather, we are finalizing the proposed
emissions standards with minor changes.
B. Proposed NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area
Sources
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's decision to reject steam
stripping of wastewater streams as GACT for the one existing area
source plant on cost effectiveness grounds is unlawful and arbitrary.
The commenter asserted that in the proposed rule, EPA did not dispute
that steam stripping was commercially available and appropriate and did
not claim that the economic impact was too great. The commenter further
asserted that EPA presented only its own subjective views on cost
effectiveness, which are not relevant under section 112(d)(5).\8\
According to the commenter, EPA's decision to reject steam stripping is
arbitrary because the Agency did not consider the relevant factors
(availability, appropriateness, and cost) in determining what
constitutes GACT. The commenter further stated that EPA failed to
explain why it based its rejection of steam stripping on its claims
about cost effectiveness or to explain why it did not consider the
reductions cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The commenter cites legislative history, noting that GACT
must reflect the ``methods, practices and techniques that are
commercially available and appropriate for application by the
sources in the category considering economic impacts'' (72 FR 16638,
quoting S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171-172).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (72 FR
16638, April 4, 2007):
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.
Prior to proposal, we reviewed the generally available control
technologies and management practices that have been applied to
wastewater at the one existing acrylic and modacrylic fibers area
source plant. This plant has a wastewater stream with a low
concentration of AN, and the wastewater is processed in a wastewater
treatment system to remove organic compounds and degrade the AN. We
also considered the control technologies and management practices
employed at major sources in this category for treating wastewater
streams and determined that the major sources were treating similar
low-HAP concentration wastewater streams in the same manner as the area
sources in this category. We also evaluated the feasibility of steam
stripping to remove the AN even though it was not employed in the
category for low-HAP concentration wastewater streams. We stated at
proposal that steam stripping the wastewater stream would require a
capital expenditure of $700,000 with a recurring total annualized cost
of $630,000 per year. We stated that, assuming a 90 percent removal
rate, the emissions reduction from steam stripping for the existing
area source facility would be 7 tpy. The cost effectiveness would be
$90,000 per ton of AN.\9\ We determined that steam stripping of the
wastewater stream at the only known existing area source was not
appropriate for application for the source because it was not cost
effective. See e.g., Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 349 U.S. App. DC 118, 254
F.3d 195, 201 (DC 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). Consequently,
[[Page 38882]]
we concluded that GACT was the plant's current management practice of
processing the water in a wastewater treatment system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ We recognize that in other contexts the effectiveness of
steam stripping is 96 percent, which results in a cost effectiveness
of $85,000 per ton of AN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to comments, we evaluated plants in similar industrial
categories (e.g., the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
subject to subpart G in 40 CFR part 63) and found that the general
management practice for low-HAP concentration wastewater streams is to
process the water in a wastewater treatment system similar to that
employed by the existing acrylic and modacrylic area source. We
conclude here that the current practice employed at the existing
facility is GACT and, consistent with our finding at proposal, stream
stripping is not GACT for this area source category.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule for existing
sources was very specific to the one area source plant that EPA
identified and stated that it should more appropriately be based on
efficiencies or concentrations to allow some operating flexibility.
While the commenter acknowledged that this facility is the only acrylic
fiber manufacturer currently known to be an area source, the commenter
believed that future facilities may struggle to comply with such site-
specific requirements. Specifically, the commenter suggested that the
proposed emissions limit for polymerization process equipment, which is
expressed in terms of pounds per hour (lb/hr), should be written more
generally for different types of processes and control equipment that
might be used and should require a control efficiency or outlet
concentration. According to the commenter, this would more closely
match the approach provided for new sources which used efficiency and
concentration limits.
The commenter also noted that the control device parameter
operating limit for existing sources specifies the water flow rate of
the scrubbers. The commenter stated that the standard should require
the operating parameters to be established based on performance
testing. The commenter asserted if past testing is used and parameters
were previously set, this should still be acceptable. According to the
commenter, this approach would allow the existing facility flexibility
to change these parameters based on performance testing should it
become necessary.
Response: We agree that the proposed emission limit for process
vents is very site-specific to the one known area source plant. We are
providing existing sources with the option of complying with the
standards for new sources. Although the standards for new and existing
sources are expressed in different formats, both standards require the
same level of emission control, and both ensure that the technology
identified as GACT is in place. Thus, the compliance alternative we are
adopting in the final rule provides an equivalent level of control and
additional flexibility for existing sources to demonstrate compliance
with the NESHAP.
We also agree with the commenter's suggestion about establishing
operating limits for the scrubbers during a performance test and have
revised the rule accordingly. The scrubber water flow must be monitored
during the performance test, and the test must demonstrate compliance
with the emission limit. The operating limit for scrubber water flow is
determined from the lowest average flow rate during any test run that
shows compliance with the emissions limit.
C. Proposed NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources
Comment: Two commenters stated that there are no area sources in
the source category producing carbon black by the furnace or thermal
processes. The commenters believed that the 2002 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) incorrectly designated the Degussa Engineered Carbon
facility in Belpre, Ohio, as an area source. Both commenters claimed
that the emissions reported in the NEI and the 2005 Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) from this facility, which are below the major source
thresholds, represent levels after control but that the uncontrolled
``potential to emit'' emissions are considerably above the major source
thresholds.
The commenters asserted that this facility was identified as the
only existing area source in the category and was used to form the
basis for GACT. The commenters stated that EPA determined GACT based on
this mistaken identification of the Belpre, Ohio facility as an area
source. The commenters requested that EPA reconsider its GACT
determination in light of the fact that the source considered in making
such a determination is a major source and that GACT determinations
require considerations of economics and a technical feasibility for the
smaller sources outside of the major source category. The commenters
stated that GACT for area sources should be less stringent than MACT
for major sources due to the financial and technical considerations
that would apply to a smaller area source.
Response: The identification of the Degussa plant in Belpre, OH as
an area source was due in part to the information in the NEI and TRI as
suggested by the commenters. We also reviewed the plant's title V
permit, which expires in December 2007. The permit indicated that the
plant was a major source of criteria pollutants and not a major source
of HAP emissions. The permit also did not indicate that the plant was
subject to the MACT standard in subpart YY (40 CFR part 63). While we
were aware of the plant's recent permit renewal application that
incorporated the provisions of subpart YY, it was still unclear whether
the plant was a major source of HAP. However, since one of the
commenters is the plant itself, we accept that we made an error in
considering this facility to be an area source.
In light of this new information, we reevaluated our GACT
determination for existing carbon black area sources. As stated in the
proposal preamble (72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007):
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.
Given that there are no current area sources, we examined all
existing carbon black plants, which happen to be all major sources.
Those sources have applied technologies to reduce organic HAP emissions
from main unit process vent streams with concentrations of 260 ppmv or
greater. The control technologies typically used for this source
category are flares and incinerators. These control technologies have
also been widely applied to many emission sources in other similar
industrial source categories, such as process vents at petroleum
refineries and chemical plants. These control technologies are
therefore generally available.
Even if by some mechanism an existing major source becomes an
existing area source, that facility would already have the necessary
controls in
[[Page 38883]]
place and the facility would incur no additional costs in response to
this final NESHAP. The facility would not be able to remove or
discontinue use of any of the controls because they would likely exceed
the major source thresholds (i.e., the commenters pointed out that
their potential to emit based on emissions before control exceeds major
source thresholds). Further, the controls were installed to meet permit
limits for criteria pollutants, and these requirements would not change
just because a source became an area source of HAP emissions.
Accordingly, after considering the availability of the above-
identified control technologies, which provide the most effective
control of HAP emissions from these processes, their demonstrated
applicability to carbon black facilities and similar emission sources,
and their reasonable costs for vent streams with concentrations above
260 ppmv, we are finalizing the standard for carbon black area sources
set forth in the proposal.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's decision to provide a 260
ppmv applicability cutoff in the proposed rule for carbon black
producers is based on factors that are irrelevant to the establishment
of GACT standards under section 112(d)(5) and devoid of any rational
explanation. According to the commenter, EPA determined that GACT for
carbon black manufacturing is either a 98 weight-percent reduction in
HAP emissions or a 20 ppmv concentration standard. The commenter
claimed that EPA proposed to allow sources to meet an alternative 260
ppmv standard. According to the commenter, EPA's only explanation for
allowing sources to emit 13 times as much HAP as its own GACT standard
would allow is that ``this cutoff represents the lowest control device
inlet concentration reported at one of the best-controlled facilities''
and ``we do not have available information to indicate that the single
existing area source controls process vent emissions with
concentrations below this level.'' The commenter asserted that EPA did
not explain the relevance of either of those claims to its
determination of GACT. According to the commenter, the control device
inlet concentration at any given source is in no way indicative of the
emissions level that can be achieved by the technology that EPA itself
has recognized as GACT and therefore, it is irrelevant to the GACT
determination. The commenter also claimed that because control device
inlet information is irrelevant under section 112(d)(5), EPA's decision
to base an alternative GACT decision on such information is arbitrary
and that EPA's complete failure to explain why it would base its GACT
decision on such information or why it believed that such information
is even relevant to the determination of GACT is also arbitrary.
The commenter stated that to the extent EPA based its decision on
the fact that the single source currently in the area source carbon
black category does not currently control vent emissions streams below
the 260 ppmv level, its decision is unlawful. The commenter asserted
that EPA's obligation under section 112(d)(5) is to base standards on
control measures that are commercially available and appropriate for
the category. According to the commenter, the fact that a source has
not already voluntarily controlled its emission streams below a given
level does not mean that control technology is not commercially
available for use on such streams or that the use of such technology is
not appropriate. The commenter stated that EPA did not even suggest
that using a flare or incinerator to control emissions from vent
streams with concentrations below 260 ppmv is either technically or
economically infeasible.
Response: As noted above, other commenters reported that the
facility originally identified as the only existing area source in this
category (upon which the proposed GACT requirements were based) is in
fact a major source. Therefore, as we stated in the previous response,
we reevaluated GACT for this category and determined that for sources
with process vent stream emissions of 260 ppmv or greater, the
technology that applies at major sources (i.e., flares or incinerators)
is transferable to area sources. We have no emissions data for process
vent streams below 260 ppmv, as the major sources are not required to
control below this level.
As an initial matter, we reject the commenter's statement that
control device inlet concentration is not relevant. The inlet
concentration and other stream characteristics (i.e., the
characteristics of the uncontrolled emission stream) are directly
related to both the effectiveness and the cost of a control device. For
example, the heating value of components of the inlet stream is a key
component in the effectiveness and cost of a flare. Therefore, the
concentration affects flame stability, emissions, and flame structure.
A lower concentration (and thus lower heating value) produces a cooler
flame that does not favor combustion kinetics and is also more easily
extinguished. While these limitations can sometimes be overcome through
the use of auxiliary fuels, this increases the costs. Therefore, we
believe that the use of concentration is an appropriate consideration
in determining GACT for this source category.
Flares and incinerators are established control technologies that
are generally available for this source category for POM, which is the
Urban HAP for which this source category was listed. Therefore, we
analyzed the potential impacts associated with a requirement to control
process vent streams with organic HAP concentrations of 260 ppmv or
less. We estimate that the cost effectiveness of controlling a 260 ppmv
stream with a flare would be around $19 million per ton of POM emission
reduction (carbon black production was listed as an area source
category based on emissions of POM). The cost effectiveness of an
incinerator was estimated to be almost $25 million per ton of POM
reduction. We believe that the costs of requiring the control of
process vent streams with organic HAP concentrations less than 260 ppmv
are cost prohibitive and therefore do not represent methods, practices,
and techniques which are generally available for application by the
sources in this category. Therefore, the final rule retains the 260
ppmv applicability threshold.
D. Proposed NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium
Compounds
Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed standard requiring
plants to operate a capture system that collects gases and fumes from
each emissions source and conveys the gases to a PM control device
because, according to the commenter, EPA did not say how efficient
either the capture system or the PM control device must be. The
commenter also stated that EPA appears to indicate that any capture
system and control device will do, but the commenter acknowledged that
EPA did provide equations that appear to establish numerical limits on
PM emissions on a pounds per hour basis. The commenter stated that
EPA's apparent assumption that all PM control is the same and equally
sufficient for controlling emissions from this source is at odds with
the record evidence and is arbitrary.
According to the commenter, not all PM controls are equally
effective. The commenter stated that ``it is plain from the discussion
of PM controls provided by both EPA itself and ICAC that PM controls
vary widely in effectiveness, and is plain that chromium compound
manufacturers could reduce their emissions of hexavalent chromium and
[[Page 38884]]
other HAP by using more effective PM controls.'' Examples given by the
commenter include more effective fabric filters such as filters with
better fabric or better baghouse design and more effective scrubbers.
According to the commenter, EPA did not consider the possibility of
requiring any controls other than those that are currently in use and
did not discuss which technologies are currently available, their
effectiveness, or how much they cost. The commenter asserted that EPA's
rejection of more effective controls without even considering them is
arbitrary and capricious.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's statement that EPA
concluded that any capture system or any control device is, as the
commenter implies, sufficient in the abstract to comply with the
NESHAP. EPA established numerical emissions limits for chromium, using
PM as a surrogate, and the emissions limits are established by
equations set forth in the rule. The commenter stated that the
equations ``appear'' to establish numerical emission limits, and, in
fact, the equations do establish such limits on a pounds per hour
basis, and the commenter's implication that they do not is unsupported.
Further, we disagree with the commenter that we assumed that all PM
control devices are equally effective. We proposed an emissions
standard for the metal HAP at issue using PM as a surrogate. The PM
emissions standard identified as GACT was based on control technologies
that are generally available, considering cost, and represent a level
of control that has been achieved at the two existing chromium compound
manufacturing facilities.
As we discussed earlier, in determining GACT for area sources, we
examine the demonstrated and generally available controls at area
sources in the source category. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. We also
consider the standards applicable to major sources in the category and
determine if those controls are generally available and transferable to
area sources. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. In addition, in
appropriate circumstances, we may consider technologies employed at
similar industrial source categories. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007.
We also consider cost and economic impacts of generally available
control technologies or management practices on a source category in
determining GACT. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007.
In this case, at proposal, we evaluated the control technologies
that are used by the existing chromium compound manufacturing area
source facilities. The two processes with the greatest emissions
potential are the high temperature operations of the rotary kilns used
for roasting the chromite ore and the processes used for quenching the
hot kiln roast. Both plants use a combination of wet scrubbers and
electrostatic precipitators in series for one or both of these
processes. This combination of wet scrubbers and electrostatic
precipitators has been demonstrated as effective for this source
category and is generally available.\10\ Thus, we established GACT
based on the current controls employed at the two area sources in this
category. We did not find that the costs and economic impacts of
compliance would be significant because the controls that we determined
were generally available in the category were being employed at the
existing facilities, and nothing in the record indicated that the costs
would be prohibitive for new sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The effectiveness of these controls is shown by the TRI
reporting for the North Carolina plant with a 95 percent reduction
in chromium emissions since the control technology identified as
GACT was installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no major sources in this category, and we did not
consider similar source categories at proposal. In response to
comments, however, we have evaluated similar primary metal industries.
We have found that electrostatic precipitators, often in combination
with scrubbers, the same controls employed by the emissions sources in
this category, are the commonly used control devices for the smelting
or roasting operations in other primary metal industries, including
primary steel, primary copper, and primary zinc production. We affirm
our conclusion that the proposed controls are GACT for this area source
category. The proposed standard, with minor changes discussed
elsewhere, is finalized in this rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the performance
test requirements. The commenter pointed out that for an existing
facility, the proposed rule allows certification of compliance with the
emission limits based on a previous performance test conducted within
the past 5 years; otherwise, a facility must conduct tests to
demonstrate initial compliance. The commenter noted that the proposed
rule conflicted with the General Provisions table which indicates that
performance test requirements apply to an existing source only if the
permitting authority requests the tests. The commenter stated that he
initially understood that EPA would require initial performance tests
only if requested by the permitting authority. According to the
commenter, the two affected plants that produce chromium compounds from
chromite ore are currently performing adequate monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed emissions limits, and any decision to require performance
tests should be at the discretion of the permitting agency.
Response: We acknowledge that the current title V permits for the
affected plants require performance testing only at the request of the
permitting authority. However, the final rule requires performance
testing if a valid performance test has not been conducted within the 5
years prior to the effective date of the final rule. We found that
performance tests have not been conducted within the past 5 years at
the two existing plants, and a few minor emissions sources have never
been tested. An initial performance test or a recent performance test
is very important to ensure that the control devices are operating as
designed and can be shown to meet the applicable emissions limit.
