[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17492-17525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-7223]



[[Page 17491]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pesticide 
Active Ingredient Production; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67 , No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 17492]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7163-9]
RIN 2060-AJ34


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On June 23, 1999, EPA promulgated national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for Pesticide Active Ingredient 
Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM). On August 19, 20, and 23, 
1999, petitions for judicial review of the June 1999 rule were filed in 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This 
action is in response to issues raised by two of those petitioners--the 
American Crop Protection Association (ACPA) and the American Cyanamid 
Company (now BASF Corporation). In this action, EPA proposes amendments 
to the rule to address issues raised by petitioners and to correct 
inconsistencies that have been discovered since the rule was originally 
promulgated.

DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments regarding this proposal 
on or before May 10, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-95-20, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by 
courier, deliver comments (in duplicate, if possible) to: Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number 
A-95-20, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA 
requests that a separate copy of each public comment be sent to the 
contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 
Comments may also be submitted electronically by following the 
instructions provided in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket. Docket No. A-95-20 contains supporting information used in 
developing the NESHAP. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall 
(ground floor) and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday (except for Federal holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Organic Chemicals 
Group, Emission Standards Division (Mail Code C504-04), U.S. EPA, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 
541-5402, electronic mail address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-
mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted 
either as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and 
encryption problems or on disks in WordPerfect file format. All 
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket 
number A-95-20. No confidential business information (CBI) should be 
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Randy McDonald, c/o 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27709. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI 
only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is 
received by EPA, the information may be made available to the public 
without further notice to the commenter.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of the 
information considered by the EPA in the development of this 
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added 
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to 
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify 
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the 
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards 
and their preambles, the contents of the docket, excluding interagency 
review materials, will serve as the record in the case of judicial 
review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).) The 
regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are 
available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request 
from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying docket materials.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this action will also be available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this action will be posted on the EPA's TTN policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN at EPA's web site provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information 
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. The regulated category and entities affected by 
this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Examples of regulated
              Category                     NAICS codes              SIC codes                  entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...........................  Typically, 325199 and   Typically, 2869 and      Producers of
                                      325320.                 2879.                   pesticide active
                                                                                      ingredients that contain
                                                                                      organic compounds that are
                                                                                      used in herbicides,
                                                                                      insecticides, or
                                                                                      fungicides.
                                                                                      Producers of any
                                                                                      integral intermediate used
                                                                                      in onsite production of an
                                                                                      active ingredient used in
                                                                                      an herbicide, insecticide,
                                                                                      or fungicide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers likely to be interested in the revisions to the rule 
affected by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, 
business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should 
carefully examine all of the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1360 of 
the rule, as well as in today's proposed amendments to the 
applicability sections. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of these amendments to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the

[[Page 17493]]

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Why are we proposing amendments to the rule?
II. What amendments are we proposing?
    A. Requirements for which the Petitioners Requested 
Clarification
    B. Proposed Amendments Related to Petitioner's Issues
    C. Other Amendments to Correct the Rule
III. What are the administrative requirements for the proposed 
amendments?
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children for 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. Why Are We Proposing Amendments to the Rule?

    On June 23, 1999, we promulgated NESHAP for Pesticide Active 
Ingredient Production as subpart MMM in 40 CFR part 63 (64 FR 33550). 
On August 19 and 20, 1999, the American Crop Protection Association and 
American Cyanamid Company (now BASF Corporation) filed petitions for 
judicial review of the promulgated Pesticide Active Ingredient (PAI) 
Production NESHAP in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit, ACPA v. EPA, No. 99-1332, and American Cyanamid 
Company v. EPA, No. 99-1334 (Consolidated with ACPA v. EPA, No. 99-
1332) (D.C. Cir.). The petitioners raised issues regarding the 
applicability of the rule, the alternative standard, alternatives to 
the standard for storage vessels, outlet concentration standards, 
procedures for calculating emissions averaging credits, initial 
compliance requirements for condensers, and performance testing over an 
entire batch cycle.
    On January 18, 2002, ACPA and EPA signed a settlement agreement, 
which provides that EPA will propose amendments to the PAI NESHAP and 
include preamble discussion to clarify various issues raised by 
petitioners. Notice of this agreement was published in the Federal 
Register on February 4, 2002 pursuant to the requirements of CAA 
section 113(g). (67 FR 5116).
    Today's proposed amendments address the issues raised by ACPA and 
BASF Corporation, and include additional corrections and clarifications 
to ensure that the rule is implemented as intended. Some of the 
proposed amendments provide new compliance options and other new 
provisions that would reduce the burden associated with demonstrating 
compliance. For example, vapor balancing is proposed as a compliance 
option for storage tanks in Sec. 63.1362(c). We are proposing to 
eliminate the requirement to calculate uncontrolled emissions under 
certain circumstances if performance testing is conducted over the 
entire batch cycle. We are also proposing to allow compliance 
demonstrations based on either total organic compound (TOC) or total 
organic hazardous air pollutants.

II. What Amendments Are We Proposing?

    This section of the preamble describes the changes that we are 
proposing to make to subpart MMM. The following discussion is organized 
into three sections. The first section focuses on provisions for which 
the petitioners requested clarification. For some of these provisions 
we are proposing amendments; others do not require changes to the rule. 
The second section describes proposed amendments to address other 
issues raised by the petitioners. The third section consists of 
proposed technical corrections that we believe are necessary to ensure 
that the rule is implemented as intended, correct errors, and maintain 
consistency with other rules. We are soliciting comment on the specific 
revisions to the PAI Production rule that are described below and 
proposed today. We are not seeking comment on portions of the rule that 
we are not currently proposing to change.

A. Requirements for Which the Petitioners Requested Clarification

    The petitioners requested clarification of six provisions: New 
source applicability; the concept of process unit groups; differences 
between the alternative standard and the outlet concentration standard; 
pollution prevention; initial compliance when using a condenser to 
control emissions; and the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
requirements.
1. New Source Applicability
    Subpart MMM as promulgated on June 23, 1999, specified that new 
source standards apply to two types of entities: An affected source for 
which construction or reconstruction commenced after November 10, 1997; 
and any single PAI process unit that is not part of a PAI process unit 
group, for which construction commenced after November 10, 1997, and 
that has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any 
single HAP or 25 tpy or more of combined HAP. Petitioners requested 
clarification that modifications of existing process units to create a 
new or different PAI process unit do not trigger new source 
requirements.
    New source requirements apply to PAI process units only if the 
equipment meets the definition of either ``construction'' or 
``reconstruction,'' and the construction or reconstruction commences 
after November 10, 1997. A PAI process unit is the processing equipment 
that is used to produce a PAI or integral intermediate, as well as 
associated storage tanks, piping to connect the processing equipment, 
and components such as valves, connectors, and pumps. Our intent is 
that ``construction'' applies only to PAI process units added at a site 
previously without an affected source, or the addition of a dedicated 
PAI process unit with potential to emit greater than 10 tpy of one HAP 
or 25 tpy of combined HAP at an affected source. To clarify our intent, 
we are proposing several changes to the rule, most of which involve 
definitions. We are proposing to revise the definitions of the terms 
``construction'' and ``reconstruction'' and to add definitions for 
``reconfiguration,'' ``dedicated PAI process unit,'' and ``non-
dedicated PAI process unit.'' We are also clarifying the new source 
applicability language in Sec. 63.1360(b).
    The original definition of the term ``construction'' indicated that 
it applied to an affected source or a PAI process unit. The definition 
also specified that addition of new equipment to an existing PAI 
process unit does not constitute construction. To clarify this term, we 
are proposing to provide additional statements specifying actions that 
do not constitute construction. These actions include the creation of 
non-dedicated PAI process units by reconfiguration of equipment or 
changes in the raw materials processed (at affected sources), and 
addition of new equipment to an affected source (provided the new 
equipment is not a dedicated PAI process unit with the potential to 
emit greater than the 10 or 25 tpy thresholds). We are also proposing 
to delete the exception in the original definition because it is 
redundant with the more comprehensive revised statements.