Although the plants have performed the monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping required by their permits, we cannot correlate the
monitoring results to the performance of the control devices to ensure
the emissions limits are met unless a performance test has been
conducted to demonstrate this. Once a performance test has demonstrated
compliance, we will have assurance that subsequent monitoring will
ensure that the emissions sources continue to operate as designed and
as demonstrated by the performance test.
The commenter is correct in that there were conflicting entries in
the General Provisions table of the proposed rule for performance test
requirements. We have corrected the table in the final rule to clarify
the performance test requirements as discussed above.
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify the definition of
a ``new'' affected source. The commenter asked if a new affected source
includes new or reconstructed equipment at an existing site, or is a
new affected source a new or reconstructed chromium chemical
manufacturing facility. The commenter suggested that EPA add a
definition of ``chromium compounds manufacturing facility.''
Response: The proposed rule stated that the ``affected source'' is
``each chromium compounds manufacturing facility.'' We have added a
definition of ``chromium compounds manufacturing facility'' to further
clarify what the affected source is. A new affected source is one for
which construction or
[[Page 38885]]
reconstruction commenced after April 4, 2007. The definitions of
``construction'' and ``reconstruction'' are given in the General
Provisions (40 CFR 63.2).
Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed requirements for
initial control device inspections for plants that are already
implementing the inspection requirements according to an established
schedule in an approved title V permit. The commenter claimed that the
proposed requirement for initial inspections will result in increased
costs and result in shutdown of key emissions sources and control
devices that are not due for inspection until 2008 and 2009. The
commenter provided an example of kilns that must be shutdown and cooled
before the internal components of the electrostatic precipitators can
be inspected. According to the commenter, the shutdown and cooling
period for the kilns takes several days and results in significant cost
in terms of lost production and other expenses. As an alternative, the
commenter suggested that EPA require an initial inspection prior to
startup for installed control devices which have not operated within 60
days of the compliance date.
Response: Our intent at proposal was to codify the control device
inspection requirements currently in the permit of the North Carolina
plant because we determined that these requirements represent what is
generally available, and this plant had inspection requirements that
were more comprehensive than those at the other area source plant. The
proposed inspection requirements included daily, monthly, annual, and
biennial inspections for various control devices and their components.
To perform the internal inspection, it is necessary to shut down the
process (the high temperature kilns) and allow the system to cool down.
We agree that the 24-month period as stated in the permit is reasonable
for this particular type of inspection. It provides flexibility to the
facility to perform the inspection during periods of regularly
scheduled kiln maintenance, which minimizes the disruption to
production and the large expense that would result from a mandatory
initial inspection and subsequent annual inspections. The operating
processes also have to be shut down for the annual internal inspections
of baghouses and wet scrubbers. Consequently, we have revised the rule
to state that an initial inspection of the internal components of
electrostatic precipitators does not have to be performed if an
inspection has been performed within the past 24 months. The next
inspection must be performed within 24 months of the last inspection,
and subsequent inspections of the internal components must be performed
for each following 24-month period. Similarly, an initial inspection of
the internal components of baghouses and wet scrubbers does not have to
be performed if an inspection has been performed within the past 12
months. The next inspection must be performed within 12 months of the
last inspection, and subsequent inspections of the internal components
must be performed for each following 12-month period. However, we
continue to require initial inspections that do not require shutting
down the process and control device, such as inspecting baghouses and
ductwork for leaks, verifying the proper operation of electrostatic
precipitator parameters, and water flow to wet scrubbers.
We agree with the commenter's suggestion that we require an initial
inspection prior to startup for installed control devices which have
not operated within 60 days of the compliance date. This inspection can
be performed before process operations resume and thus would not
require a disruptive shutdown.
Comment: One commenter asked if annual inspection requirements for
wet scrubbers apply to cyclonic scrubbers prior to wet electrostatic
precipitators. According to the commenter, this is not a requirement in
the current title V permit and would not be consistent with EPA's
approach of codifying the monitoring requirements currently applicable
to the North Carolina plant.
Response: Our intent at proposal was to be consistent with the
established inspection requirements in the title V permit of the North
Carolina plant. The permit requires internal inspections of
electrostatic precipitators, wet scrubbers, and baghouses that are used
as primary control devices. Internal inspections of cyclonic scrubbers
that are installed upstream of the electrostatic precipitators are not
required by the permit, nor do we believe they are needed. Unlike
electrostatic precipitators, cyclonic scrubbers do not have complex
internal components subject to failure that would affect emissions
control performance. Consequently, we are clarifying that annual
internal inspections of cyclonic scrubbers installed upstream of
electrostatic precipitators are not required. However, we continue to
require monitoring for the cyclonic scrubbers, including the presence
of water flow and visual inspections of the system ductwork and
scrubber unit for leaks.
Comment: One commenter requested changes to the process description
in the preamble to the proposed rule and corresponding revisions and
clarifications to Table 1 of the proposed rule which identifies the
regulated process equipment. The commenter stated that the table should
be titled ``Emissions Sources'' instead of ``Emissions Points''; the
``filter for sodium chromate slurry'' should be changed to ``residue
dryer system''; the ``reactor used to produce chromic acid'' should be
changed to the ``melter used to produce chromic acid''; and the
``sodium dichromate evaporation unit'' should be removed from the table
because there are no chromium emissions from this unit at either plant.
Response: We agree that the table is a listing of emission
``sources'', and we will clarify that the production of chromic acid
occurs in a ``melter.'' We also agree that we inadvertently included
the filter for sodium chromate slurry, which is not an emissions
source, and should have included instead the residue dryer system,
which is an emissions source. We identified the sodium dichromate
evaporation unit as a process at the chromium compound manufacturing
plants. However, this process operates under a vacuum to reduce the
water content at temperatures far below the temperatures that would be
needed to volatilize chromium compounds in the wet slurry into PM. This
process is not an emissions source for PM and was therefore not
identified in the title V permit as an emission source. Consequently,
we are deleting the sodium dichromate evaporation unit from the table
of emissions sources.
Comment: One commenter noted that the General Provisions table in
the NESHAP should be revised to eliminate duplication of entries for
Sec. 63.10(e)(1) and (e)(2).
Response: We agree and have corrected the table to eliminate the
duplication.
E. Proposed NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and
Fabrication Area Sources
Comment: One commenter stated that one HAP emitted by flexible
polyurethane foam production and fabrication facilities is methylene
chloride. According to the commenter, EPA indicated in the preamble
that methylene chloride is used by stabstock foam plants as an ABA and
an equipment cleaner, and that molded and rebond foam plants use
methylene chloride as a mold release agent and an equipment cleaner.
The commenter noted that for slabstock foam plants EPA
[[Page 38886]]
proposed either to prohibit the use of methylene chloride or to
establish certain requirements for its use.
The commenter asserted that EPA must prohibit the use of methylene
chloride at slabstock facilities based on the following statement from
the proposal preamble: ``[b]ased on recent contacts with the industry,
we have verified that every known slabstock facility has converted
their process to use a non-HAP technology (72 FR 16649).'' The
commenter stated that EPA's failure to require the use of non-HAP
technology it acknowledges to be GACT is unlawful and arbitrary. Also
arbitrary, according to the commenter, is the Agency's failure to
explain its decision to allow facilities to continue to use methylene
chloride with various control requirements, given its own conclusion
that a ban on the use of methylene chloride is GACT.
Response: The proposed regulation addressed eight different types
of situations where methylene chloride could potentially be used at
flexible polyurethane foam production and flexible polyurethane foam
fabrication facilities. For seven of these potential use situations,
the proposed rule prohibited the use of methylene chloride. The lone
situation where the proposed rule did not prohibit the use of methylene
chloride was as an ABA in the production of slabstock flexible
polyurethane foam.
By only selecting a portion of the language from the preamble
related to the determination of GACT for methylene chloride usage as an
ABA at slabstock facilities and presenting it out of context, the
commenter has misrepresented EPA's rationale in the proposal preamble.
The entire discussion, from which the commenter quoted selectively, is
as follows:
The NESHAP requirements, along with the revisions to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible
exposure and short-term exposure limits for methylene chloride (63
FR 50711, September 22, 1998), caused slabstock foam facilities to
investigate, evaluate, and install technologies to reduce or
eliminate the use of methylene chloride as an ABA at their
facilities. These technologies include alternative formulations to
reduce the amount of methylene chloride ABA needed, alternative non-
HAP ABAs (acetone, liquid carbon dioxide), controlled or variable
pressure foaming, and forced cooling. Based on recent contacts with
the industry, we have verified that every known slabstock facility
has converted their process to utilize one of these technologies * *
*. Consequently, we propose to conclude that emissions limitations
based on the application of these technologies are generally
available (GACT) for new and existing sources.
See 72 FR 16649, April 4, 2007.
As explained in the proposal, we determined that some of the
technologies listed could result in the complete elimination of the use
of methylene chloride as an ABA. However, we also discussed alternative
formulations that reduce, but do not eliminate, the amount of methylene
chloride ABA needed in the list of generally available control
measures. Alternative formulations can include, among other things,
chemical additives and alternative polyols. These measures ``reduce''
the use of methylene chloride as an ABA without eliminating it. In
fact, a specific relevant example of these technologies was provided by
a slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production facility that
commented on the proposal. This commenter reports that their facility
has reduced methylene chloride emissions by 77 percent through the
reformulation of foam grades and marketing to encourage customers to
switch to foam grades that the commenter's company can produce without
methylene chloride. This is a clear example of the ``alternative
formulations'' referred to in the proposal preamble as one of the
technologies we determined to be GACT. Therefore, we reject the
commenter's assertion that we concluded that GACT was a ban on the use
of methylene chloride as an ABA and did not make any revisions in the
final rule as a result of this comment.
Comment: One commenter opposed the proposal to prohibit all use of
methylene chloride-based adhesives. The commenter stated that there may
be certain applications where adhesives based on methylene chloride
provide superior performance and can be used in compliance with
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) worker exposure
limits. The commenter only mentions loop slitter operations.
Response: In our proposal, we specifically requested comments on
``whether and under what circumstances methylene-chloride based
adhesives (e.g., in small specialty applications) are being used or
might be used by the foam fabrication industry, and what quantities are
or might be involved in such applications'' (72 FR 16649) (emphasis
added). The commenter's general assertion that there may be
applications where methylene chloride-based adhesives provide superior
performance is not responsive to our request for comments. As for loop
slitters, we found at proposal that the industry has discontinued the
use of methylene chloride-based adhesives, and we concluded at proposal
that GACT was the prohibition of the use of such adhesives for loop
slitter operations. At this time, we are not aware of any specific
applications where methylene chloride adhesives provide performance
that cannot be achieved by alternative adhesives and where they can be
used in compliance with OSHA worker exposure limits. Consequently, the
final rule retains the prohibition of the use of methylene chloride
adhesives in flexible polyurethane foam fabrication operations.
Comment: One commenter indicated that a less burdensome program
should be provided for flexible polyurethane foam producers that
utilize methylene chloride as an ABA. This commenter's company is a
small business that employs less than 100 people. They operate one
facility that produces and fabricates flexible polyurethane foam. The
commenter pointed out that their facility produces thousands of pounds
of flexible polyurethane foam per month, while typical facilities
throughout the country produce millions of pounds per month.
The commenter provided information on the numerous improvements
that have been made at this facility to reduce methylene chloride usage
and emissions. They have eliminated all uses of methylene chloride
except as an ABA, and have made significant reductions (over 75
percent) in its usage as an ABA.
The commenter indicated that this facility has a federally
enforceable synthetic minor permit which caps methylene chloride
emissions on a monthly and 12-month rolling basis. The permit also
incorporates many of the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements of
the foam production MACT rule.
The commenter suggested that, for this facility, the proposed rule
is unnecessarily complicated in view of the environmental benefits
realized by the programs already in place. The commenter suggested
several amendments to the rule to reduce the burden. In general, the
commenter requested that the methylene chloride ABA emissions caps and
the monitoring and reporting provisions in their permit be provided as
an acceptable option for meeting the requirements of the area source
rule for slabstock foam production.
The commenter cited numerous areas where capital expenditures would
be necessary to comply with the proposed rule including the purchase of
control equipment (storage tank vapor balance line), computer software,
IFD and density testing equipment, and meter calibration equipment. The
commenter
[[Page 38887]]
noted that the initial investment would also include costs for computer
program development and operator training. The commenter estimated that
the total initial capital costs would range from $25,000 to $35,000.
The commenter also stated that the proposed rule would result in
increased annual costs of between $28,000 and $45,000 for testing,
training, calibrations, maintenance, tracking, recordkeeping and data
entry, and reporting.
Response: The proposed rule included an emissions limitation format
for the use of methylene chloride as an ABA, along with associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions, that allows
flexibility in how sources choose to comply (for example, individual
emissions point requirements versus a source-wide overall limit,
monthly compliance versus 12-month rolling average). We believe that
this flexibility outweighs any perceived complexity of the format of
the emissions limitation and the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements, and we do not believe that the costs of these
requirements are inappropriate for this category. Therefore, we did not
make any changes to the proposed rule in response to these comments.
Comment: This same commenter stated that the compliance date of the
proposed rule for slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production
sources (the date of publication of the final rule) is not reasonable
since the final rule will result in the need for equipment, operating,
monitoring, and administrative changes.
Response: The commenter cited numerous areas where capital
expenditures would be necessary to comply with the proposed rule
including the purchase of control equipment (storage tank vapor balance
line), computer software, IFD and density testing equipment, and meter
calibration equipment. The commenter also indicated that computer
program development will be necessary and operators will need to be
trained. Given the changes that will be necessary to comply with the
final rule, we agree that it is reasonable to extend the compliance
date for existing sources. Therefore, the final rule has a compliance
date for slabstock foam affected sources electing to continue to
utilize methylene chloride as an ABA to 1 year from the date of
publication of the final rule.
Comment: One commenter did not understand how facilities that do
not release a HAP, specifically methylene chloride, could be subject to
the NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication.
In support, the commenter recited the definition of an area source as
``any stationary source of hazardous air pollutants that is not a major
source * * *.'' The commenter believed the proposed rule conflicts with
the definition of an area source because the proposed NESHAP has
specific requirements for facilities that do not release any HAP. The
commenter asked how this is possible.
Response: The first paragraph of the proposed rule, Sec.
63.11414(a), states ``You are subject to this subpart if you own or
operate an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions that
meets the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.''
Facilities that are not sources of any hazardous air pollutants,
including methylene chloride, are not subject to the rule. Therefore,
the comment that ``the proposed NESHAP has specific requirements for
facilities that do not release any HAP'' is incorrect.
F. Proposed NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's proposed GACT
determination for battery manufacturers does not satisfy section
112(d)(5). The commenter claimed that rather than evaluating the
potential reduction measures that are commercially available and
appropriate for application by battery manufacturers, EPA considered
only one option: requiring all sources to comply with the 1982 NSPS for
PM, with which 53 out of 58 sources are already in compliance anyway.
The commenter stated that section 112(d)(5) requires the use of
``methods, practices and techniques'' which are commercially available
and appropriate for application by the sources in the category
considering economic impacts.'' The commenter said that there are
``methods, practices, and techniques'' that are commercially available
and appropriate for application by battery manufacturers. The commenter
specifically cited a 1998 EPA report that specifies a 2:1 air to cloth
ratio as the ``[g]enerally safe design level'' for lead oxide in
ordinary baghouses. With respect to processes currently controlled with
fabric filters, the commenter stated that there are more effective
fabric filters, and with respect to processes currently controlled by
impingement scrubbers, there are fabric filters or more effective
scrubbers (e.g. venturi scrubbers). According to the commenter, EPA has
not required GACT standards that reflect the use of these technologies,
nor even considered doing so. The commenter concluded that EPA's rule
contravenes section 112(d)(5).
The commenter also stated that EPA's rule is arbitrary and that EPA
provided no rationale for failing to consider methods, practices and
techniques that are commercially available and would reduce battery
manufacturers' emissions significantly. The commenter stated that EPA
does not claim that more efficient control measures are not
commercially available for any of the relevant processes, nor does the
Agency claim that they are too costly. In particular, according to the
commenter, EPA does not even say what the cost for more efficient
technologies would be or why it thinks they might be too costly. The
commenter stated that EPA failed to consider any approach other than
using the 1982 NSPS without providing any explanation for its choice.
The commenter stated that it appears EPA's only consideration was
whether the 1982 NSPS might be too stringent to be GACT, and EPA did
not entertain the possibility that more protective standards might be
achievable through the use of generally available measures. According
to the commenter, EPA's rule is not only arbitrary but unlawful in that
it reflects a complete abrogation of the EPA's statutory duty to
evaluate currently available control measures and set standards that
reflect them.
Response: Section 112(d)(5) authorizes the Administrator to ``elect
to promulgate standards or requirements applicable to sources in such
[area source] categories or subcategories which provide for the use of
generally available control technologies or management practices [GACT]
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As
we discussed earlier, in determining GACT for area sources, we examine
the demonstrated and generally available controls at area sources in
the source category. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. We also consider
the standards applicable to major sources in the category and determine
if those controls are generally available and transferable to area
sources. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. In addition, in appropriate
circumstances, we may consider technologies employed by sources in
similar industrial categories. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. We also
consider cost and economic impacts of generally available control
technologies or management practices on a source category in
determining GACT. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007.
For the lead acid battery area sources, at proposal, we considered
the controls and technologies employed by the area sources in the
category. We found that
[[Page 38888]]
the smallest sources in this category were not subject to the lead acid
battery NSPS. We also found that there are approximately 60 known area
sources in this category and no known major sources. We concluded that
the requirements of the NSPS represented generally available control
technologies or management practices for this source category.
Moreover, although not stated in the proposal, because of the large
number of area sources in this category, we concluded that we did not
need to look at sources in similar industrial categories for
determining what is generally available to the lead acid battery
manufacturing category.
At proposal, we found that the NSPS addressed lead (not PM)
emissions from six types of processes at lead acid battery
manufacturing plants: (1) Grid casting, (2) paste mixing, (3) three-
process operations, (4) lead oxide manufacturing, (5) lead reclamation,
and (6) other lead emitting processes. The commenter stated that more
effective ``methods, practices, and techniques'' including fabric
filters with air to cloth ratios between 2:1 and 3.5:1 (and
specifically 2:1 for lead oxide) are available, and cited this as
evidence that significant advancements in technology have occurred
since the NSPS was promulgated in 1982. The 1998 EPA report that the
commenter cited indicates that the generally safe design level for lead
oxide in ordinary baghouses is, in fact, the same 2:1 air to cloth
ratio required in the NSPS standard for lead oxide manufacturing, which
is incorporated into this rule. Thus, contrary to the commenter's
assertion, the emission limitations in the NSPS were in this case based
on the specific technology addressed by the commenter and that
technology is considered state-of-the-art today.
The commenter assumed that the category's current lead emissions
reflect a 98 percent reduction from uncontrolled emissions, and
suggested that substantial emissions reductions would be obtained
through setting new standards that reflect a 99.9 percent reduction. We
are unsure on what the commenter based this assertion. For fabric
filters with a 6:1 air to cloth ratio in the NSPS, which is the control
basis for the standards for paste mixing, three-process operations, and
other lead emitting processes in this rule, we attributed 99 percent
lead emissions reduction. We attributed a 90 percent lead removal
efficiency for impingement scrubbers, the control basis for the
standards for the grid casting and lead reclamation processes.
Therefore, while there would be an incremental reduction in emissions
if technologies that achieve 99.9 percent lead emission reduction were
required by this area source NESHAP, the reductions would not be as
substantial as predicted by the commenter.
We did not discuss the costs of imposing additional control
requirements on this category at proposal, but we do so here in
response to this comment. We estimate that the total capital investment
for a typical plant to upgrade to 99.9 percent controls could range
from more than $600,000 to almost $1.7 million, depending on the
technologies selected. We estimate annual costs of this additional
control for a typical plant would be around $1.2 million per year due
to increased operator labor costs, maintenance labor and material
costs, electricity and other utility costs, taxes and insurance, and
capital recovery costs. This cost represents almost 5 percent of the
total shipments for an average lead acid battery establishment. We do
not believe that these costs and potential economic impacts are
appropriate for application by the area sources in this category. The
costs incurred per ton of lead emissions reduced would be around
$450,000 to $500,000 based on replacing existing control devices or
installing additional devices to increase control efficiency up to 99.9
percent.
In conclusion, we believe that the technologies upon which the
proposed standards were based are generally available to this industry.
Moreover, we believe that the costs of requiring every area source lead
acid battery facility to install technologies that achieve additional
incremental emission reductions, beyond those established in these
NESHAP, would be prohibitive. Thus, we have not revised the emission
standards in the rule in response to this comment.
Comment: One commenter stated that in addition to emitting more
than 26 tpy of lead, lead acid battery manufacturers emit more than 47
tpy of other HAP; among these are HAP that are not metals, do not
behave like PM in the stack gas, and therefore cannot be captured or
reduced through the use of PM control devices. According to the
commenter, section 112(d) requires emission standards for each HAP
listed in section 112(b). Assuming that the Agency does not have to set
separate standards for each HAP when issuing standards under section
112(d)(5), the commenter stated that EPA still has an obligation to
address all of the HAP that a category emits when setting GACT
standards. The commenter claimed that EPA has an obligation to address
the HAP emitted by battery manufacturing plants that are not captured
by PM control devices, and the failure to do so was unlawful. The
commenter also stated that the failure to consider the HAP that are not
emitted as PM and to explain why they were not addressed is arbitrary
and capricious.
Response: Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify
at least 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose the greatest threat
to public health in the largest number of urban areas (the ``Urban
HAP'') and identify the area source categories that will be listed
pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Section 112(c)(3), in relevant part,
provides:
The Administrator shall, * * * , and pursuant to subsection
(k)(3)(B) of this section, list, based on actual or estimated
aggregate emissions of a listed pollutant or pollutants, sufficient
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area
sources representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the
30 hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest threat to
public health in the largest number of urban areas are subject to
regulation under this section.
Thus, section 112(c)(3) 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.
Section 112(d)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate
regulations establishing emissions standards for each area source of
HAP listed for regulation pursuant to section 112(c). EPA identified
the 30 Urban HAP that pose the greatest threat to public health in the
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. In that same document, EPA listed
the source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP
emissions.
We have interpreted the above provisions of section 112 to require
EPA to regulate only those Urban HAP emissions for which an area source
category is listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). As stated elsewhere
in this preamble, Congress chose to treat areas sources differently
from major sources under section 112 and other sections of the CAA,
such as title V. Under section 112, Congress determined that the Agency
should identify 30 HAP emitted from area sources that posed the
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas.
The statute then directs the Agency to list sufficient area source
categories to account for 90 percent of the emissions of each Urban HAP
and to subject those listed source categories to regulation. Section
112(d)(1) requires emissions standards for area sources of HAP ``listed
pursuant to subsection (c)''. Area sources listed pursuant to
subsection (c)(3) are listed
[[Page 38889]]
only because they emit one of the 30 listed Urban HAP and the Agency
has identified the category as one that will ensure that we satisfy the
requirement to subject area sources representing 90 percent of the area
source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP to regulation.
Moreover, section 112(c)(3) explicitly refers to section
112(k)(3)(B). Section 112(k)(3)(B) addresses the national strategy to
control HAP from area sources in urban areas. The focus of the strategy
is on the 30 HAP that pose the greatest threat to public health in the
largest number of urban areas. As noted above, in 1999, EPA issued the
Integrated Air Toxics Strategy in response to section 112(k)(3)(B). In
that strategy, we identified the 30 Urban HAP, which are the HAP that
pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of
urban areas, and we identified, consistent with section 112(c)(3), the
area source categories that account for 90 percent of those Urban HAP.
Pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing area source category was listed due to emissions
of two specific pollutants: lead and cadmium. We recognize that other
HAP, including Urban HAP which did not form the basis of the section
112(c)(3) listing decision, may be emitted from lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities. To the extent that the other HAP are Urban
HAP, we identified other area source categories that emit those Urban
HAP in higher amounts and have determined that subjecting other area
source categories to regulation for these HAP will achieve the 90
percent requirement in the CAA. In conclusion, consistent with section
112, we are not obligated to address HAP other than Urban HAP for which
this area source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3),
which, as noted above, are lead and cadmium.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the dates for
compliance compared to the key NESHAP General Provisions for existing
sources. The commenter explained that in Sec. 63.9(b) of the General
Provisions and based on communications with EPA, initial notification
by existing facilities is due 120 calendar days after final rule
publication. According to the commenter, the proposed compliance date
provision in Sec. 63.11422 could be read to suggest notification is
not due for a year. The commenter found similar confusion between Sec.
63.9(h) and Sec. 63.11422 pertaining to notices of compliance from
existing sources. The commenter suggested the following clarification
language:
Note: Initial notification by existing facilities, required by
Sec. 63.9(b), is due within 120 calendar days after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Notices of
compliance by existing facilities, required by Sec. 63.9(h), is due
on the 60th day following the 1 year deadline for compliance with
the new standard.
Response: We agree that the timing for notifications should be
clarified, and we have made the suggested clarifications in the final
rule.
G. Proposed NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources
Comment: Eight commenters questioned the need for the standards and
stated there is no need to regulate wood preserving area sources. The
commenters further stated that the wood preserving industry is an
insignificant source of the four HAP to be regulated by this proposed
standard. According to the commenters, the industry has not used
methylene chloride in the wood treating process since 1992, and
emissions of the three other HAP covered in this rule are negligible
according to the commenters. Moreover, the commenters claimed that EPA
was unable to identify ``any other management practices or control
technologies that would provide additional emissions reductions in a
cost effective manner.''
Response: The emission levels used for the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy were based on the section 112(k) 1990 inventory.
Following issuance of the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy in 1999,
EPA revised the area source category listing in the Strategy to also
include the wood preserving area source category (67 FR 70428, November
22, 2002). We also recognize that the wood preserving industry has
changed over the past 15 years and Urban HAP emissions have been
reduced. The regulations being finalized today will ensure that future
emissions from wood preserving operations will be limited to the same
level that is being generally achieved today and was determined to be
GACT. Without such regulations, there is nothing that would limit
future Urban HAP emissions from a new process or wood preservative.
Comment: Eight commenters requested clarification regarding non-
applicable preservative chemistries. The commenters asserted that as
currently worded, the provision in Sec. 63.11428(a) would seem to
encompass any wood preserving operation, including those that treat
household commodities with ammoniacal copper quat (ACQ) or copper azole
(CA)--waterborne, copper-based preservatives that do not contain
chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride. The commenters
understood that EPA did not intend to regulate wood preservatives that
do not contain the Urban HAPs for which the wood preserving category
was listed. Accordingly, the commenters requested that EPA revise Sec.
63.11428(a) to clarify, as it does in Sec. 63.11430 and in the
preamble to the proposed rule, that the wood preserving area source
standard applies only to facilities ``using a treatment process with
any wood preservatives containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or
methylene chloride.''
Response: The applicability of the wood preserving area source rule
(as described in Sec. 63.11428(a)) includes any wood preserving
operation located at an area source. However, only those facilities
that are using a wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic,
dioxins, or methylene chloride are subject to the management practice
requirements in Sec. 63.11430 and the other requirements in Sec.
63.11432. Additional language was added to Sec. 63.11430(c) and Sec.
63.11432 to clarify that only those area source facilities using any
wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene
chloride have to prepare and operate according to a management practice
plan to minimize air emissions, and comply with the initial
notification and reporting requirements. If your area source wood
preserving facility is only using preservatives such as ACQ or CA, then
you are not subject to the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.11430 and
63.11432.
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA provide flexibility
in the interpretation of the term ``fully drain'' as that term is used
in Sec. 63.11430(c)(6): ``For the pressure treatment process, fully
drain the retort prior to opening the retort door.'' The commenters
stated that as a practical matter, it is not possible to ``fully
drain'' 100 percent of all residual preservative before a retort door
is opened and that the quantity of material involved is small. The
commenters requested confirmation that the trace amount of residual
preservative which may remain in the cylinder when the retort door is
opened does not violate the Sec. 63.11430(c)(6) requirement to ``fully
drain'' the retort before opening the door, and that the language in
Sec. 63.11430(c)(6) be amended to read ``For the pressure treatment
process, fully drain the retort to the extent practical, prior to
opening the retort door.''
Response: We agree with the commenters and have made the
[[Page 38890]]
following change to Sec. 63.11430(c)(6) in the final standards: ``For
the pressure treatment process, fully drain the retort to the extent
practicable, prior to opening the retort door.'' An example of what is
practicable for fully draining the retort would be a retort operation
where any residual preservative drips into the door pit sump.
H. Proposed Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title V
Permitting Requirements
Comment: One commenter believed that EPA's proposal to exempt four
of the five area source categories addressed in its proposal (acrylic
and modacrylic fibers production, flexible polyurethane foam production
and fabrication, lead acid battery manufacturing, and wood preserving)
from title V permitting requirements is unlawful and arbitrary. In
support of this assertion, the commenter cited CAA section 502(a),
which provides that EPA may exempt area source categories from title V
permitting requirements if compliance with such requirements is
``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily burdensome.'' See 42
U.S.C. 7661a(a). The commenter stated that EPA does not claim that such
requirements are impracticable or infeasible for any of the four area
source categories it proposes to exempt, but rather relies entirely on
its claim that they would be ``unnecessarily burdensome.''
Response: 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. 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).
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,
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 April 6, 2007 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,
[[Page 38891]]
we would have stated so in the April 6, 2007 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, even were the comment framed as a request to re-open our
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section
502, which it is not, we would deny such request because we have a
court-ordered deadline to complete this rulemaking by June 15, 2007,
and we are not in a position to expand the scope of the rulemaking at
this juncture. In any event, 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 his discretion. There are several
instances throughout the CAA where Congress chose to treat major
sources differently than non-major sources, as it did in section
502.\12\ 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 section
502, as set forth in the Exemption Rule, is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., section 112(d)(5) (authorizing generally
available control technologies or management practices in lieu of
maximum achievable control technology standards for area sources);
section 112(f)(5) (exempting area sources regulated under section
112(d)(5) from the 8-year residual risk review requirement);
Compare, section 110(a)(2)(c) (requiring minor source permitting
program without a detailed statutory structure) with section 165
(providing detailed permitting requirements for major sources
locating in prevention of significant deterioration areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in this rule, we appropriately applied the four-factor
balancing test set forth in the Exemption Rule to the particular area
source categories at issue in this rule. In response to comments, we
provide above a more detailed discussion of our consideration of the
four factors for the source categories at issue. Based on our
consideration of the four factors, we are taking final action to
finalize the exemptions from title V for the acrylic and modacrylic
fibers production, flexible polyurethane foam production and
fabrication, lead acid battery manufacturing, and wood preserving
categories.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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 section
502(a), whether exempting the area source category would adversely
affect public health, welfare or the environment. See 72 FR 15254-
15255, March 25, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 from 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 acknowledge these benefits or 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. Because 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 source categories at issue here,
which is the sole title V issue in this rulemaking, the comments
provide no basis for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to exempt
the area source categories from title V. Today, we finalize the
[[Page 38892]]
exemptions proposed in the April 6, 2007 rule.
Moreover, as explained in the proposal and above, 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 in the
Exemption Rule, where EPA had deferred action on the title V exemption
for several years, we had enforcement data available to demonstrate
that States were not only enforcing the provisions of the area source
NESHAP that we exempted, but that the States were also providing
compliance assistance to ensure that the area sources were in the best
position to comply with the NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. Nowhere in
the Exemption Rule did the Agency state that we had to demonstrate that
citizen enforcement would be identical absent title V before an area
source category could be exempted from title V.
In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined that there are
adequate enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the
CAA. We do not have enforcement data available because we are only
today finalizing the NESHAP at issue here. As stated in the proposal,
however, States with delegated programs have enforcement and compliance
assistance and implementation programs in place to enforce the
provisions of these NESHAP. See 72 FR 16656. In fact, a State must have
adequate programs to enforce the HAP regulations and provide assurances
that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program.
See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. The commenter does not challenge the
conclusion that there are adequate State and Federal programs in place
to enforce 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 these
NESHAP. Furthermore, the fourth factor is one factor that we evaluated.
As explained above, we considered that factor together with the other
factors and determined that it was appropriate to finalize the proposed
exemptions for the area source categories at issue in this rule.