[[Page 17494]]

    The definition of ``reconstruction'' in the June 23, 1999 NESHAP 
references the definition in Sec. 63.2 of the General Provisions. We 
are proposing to revise this definition to be consistent with changes 
made for other rules, such as 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, by replacing 
the phrase ``affected or previously unaffected stationary source'' with 
the phrase ``affected source or PAI process unit.'' This change makes 
it clear that the replacement of equipment meeting the capital cost 
criteria in the General Provisions applies to individual PAI process 
units with a potential to emit of 10 or 25 tpy as well as to the entire 
affected source.
    A ``dedicated PAI process unit'' is defined as a process unit 
constructed from equipment that is fixed in place and designed and 
operated to produce only a single product or co-products. The equipment 
is not designed to be reconfigured or operated with different raw 
materials. ``Non-dedicated PAI process units'' are any PAI process 
units that are not dedicated PAI process units. ``Reconfiguration'' 
refers to changes in the arrangement or operation of non-dedicated 
equipment to create a different process unit (either PAI or non-PAI).
    The final changes to clarify this issue involve the language in 
Sec. 63.1360(b)(2). The intent has always been that the new source 
requirements apply to what we are now calling a ``dedicated PAI process 
unit.'' Therefore, we are proposing to use this term in paragraph 
(b)(2) instead of the phrase ``any single PAI process unit.'' We are 
also proposing to delete the current paragraph (b)(2)(i), which states 
that new source requirements apply only to PAI process units that are 
``not part of a process unit group.'' The provision in paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) could be misinterpreted to mean that you must develop process 
unit groups. This interpretation is incorrect because developing 
process unit groups is optional; you could elect to develop process 
unit groups if subpart MMM and other maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) rules apply to the same processing equipment and you 
want to minimize the number of different requirements for the equipment 
with which you must comply. The purpose of the statement in paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) was to ensure that new source requirements are not applied to 
individual process units that we are now defining as ``non-dedicated 
PAI process units.'' The proposed change to paragraph (b)(2), to 
specify that new source requirements apply to dedicated PAI process 
units, as described above, serves the same purpose.
    To illustrate how the new source requirements would be triggered, 
we have developed the following scenarios.
    Scenario: I have an affected source on the effective date. Am I 
subject to new source requirements for a non-dedicated PAI process unit 
that I create after November 10, 1997, using equipment that was 
installed and operating before November 10, 1997?
    Response: No, any non-dedicated PAI process unit you create solely 
from existing equipment is subject to existing source standards. It 
does not matter what type of product(s) you have produced in the past 
or whether you have ever produced the PAI before. To create a non-
dedicated PAI process unit from existing equipment, you would either 
reconfigure the equipment or change the raw materials. The proposed 
change to the definition of ``construction'' clarifies that neither of 
these changes constitutes construction. In addition, because these 
changes do not include replacement of equipment, they also do not meet 
the definition of ``reconstruction'' in the General Provisions. 
Therefore, these changes do not satisfy the criteria in 
Sec. 63.1360(b)(1). If you already have a PAI affected source as 
specified in Sec. 63.1360(a), the newly created non-dedicated PAI 
process unit expands that affected source.
    Scenario: If I have an affected source, am I subject to new source 
requirements for a non-dedicated PAI process unit that I create after 
November 10, 1997, using a mixture of new equipment and equipment 
installed and operating before November 10, 1997?
    Response: No, if the amount of new equipment added does not 
constitute reconstruction. The revised definition of ``construction'' 
specifies that addition of equipment to an affected source does not 
constitute construction unless it is to construct a dedicated PAI 
process unit with the potential to emit greater than either the 10 or 
25 tpy threshold. Therefore, the newly created non-dedicated PAI 
process unit becomes part of and expands the affected source, which is 
subject to existing source standards. Any non-dedicated PAI process 
units created in the future by reconfiguring this equipment are also 
subject to existing source standards for the reasons given in the 
discussion above.
    Scenario: My facility was built and operating before November 10, 
1997 with no PAI affected source. After November 10, 1997, I add non-
dedicated equipment. Am I subject to new source standards for any PAI 
process unit that I create from this equipment?
    Response: Yes. The first PAI process unit (that uses, processes, or 
produces HAP) constitutes construction of an affected source. Because 
the construction commenced after November 10, 1997, the affected source 
is a new affected source in accordance with Sec. 63.1360(b)(1). All PAI 
process units created in the future by reconfiguring the equipment, 
adding to the equipment, or by changing raw materials would also be 
subject to new source standards because they are process changes or 
additions to the applicable affected source, which in this case is a 
new affected source.
    Scenario: My facility is a major source consisting of non-dedicated 
equipment that was built after April 10, 2002. Are all of my PAI 
process units subject to new source standards?
    Response: Yes, for the same reasons discussed in the preceding 
example.
2. Process Unit Groups
    Many different MACT rules may apply to the same multi-purpose 
equipment because many different process units may be created from this 
equipment, depending on how it is configured or the raw materials used. 
To minimize the compliance burden, the June 23, 1999, promulgated rule 
included an option based on ``process unit groups'' (PUG). A ``process 
unit group'' is a collection of processing equipment from which you 
create both non-dedicated PAI process units and non-dedicated process 
units for other types of products. The purpose and potential advantage 
of the PUG option is that, under certain conditions, it allows you to 
comply with a MACT rule that applies to a non-PAI process unit in the 
PUG, both when the equipment is configured as the non-PAI process unit 
and when it is configured as a PAI process unit. Typically, the 
applicable MACT rule is selected based on the primary product of the 
PUG. These provisions are specified in Sec. 63.1360(h), and the term 
``process unit group'' is defined in Sec. 63.1361. Developing PUG is 
entirely optional.
    Petitioners noted that the definition of ``process unit group'' in 
Sec. 63.1361 differs from the description in the preamble to the 
promulgated rule, and they recommended that the rule be changed to 
match the preamble. They also requested that we clarify compliance 
procedures because the requirements in the promulgated rule are 
confusing, particularly with respect to different primary products, and 
in situations where future MACT rules may apply to the same equipment. 
In