Comment: One commenter explained that title V provides important
monitoring benefits and stated that EPA admits that ``[o]ne way that
title V may improve compliance is by requiring monitoring (including
recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring) to assure compliance
with emission limitations and control technology requirements imposed
in the standard'' (72 FR 16654). 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 with respect to acrylic and
modacrylic fibers production, EPA states ``[b]ecause both the
continuous and noncontinuous monitoring methods required by the
proposed NESHAP would provide periodic monitoring, title V would not
add any monitoring to the proposed NESHAP.'' Id. The commenter stated
that EPA makes a similar claim with respect to lead acid battery
manufacturing (72 FR 16655), and that such claims miss the point. As
EPA admits, according to the commenter, title V does not merely require
periodic monitoring; it requires monitoring to ``assure compliance.''
The commenter continued by stating that if additional monitoring is
necessary to assure compliance, it must be required to satisfy title V,
regardless of whether the underlying NESHAP provides for periodic
monitoring. The commenter concludes that the ``burden'' imposed on a
category by title V is not unnecessary unless EPA shows that, in all
instances, the periodic monitoring requirements established in the
underlying NESHAP for that category ``assure'' compliance. According to
the commenter, EPA does not even claim--far less demonstrate with
substantial evidence--that the monitoring requirements in the NESHAP
for any of the categories it proposes to exempt ``assure'' compliance.
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: The commenter asserts that ``EPA admits [that] title V
does not merely require periodic monitoring; it requires monitoring to
``assure compliance.'' The commenter does not accurately characterize
the Agency's statements in the proposal. We stated:
One way that title V may improve compliance is by requiring
monitoring (including recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring)
to assure compliance with the emissions limitations and control
technology requirements imposed in the standard. The authority for
adding new monitoring in the permit is in the ``periodic
monitoring'' provisions of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), which allow new monitoring to be added to the
permit when the underlying standard does not already require
``periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring
(which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as
monitoring).''
See 72 FR 16654 (emphasis added).
We nowhere state or imply that periodic monitoring is not
sufficient to assure compliance. Moreover, the commenter's position
that the Agency must make a specific finding that the monitoring in the
proposed NESHAP assures compliance with the NESHAP is inconsistent with
EPA's Final Rule Interpreting the Scope of Certain Monitoring
Requirements for State and Federal Operating Permits Programs (71 FR
75422, December 15, 2006) (``Interpretive Rule''). That rule interprets
title V of the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR
70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) and the Clean Air Act requirements which they
implement. Under the Interpretive Rule, if an applicable requirement,
such as a NESHAP, contains periodic testing or instrumental or
noninstrumental monitoring (i.e., periodic monitoring), permitting
authorities are not authorized to assess the sufficiency of or impose
new monitoring requirements on a case-by-case basis. Federal standards
promulgated pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are presumed
to obtain monitoring sufficient to assure compliance. Thus, consistent
with this interpretation and as demonstrated in the proposed rule and
above, title V would not add any monitoring requirements to the NESHAP
because the NESHAP contains periodic monitoring.
The commenter also attempts to create a new test for consideration
in determining what is ``unnecessarily
[[Page 38893]]
burdensome'' under CAA section 502. Specifically, the commenter argues
that EPA must demonstrate with substantial evidence that, in all
instances, the periodic monitoring requirements assure compliance. As
explained above, this rulemaking did not re-open EPA's interpretation
of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. For all
the reasons explained above, we reject the commenter's attempt to
create a new test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily
burdensome on an area source category. Moreover, EPA considered
monitoring in the first factor of the four-factor balancing test that
it developed in the Exemption Rule. EPA appropriately applied that
factor to the area source categories at issue in this rule.
As noted above, under the first factor, EPA considers whether title
V 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. As noted
above, and in the proposed rule, 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.
Specifically, EPA included in the NESHAP periodic monitoring it
determined to be necessary to assure compliance. See 72 FR 16654-16655.
In addition, for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area
source category, the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source
category, the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production area source
category, and the Flexible Polyurethane Fabrication area source
category, EPA found that title V would not add additional monitoring,
and that determination is consistent with the title V Interpretive
rule. See 72 FR 16654-16655. The commenter does not provide any
evidence to support a claim that title V would add monitoring,
consistent with our interpretation of title V in the Interpretive Rule,
for any of these area source categories. For the Wood Preserving area
source category, we imposed recordkeeping to serve as monitoring that
was designed to document compliance with the management practices
imposed on the industry. See 72 FR 16655. We concluded that title V
would not add additional monitoring for this category because
continuous monitoring is not necessary to ensure a reduction in HAP
emissions for this category. We also concluded that the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in the rule are sufficient to assure
compliance and that additional monitoring is not practical or
necessary. The commenter did not take issue in its comment with the
adequacy of the recordkeeping that serves as monitoring or the
reporting requirements for the Wood Preserving area source category.
For the reasons described above, the first factor supports an
exemption, and even if it did not, 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, supported exemption of the area source categories
from title V.
Comment: One commenter argued that title V provides important
reporting certification benefits and that, specifically, plants must
report deviations from emission standards and must certify at least
annually whether they are in compliance with ``any applicable
requirements.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7661b(b)(2). The commenter stated that
EPA fails to point to any requirement in the NESHAP for any of the
categories it proposes to exempt that requires plants to report each
deviation from requirements, as title V does. The commenter disagrees
with EPA that reporting requirements for certain operating
requirements, such as the daily average water flow to a wet scrubber,
are sufficient and states that none of the NESHAP contain certification
requirements. The commenter also stated that the compliance
certification requirement obliges plant operators to certify--subject
to criminal penalties--whether their sources were in or out of
compliance with emission standards. According to the commenter,
Congress determined that this requirement was necessary in addition to
reporting requirements, and that is why it enacted the compliance
certification requirement. The commenter stated that it is not up to
EPA to declare that it disagrees with Congress and find that compliance
certification requirements are not necessary. The commenter
acknowledged that it might be possible for EPA to show that compliance
certification requirements are not necessary for some specific area
source category based on that specific category's characteristics. The
commenter said that EPA has not done that here, however, and instead
offers the generic claim that it thinks quarterly reports are enough.
Thus, the commenter believes that EPA has essentially taken the
position that compliance certification is never necessary. The
commenter also stated that EPA contravenes the CAA by excusing sources
from a compliance obligation without meeting the requirement of showing
that requirement to be unnecessary. Further, according to the
commenter, EPA acts arbitrarily by finding the compliance certification
is unnecessary without providing a rational basis for that claim. The
commenter concluded that the recording requirements that exist under
the individual NESHAP are no replacement for the recording requirements
under title V, which require prompt reporting of all ``deviations''
from any applicable requirements, not just reporting of exceedances of
EPA-selected operating requirements. According to the commenter,
because EPA has not shown that reporting of selected operating
requirements renders reporting of all deviations from any applicable
requirements unnecessary, the EPA's exemptions are unlawful and
arbitrary.
Response: In this comment, the commenter again argues that EPA must
specifically demonstrate that all title V requirements, deviation
reporting and annual compliance certifications in this instance, are
unnecessary in isolation before EPA can lawfully exempt an area source
category from title V. We do not agree. As explained above, we
interpreted the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502
and developed the four-factor balancing test in the Exemption Rule, and
that balancing test does not require a determination that every title V
requirement is unnecessary. Instead, in the first factor we consider
``whether title V would result in significant improvements to the
compliance requirement, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting.'' As explained in the proposal preamble and noted above, we
have determined that for these source categories title V would not
result in significant improvements in compliance requirements.
The commenter argued that these NESHAP do not contain adequate
deviation reporting requirements because the deviation reporting is
limited to reporting on exceedances or variances of the operating
requirements set forth in the standards. We are not clear what aspects
of the deviation reporting contained in the NESHAP the commenter
considers insufficient or what additional deviation reporting the
commenter believes would be included
[[Page 38894]]
if title V applied. The proposed NESHAP contain deviation reporting
requirements for each of the source categories that we are exempting
from title V. In response to this comment, the Agency has re-evaluated
the deviation requirements for these NESHAP and determined that any
additional, unspecified, deviation reporting that title V might add
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance
requirements finalized in this rulemaking.
The commenter also takes issue with EPA's conclusion that annual
compliance certifications are not necessary for certain categories
because of quarterly reporting requirements. The commenter implies that
enforcement of the NESHAP is undermined without an annual compliance
certification and states that EPA admitted that there are no
certification requirements in the NESHAP. First, even absent the
requirement to submit annual compliance certifications under the
NESHAP, sources must nevertheless comply with all emission standards
and requirements in the NESHAP. In addition, the Agency did not
conclude that annual compliance certification is never necessary, but
only that the annual compliance certification would not lead to
significant improvements in the compliance requirements in the NESHAP
because some of the NESHAP require quarterly reports. Furthermore,
contrary to what the commenter states, and as discussed above in
section IV of this preamble, there are certification requirements
contained in the NESHAP (e.g., initial certification of compliance
status).
Moreover, we determined in our consideration of the fourth factor
that there are adequate enforcement and implementation programs in
place to assure compliance with the NESHAP and the commenter has
provided no evidence that the lack of annual compliance certifications
will undermine enforcement and implementation of the NESHAP.
Comment: One commenter believed EPA argued that its own belief that
title V is a ``significant burden'' on area sources further justifies
its exemption (72 FR 16655-16656). 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 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. 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.
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 the burden
would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in obtaining
assistance from 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 area source categories at issue.
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 (72 FR 16656). 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 those factors.
First, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our statements in
the proposed rule in applying 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 considering the third factor, we stated that, ``[b]ased
on our consideration of factor 1 (described above) and factor 4
(described below), we did not identify potential gains in compliance
from title V permitting. Therefore, we conclude that the costs of title
V permitting for these area source categories are not justified.'' (72
FR 16656) (emphasis added).
Second, the commenter mischaracterizes the first factor by
asserting that EPA must demonstrate that title V will provide no
additional compliance benefits. But 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
[[Page 38895]]
improvements in compliance requirements.
EPA applied the four-factor balancing test in determining whether
title V was unnecessarily burdensome on the area source categories we
are exempting from title V in this rule. This rulemaking did not re-
open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in
CAA section 502. Because 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 source categories at issue here, which is the
sole title V issue in this rulemaking, the comments provide no basis
for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to exempt the area source
categories from title V. Furthermore, EPA nowhere states, nor does it
believe, that title V never confers additional compliance benefits as
the commenter asserts.
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 (72 FR 16656).
The commenter stated that again, however, 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 NESHAPs--unlike all the other major and
area source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V
compliance is unnecessary. 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, however, the Agency's
argument boils down to the claim that it generally views title V
requirements as unnecessary. The commenter stated that may be EPA's
view, but it was not Congress's view when Congress enacted title V and
it does not suffice to show that title V compliance is unnecessarily
burdensome.
Response: 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. To
the extent the commenter asserts that our application of the fourth
factor is flawed, we disagree. As explained in the proposal preamble
and above, we considered the fourth factor and determined that there
are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure
compliance with the CAA, consistent with the fourth factor. As stated
above, we do not have data available on the enforcement of these
NESHAPs as in the Exemption Rule because, unlike in that rule, we are
exempting the categories at the same time we are promulgating these
NESHAPs. In the proposed rule, we did, however, explain that States
with delegated programs have enforcement and compliance assistance
programs in place to enforce the provisions of these NESHAPs (72 FR
16656). In addition, States must have adequate programs to enforce the
HAP regulations and provide assurances that it will enforce all NESHAPs
before EPA will delegate a program to the States. See 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E. The commenter argues that the exemptions must fail 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). The
standard that the commenter proposes is not consistent with the
standard the Agency established in the Exemption Rule and applied in
the proposed rule in determining if title V is unnecessarily burdensome
for the source categories at issue. Furthermore, the standard the
commenter suggests is an impossible standard to meet.
Comment: One commenter stated that, as EPA concedes, the
legislative history 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.
See 72 FR 16654; 16656. 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 of control would remain the same'' whether title V permits are
required are not (72 FR 16656). 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 that for the reasons given above, that 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 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. EPA applied these four factors to the
Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category, the Lead
Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category, the Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication area source categories,
and the Wood Preserving area source category and concluded that
requiring title V for these area source categories would be
unnecessarily burdensome.
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 and
above, 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. The commenter has not provided any information that
exemption of these area source categories from title V will adversely
affect public health, welfare or the environment.
[[Page 38896]]
I. Compliance with Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Comment: One commenter disagreed with EPA's conclusion that this
Executive Order does not apply to this action because it is not
economically significant and does not present a disproportionate risk
to children. According to the commenter, nothing in the language of the
Executive Order limits EPA's obligation to consider risks to instances
when it thinks the underlying regulatory action is economically
significant. The commenter also claimed that the toxic emissions from
the source categories included in the proposal have a disproportionate
risk on children, who are especially at risk to all toxins and inhaled
pollution. The commenter alleged that EPA has ample reason to believe
that failing to require the degree of reduction required by the CAA and
its exemption of source categories from title V requirements will have
a disproportionate effect on children.
Response: We disagree with the commenter. Section 2-202 of
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) defines
the actions subject to its terms. As we stated at proposal, this
Executive Order 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 disproportionately affect children. If a
regulatory action meets both criteria, the Executive Order directs EPA
to 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.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the
analysis called for by section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. These final rules are not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not economically
significant and, because the rules are based solely on technology
performance, an analysis under section 5-501 of the Executive Order
would not have had the potential to influence this regulation.
J. Compliance With Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
Comment: One commenter alleged that minority and low income
populations are located disproportionately near the source categories
covered by the proposal. According to the commenter, these minority and
low income populations will be adversely affected by any standard that
is less protective than required by the CAA and also by any exemption
from title V permitting requirements. The commenter claimed that EPA
failed to consider these effects of its proposal.
Response: As we stated at proposal, we have determined that these
final rules will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations
because they increase 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 commenter provided
no information to support the commenter's conclusion.
VI. 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
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 requirements in these rules 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 the final rules are
based on the existing permit requirements as well as the information
collection requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the
General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 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.
The information collection requirements for acrylic and modacrylic
fibers production are the same as the requirements that are in the
current State operating permit for the one existing source. The only
new information collection requirements that apply to this area source
consist of initial notifications, records of process and maintenance
wastewater treated in a wastewater treatment systems, and an SSM plan.
Any new acrylic and modacrylic fibers production area source is subject
to all information collection requirements in the part 63 General
Provisions.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 9 labor hours per year
at a cost of $780 for the one existing acrylic and modacrylic fibers
area source. No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance
costs are associated with the final requirements. No costs or burden
hours are estimated for new acrylic and modacrylic fibers production
area sources because no new area sources are estimated during the next
3 years.
As a result of public comments, we learned there are no existing
carbon black production facilities that are area sources. Consequently,
there are no costs or burden hours associated with the monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for existing area sources. No
costs or burden hours are estimated for new carbon black production
area sources because no new sources are estimated during the next 3
years.
The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
for existing chromium compounds manufacturing area sources are the same
as the requirements that are in the current title V operating permit
for the two existing facilities. The only new information collection
requirements that apply to these area sources consist of initial
notifications, SSM plans, and control device inspections at one plant.
Any new chromium compounds manufacturing area source is subject to all
information collection requirements in the part 63 General Provisions.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 194 labor hours per
year at a cost
[[Page 38897]]
of $16,409 for the two existing chromium compounds manufacturing area
sources. No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs
are associated with the requirements. No costs or burden hours are
estimated for new chromium compounds manufacturing area sources because
no new area sources are estimated during the next 3 years.
The final NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam production and
fabrication operations area sources require a one-time notification by
slab stock foam facilities certifying that they do not use methylene
chloride and records documenting that they do not use methylene
chloride. One plant that uses methylene chloride is subject to
additional reporting requirements.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 925 labor hours per
year at a cost of $78,337 for the 500 or more existing flexible foam
fabrication and production area sources. No capital/startup costs or
operation and maintenance costs are associated with the requirements.
No costs or burden hours are estimated for new flexible foam production
or fabrication area sources because no new sources are estimated during
the next 3 years.
The testing and monitoring requirements for emissions sources
equipped with a scrubbing system at new and existing lead acid battery
manufacturing area sources are the same as the requirements that are in
the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK). Monitoring requirements for
emissions sources equipped with fabric filter are also included in the
final rule. New information collection requirements that apply to these
area sources consist of notifications, records, and reports required by
the part 63 General Provisions.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 2,302 labor hours per
year at a cost of $172,477 for the approximately 60 existing lead acid
battery manufacturing area sources, with capital/startup costs of
$4,840 and no operation and maintenance costs. No costs or burden hours
are estimated for new lead acid battery manufacturing area sources
because no new sources are estimated during the next 3 years.
The final NESHAP for wood preserving area sources does not include
testing or monitoring requirements because they are subject to
management practices. The only new information collection requirements
that apply to these existing area sources consist of initial
notifications, records demonstrating compliance with the management
practice requirements, and deviation reporting requirements.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 1,055 labor hours per
year at a cost of $89,324 for approximately 400 existing wood
preserving area sources. No capital/startup costs or operation and
maintenance costs are associated with the requirements. No costs or
burden hours are estimated for new wood preserving area sources because
no new sources are estimated during the next 3 years.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 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 (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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the area source NESHAP
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 1,000 employees for
acrylic and modacrylic fibers production and chromium compounds
manufacturing and less than 500 employees for carbon black production,
flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication, lead-acid
battery manufacturing, and wood preserving); (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 the proposed rules on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There will
not be adverse impacts on existing area sources in any of the seven
source categories because the final rules do not create any new
requirements or burdens for existing sources other than minimal
notification requirements.
Although the final NESHAP contain emissions control requirements
for new area sources in all seven source categories, we are not
specifically aware of any new sources being constructed now or planned
in the next 3 years, and consequently, we did not estimate any impacts
for new sources.
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 rule on small entities. These final
rules are designed to harmonize with existing State or local
requirements.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to 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
[[Page 38898]]
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least 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.
EPA has determined that the final rules do not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Thus, the final rules are not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the
final rules do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The final rules contain no requirements that apply to such governments,
impose no obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by
them of $100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate
impacts on them. Therefore, the final rules are not subject to section
203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' are 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.''
These final rules 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. These final rules impose
requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources and not
State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to these final rules.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (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.'' These final rules do not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
These final rules impose requirements on owners and operators of
specified area sources and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to these final rules.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only 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. These final rules are not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not economically
significant and because they are based on technology performance and
not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
These final rules are not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because
they are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that these
final rules are not likely to have any adverse energy effects because
energy requirements would remain at existing levels. No additional
pollution controls or other equipment that would consume energy are
required by these final rules.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113, Section 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. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
The final rules involve technical standards. The EPA cites the
following standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A,
3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9 and 22 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The method ASME
PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by
reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) is cited in one of these final rules for
its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon
monoxide content of the exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981
is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B. This ASTM method is a
VCS.
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for
EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, 9 or 22. The search and review
results are in the docket for these final rules.
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 12 other
VCS. The EPA determined that these 12 standards identified for
measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emissions
standards in these final rules were impractical alternatives to EPA
test
[[Page 38899]]
methods. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for
this purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the 12 methods are
discussed in a memorandum included in the docket for these final rules.
For the methods required or referenced by these final rules, 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 under Sec. 63.7(f)
and Sec. 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions.
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 these final rules will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because they increase 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. These final rules establish national standards for
each area source category.
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. The EPA will submit a report containing these
final rules 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 final rules 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). These final rules will be effective on July 16, 2007.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporations by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: June 15, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
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.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii),
63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3),
63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2),
63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii)
and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), and
Table 5 of subpart DDDDD of this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart LLLLLL to read as follows:
Subpart LLLLLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area
Sources
Sec.
Applicability and Compliance Dates
63.11393 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11394 What are my compliance dates?
Standards and Compliance Requirements
63.11395 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
existing sources?
63.11396 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new
sources?
Other Requirements and Information
63.11397 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11398 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11399 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart LLLLLL of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart LLLLLL
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11393 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an
acrylic or modacrylic fibers production plant that is an area source of
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.
(b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source.
The affected source is each acrylic or modacrylic fibers plant.
(1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
(2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
(c) This subpart does not apply to research and development
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(d) 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.
Sec. 63.11394 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no
later than January 16, 2008.
(b) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16,
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of
this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
(c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you
must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon
startup of your affected source.
Standards and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.11395 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
existing sources?
(a) You must operate and maintain capture or enclosure systems that
collect
[[Page 38900]]
the gases and fumes containing acrylonitrile (AN) released from
polymerization process equipment and monomer recovery process equipment
and convey the collected gas stream through a closed vent system to a
control device.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, you
must not discharge to the atmosphere through any combination of stacks
or other vents captured gases containing AN in excess of the emissions
limits in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) 0.2 pounds of AN per hour (lb/hr) from the control device for
polymerization process equipment.
(2) 0.05 lb/hr of AN from the control device for monomer recovery
process equipment.
(3) If you do not comply with the emissions limits in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section, you must comply with the new source
standards for process vents in Sec. 63.11396(a).
(c) If you use a wet scrubber control device, you must comply with
the control device parameter operating limits in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) You must maintain the daily average water flow rate to a wet
scrubber used to control polymerization process equipment at a minimum
of 50 liters per minute (l/min). If the water flow to the wet scrubber
ceases, the polymerization reactor(s) must be shut down.
(2) You must maintain the daily average water flow rate to a wet
scrubber used to control monomer recovery process equipment at a
minimum of 30 l/min.
(d) You must comply with the requirements of the New Source
Performance Standard for Volatile Organic Liquids (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb) for vessels that store acrylonitrile. The provisions in 40
CFR 60.114b do not apply to this subpart.
(e) You must operate continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS)
to measure and record the water flow rate to a wet scrubber control
device for the polymerization process equipment and the monomer
recovery process equipment. The CPMS must record the water flow rate at
least every 15 minutes and determine and record the daily average water
flow rate.
(f) You must determine compliance with the daily average control
device parameter operating limits for water flow rate in paragraph (c)
of this section on a monthly basis and submit a summary report to EPA
or the delegated authority on a quarterly basis. Should the daily
average water flow rate to a wet scrubber control device for the
polymerization process equipment fall below 50 l/min or the daily
average water flow rate to a wet scrubber control device for the
monomer recovery process equipment fall below 30 l/min, you must notify
EPA or the delegated authority in writing within 10 days of the
identification of the exceedance.
(g) You must keep records of each monthly compliance determination
for the water flow rate operating parameter limits in a permanent form
suitable for inspection and retain the records for at least 2 years
following the date of each compliance determination.
(h) You must conduct a performance test for each control device for
polymerization process equipment and monomer recovery process equipment
subject to an emissions limit in paragraph (b) of this section within
180 days of your compliance date and report the results in your
notification of compliance status. You must conduct each test according
to the requirements in Sec. 63.7 of subpart A and Sec. 63.1104 of
subpart YY. You are not required to conduct a performance test if a
prior performance test was conducted using the methods specified in
Sec. 63.1104 of subpart YY and either no process changes have been
made since the test, or you can demonstrate that the results of the
performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate
compliance despite process changes.
(i) If you do not use a wet scrubber control device for the
polymerization process equipment or the monomer recovery process
equipment, you must submit a monitoring plan to EPA or the delegated
authority for approval. Each plan must contain the information in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) A description of the device;
(2) Test results collected in accordance with Sec. 63.1104 of
subpart YY verifying the performance of the device for reducing AN to
the levels required by this subpart;
(3) 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.
(4) A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits;
and
(5) Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected
during the performance test.
(j) If you do not operate a monomer recovery process that removes
AN prior to spinning, you must comply with the requirements in
paragraph (j)(1), (2), or (3) of this section for each fiber spinning
line that uses a spin dope produced from either a suspension
polymerization process or solution polymerization process.
(1) You must reduce the AN concentration of the spin dope to less
than 100 parts per million by weight (ppmw); or
(2) You must design and operate a fiber spinning line enclosure
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1103(b)(4) of subpart YY and
reduce AN emissions by 85 weight-percent or more by venting emissions
from the enclosure through a closed vent system to any combination of
control devices meeting the requirements in Sec. 63.982(a)(2) of
subpart SS; or
(3) You must reduce AN emissions from the spinning line to less
than or equal to 0.5 pounds of AN per ton (lb/ton) of acrylic and
modacrylic fiber produced.
(k) You may change the operating limits for a wet scrubber if you
meet the requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator to conduct a
new performance test to revise the operating limit.
(2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emissions limit for a control device in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(3) Establish revised operating limits according to the procedures
in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Using the CPMS required in paragraph (e) of this section,
measure and record the water flow rate to the wet scrubber in intervals
of no less than 15 minutes during each AN test run.
(ii) Determine and record the average water flow rate for each test
run. Your operating limit is the lowest average flow rate during any
test run that complies with the applicable emissions limit.
(l) You must treat process and maintenance wastewater containing AN
in a wastewater treatment system. You must keep records that list each
process and maintenance wastewater stream that contains AN and a
process flow diagram of the wastewater treatment system that identifies
each wastewater stream.
Sec. 63.11396 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
new sources?
(a) You must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or
(2) of this section for each process vent where the AN concentration of
the vent stream is equal to or greater than 50 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) and
[[Page 38901]]
the average flow rate is equal to or greater than 0.005 cubic meters
per minute, as determined by the applicability and assessment
procedures in Sec. 63.1104 of subpart YY.
(1) You must reduce emissions of AN by 98 weight-percent or limit
the concentration of AN in the emissions to no more than 20 ppmv,
whichever is less stringent, by venting emissions through a closed vent
system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements
for process vents in Sec. 63.982(a)(2) of subpart SS; or
(2) You must reduce emissions of AN by using a flare that meets the
requirements of Sec. 63.987 of subpart SS.
(b) You must comply with the requirements in paragraph (b)(1), (2),
or (3) of this section for each fiber spinning line that uses a spin
dope produced from either a suspension polymerization process or
solution polymerization process.
(1) You must reduce the AN concentration of the spin dope to less
than 100 ppmw; or
(2) You must design and operate a fiber spinning line enclosure
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1103(b)(4) of subpart YY and
reduce AN emissions by 85 weight-percent or more by venting emissions
from the enclosure through a closed vent system to any combination of
control devices meeting the requirements in Sec. 63.982(a)(2) of
subpart SS; or
(3) You must reduce AN emissions from the spinning line to less
than or equal to 0.5 pounds of AN per ton (lb/ton) of acrylic and
modacrylic fiber produced.
(c) You must comply with the requirements for storage vessels
holding acrylonitrile as shown in Table 2 to Sec. 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of
subpart YY.
(d) You must comply with the requirements for equipment that
contains or contacts 10 percent by weight or more of AN and operates
300 hours per year as shown in Table 2 to Sec. 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of
subpart YY.
(e) You must comply with the requirements for process wastewater
and maintenance wastewater from an acrylic and modacrylic fibers
production process as shown in Table 2 to Sec. 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of
subpart YY. Process wastewater and maintenance wastewater that contains
AN and is not subject to the requirements in Table 2 to Sec.
63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY must be treated in a wastewater
treatment system.
(f) You must comply with all testing, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements in subpart SS (for process vents); subpart
SS or WW (for AN tanks); subpart TT or UU (for equipment leaks); and
subpart G (for process wastewater and maintenance wastewater). Only the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.132 through 63.148 and Sec. Sec. 63.151
through 63.153 of subpart G apply to this subpart.
(g) If you use a control device other than a wet scrubber, flare,
incinerator, boiler, process heater, absorber, condenser, or carbon
adsorber, you must prepare and submit a monitoring plan to the
Administrator for approval. Each plan must contain the information in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) A description of the device;
(2) Test results collected in accordance with paragraph (f) of this
section verifying the performance of the device for reducing AN to the
levels required by this subpart;
(3) 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.
(4) A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits;
and
(5) Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected
during the performance test.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11397 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
(a) You must meet the requirements of the General Provisions in 40
CFR part 63, subpart A, as shown in Table 1 to this subpart.
(b) If you own or operate an existing affected source, your
notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) must
include the following information:
(1) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official, for the standards in Sec. 63.11395(a): ``This facility
complies with the management practices required in Sec. 63.11395(a)
for operation of capture systems for polymerization process equipment
and monomer recovery process equipment.''
(2) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official, for the emissions limits in Sec. 63.11395(b): ``This
facility complies with the emissions limits in Sec. 63.11395(b)(1) and
(2) for control devices serving the polymerization process equipment
and monomer recovery process equipment based on previous performance
tests in accordance with Sec. 63.11395(h)'' or ``This facility
complies with the alternative standards for process vents in Sec.
63.11395(b)(3) based on previous performance tests and assessments in
accordance with Sec. 63.11396(f)''. If you conduct a performance test
or assessment to demonstrate compliance, you must include the results
of the performance test and/or assessment.
(3) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official, for the standards for storage tanks in Sec. 63.11396(d):
``This facility complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb for each tank that stores acrylonitrile.''
(4) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official, for the requirement in Table 1 to subpart LLLLLL for
preparation of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan: ``This
facility has prepared a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).''
(c) If you own or operate a new affected source, your notification
of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) must include:
(1) The results of the initial performance test or compliance
demonstration for each process vent (including closed vent system and
control device, flare, or recovery device), fiber spinning line, AN
storage tank, equipment, and wastewater stream subject to this subpart.
(2) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official, for the applicable emissions limit in Sec. 63.11396(a) for
process vents: ``This facility complies with the emissions limits in
Sec. 63.11396(a) for each process vent subject to control.''
(3) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official, for the applicable emissions limit in Sec. 63.11396(b) for
each fiber spinning line: ``This facility complies with the emissions
limit and/or management practice requirements in Sec. 63.11396(b)(1),
(2), or (3) for each fiber spinning line.''
(4) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official, for the storage tank requirements in Sec. 63.11396(c):
``This facility complies with the requirements for storage vessels
holding acrylonitrile as shown in Table 2 to Sec. 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of
subpart YY.''
(5) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official, for the equipment leak requirements in Sec. 63.11396(d):
``This facility complies with the requirements for all equipment that
contains or contacts 10 percent by weight or more of AN and operates
300 hours per year or more as shown in Table 2 to Sec.
63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY.''
[[Page 38902]]
(6) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official, for the process wastewater and maintenance wastewater
requirements in Sec. 63.11396(e): ``This facility complies with the
requirements in Table 2 to Sec. 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY for
each process wastewater stream and each maintenance wastewater
stream.''
(d) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must report
any deviation from the requirements of this subpart in the semiannual
report required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3).
Sec. 63.11398 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Acrylic fiber means a manufactured synthetic fiber in which the
fiber-forming substance is any long-chain synthetic polymer composed of
at least 85 percent by weight of acrylonitrile units.
Acrylic and modacrylic fibers production means the production of
either of the following synthetic fibers composed of acrylonitrile
units: acrylic fiber or modacrylic fiber.
Acrylonitrile solution polymerization means a process where
acrylonitrile and comonomers are dissolved in a solvent to form a
polymer solution (typically polyacrylonitrile). The polyacrylonitrile
is soluble in the solvent. In contrast to suspension polymerization,
the resulting reactor polymer solution (spin dope) is filtered and
pumped directly to the fiber spinning process.
Acrylonitrile suspension polymerization means a polymerization
process where small drops of acrylonitrile and comonomers are suspended
in water in the presence of a catalyst where they polymerize under
agitation. Solid beads of polymer are formed in this suspension
reaction which are subsequently filtered, washed, refiltered, and
dried. The beads must be subsequently redissolved in a solvent to
create a spin dope prior to introduction to the fiber spinning process.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation or
management practice;
(2) 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; or
(3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation or management practice
in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of
whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
Equipment means each of the following that is subject to this
subpart: pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling
collection system, open-ended valve or line, valve connector,
instrumentation system in organic HAP service which contains or
contacts greater than 10 percent by weight of acrylonitrile and
operates more than 300 hours per year.
Fiber spinning line means the group of equipment and process vents
associated with acrylic or modacrylic fiber spinning operations. The
fiber spinning line includes (as applicable to the type of spinning
process used) the blending and dissolving tanks, spinning solution
filters, wet spinning units, spin bath tanks, and the equipment used
downstream of the spin bath to wash, dry, or draw the spun fiber.
Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining
of process fluid from components in the process unit, whose primary
product is a product produced by a source category subject to this
subpart, into an individual drain system prior to or during maintenance
activities. Maintenance wastewater can be generated during planned and
unplanned shutdowns and during periods not associated with a shutdown.