[[Page 17495]]

this preamble we clarify our intent regarding how to comply under the 
PUG option, and we describe proposed changes to the definition of the 
term ``process unit group'' to make it consistent with previous 
descriptions. We are also proposing changes to Sec. 63.1360(h) to 
clarify and simplify compliance with the PUG option.
    The PUG option allows you to develop groups to accommodate your 
site-specific situation subject to the following constraints: (1) For 
equipment used to create a PAI process unit to be part of the group, 
some of the equipment must overlap with equipment in at least one other 
PAI process unit in the group, (2) for equipment used to create a non-
PAI process unit to be part of the group, some of the equipment must 
overlap with at least one PAI process unit in the group, and (3) a PAI 
process unit may not be part of more than one process unit group. Thus, 
it is possible that all of the non-dedicated equipment at a facility 
could be part of just one process unit group. On the other hand, if 
there are distinct processing areas within the plant, and there is no 
overlap in the PAI products produced in those areas, and no equipment 
is shared between the areas, then there would have to be more than one 
PUG.
    To clarify the rule, we are proposing to specifically include the 
above constraints in Sec. 63.1360(h)(1). In addition, we are proposing 
that you initially create the group by starting with one non-dedicated 
PAI process unit that is operating on December 23, 2003 (or later) and 
then include any other non-dedicated PAI process units and non-
dedicated non-PAI process units that you expect to be operated in the 
subsequent 5 years, subject to the constraints listed above. In the 
future, you can include new process units in a PUG if any of the 
equipment in the new process unit overlaps equipment in any of the 
process units already in the PUG. A record of process units added to a 
PUG must be maintained and included in Periodic reports.
    Also, Sec. 63.1360(h)(2) and (3) specify two possible compliance 
options for the PAI process units in a PUG. The first option is that 
you may comply with the NESHAP for Pharmaceuticals Production (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart GGG) for each PAI process unit in the PUG if there is 
at least one pharmaceutical manufacturing process unit in the group. 
Note, however, that Sec. 63.1360(h)(2)(i) through (iii) specify three 
provisions in subpart GGG that do not apply.
    The second option involves first determining the primary product of 
the process unit group. We are proposing that the primary product be 
the category of products (e.g., PAI, pharmaceutical product, 
thermoplastic resin, etc.) that is expected to be produced for the 
greatest operating time (or have the greatest production on a mass 
basis) in the 5 years after the group is created, based on the process 
units initially in the group. You must redetermine the primary product 
if you do not intend to produce any of the product in the future, or 
you have not produced any of it for 5 years and include results of the 
redetermination in the next Periodic report.
    If the primary product is a material that was subject to another 
MACT standard on June 23, 1999, or it is (or was) subject to another 
MACT standard upon startup of the first process unit(s) in the PUG, 
whichever is later, then you may comply with the subpart for that 
material for each PAI process unit in the PUG. Although other subparts 
have more stringent process vent emission limits than subpart MMM, the 
applicability cutoffs are often higher than the cutoffs specified in 
the definition of ``Group 1 process vents'' in Sec. 63.1361 of subpart 
MMM. Therefore, we are proposing to add a provision in 
Sec. 63.1360(h)(3) specifying that you must comply with the control 
requirements of the subpart that applies to the primary product of the 
PUG for all PAI process units in the PUG that have Group 1 process 
vents, regardless of the applicability cutoffs in the other subpart.
    If the primary product is a material that is not yet subject to a 
MACT standard, then you must comply with the PAI rule for all PAI 
process units in the PUG. If in the future, a rule is developed that 
applies to the primary product (e.g., the Miscellaneous Organic 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (HON)), that 
rule will have to specify any alternative to this provision. Note that 
the primary product is the type of product that is subject to a MACT 
standard (e.g., PAI, pharmaceutical, MON chemicals, etc.), not an 
individual compound or material. For example, if you make five PAI and 
one specialty chemical, you sum the operating hours (or mass produced, 
if the operating hours for different types of products are equal) for 
all five PAI to determine if PAI are the primary product.
    Another proposed change clarifies what constitutes reconstruction 
for PAI process units in a process unit group and the applicable 
requirements. A new paragraph (h)(4) to Sec. 63.1360, specifies that 
the requirements for new and reconstructed sources under the 
alternative subpart apply to all of the PAI process units in the 
process unit group if, and only if, the affected source under the 
alternative subpart meets the requirements for reconstruction.
    Finally, we are also proposing to revise the definition of 
``process unit group'' to be consistent with the above discussion. The 
current definition limits equipment in a group to equipment that has 
been or could be part of a PAI process unit. This restriction could 
limit a PUG to only PAI process units, which effectively negates the 
potential benefits of creating a PUG. A PUG has to include complete 
process units (not just some of the equipment) for the production of 
products other than PAI for it to minimize the impact of overlapping 
MACT standards. Therefore, we are proposing to replace the second 
sentence in the definition of ``process unit group'' with a statement 
that a PUG ``consists of all equipment used in one or more PAI process 
units, and it may include all of the equipment used in other process 
units that have equipment that overlaps with the PAI process unit(s).''
3. Comparison of Alternative Standard and Outlet Concentration Standard
    For storage tanks and process vents, the rule provides two 
compliance options that are based on an outlet concentration. One 
option (specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iv)(A), (b)(3)(ii), 
(b)(4)(ii)(A), (b)(5)(ii), (b)(5)(iii) for process vents, and 
Sec. 63.1362(c)(2)(iv)(B) for storage tanks) is simply referred to as 
the outlet concentration option. The other option is the alternative 
standard (specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(6) and (c)(4)). The differences 
between these options include the initial compliance procedures, 
monitoring techniques, and the way violations are assessed.
    Initial and ongoing compliance procedures under the outlet 
concentration option are similar to those for the percent reduction 
option. For example, you demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a 
performance test (the design evaluation option is not allowed for 
demonstrating compliance with the outlet concentration), you establish 
monitoring levels for control device operating parameters during the 
initial test, and you demonstrate ongoing compliance by not exceeding 
these levels. Because the test must be conducted under the most 
challenging conditions that the control device will experience while 
being used to control PAI emissions, you also need to develop an 
emission profile to identify the most challenging conditions. This 
requires calculating the uncontrolled emissions for all emission