Examples of activities that can generate maintenance wastewaters
include descaling of heat exchanger tubing bundles, cleaning of
distillation column traps, draining of low legs and high point bleeds,
draining of pumps into an individual drain system, and draining of
portions of the process unit, whose primary product is a product
produced by a source category subject to this subpart, for repair.
Modacrylic fiber means a manufactured synthetic fiber in which the
fiber-forming substance is any long-chain synthetic polymer composed of
at least 35 percent by weight of acrylonitrile units but less than 85
percent by weight of acrylonitrile units.
Monomer recovery process equipment means the collection of process
units and associated process equipment used to reclaim the monomer for
subsequent reuse, including but not limited to polymer holding tanks,
polymer buffer tanks, monomer vacuum pump flush drum, and drum filter
vacuum pump flush drum.
Polymerization process equipment means the collection of process
units and associated process equipment used in the acrylonitrile
polymerization process prior to the fiber spinning line, including but
not limited to acrylonitrile storage tanks, recovered monomer tanks,
monomer measuring tanks, monomer preparation tanks, monomer feed tanks,
slurry receiver tanks, polymerization reactors, and drum filters.
Process vent means the point of discharge to the atmosphere (or
point of entry into a control device, if any) of a gas stream from the
acrylic and modacrylic fibers production process.
Process wastewater means wastewater, which during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the
production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished
product, by-product, or waste product.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined at 40
CFR 70.2.
Spin dope means the liquid mixture of polymer and solvent that is
fed to the spinneret to form the acrylic and modacrylic fibers.
Sec. 63.11399 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 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 under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). 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.
As required in Sec. 63.11397(a), you must comply with the
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40
[[Page 38903]]
CFR part 63, subpart A) as shown in the following table.
Table 1.--To Subpart LLLLLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies to subpart LLLLLL? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), Applicability......... Yes........................
(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 Yes........................
Abbreviations.
63.4............................... Prohibited Activities Yes........................
and Circumvention.
63.5............................... Preconstruction Review No.........................
and Notification
Requirements.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7), Compliance with Yes........................ Subpart LLLLLL
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), Standards and requires new and
(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-(e)(3)(ix), Maintenance existing sources to
(f) (g), (i), (j). Requirements. comply with
requirements for
startups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), Reserved.............. No.........................
(e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3),
(h)(5)(iv).
63.6(h)(1)-(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)- ...................... No......................... Subpart LLLLLL does
(h)(5)(iii), (h)(6)-(h)(9). not include opacity
or visible emissions
standards or require
a continuous opacity
monitoring system.
63.7(a), (e), (f), (g), (h)........ Performance Testing Yes/No..................... Subpart LLLLLL
Requirements. requires performance
tests for new and
existing sources; a
test for an existing
source is not
required if a prior
test meets the
conditions in Sec.
63.11395(h).
63.7(b), (c)....................... ...................... Yes/No..................... Requirements for
notification of
performance test and
for quality assurance
program apply to new
sources but not
existing sources.
63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1)- Monitoring Yes........................
(c)(3), (f)(1)-(5). Requirements.
63.8(a)(3)......................... Reserved.............. No.........................
63.8(a)(4)......................... ...................... Yes........................ Requirements apply to
new sources if flares
are the selected
control option.
63.8(c)(4)-(c)(8), (d), (e), ...................... Yes........................ Requirements apply to
(f)(6), (g). new sources but not
to existing sources.
63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(5), (c), (d), Notification Yes........................
(i), (j). Requirements.
63.9(e)............................ ...................... Yes/No..................... Notification of
performance test is
required for new area
sources.
63.9(b)(2)......................... ...................... Yes........................ Initial notification
of applicability is
required for new and
existing area
sources.
63.9(b)(3), (h)(4)................. Reserved.............. No.........................
63.9(b)(4), (h)(5)................. ...................... No.........................
63.9(f), (g)....................... ...................... No......................... Subpart LLLLLL does
not require a
continuous opacity
monitoring system or
continuous emissions
monitoring system.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(6).......... ...................... Yes........................ Notification of
compliance status is
required for new and
existing area
sources.
63.10(a)........................... Recordkeeping Yes........................
Requirements.
63.10(b)(1)........................ ...................... Yes/No..................... Record retention
requirement applies
to new area sources
but not existing area
sources. Subpart
LLLLLL establishes 2-
year retention period
for existing area
sources.
63.10(b)(2)........................ ...................... Yes........................ Recordkeeping
requirements for
startups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions
apply to new and
existing area
sources.
63.10(b)(3)........................ ...................... Yes........................ Recordkeeping
requirements for
applicability
determinations apply
to new area sources.
63.10(c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(14)........ ...................... Yes/No..................... Recordkeeping
requirements for
continuous parameter
monitoring systems
apply to new sources
but not existing
sources.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9)......... Reserved.............. No.........................
63.10(d)(1), (d)(4), (e)(1), Reporting Requirements Yes........................
(e)(2), (f).
63.10(d)(2)........................ ...................... Yes........................ Report of performance
test results applies
to each area source
required to conduct a
performance test.
63.10(d)(3)........................ ...................... No......................... Subpart LLLLLL does
not include opacity
or visible emissions
limits.
[[Page 38904]]
63.10(d)(5)........................ ...................... Yes........................ Requirements for
startup, shutdown,
and malfunction
reports apply to new
and existing area
sources.
(e)(1)-(e)(2), (e)(4).............. ...................... No......................... Subpart LLLLLL does
not require a
continuous emissions
monitoring system or
continuous opacity
monitoring system.
63.10(e)(3)........................ ...................... Yes/No..................... Semiannual reporting
requirements for
excess emissions and
parameter monitoring
exceedances apply to
new area sources but
not existing area
sources.
63.11.............................. Control Device Yes........................ Requirements apply to
Requirements. new sources if flares
are the selected
control option.
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..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
4. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart MMMMMM to read as follows:
Subpart MMMMMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Carbon Black Production Area Sources
Sec.
Applicability and Compliance Dates
63.11400 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11401 What are my compliance dates?
Standards and Compliance Requirements
63.11402 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new
and existing sources?
63.11403 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
63.11404 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11405 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11406 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11400 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a carbon
black production facility that is an area source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions.
(b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source.
The affected source is each carbon black production process unit. The
affected source includes all waste management units, maintenance
wastewater, and equipment components that contain or contact HAP that
are associated with the carbon black production process unit.
(1) An affected source is an existing source if you commenced
construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or before
April 4, 2007.
(2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
(c) This subpart does not apply to research and development
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(d) If you own or operate an area source subject to this subpart,
you must obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71.
Sec. 63.11401 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by
July 16, 2007.
(b) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16,
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of
this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
(c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you
must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart
upon startup of your affected source.
Standards and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.11402 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
new and existing sources?
You must meet all the requirements in Sec. 63.1103(f) of subpart
YY.
Sec. 63.11403 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11404 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, applicable to this
subpart are Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.5 and Sec. Sec. 63.11 through
63.16.
Sec. 63.11405 What definitions apply to this subpart?
The terms used in this subpart are defined in Sec. Sec. 63.1101
and 63.1103(f)(2).
Sec. 63.11406 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 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. 63.992(b)(1).
(2) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in
Sec. 63.90.
[[Page 38905]]
(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.
0
5. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NNNNNN to read as follows:
Subpart NNNNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds
Sec.
Applicability and Compliance Dates
63.11407 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11408 What are my compliance dates?
Standards and Compliance Requirements
63.11409 What are the standards?
63.11410 What are the compliance requirements?
Other Requirements and Information
63.11411 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11412 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11413 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63--HAP Emissions Units
Table 2 to Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart NNNNNN
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11407 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a
chromium compounds manufacturing facility that is an area source of
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.
(b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source.
The affected source is each chromium compounds manufacturing facility.
(1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
(2) An affected source is new if you commence construction or
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
(c) This subpart does not apply to research and development
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.
(d) If you own or operate an area source subject to this subpart,
you must obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71.
Sec. 63.11408 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart not
later than January 16, 2008.
(b) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16,
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of
this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
(c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you
must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart
upon startup of your affected source.
Standards and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.11409 What are the standards?
(a) You must operate a capture system that collects the gases and
fumes released during the operation of each emissions source listed in
Table 1 of this subpart and conveys the collected gas stream to a
particulate matter (PM) control device.
(b) You must not discharge to the atmosphere through any
combination of stacks or other vents process gases from an emissions
source listed in Table 1 of this subpart that contain PM in excess of
the allowable process rate determined according to Equation 1 of this
section (for an emissions source with a process rate of less than 30
tons per hour) or Equation 2 of this section (for an emissions source
with a process rate of 30 tons per hour or greater). If more than one
process vents to a common stack, the applicable emissions limit for the
stack is the sum of allowable emissions calculated for each process
using Equation 1 or 2 of this section, as applicable.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY07.000
Where:
E = Emissions limit in pounds per hour (lb/hr); and
P = Process rate of emissions source in tons per hour (ton/hr).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY07.001
Sec. 63.11410 What are the compliance requirements?
(a) Existing sources. If you own or operate an existing area
source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (b) through
(e) of this section.
(b) Initial control device inspection. You must conduct an initial
inspection of each PM control device according to the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. You must conduct each
inspection no later than 60 days after your applicable compliance date
for each installed control device which has been operated within 60
days of the compliance date. For an installed control device which has
not been operated within 60 days of the compliance date, you must
conduct an initial inspection prior to startup of the control device.
(1) For each baghouse, you must visually inspect the system
ductwork and baghouse unit for leaks. You must also inspect the inside
of each baghouse for structural integrity and fabric filter condition.
You must record the results of the inspection and any maintenance
action in the logbook required in paragraph (d) of this section. An
initial inspection of the internal components of a baghouse is not
required if an inspection has been performed within the past 12 months.
(2) For each dry electrostatic precipitator, you must verify the
proper functioning of the electronic controls for corona power and
rapper operation, that the corona wires are energized, and that
adequate air pressure is present on the rapper manifold. You must also
visually inspect the system ductwork and electrostatic precipitator
housing unit and hopper for leaks and inspect the interior of the
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of
corona wires, collection plates, hopper, and air diffuser plates. An
initial inspection of the internal components of a dry electrostatic
precipitator is not required if an inspection has been performed within
the past 24 months.
(3) For each wet electrostatic precipitator, you must verify the
proper functioning of the electronic controls for corona power, that
the corona wires are energized, and that water flow is present. You
must also visually inspect the system ductwork and electrostatic
precipitator housing unit and hopper for leaks and inspect the interior
of the electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and
integrity of corona wires, collection plates, plate wash spray heads,
hopper, and air diffuser plates. An initial inspection of the internal
components of a wet electrostatic precipitator is not required if an
inspection has been performed within the past 24 months.
(4) For each wet scrubber, you must verify the presence of water
flow to the scrubber. You must also visually inspect the system
ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks and inspect the interior of the
scrubber for structural integrity and the condition of the demister and
spray nozzle.
(i) An initial inspection of the internal components of a wet
scrubber is not required if an inspection has been performed within the
past 12 months.
[[Page 38906]]
(ii) The requirement in paragraph (b)(4) of this section for
initial inspection of the internal components of a wet scrubber does
not apply to a cyclonic scrubber installed upstream of a wet or dry
electrostatic precipitator.
(c) Periodic inspections/maintenance. Following the initial
inspections, you must perform periodic inspections and maintenance of
each PM control device according to the requirements in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) You must inspect and maintain each baghouse according to the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system
ductwork for leaks.
(ii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the baghouse
for structural integrity and to determine the condition of the fabric
filter every 12 months. If an initial inspection is not required by
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the first inspection must not be more
than 12 months from the last inspection.
(2) You must inspect and maintain each dry electrostatic
precipitator according to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper
functioning of the electronic controls for corona power and rapper
operation, that the corona wires are energized, and that adequate air
pressure is present on the rapper manifold.
(ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system
ductwork, housing unit, and hopper for leaks.
(iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of
corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air
diffuser plates every 24 months.
(3) You must inspect and maintain each wet electrostatic
precipitator according to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(3)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper
functioning of the electronic controls for corona power, that the
corona wires are energized, and that water flow is present.
(ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system
ductwork, electrostatic precipitator housing unit, and hopper for
leaks.
(iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of
corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air
diffuser plates every 24 months. If an initial inspection is not
required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the first inspection must
not be more than 24 months from the last inspection.
(4) You must inspect and maintain each wet scrubber according to
the requirements in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the presence of
water flow to the scrubber.
(ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system
ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks.
(iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the scrubber
to determine the structural integrity and condition of the demister and
spray nozzle every 12 months. Internal inspections of cyclonic
scrubbers installed upstream of wet or dry electrostatic precipitators
are not required.
(d) Recordkeeping requirements. You must record the results of each
inspection and maintenance action in a logbook (written or electronic
format). You must keep the logbook onsite and make the logbook
available to the permitting authority upon request. You must keep
records of the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4)
of this section for 5 years following the date of each recorded action.
(1) The date and time of each recorded action for a fabric filter,
the results of each inspection, and the results of any maintenance
performed on the bag filters.
(2) The date and time of each recorded action for a wet or dry
electrostatic precipitator (including ductwork), the results of each
inspection, and the results of any maintenance performed on the
electrostatic precipitator.
(3) The date and time of each recorded action for a wet scrubber
(including ductwork), the results of each inspection, and the results
of any maintenance performed on the wet scrubber.
(4) Records of all required monitoring data and supporting
information including all calibration and maintenance records, original
strip-chart recordings for continuous monitoring information, and
copies of all reports required by this subpart. You must maintain
records of required monitoring data in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review. All records must be kept onsite and
made available to EPA or the delegated authority for inspection upon
request. You must maintain records of all required monitoring data and
supporting information for at least 5 years from the date of the
monitoring sample, measurement, report, or application.
(e) Reports. (1) You must report each deviation (an action or
condition not in accordance with the requirements of this subpart,
including upset conditions but excluding excess emissions) to the
permitting agency on the next business day after becoming aware of the
deviation. You must submit a written report within 2 business days
which identifies the probable cause of the deviation and any corrective
actions or preventative actions taken. All reports of deviations must
be certified by a responsible official.
(2) You must submit semiannual reports of monitoring and
recordkeeping activities to your permitting authority.
(3) You must submit the results of any maintenance performed on
each PM control device within 30 days of a written request by the
permitting authority.
(f) New sources. If you own or operate a new affected source, you
must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this
section.
(g) Bag leak detection systems. You must install, operate, and
maintain a bag leak detection system on all baghouses used to comply
with the PM emissions limit in Sec. 63.11409 according to paragraph
(g)(1) of this section; prepare and operate by a site-specific
monitoring plan according to paragraph (g)(2) of this section; take
corrective action according to paragraph (g)(3) of this section; and
record information according to paragraph (g)(4) of this section.
(1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot or less.
(ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record
the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other
means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).
(iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to
paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located
such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
[[Page 38907]]
(iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system,
you must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm
set points, and the alarm delay time.
(v) Following initial adjustment, you shall not adjust the
averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval
from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided in
paragraph (g)(1)(vi) of this section.
(vi) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag
leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including
temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the
site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (g)(2) of this
section.
(vii) You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of
the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.
(viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(2) You must develop and submit to the Administrator or delegated
authority for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag
leak detection system. You must operate and maintain the bag leak
detection system according to an approved site-specific monitoring plan
at all times. Each monitoring plan must describe the items in
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;
(iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality
assurance procedures;
(iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained,
including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory
list;
(v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored; and
(vi) Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (g)(3)
of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the
Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators
more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an
alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this
specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately
explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3
hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested
time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as
practicable.
(3) For each bag leak detection system, you must initiate
procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the
alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2)(vi) of this section, you
must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by
taking whatever corrective action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions
may include, but are not limited to the following:
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
particulate emissions;
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise
repairing the control device;
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment;
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
(4) You must maintain records of the information specified in
paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section for each bag leak
detection system.
(i) Records of the bag leak detection system output;
(ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including
the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection
system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and
(iii) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms,
the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were
initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken,
the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and whether
the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.
(h) Other control devices. If you use a control device other than a
baghouse, you must prepare and submit a monitoring plan to EPA or the
delegated authority for approval. You must operate and maintain the
control device according to an approved site-specific monitoring plan
at all times. Each plan must contain the information in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) A description of the device;
(2) Test results collected in accordance with paragraph (i) of this
section verifying the performance of the device for reducing PM to the
levels required by this subpart;
(3) 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.
(4) A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits;
and
(5) Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected
during the performance test.
(i) Performance tests. If you own or operate a new affected source,
you must conduct a performance test for each emissions source subject
to an emissions limit in Sec. 63.11409(b) within 180 days of your
compliance date and report the results in your notification of
compliance status. 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 past 5 years of the effective
date using the same methods specified in paragraph (j) 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.
(j) Test methods. You must conduct each performance test according
to the requirements in Sec. 63.7 and paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of PM according to the following
test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A:
(i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number
of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be
located at the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases
to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric
flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas. You may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust
Gas Analyses (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14) as an
alternative to EPA Method 3B.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 5 or 5D to determine the concentration of particulate
matter (front half filterable catch only). Three valid test runs are
needed to comprise a performance test.
(2) During the test, you must operate each emissions source within
10 percent of the normal process rate specified in your
notification of compliance status. You must monitor
[[Page 38908]]
and record the process rate during the test.
(3) Compute the mass emissions (E) in pounds per hour (lb/hr) for
each test run using Equation 1 of this section and the process rate
measured during the test. The PM emissions in lb/hr must be less than
the allowable PM emissions rate for the emissions source.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY07.002
Where:
E = Mass emissions of PM, pounds per hour (lb/hr);
C = Concentration of PM, grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dry standard cubic foot per
hour (dscf/hr); and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound (gr/lb).
(k) Startups, shutdown, and malfunctions. The requirements in
paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section apply to the owner or
operator of a new or existing affected source.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, you
must report emissions in excess of a PM emissions limit established by
this subpart lasting for more than 4 hours that result from a
malfunction, a breakdown of process or control equipment, or any other
abnormal condition by 9 a.m. of the next business day of becoming aware
of the occurrence. You must provide the name and location of the
facility, the nature and cause of the malfunction or breakdown, the
time when the malfunction or breakdown is first observed, the expected
duration, and the estimated rate of emissions. You must also notify EPA
or the delegated authority immediately when corrected measures have
been accomplished and, if requested, submit a written report within 15
days after the request.
(2) As an alternative to the requirements in paragraph (k)(1) of
this section, you must comply with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction requirements in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11411 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
(a) You must comply with the requirements of the General Provisions
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A as specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
(b) Your notification of compliance status required by Sec.
63.9(h) must include the following information for a new or existing
affected source:
(1) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible
official, for the standards in Sec. 63.11409(a): ``This facility
complies with the management practice requirements in Sec. 63.11409(a)
for installation and operation of capture systems for each emissions
source subject to an emissions limit in Sec. 63.11409(b).''
(2) This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of an
existing source (if applicable), signed by a responsible official, for
the emissions limits in Sec. 63.11409(b): ``This facility complies
with the emissions limits in Sec. 63.11409(b) based on a previous
performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.11410(i).''
(3) The process rate for each emissions source subject to an
emissions limit in Sec. 63.11409(b) that represents normal and
representative production operations.
(4) The procedures used to measure and record the process rate for
each emissions source subject to an emissions limit in Sec.
63.11409(b).
(5) This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of an
existing affected source, signed by a responsible official, for the
control device inspection and maintenance requirements in Sec.
63.11410(b) through (d): ``This facility has conducted an initial
inspection of each control device according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.11410(b), will conduct periodic inspections and maintenance of
control devices in accordance with Sec. 63.11410(c), and will maintain
records of each inspection and maintenance action in the logbook
required by Sec. 63.11410(d).''
(6) This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of a
new affected source, signed by a responsible official, for the bag leak
detection system monitoring plan requirement in Sec. 63.11410(g)(2):
``This facility has an approved bag leak detection system monitoring
plan in accordance with Sec. 63.11410(g)(2).''
(7) Performance test results for each emissions unit at a new
affected source (or each emissions source at an existing affected
source if a test is required) in accordance with Sec. 63.11410(j). The
performance test results for a new affected source must identify the
daily average parameter operating limit for each PM control device.
(8) If applicable, this certification of compliance by the owner or
operator of a new or existing source, signed by a responsible official,
for the requirement in paragraph (k)(2) of this section to comply with
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3):
``This facility has prepared a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan
in accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)''.
Sec. 63.11412 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in 40 CFR 63.2,
and in this section as follows:
Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust loadings) in
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering,
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative
particulate matter loadings.
Chromic acid means chromium trioxide (CrO3). It is
produced by the electrolytic reaction or acidification of sodium
dichromate.
Chromium compounds manufacturing means any process that uses
chromite ore as the basic feedstock to manufacture chromium compounds,
primarily sodium dichromate, chromic acid, and chromic oxide.
Chromium compounds manufacturing facility means the collection of
processes and equipment at a plant engaged in chromium compounds
manufacturing.
Chromite ore means an oxide of chromium and iron
(FeCr2O4) that is the primary feedstock for
chromium compounds manufacturing.
Chromic oxide means Cr2O3. In the production
of chromic oxide, ammonium sulfate and sodium dichromate that have been
concentrated by evaporation are mixed and fed to a rotary roasting kiln
to produce chromic oxide, sodium sulfate and nitrogen gas.
Roasting means a heating (oxidizing) process where ground chromite
ore is mixed with alkaline material (such as soda ash, sodium
bicarbonate, and sodium hydroxide) and fed to a rotary kiln where it is
heated to about 2,000 [ordm]F, converting the majority of the chromium
in the ore from trivalent to hexavalent chromium.
Sodium chromate means Na2CrO4. It is produced
by roasting chromite ore in a rotary kiln.
Sodium dichromate means sodium bichromate or sodium bichromate
dihydrate and is known technically as sodium dichromate dihydrate
(Na2Cr2O7 2H2O).
It is produced by the electrolytic reaction or acidification of sodium
chromate.
Sec. 63.11413 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
[[Page 38909]]
Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal
agency pursuant to 40 CFR 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.
(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 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 test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). 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.
As required in Sec. 63.11409, you must install and operate capture
systems and comply with the applicable emissions limit for each
emissions source shown in the following table.
Table 1 To Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63.--HAP Emissions Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Emissions sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sodium chromate production.......... a. Ball mill used to grind
chromite ore.
b. Dryer used to dry chromite
ore.
c. Rotary kiln used to roast
chromite ore to produce sodium
chromate.
d. Secondary rotary kiln used
to recycle and refine residues
containing chromium compounds.
e. Residue dryer system.
f. Quench tanks.
2. Sodium dichromate production........ a. Stack on the electrolytic
cell system used to produce
sodium dichromate.
b. Sodium dichromate
crystallization unit.
c. Sodium dichromate drying
unit.
3. Chromic acid production............. a. Electrolytic cell system
used to produce chromic acid.
b. Melter used to produce
chromic acid.
c. Chromic acid crystallization
unit.
d. Chromic acid dryer.
4. Chromic oxide production............ a. Primary rotary roasting kiln
used to produce chromic oxide.
b. Chromic oxide filter.
c. Chromic oxide dryer.
d. Chromic oxide grinding unit.
e. Chromic oxide storage
vessel.
f. Secondary rotary roasting
kiln.
g. Quench tanks.
5. Chromium hydrate production......... a. Furnace used to produce
chromium hydrate.
b. Chromium hydrate grinding
unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.11411(a), you must comply with the
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as
shown in the following table.
Table 2 To Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNNNN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), Applicability......... Yes. ......................
(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 Yes. ......................
Abbreviations.
63.4............................... Prohibited Activities Yes. ......................
and Circumvention.
63.5............................... Preconstruction Review No. ......................
and Notification
Requirements.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7), Compliance with Yes........................ The startup, shutdown,
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), Standards and and malfunction
(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-(e)(3)(ix), Maintenance requirements in Sec.
(f), (g), (i), (j). Requirements. 63.6(e)(3) apply at
new and existing area
sources that choose
to comply with Sec.
63.11410(k)(2)
instead of the
requirements in Sec.
63.11410(k)(1).
63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), Reserved.............. No. ......................
(e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3),
(h)(5)(iv).
63.6(h)(1)-(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)- ...................... No......................... Subpart NNNNNN does
(h)(5)(iii), (h)(6)-(h)(9). not include opacity
or visible emissions
standards or require
a continuous opacity
monitoring system.
63.7(a), (e), (f), (g), (h)........ Performance Testing Yes........................ Subpart NNNNNN
Requirements. requires a
performance test for
a new source; a test
for an existing
source is not
required under the
conditions specified
in Sec.
63.11410(i).
63.7(b), (c)....................... ...................... Yes/No..................... Requirements for
notification of
performance test and
for quality assurance
program apply to new
area sources but not
existing area
sources.
63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1)- Monitoring Yes. ......................
(c)(3), (f)(1)-(5). Requirements.
63.8(a)(3)......................... Reserved.............. No. ......................
63.8(a)(4)......................... ...................... No......................... Subpart NNNNNN does
not require flares.
63.8(c)(4)-(c)(8), (d), (e), ...................... No......................... Subpart NNNNNN
(f)(6), (g). establishes
requirements for
continuous parameter
monitoring systems.
[[Page 38910]]
63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(5), (c), (d), Notification Yes. ......................
(i), (j). Requirements.
63.9(e)............................ ...................... Yes/No..................... Notification of
performance test is
required only for new
area sources.
63.9(b)(2)......................... ...................... Yes. ......................
63.9(b)(3), (h)(4)................. Reserved.............. No. ......................
63.9(b)(4), (h)(5)................. ...................... No. ......................
63.9(f), (g)....................... ...................... No......................... Subpart NNNNNN does
not include opacity
or visible emissions
standards or require
a continuous opacity
monitoring system or
continuous emissions
monitoring system.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(6).......... ...................... Yes. ......................
63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(xii), Recordkeeping Yes. ......................
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3). Requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(v)........... ...................... Yes........................ Recordkeeping
requirements for
startups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions
apply to new and
existing area sources
that choose to comply
with Sec.
63.11410(k)(2).
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(ix), (c)(1), ...................... Yes/No..................... Requirements apply to
(c)(5)-(c)(14). continuous parameter
monitoring systems at
new area sources but
not existing area
sources.
63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A)-(B), (b)(2)(x), ...................... No. ......................
(b)(2)(xiii).
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9)......... Reserved.............. No. ......................
63.10(d)(1), (d)(4), (f)........... Reporting Requirements Yes. ......................
63.10(d)(2)........................ ...................... Yes........................ Report of performance
test results applies
to new area sources;
the results of a
previous test may be
submitted for an
existing area source
under the conditions
specified in Sec.
63.11410(i).
63.10(d)(3)........................ ...................... No......................... Subpart NNNNNN does
not include opacity
or visible emissions
limits.
63.10(d)(5)........................ ...................... Yes........................ Requirements for
startup, shutdown,
and malfunction
reports apply to new
and existing area
sources that choose
to comply with Sec.
63.11410(k)(2).
63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2), (e)(4)......... ...................... No......................... Subpart NNNNNN does
not require a
continuous emissions
monitoring system or
continuous opacity
monitoring system.
63.10(e)(3)........................ ...................... Yes/No..................... Semiannual reporting
requirements apply to
new area sources but
not existing area
sources.
63.11.............................. Control Device No......................... Subpart NNNNNN does
Requirements. not require flares.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
6. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart OOOOOO to read as follows:
Subpart OOOOOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and
Fabrication Area Sources
Sec.
Applicability and Compliance Dates
63.11414 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11415 What are my compliance dates?
Standards and Compliance Requirements
63.11416 What are the standards for new and existing sources?
63.11417 What are the compliance requirements for new and existing
sources?
Other Requirements and Information
63.11418 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11419 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11420 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart OOOOOO of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart OOOOOO
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11414 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an area
source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions that meets the
criteria in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) You own or operate a plant that produces flexible polyurethane
foam or rebond foam as defined in Sec. 63.1292 of subpart III.
(2) You own or operate a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication
facility, as defined in Sec. 63.11419.
(b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing
affected source that meets the criteria listed in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) A slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production affected
source is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to
produce slabstock flexible polyurethane foam.
[[Page 38911]]
(2) A molded flexible polyurethane foam production affected source
is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to produce
molded foam.
(3) A rebond foam production affected source is the collection of
all equipment and activities necessary to produce rebond foam.
(4) A flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source is the
collection of all equipment and activities at a flexible polyurethane
foam fabrication facility where adhesives are used to bond foam to foam
or other substrates. Equipment and activities at flexible polyurethane
foam fabrication facilities which do not use adhesives to bond foam to
foam or other substrates are not flexible polyurethane foam fabrication
affected sources.
(c) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
(d) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
(e) This subpart does not apply to research and development
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(f) 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.
Sec. 63.11415 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing slabstock flexible
polyurethane foam production affected source, you must achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart by July 16,
2008.
(b) If you own or operate an existing molded flexible polyurethane
foam affected source, an existing rebond foam production affected
sources, or an existing flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected
source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in
this subpart by July 16, 2007.
(c) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16,
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in
this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
(d) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you
must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon
startup of your affected source.
Standards and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.11416 What are the standards for new and existing sources?
(a) If you own or operate a slabstock flexible polyurethane foam
production affected source, you must meet the requirements in paragraph
(b) of this section. If you own or operate a molded foam affected
source, you must meet the requirements in paragraph (c) of this
section. If you own or operate a rebond foam affected source, you must
meet the requirements in paragraph (d) of this section. If you own or
operate a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source, you
must meet the requirements in paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) If you own or operate a new or existing slabstock polyurethane
foam production affected source, you must comply with the requirements
in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Comply with Sec. 63.1293(a) or (b) of subpart III, except that
you must use Equation 1 of this section to determine the HAP auxiliary
blowing agent (ABA) formulation limit for each foam grade instead of
Equation 3 of Sec. 63.1297 of subpart III.
You must use zero as the formulation limitation for any grade of
foam where the result of the formulation equation (using Equation 1 of
this section) is negative (i.e., less than zero):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY07.003
where:
ABA limit = HAP ABA formulation limitation, parts
methylene chloride ABA allowed per hundred parts polyol (pph).
IFD = Indentation force deflection, pounds.
DEN = Density, pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Use no material containing methylene chloride for any purpose
in any slabstock flexible foam production process.
(c) If you own or operate a new or existing molded foam affected
source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) You must not use a material containing methylene chloride as an
equipment cleaner to flush the mixhead or use a material containing
methylene chloride elsewhere as an equipment cleaner in a molded
flexible polyurethane foam process.
(2) You must not use a mold release agent containing methylene
chloride in a molded flexible polyurethane foam process.
(d) If you own or operate a new or existing rebond foam affected
source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) You must not use a material containing methylene chloride as an
equipment cleaner in a rebond foam process.
(2) You must not use a mold release agent containing methylene
chloride in a rebond foam process.
(e) If you own or operate a new or existing flexible polyurethane
foam fabrication affected source, you must not use any adhesive
containing methylene chloride in a flexible polyurethane foam
fabrication process.
(f) You may demonstrate compliance with the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) through (e) of this section using adhesive
usage records, Material Safety Data Sheets, and engineering
calculations.
Sec. 63.11417 What are the compliance requirements for new and
existing sources?
(a) If you own or operate a slabstock flexible polyurethane foam
production affected source, you must comply with the requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section. If you own or operate a molded foam
affected source, rebond foam affected source, or a loop slitter at a
flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source you must comply
with the requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(b) Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock flexible
polyurethane foam production affected source who chooses to comply with
Sec. 63.11416(b)(1) must comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock flexible
polyurethane foam production affected source who chooses to comply with
Sec. 63.11416(b)(2) must comply with paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this
section.
[[Page 38912]]
(1) You must comply with paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this
section.
(i) The monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1303 of subpart III.
(ii) The testing requirements in Sec. 63.1304 or Sec. 63.1305 of
subpart III.
(iii) The reporting requirements in Sec. 63.1306 of subpart III,
with the exception of the reporting requirements in Sec.
63.1306(d)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of subpart III.
(iv) The recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.1307 of subpart
III, with the exception of the recordkeeping requirements in Sec.
63.1307(a)(1), (b)(1)(i), and (b)(2).
(v) The compliance demonstration requirements in Sec. 63.1308(a),
(c), and (d) of subpart III.