[[Page 17496]]

episodes that are routed to the control device.
    Compliance procedures are much simpler for the alternative 
standard. This option requires the use of continuous emission 
monitoring systems (CEMS) to demonstrate ongoing compliance at all 
times beginning on the compliance date. The only initial requirement is 
to conduct a performance evaluation in accordance with the General 
Provisions. There is no need to calculate uncontrolled emissions or to 
develop an emissions profile. An ongoing requirement is to conduct a 
quality control program in accordance with Sec. 63.8(d) of the General 
Provisions, which is likely to be more involved than the annual 
calibration requirements for parameter monitoring instruments.
    Exceedances under the outlet concentration option are considered 
exceedances of the operating limit, whereas exceedances under the 
alternative standard are considered exceedances of the emission limit. 
In addition, compliance under the outlet concentration option is 
determined for each emission point or process, whereas compliance under 
the alternative standard is determined at the control device.
4. Pollution Prevention
    As specified in Sec. 63.1362(g), the pollution prevention 
alternative requires either an 85 percent or 50 percent reduction in 
the ``HAP factor'' (i.e., the HAP consumption per unit of production). 
In addition, if the HAP are also volatile organic compounds (VOC), an 
equivalent reduction (on a mass basis) is required in the VOC factor. 
This requirement to reduce the VOC factor differs from the proposed 
rule (62 FR 60566, November 10, 1997), which would have required only 
that the VOC factor not increase. The petitioners want us to reinstate 
the proposed language.
    In the preamble to the promulgated rule (64 FR 33576, June 23, 
1999), we provided two reasons for changing the VOC factor 
requirements. One reason is that our intent with the pollution 
prevention alternative is to recognize those processes that reduce 
solvent usage. The proposed rule would have allowed VOC substitution 
for the HAP, without any reduction in total solvent usage. Merely 
substituting one pollutant for another is inconsistent with the concept 
of pollution prevention. A second reason for making the change is that 
the proposed language gives an unfair advantage to affected sources 
using HAP solvents that are also VOC as opposed to using HAP solvents 
that are not VOC. As proposed, an affected source using HAP solvents 
that are also VOC could switch to a low-VOC solvent and possibly comply 
with the pollution prevention alternative, but an affected source using 
HAP solvents that are not VOC would be unable to comply with the 
pollution prevention alternative after making such a switch. We 
continue to believe in the validity of the rationale for requiring a 
reduction in the VOC factor if the HAP are also VOC. Therefore, we are 
not proposing changes in the pollution prevention alternative.
5. Initial Compliance for Condensers
    Based on a review of the project database and the public comments 
on the proposed rule, it appears that this issue is focused on 
compliance for storage tanks. We are not aware of any ambient process 
vent emission streams that are (or likely would be) controlled with a 
condenser, but several storage tanks are controlled with condensers. We 
have also assumed the petitioner is asking for clarification of 
compliance for the percent reduction option because we expect that 
using a condenser to reduce emissions to less than 50 parts per million 
by volume (ppmv) is unlikely for a stored material with a maximum true 
vapor pressure greater than 3.45 kilo Pascals (kPa) (i.e., the Group 1 
storage tank cutoff).
    Section 63.1365(d)(1) specifies how to demonstrate initial 
compliance with the percent reduction emission limitation for storage 
tanks. You may conduct either a performance test or a design evaluation 
to demonstrate that the condenser achieves at least a 95 percent 
reduction when the tank is filled at the reasonably expected maximum 
filling rate. For the performance test option, you use an applicable 
test method to measure the inlet and outlet mass of HAP and use the 
results to calculate the percent reduction. As specified in 
Sec. 63.1366(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(3), you must measure the outlet gas 
temperature during the test to establish the maximum level for use in 
demonstrating ongoing compliance. Alternatively, you are not required 
to conduct a performance test while filling the tank if you conducted a 
performance test for the same condenser to demonstrate compliance with 
process vent emission limits, and the demonstrated reduction was at 
least 95 percent.
    For the design evaluation option, you must prepare documentation to 
demonstrate that the required reduction is achieved. The documentation 
requirements are specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(1)(iii). However, we are 
proposing some changes to that paragraph to clarify the requirements. 
The current language requires you to establish the ``design outlet 
organic HAP compound concentration level,'' the ``design average 
temperature of the condenser exhaust,'' and the ``design average 
temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet.'' 
Our proposed changes would require you to establish the temperature of 
the condenser exhaust vent stream and the corresponding organic HAP 
compound concentration level for which the required reduction is 
achieved. Knowledge of the coolant temperatures may help you confirm 
that the outlet vent stream temperature is achievable, but it is not 
needed to establish that required temperature; therefore, we are 
proposing to delete that requirement. We are also proposing to delete 
the requirement to measure the outlet gas stream temperature for use in 
establishing the outlet concentration. Measurement of the temperature 
is an essential part of demonstrating continuous compliance with the 
temperature limit established in the design evaluation, but it serves 
no purpose in establishing the required temperature limit.
    The rule does not specify the ambient temperature at which the 
performance test or design evaluation must be conducted. This is 
consistent with other rules that specify compliance procedures for 
condensers used to control storage tank emissions. In a design 
evaluation, standard procedure is to use some representative or median 
summer temperature. Thus, the design evaluation will show that the 
required reduction is achieved for the maximum uncontrolled emission 
rate. Similarly, conducting a performance test on a warm summer day 
will demonstrate that the required reduction is achieved for the 
maximum uncontrolled emission rate. If you elect to conduct a test on a 
cool day, your monitoring temperature limit will be set based on those 
conditions, which also ensures that compliance will be met or exceeded 
on the warmest days with higher uncontrolled emissions.
6. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements
    During discussions, petitioners expressed reservations regarding 
the flexibility of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions, 
and they requested clarification of these provisions.
    Startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions were developed to 
accommodate the fact that the emissions characteristics of an affected 
unit can be substantially different during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction than during normal operations. As specified in 
Sec. 63.1360(e), affected sources are not

[[Page 17497]]

required to meet the specified MACT emission limitations during periods 
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. Instead, affected sources must 
develop (and operate in accordance with) a startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan, which would require sources to operate ``in a manner 
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions.'' For instance, this general duty clause does not require an 
affected source to install a duplicate control system to meet the 
emissions limitations during periods of malfunction of the primary 
control system or during periods of process upset when operation could 
damage the control system (i.e., the only times when a control system 
may be shutdown, as specified in Sec. 63.1360(e)(3)). It may be 
feasible in some of these cases, however, that a source could reroute 
emissions to another control device already in existence at the 
facility, which would also constitute good engineering practices.

B. Proposed Amendments Related to Petitioners Issues

    After reviewing issues raised by the petitioners, we are proposing 
amendments to clarify applicability requirements; add and modify 
compliance options, initial compliance requirements, and monitoring 
requirements; and clarify definitions. We are also correcting several 
referencing errors.
1. Storage Vessel Applicability
    Section 63.1360(f)(3) of the rule as promulgated on June 23, 1999, 
specified that a storage tank in a tank farm is part of an affected 
source only if the greatest input to or output from the tank is 
associated with PAI processes and there is no intervening storage tank 
between the tank farm and the process. We are proposing changes to this 
section that would allow owners and operators the option to include 
storage vessels in the affected source even if there is an intervening 
tank. We are not, however, changing the requirement that the primary 
input or output must be associated with PAI processes.
    Without this amendment, the excluded tanks in the tank farm would 
be subject to the Organic Liquids (non-gasoline) Distribution MACT 
rule, currently under development. We anticipate that the proposed 
requirements for that rule will be similar to the requirements in the 
hazardous organic NESHAP (HON) (Sec. 63.119(a) of subpart G), which has 
less stringent capacity and maximum true vapor pressure cutoffs than 
Sec. 63.1362(c) of subpart MMM. Notwithstanding the stringency of these 
standards, sources may choose this option in order to reduce the burden 
associated with complying with multiple standards.
2. Process Unit Groups
    We are proposing to redesignate Sec. 63.1360(h)(1)(i) and (ii) as 
Sec. 63.1360(h)(2)(i) and (ii) and then make four technical corrections 
to the language. These paragraphs would specify exceptions to the 
provisions in the Pharmaceuticals NESHAP, subpart GGG. Because the 
Pharmaceuticals NESHAP was amended on August 29, 2000 (65 FR 52588), 
the changes described below are necessary to ensure the PAI NESHAP are 
consistent with the amended subpart GGG.
    The first proposed change is to Sec. 63.1360(h)(2)(i). Because the 
requirements in Sec. 63.1254 were rearranged when subpart GGG was 
amended, we are proposing to replace the now incorrect reference to 
Sec. 63.1254(a)(1) in Sec. 63.1360(h)(2)(i) with the correct reference 
to Sec. 63.1254(a)(2).
    The other three proposed technical corrections are in 
Sec. 63.1360(h)(2)(ii). In the rule as promulgated on June 23, 1999, 
this paragraph specifies that, for the purposes of subpart MMM, the 
date June 23, 1999 shall apply instead of the date April 2, 1997 in 
Sec. 63.1254(a)(iii) of subpart GGG. Our first proposed change is to 
replace the incorrect reference to Sec. 63.1254(a)(iii) with the 
correct reference to Sec. 63.1254(a)(3)(ii). Because the grandfathering 
provisions in Sec. 63.1254(a)(3)(ii) apply to control devices installed 
before the original proposal date of subpart GGG (i.e., April 2, 1997), 
our second proposed change is to replace ``June 23, 1999'' with 
``November 10, 1997'' to be consistent with the intent in subpart GGG 
(i.e., this change replaces the promulgation date of subpart MMM with 
the proposal date). Section 63.1254(a)(3)(ii) also contains provisions 
for replacing or upgrading control devices before April 2, 2007 (i.e., 
10 years after the proposal date). Therefore, our third proposed change 
is to specify that when this date applies in Sec. 63.1254(a)(3)(ii), 
the date of November 10, 2007 shall apply for the purposes of subpart 
MMM.
3. Vapor Balancing for Storage Vessels
    We are proposing to allow vapor balancing in conjunction with the 
use of a pressure setting to comply with the storage vessel 
requirements. The vapor balancing option would also require that 
displaced vapors from the tank trucks and railcars be controlled at the 
reloading or cleaning facility to at least 95 percent or be vapor 
balanced.
    In general, a pressure setting of at least 2.5 pounds per square 
inch gage (psig) was determined to eliminate breathing losses from 
storage vessels that are typically found in this industry. As a means 
of demonstrating continuous compliance with the pressure setting 
requirement, the proposed provisions would require the owner or 
operator to monitor the pressure relief valve on a quarterly basis to 
ensure no breathing losses.
    To demonstrate compliance with the offsite provisions, the owner or 
operator must obtain a certification from the cleaning and reloading 
facility indicating that the control requirements will be met. In 
addition, tank trucks and railcars would be required to have current 
certification in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation 
pressure test requirements, and the owner or operator would be required 
to keep a record of the certifications. All of the vapor balancing 
provisions are consistent with subpart GGG.
4. Planned Routine Maintenance of Control Devices for Storage Vessels
    Currently, the rule specifies that an owner or operator is exempt 
from the standards for storage tanks during periods of planned routine 
maintenance of a control device for up to 240 hours per year (hr/yr). 
We are proposing to allow an owner or operator to submit an application 
to the Administrator requesting an extension of the time limit to a 
total of 360 hr/yr. The application would have to explain why the 
extension is needed, indicate that no material will be added to the 
storage vessel between the time the 240 hour limit is exceeded and the 
control device is again operational, and be submitted at least 60 days 
before the 240 hour limit will be exceeded. In the event that planned 
routine maintenance for a particular control device cannot be completed 
in less than 240 hr/yr, this option would reduce the burden on an owner 
or operator who would otherwise be required to take the storage vessel 
out of service. Allowing the time extension may also result in less 
emissions than emptying and degassing the storage vessel.
5. The Alternative Standard
    We are proposing to raise the concentration limit for HAP emissions 
at the outlet of a non-combustion device from 20 ppmv to 50 ppmv. The 
proposed change is a result of reconsideration of the process vent 
stream data used in the MACT floor analysis and consideration of the 
limitations and advantages of non-combustion control technologies. The

[[Page 17498]]