(2) You must submit a notification of compliance status report no
later than 180 days after your compliance date. The report must contain
the information detailed in Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i) paragraphs (A) and (G),
and must contain this certification of compliance, signed by a
responsible official, for the standards in Sec. 63.11416(b)(2): ``This
facility uses no material containing methylene chloride for any purpose
on any slabstock flexible foam process.''
(3) You must maintain records of the information used to
demonstrate compliance, as required in Sec. 63.11416(f). You must
maintain the records for 5 years, with the last 2 years of data
retained on site. The remaining 3 years of data may be maintained off
site.
(c) You must have a compliance certification on file by the
compliance date. This certification must contain the statements in
paragraph (c)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as applicable, and must
be signed by a responsible official.
(1) For a molded foam affected source:
(i) ``This facility does not use any equipment cleaner to flush the
mixhead which contains methylene chloride, or any other equipment
cleaner containing methylene chloride in a molded flexible polyurethane
foam process in accordance with Sec. 63.11416(c)(1).''
(ii) ``This facility does not use any mold release agent containing
methylene chloride in a molded flexible polyurethane foam process in
accordance with Sec. 63.11416(c)(2).''
(2) For a rebond foam affected source:
(i) ``This facility does not use any equipment cleaner which
contains methylene chloride in a rebond flexible polyurethane foam
process in accordance with Sec. 63.11416(d)(1).''
(ii) ``This facility does not use any mold release agent containing
methylene chloride in a rebond flexible polyurethane foam process in
accordance with Sec. 63.11416(d)(2).''
(3) For a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source
containing a loop slitter: ``This facility does not use any adhesive
containing methylene chloride on a loop slitter process in accordance
with Sec. 63.11416(e).''
(d) For molded foam affected sources, rebond foam affected sources,
and flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected sources containing
a loop slitter, you must maintain records of the information used to
demonstrate compliance, as required in Sec. 63.11416(f). You must
maintain the records for 5 years, with the last 2 years of data
retained on site. The remaining 3 years of data may be maintained off
site.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11418 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, applicable to sources
subject to Sec. 63.11416(b)(1) are specified in Table 1 of this
subpart.
Sec. 63.11419 What definitions apply to this subpart?
The terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA; Sec.
63.1292 of subpart III; Sec. 63.8830 of subpart MMMMM; Sec. 63.2 of
subpart A; and in this section as follows:
Flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facility means a facility
where pieces of flexible polyurethane foam are cut, bonded, and/or
laminated together or to other substrates.
Sec. 63.11420 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 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 test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). 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.
As required in Sec. 63.11418, you must comply with the
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) as shown in the following table.
Table 1 To Subpart OOOOOO of Part 63.--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart OOOOOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Subpart A reference Subpart OOOOOO? Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1................... Yes..............
Sec. 63.2................... Yes.............. Definitions are
modified and
supplemented by Sec.
63.11419.
Sec. 63.3................... Yes..............
Sec. 63.4................... Yes..............
Sec. 63.5................... Yes..............
Sec. 63.6(a)-(d)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)............. No............... Owners and operators
of subpart OOOOOO
affected sources are
not required to
develop and
implement a startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
Sec. 63.6 (f)-(g)........... Yes..............
Sec. 63.6(h)................ No............... Subpart OOOOOO does
not require opacity
and visible
emissions standards.
Sec. 63.6 (i)-(j)........... Yes..............
Sec. 63.7................... No............... Performance tests not
required by subpart
OOOOOO.
[[Page 38913]]
Sec. 63.8................... No............... Continuous
monitoring, as
defined in subpart
A, is not required
by subpart OOOOOO.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.9(e)-(g)............ No...............
Sec. 63.9(h)................ No............... Subpart OOOOOO
specifies
Notification of
Compliance Status
requirements.
Sec. 63.9 (i)-(j)........... Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(a)-(b)........... Yes.............. Except that the
records specified in
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)
are not required.
Sec. 63.10(c)............... No...............
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)-(3)........ No...............
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)............ No...............
Sec. 63.10(e)............... No...............
Sec. 63.10(f)............... Yes..............
Sec. 63.11.................. No...............
Sec. 63.12.................. Yes..............
Sec. 63.13.................. Yes..............
Sec. 63.14.................. Yes..............
Sec. 63.15.................. Yes..............
Sec. 63.16.................. Yes..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
7. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart PPPPPP to read as follows:
Subpart PPPPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources
Sec.
Applicability and Compliance Dates
63.11421 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11422 What are my compliance dates?
Standards and Compliance Requirements
63.11423 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new
and existing sources?
63.11424 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
63.11425 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11426 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11427 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart PPPPPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart PPPPPP
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11421 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a lead
acid battery manufacturing plant that is an area source of hazardous
air pollutants (HAP) emissions.
(b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source.
The affected source is each lead acid battery manufacturing plant. The
affected source includes all grid casting facilities, paste mixing
facilities, three-process operation facilities, lead oxide
manufacturing facilities, lead reclamation facilities, and any other
lead-emitting operation that is associated with the lead acid battery
manufacturing plant.
(1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
(2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
(c) This subpart does not apply to research and development
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(d) 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.
Sec. 63.11422 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart by no
later than July 16, 2008.
(b) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16,
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in
this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
(c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you
must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon
startup of your affected source.
Standards and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.11423 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
new and existing sources?
(a) You must meet all the standards for lead in 40 CFR 60.372.
(b) You must meet the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) For any emissions point controlled by a scrubbing system, you
must meet the requirements in 40 CFR 60.373.
(2) For any emissions point controlled by a fabric filter, you must
meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section and either
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section. Fabric filters equipped
with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter or other secondary
filter are allowed to monitor less frequently, as specified in
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) You must perform semiannual inspections and maintenance to
ensure proper performance of each fabric filter. This includes
inspection of structural and filter integrity. You must record the
results of these inspections.
(ii) You must install, maintain, and operate a pressure drop
monitoring device to measure the differential pressure drop across the
fabric filter during all times when the process is operating. The
pressure drop shall be recorded at least once per day. If a pressure
drop is observed outside of the normal operational ranges, you must
record the incident and take immediate
[[Page 38914]]
corrective actions. You must also record the corrective actions taken.
You must submit a monitoring system performance report in accordance
with Sec. 63.10(e)(3).
(iii) You must conduct a visible emissions observation at least
once per day to verify that no visible emissions are occurring at the
discharge point to the atmosphere from any emissions source subject to
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If visible emissions
are detected, you must record the incident and conduct an opacity
measurement in accordance with 40 CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must record the
results of each opacity measurement. If the measurement exceeds the
applicable opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) or (8), you must
submit this information in an excess emissions report required under
Sec. 63.10(e)(3).
(iv) Fabric filters equipped with a HEPA filter or other secondary
filter are allowed to monitor less frequently, as specified in
paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) If you are using a pressure drop monitoring device to measure
the differential pressure drop across the fabric filter in accordance
with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, you must record the pressure
drop at least once per week. If a pressure drop is observed outside of
the normal operational ranges, you must record the incident and take
immediate corrective actions. You must also record the corrective
actions taken. You must submit a monitoring system performance report
in accordance with Sec. 63.10(e)(3).
(B) If you are conducting visible emissions observations in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, you must conduct
such observations at least once per week and record the results in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section. If visible
emissions are detected, you must record the incident and conduct an
opacity measurement in accordance with 40 CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must
record the results of each opacity measurement. If the measurement
exceeds the applicable opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) or (8),
you must submit this information in an excess emissions report required
under Sec. 63.10(e)(3).
(c) You must meet the testing requirements in 40 CFR 60.374.
(1) Existing sources are not required to conduct a performance test
if a prior performance test was conducted using the same methods
specified in 40 CFR 60.374 and either no process changes have been made
since the test, or you can demonstrate that the results of the
performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate
compliance despite process changes.
(2) Sources without a prior performance test, as described in
paragraph (b) of this section, must conduct a performance test using
the methods specified in 40 CFR 60.374 by 180 days after the compliance
date.
Sec. 63.11424 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11425 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
(a) The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, that are
applicable to this subpart are specified in Table 1 to this subpart.
(b) For existing sources, the initial notification required by
Sec. 63.9(b) must be submitted not later than November 13, 2007.
(c) For existing sources, the notification of compliance required
by Sec. 63.9(h) must be submitted not later than September 15, 2008.
Sec. 63.11426 What definitions apply to this subpart?
The terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA; 40 CFR
60.371; 40 CFR 60.2 for terms used in the applicable provisions of part
60, subpart A, as specified in Sec. 63.11425(a); and Sec. 63.2 for
terms used in the applicable provisions of part 63, subpart A, as
specified in Sec. 63.11425(b).
Sec. 63.11427 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 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 test methods under 40 CFR
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in
Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under 40 CFR 63.8(f).
A ``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 40
CFR 63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is defined
in Sec. 63.90.
As required in Sec. 63.11425, you must comply with the
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) as shown in the following table.
Table 1 To Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPPPP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Subject PPPPPP? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1................................. Applicability.......... Yes....................
63.2................................. Definitions............ Yes....................
63.3................................. Units and Abbreviations
63.4................................. Prohibited Activities Yes....................
and Circumvention.
63.5................................. Preconstruction Review No.....................
and Notification
Requirements.
63.6(a)-(d), (e)(1), (f)-(j)......... Compliance with Yes....................
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements.
63.6(e)(3)........................... No..................... Subpart PPPPPP does not
require a startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
63.7................................. Performance Testing Yes....................
Requirements.
63.8................................. Monitoring Requirements Yes....................
[[Page 38915]]
63.9................................. ....................... Yes....................
63.10(a)-(c), (d)(1)-(4), (e), (f)... Recordkeeping and Yes....................
Reporting Requirements.
63.10(d)(5).......................... No..................... Subpart PPPPPP does not
require a startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
63.11................................ Control Device No..................... Subpart PPPPPP does not
Requirements. require flares.
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.
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(9), (b)(2), Reserved............... No.....................
(c)(3), (d), 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3),
(c)(4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii),
(h)(3), (h)(5)(iv), 63.8(a)(3),
63.9(b)(3), (h)(4), 63.10(c)(2)-
(c)(4), (c)(9).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
8. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart QQQQQQ to read as follows:
Subpart QQQQQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wood Preserving Area Sources
Sec.
Applicability and Compliance Dates
63.11428 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11429 What are my compliance dates?
Standards
63.11430 What are the standards?
63.11431 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
63.11432 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11433 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11434 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQQ of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions of Subpart QQQQQQ
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11428 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a wood
preserving operation that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emissions.
(b) The affected source is each new or existing wood preserving
operation.
(1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
(2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
(c) 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.
Sec. 63.11429 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must achieve
compliance with applicable provisions in this subpart by July 16, 2007.
(b) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16,
2007, you must achieve compliance with applicable provisions in this
subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
(c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you
must achieve compliance with applicable provisions in this subpart upon
initial startup.
Standards
Sec. 63.11430 What are the standards?
(a) If you use a pressure treatment process with any wood
preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene
chloride at a new or existing area source, the preservative must be
applied to the wood product inside a retort or similarly enclosed
vessel.
(b) If you use a thermal treatment process with any wood
preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene
chloride at a new or existing area source, the preservative must be
applied using process treatment tanks equipped with an air scavenging
system to control emissions.
(c) If you use any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic,
dioxins, or methylene chloride at a new or existing area source, you
must prepare and operate according to a management practice plan to
minimize air emissions from the preservative treatment of wood at a new
or existing area source. You may use your standard operating procedures
to meet the requirements for a management practice plan if it includes
the minimum activities required for a management practice plan. The
management practice plan must include, but is not limited to, the
following activities:
(1) Minimize preservative usage;
(2) Maintain records on the type of treatment process and types and
amounts of wood preservatives used at the facility;
(3) For the pressure treatment process, maintain charge records
identifying pressure reading(s) inside the retorts (or similarly
enclosed vessel);
(4) For the thermal treatment process, maintain records that the
air scavenging system is in place and operated properly during the
treatment process;
(5) Store treated wood product on drip pads or in a primary
containment area to convey preservative drippage to a collection system
until drippage has ceased;
(6) For the pressure treatment process, fully drain the retort to
the extent practicable, prior to opening the retort door;
(7) Promptly collect any spills; and
(8) Perform relevant corrective actions or preventative measures in
the event of a malfunction before resuming operations.
[[Page 38916]]
Sec. 63.11431 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11432 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
(a) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that
uses any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or
methylene chloride, you must comply with the requirements of the
General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, according to Table 1
to this subpart.
(b) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that
uses any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or
methylene chloride, you must submit an initial notification of
applicability required by Sec. 63.9(a)(2) no later than 90 days after
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.11429. The initial
notification may be combined with the notification of compliance status
required in paragraph (c) of this section. The notification of
applicability must include the following information:
(1) The name and address of the owner or operator;
(2) The address (i.e., physical location) of the affected source;
and
(3) An identification of the relevant standard, or other
requirement, that is the basis of the notification and the source's
compliance date.
(c) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that
uses any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or
methylene chloride, you must submit a notification of compliance status
required by Sec. 63.9(h) no later than 90 days after the applicable
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.11429. Your notification of
compliance status must include this certification of compliance, signed
by a responsible official, for the standards in Sec. 63.11430: ``This
facility complies with the management practices to minimize air
emissions from the preservative treatment of wood in accordance with
Sec. 63.11430.''
(d) You must report any deviation from the requirements of this
subpart within 30 days of the deviation.
Sec. 63.11433 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, Sec.
63.2, and in this section as follows:
Air scavenging system means an air collection and control system
that collects and removes vapors from a thermal treatment process
vessel and vents the emissions to a vapor recovery tank that collects
condensate from the vapors.
Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) means a chemical wood preservative
consisting of mixtures of water-soluble chemicals containing metal
oxides of chromium, copper, and arsenic. CCA is used in pressure
treated wood to protect wood from rotting due to insects and microbial
agents.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation or
management practice;
(2) 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; or
(3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation or management practice
in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of
whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
Pressure treatment process means a wood treatment process involving
an enclosed vessel, usually a retort, and the application of pneumatic
or hydrostatic pressure to expedite the movement of preservative liquid
into the wood.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Retort means an airtight pressure vessel, typically a long
horizontal cylinder, used for the pressure impregnation of wood
products with a liquid wood preservative.
Thermal treatment process means a non-pressurized wood treatment
process where the wood is exposed to a heated preservative.
Wood preserving means the pressure or thermal impregnation of
chemicals into wood to provide effective long-term resistance to attack
by fungi, bacteria, insects, and marine borers.
Sec. 63.11434 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 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 your State, local, or tribal agency.
(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 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 test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). 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.
As required in Sec. 63.11432, you must comply with the
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) as shown in the following table.
Table 1 To Subpart QQQQQQ of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQQQQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject QQQQQQ? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), Applicability.......... Yes....................
(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....................
[[Page 38917]]
63.4................................. Prohibited Activities Yes....................
and Circumvention.
63.5................................. Preconstruction Review No.....................
and Notification
Requirements.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7), Compliance with Yes....................
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (i), Standards and
(j). Maintenance
Requirements.
63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)- No..................... Subpart QQQQQQ does not
(e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (h)(1), require startup,
(h)(2), (h)(4), (h)(5)(i)- shutdown, and
(h)(5)(iii), (h)(v)(v), (h)(6)- malfunction plan or
(h)(9). contain emission or
opacity limits.
63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), Reserved............... No.....................
(e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3),
(h)(5)(iv).
63.7................................. Performance Testing No..................... Subpart QQQQQQ does not
Requirements. require performance
tests.
63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (b), (c), Monitoring Requirements No..................... Subpart QQQQQQ does not
(d), (e), (f), (g). require monitoring of
emissions.
63.8(a)(3)........................... Reserved............... No.....................
63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4), Notification Yes....................
(b)(5), (c), (d), (h)(1), (h)(6), Requirements.
(i), (j).
63.9(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(v), (h)(2)(i)- Yes....................
(h)(2)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5).
63.9(e), (f), (g).................... No.....................
63.9(b)(3), (h)(4)................... Reserved............... No.....................
63.10(a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(8), Recordkeeping and No..................... Subpart QQQQQQ
(c)(10)-(c)(14), (d), (e), (f). Reporting Requirements. establishes
requirements for a
report of deviations
within 30 days.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9)........... Reserved............... No.....................
63.11................................ Control Device No..................... Subpart QQQQQQ does not
Requirements. require flares.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E7-12018 Filed 7-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P