definition of process vent stream from an organic chemical 
manufacturing process was developed in the HON where the minimum HAP 
concentration is 50 ppmv. The same definition of vent stream is used in 
subpart MMM. In the MACT floor analysis, we included only process vents 
with HAP concentrations of 50 ppmv or greater, and where data were 
available to calculate HAP concentrations in process vent emission 
streams, we excluded those vents with HAP concentrations less than 50 
ppmv from the MACT floor analysis.
    We selected 20 ppmv for the alternative standard because ample data 
suggest this is an achievable level for properly operated combustion 
devices. However, we do not have data to demonstrate that 20 ppmv is 
also achievable for non-combustion devices. Raising the concentration 
limit for non-combustion devices to 50 ppmv would make the alternative 
standard consistent with the data used in establishing the MACT floor 
and allow the possible use of such control technology as carbon 
adsorption, oil scrubbers, and biofiltration. These control 
technologies have much less impact on the environment than thermal 
oxidation and have potential for recovery and reuse of HAP. In most 
cases, it is likely to achieve much greater control because the HAP 
concentration in process vent emissions at the surveyed facilities is 
rarely less than 500 ppmv. Finally, we want to encourage facilities to 
comply with the MACT standard by implementing the alternative standard 
because we believe CEMS are the best way to demonstrate ongoing 
compliance.
6. Outlet Concentration Emission Limits
    We are proposing changes to make the outlet concentration emission 
limit option more flexible for process vents, storage vessels, and 
wastewater. Currently, the rule specifies (in Sec. 63.1362(b) and (c)) 
that organic HAP emissions be reduced to concentrations less than or 
equal to 20 ppmv as TOC. Similarly, control devices used to reduce 
emissions from waste management units must achieve an outlet TOC 
concentration of 20 ppmv because Sec. 63.1362(d)(12) specifies that the 
total organic HAP limit in Sec. 63.139 of the HON does not apply. To 
provide greater flexibility, we are proposing to change this option so 
that an affected source may reduce outlet concentrations to 20 ppmv or 
less of either TOC or total organic HAP.
    For all of the emission points, the MACT floors (and regulatory 
alternatives above the floor) are based on the percent reduction of 
organic HAP. The outlet concentration format is also provided because 
we realize that there is a practical limit of control for emission 
streams with relatively low HAP concentrations. The 20 ppmv as TOC 
option was specified in the June 23, 1999 promulgated rule because it 
is the limit of control for most control devices, and it is the most 
stringent concentration limit. For most streams, however, control to an 
outlet concentration of 20 ppmv as HAP would also be equivalent to a 
reduction far greater than the required 90 or 95 percent reductions, 
depending on the emission point. Based on data from surveyed 
facilities, very few process vents have HAP concentrations between 50 
ppmv and 200 ppmv (i.e., between the proposed cutoff in the definition 
of a process vent and the minimum inlet concentration needed to achieve 
a 90 percent reduction if the outlet is 20 ppmv as HAP). Plus, for 
Group 1 storage vessels, the maximum true vapor pressure cutoffs of 
16.5 kPa for existing sources and 3.45 kPa for new sources (compared to 
standard atmospheric pressure of 101.3 kPa) means the minimum 
uncontrolled HAP concentrations that must be controlled are well above 
the levels needed to achieve at least 95 percent control when the 
outlet is 20 ppmv as HAP. Therefore, we believe that control will 
continue to be at least equivalent to the MACT floor after implementing 
the proposed change.
    We are also proposing a related change in Sec. 63.1365(a)(2). This 
paragraph specifies procedures for calculating emissions concentrations 
as part of an initial compliance determination. The third sentence in 
this paragraph currently states that ``if compliance with the percent 
reduction format of the standard is being determined based on total 
organic HAP, the owner or operator shall compute total organic HAP * * 
*'' We are proposing to delete the reference to the ``percent reduction 
format of the standard'' in this sentence to be consistent with the 
proposed change described above that would also allow compliance with 
the outlet concentration standard to be demonstrated based on total 
organic HAP.
7. Wastewater Standards
    We are proposing several technical corrections to the wastewater 
standards. According to the rule promulgated on June 23, 1999, the 
referenced provisions of the HON specify that only Method 18 of 40 CFR 
part 60 may be used to demonstrate compliance with the standards for 
control devices used to control emissions vented from waste management 
units. For other emission streams, however, the promulgated rule allows 
compliance to be demonstrated using Method 25 or Method 25A of 40 CFR 
part 60, under applicable conditions for the method. To correct this 
unintended disparity, we are proposing to specify in 
Sec. 63.1362(d)(12) that an owner or operator may elect to use Method 
25 or Method 25A as an alternative to Method 18 when Method 18 is 
specified in Secs. 63.139(c)(1)(ii) and 63.145(i)(2). We are also 
proposing to add a similar statement in Sec. 63.1365(e), which 
specifies the elements of Sec. 63.145 of the HON which are to be used 
to demonstrate initial compliance with the wastewater standards.
    Section 63.139(c)(1)(ii) of the cross-referenced HON wastewater 
provisions specifies that outlet concentrations from combustion devices 
are to be corrected to 3 percent oxygen at all times. Section 
63.1362(d)(13) of subpart MMM as promulgated on June 23, 1999 specifies 
that the correction is required only if supplemental gases are combined 
with affected streams. This statement was included in the rule to 
ensure that the cross-referenced requirements for wastewater emissions 
do not conflict with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7). 
However, to further clarify this point, we are proposing to add a 
statement to Sec. 63.1362(d)(13) specifying that the procedures to 
determine the percent oxygen correction in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7) apply 
instead of the procedures in Sec. 63.145(i)(6).
    In the rule as promulgated on June 23, 1999, Sec. 63.1362(d)(14) 
required covered waste management units or a determination that less 
than 5 percent of the HAP are emitted from the units for all wastewater 
sent offsite for biological treatment. We are proposing to specify that 
these restrictions apply only to Group 1 wastewater to be consistent 
with the applicability requirements in Sec. 63.132(g) of the HON.
    The requirements for wastewater tanks in Sec. 63.1362(d), which 
cross-reference the requirements in Sec. 63.133 of the HON, differ 
depending on the maximum true vapor pressure of the HAP in the stored 
wastewater. The vapor pressure cutoffs are specified in Table 10 to 
subpart G of part 63. Since all of the other wastewater provisions 
apply only to the HAP listed in Table 9 to subpart G of part 63, we are 
proposing to specify in Sec. 63.1362(d)(15) that the vapor pressure 
cutoffs in Table 10 to subpart G of part 63 also apply only to the HAP 
in Table 9 of subpart G of part 63 for the purposes of subpart MMM.

[[Page 17499]]

    Section 63.1365(b)(8) requires wastewater analyses to be conducted 
in accordance with the test methods and procedures specified in 
Sec. 63.144 of the HON. We are proposing to add a statement to this 
paragraph specifying that an owner or operator may also use Method 1666 
or Method 1671 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A, without performing the 
validation procedures specified in Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(iii). The two new 
methods can be used to measure certain analytes (e.g., methanol, 
acetonitrile, and n-hexane) that cannot be measured using the other 
methods in 40 CFR part 136. They also have the same quality assurance/
quality control requirements as the earlier methods; in particular, 
sampling must be conducted so as to minimize loss of volatile 
compounds. These two methods were added to 40 CFR part 136 when the 
revisions to the pharmaceutical effluent limitation guidelines and 
standards were promulgated in September 1998. They were also added to 
the list of acceptable methods for wastewater analyses in the amended 
subpart GGG of 40 CFR part 63 (66 FR 40134, August 2, 2001).
8. Emissions Averaging
    We are proposing changes to Sec. 63.1362(h)(2) to clarify the 
procedures for calculating emissions averaging credits and make them 
more consistent with the HON. Section 63.150(d)(2) of the HON specifies 
that Group 1 emission points that are controlled with a ``reference 
control technology'' may not be used to calculate emissions averaging 
credits unless the reference control technology has been approved for 
use in a different manner, and a higher nominal efficiency has been 
assigned according to the procedures in Sec. 63.150(i). Our intent was 
to specify equivalent requirements in Sec. 63.1362(h)(2) of subpart 
MMM. We did not simply reference all of Sec. 63.150 because we did not 
define ``reference control technologies'' for the PAI standards.
    Section 63.1362(h)(2) currently specifies that certain emission 
streams may not be used for calculating emissions averaging credits 
unless a nominal efficiency has been assigned that exceeds the 
applicable percent reduction; this section also lists the relevant 
sections of the rule that specify the required percent reductions for 
process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater treatment units. In 
addition, Sec. 63.1362(h)(2)(i) through (iii) specifies the types of 
controls subject to this provision; all of them are equipment or 
operational requirements that are alternatives to a percent reduction 
requirement (i.e., storage tanks controlled with a floating roof; 
emission streams vented to a flare; waste management units that are 
controlled using devices and techniques such as covers, plugs, water 
seals, floating roofs, and submerged fill; and wastewater treated using 
a design steam stripper).
    After reexamining the emissions averaging provisions, we determined 
that several changes are needed to maintain equivalence with the HON. 
Two of our proposed changes are to the introductory text in 
Sec. 63.1362(h)(2). In the first sentence, we are proposing a change to 
clarify that all of the restrictions on the calculation of credits in 
this paragraph apply only to Group 1 emission points. We are also 
proposing to add a requirement that the nominal efficiency for control 
devices used to control emissions vented from waste management units 
must exceed the 95 percent reduction requirement in Sec. 63.139(c).
    We are also proposing two changes to Sec. 63.1362(h)(2)(iii). This 
paragraph specifies that wastewater may not be used to calculate 
emissions averaging credits if it is controlled either as specified in 
Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 or with a design steam stripper, unless a 
higher nominal efficiency is assigned. This language inadvertently bars 
an owner or operator from calculating emissions averaging credits for 
all wastewater streams because the equations and procedures specified 
in Sec. 63.150(h)(5) for calculating credits require the use of 
emission suppression controls in Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 (i.e, 
Sec. 63.1365(h)(2)(iii) prohibits a wastewater stream from being used 
to calculate emissions averaging credits if it is managed according to 
Secs. 63.133 through 63.137, but Sec. 63.150 requires management 
according to Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 in order to calculate 
credits). To make the limitation on calculating credits consistent with 
the HON, we are proposing to change Sec. 63.1365(h)(2)(iii) so that 
only wastewater streams that are both managed according to Secs. 63.133 
through 63.137 and treated using a design steam stripper may not be 
used to calculate emissions averaging credits. This way both conditions 
must be met (rather than either one), which is consistent with the 
reference control technology concept in the HON.
    After making the changes described above for the settlement 
agreement, we realized that Sec. 63.1365(h)(2) still differs from the 
HON in two ways. First, Sec. 63.1365(h)(2) does not mention the 
requirement that the control technology must be approved for use in a 
manner that differs from the reference control technology. Therefore, 
we are considering adding language to Sec. 63.1365(h)(2) to require 
that the control technology must be approved for use in a manner 
different from that otherwise required by the rule. Second, the 
proposed change to Sec. 63.1365(h)(2)(iii) as described above addresses 
two components from the HON's definition of reference control 
technology for wastewater, but it does not address the requirement that 
emissions from waste management units, including the design steam 
stripper, be controlled by 95 percent. Without this component in 
Sec. 63.1365(h)(2)(iii), no wastewater stream treated in a design steam 
stripper could be used to calculate credits. Therefore, we are 
considering adding a requirement that emissions from the waste 
management units, including the design steam stripper, must be 
controlled in a device that meets the requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.139(c). We are requesting comment on the need for these two 
additional changes and suggestions for the best way to incorporate 
them.
    We are proposing changes to make Sec. 63.1365(h)(3) consistent with 
other proposed changes. As promulgated, Sec. 63.1365(h)(3) specifies 
that process vent and storage vessel emissions controlled to 20 ppmv 
may not be used in any emissions averaging group. Since we are 
proposing to change the concentration limit to 50 ppmv for non-
combustion devices used to comply with the alternative standard (see 
section II.B.5 of this preamble), we are also proposing to exclude 
process vent and storage vessel emission streams controlled to 50 ppmv 
from use in emissions averaging. To enhance understanding of the 
provision, we are also adding references to the applicable sections of 
the rule that specify the various concentration standards.
    Finally, we are proposing to revise Sec. 63.1362(h)(4) to clarify 
the requirements for Group 2 wastewater streams. As noted above, the 
procedures and equations in Sec. 63.150 of the HON allow credits to be 
calculated for Group 2 wastewater streams only if they are managed in 
accordance with Secs. 63.133 through 63.137. We are proposing to 
explicitly state this requirement in Sec. 63.1362(h)(4) so that a 
reader does not need to examine all of the details in Sec. 63.150 to 
reach the same conclusion.
9. Initial Compliance for Condensers
    While reviewing the rule, we also determined that additional 
changes would clarify the initial compliance requirements for 
condensers. Section 63.1362(b)(12) specifies that the testing

[[Page 17500]]

requirements for condensers include calculating the necessary outlet 
gas temperature to meet the required percent reduction. We are 
proposing to delete this paragraph because calculating the temperature 
is not a testing requirement. The calculation is required as part of 
the design evaluation requirements specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(1)(iii) 
and the procedures for calculating controlled emissions from process 
vents in Sec. 63.1365(c)(3)(iii).
    Section 63.1365(c)(3)(iii) specifies initial compliance procedures 
for determining controlled emissions from condensers used to control 
process vents. We are proposing to edit this paragraph for clarity by 
specifying that the measured exhaust gas temperature must be compared 
to, and shown to be less than, the temperature used in the equation to 
calculate the emission rate. Although the proposed language is 
consistent with the settlement agreement, we are also considering 
deleting the requirement to measure the temperature as part of the 
initial compliance demonstration. This change would make this provision 
consistent with the proposed changes to the design evaluation 
requirement discussed in section II.A.5 of this preamble. Specifically, 
the owner or operator would be required to establish an appropriate 
temperature and calculate the controlled emissions using this 
temperature as part of the initial compliance determination; 
temperature measurement is required as part of the monitoring 
requirements to demonstrate ongoing compliance. We are requesting 
comment on whether initial compliance can be adequately demonstrated 
without actually measuring the exhaust gas temperature.
10. Initial Compliance if the Performance Test Is Conducted Over the 
Entire Batch Cycle
    The June 23, 1999 rule specifies that performance tests to 
demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction or outlet 
concentration standard batch process vents are to be conducted under 
absolute or hypothetical peak-case conditions. In order to determine 
when those conditions occur, the rule also specifies that the owner or 
operator must develop an emissions profile. For absolute peak-case, the 
emissions profile consists of an evaluation of all emission episodes 
that could vent through a particular stack (controlled or uncontrolled) 
and the timing of those episodes. Petitioners have requested that we 
exempt an owner or operator from the requirement to develop an 
emissions profile if the performance test is conducted over the entire 
batch cycle.
    We reviewed the initial compliance requirements and identified two 
situations where we believe that an emissions profile is not necessary 
if the emissions test is conducted over the entire batch cycle. In both 
cases, the control device must be dedicated to a single process at a 
given time; otherwise, without knowing how vents from multiple 
processes could be combined, testing over only one of the batch cycles 
would not clearly capture the absolute peak-case conditions for the 
control device. One case where an emissions profile would not be 
necessary is if all of the vents in a process are controlled to at 
least 98 percent because a test over the entire batch cycle would be 
certain to include the period of absolute peak-case conditions.
    At first glance, it might appear that the absolute peak-case 
conditions would also be covered for any process where the sum of all 
process vents is controlled to greater than 90 percent. However, for 
such processes the owner or operator must first determine if any 
individual vents are required to be controlled to 98 percent. To do 
this, the owner or operator must calculate the uncontrolled emissions 
for all of the vents in the process. For a process with a dedicated 
control device, the list of uncontrolled emissions is also essentially 
equivalent to what would be required in an emissions profile (assuming 
there is no overlap of emissions from different vents within the 
process). Therefore, it would be misleading to specify that no 
emissions profile is required in such a situation.
    The second situation where an emissions profile would be 
unnecessary is for a dedicated control device that is used to comply 
with the outlet concentration limit. As for the first case described 
above, the emission profile is not needed because, by definition, 
testing over the entire batch cycle includes the period of absolute 
peak-case conditions.
    Therefore, we are proposing to exempt owners and operators from the 
requirement to conduct an emissions profile under the following two 
circumstances: (1) If all process vents for a process are controlled 
using a control device or series of control devices that reduce HAP 
emissions by 98 percent or more, no other emission streams are vented 
to the control device when it is used to control emissions from the 
subject process, and the performance test is conducted over the entire 
batch cycle; and (2) if a control device is used to comply with the 
outlet concentration limit for process vent emission streams from a 
single process, no other emission streams are vented to the control 
device while it is used to control emissions from the process, and the 
performance test is conducted over the entire batch cycle. If either of 
these conditions is met, the owner or operator would not be required to 
calculate and maintain records of the emissions from the process. 
Instead, they would be required to maintain a record showing how they 
determined that one of the conditions is met (see 
Sec. 63.1367(b)(6)(ix)) and include this determination in the 
Notification of Compliance Status report in accordance with 
Sec. 63.1368(f)(2).
    We are also considering changes to Sec. 63.1365(b)(11)(iv), which 
specifies test duration requirements for batch operations. This 
paragraph specifies that each run must occur ``over the same absolute 
or hypothetical peak-case conditions, as specified in paragraph 
(b)(11)(i) or (ii) of this section.'' This paragraph could be 
interpreted as limiting the test duration to the time period associated 
with the peak-case conditions (i.e., typically 1 hour, or up to a 
maximum of 8 hours). To demonstrate compliance with the percent 
reduction standard, we do not believe that the duration of test runs 
needs to be limited, as long as the test run does not exceed the 
duration of the averaging period used in demonstrating ongoing 
compliance. To align the test run duration with the averaging period, 
we are considering limiting the duration of test runs to 24 hours or 
the duration of the longest batch controlled by the control device, 
whichever is shorter. A consequence of this limitation is that an owner 
or operator would not be able to take advantage of the proposed 
exemption from the requirement to develop an emission profile, as 
described above, for batch cycles that exceed 24 hours. On the other 
hand, for tests to demonstrate compliance with the outlet concentration 
limit, we are considering limiting the duration of test runs to the 
applicable peak-case conditions, as in the original interpretation, 
because of the potential that a large number of low concentrations 
could be averaged in with high concentrations for a short period, 
thereby rendering meaningless the concept of demonstrating compliance 
over peak-case conditions. Therefore, we are requesting comment on how 
to limit the duration of test runs, especially for tests used to 
demonstrate compliance with the outlet concentration limit.

[[Page 17501]]

11. Testing To Determine Controlled Emissions for Large Control Devices
    Section Sec. 63.1365(c)(3)(ii)(A) specifies some of the performance 
test requirements related to determining controlled emissions for large 
control devices. We are proposing to delete references in this 
paragraph to testing at the outlet of control devices that are used to 
comply with an outlet concentration limit. The purpose of this 
paragraph is to specify procedures for performance tests conducted to 
demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction standards. Procedures 
for demonstrating compliance with the outlet concentration limits are 
specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(6) and (c)(1)(v).
    Although the proposed language is consistent with the settlement 
agreement, we believe additional editing to condense it would make it 
easier to read and understand. We believe the following sentence could 
replace the first three sentences in Sec. 63.1365(c)(3)(ii)(A) with no 
change in meaning: ``Performance test measurements shall be conducted 
at both the inlet and outlet of the control device for TOC, total 
organic HAP, and total HCl and chlorine, as applicable, using the test 
methods and procedures described in paragraph (b) of this section.'' We 
are requesting comment on any differences in meaning between this 
statement and the proposed language in Sec. 63.1365(c)(3)(ii)(A).
12. Monitoring Requirements for Alternative Standard
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the alternative standard 
in the June 23, 1999 rule, an owner or operator must correct the outlet 
concentrations from combustion devices to 3 percent oxygen if 
supplemental gases are used. This type of concentration correction 
accounts for dilution, and it has been included in numerous rules 
beginning with the new source performance standard (NSPS) for synthetic 
organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) unit operations (for a 
summary, see 65 FR 19160, April 10, 2000). For the oxygen-deficient 
emission streams, in many industries the potential for dilution is from 
excessive combustion air; if the proper amount of supplemental 
combustion air is added, the outlet stream would contain approximately 
3 percent oxygen. Many batch PAI processes, however, have high oxygen 
contents, either naturally or because supplemental gases are added in 
the manifold prior to the control device for design or safety purposes, 
not to promote good combustion. The oxygen correction requirement has 
the effect of lowering the 20 ppmv compliance level for such streams, 
perhaps significantly.
    As discussed above in this preamble and in the preamble to the PAI 
promulgated rule (64 FR 33575, June 23, 1999), the alternative standard 
offers a way to streamline compliance procedures for both affected 
sources and implementing agencies without sacrificing emissions 
control. Therefore, we want to encourage rather than restrict its use. 
To ensure that the alternative standard remains viable, we are 
proposing to add a monitoring option that was introduced in the NESHAP 
for the pharmaceuticals industry, another industry that has batch 
processes and emission streams with high oxygen levels, perhaps even 
more than the PAI industry. The option would allow the owner or 
operator to monitor combustion devices for good operating practices. A 
properly operated combustion device that is meeting the alternative 
standard's 20 ppmv concentration limit also has an adequate residence 
time and combustion chamber temperature. We believe that, like 
correcting to 3 percent oxygen, a requirement to maintain these 
parameters above specified levels in conjunction with meeting the 20 
ppmv limit would provide an economic incentive to minimize the amount 
of supplemental gas added prior to the combustion device. Furthermore, 
for most streams, it would also result in control at least equivalent 
to the otherwise applicable percent reduction requirements.
    Therefore, we are proposing two sets of parameter levels as 
alternatives to correcting for dilution when supplemental gases are 
used in combustion devices. If the owner or operator complies with the 
alternative standard instead of a percent reduction requirement of 95 
percent or less (e.g., for storage tanks and some process vents), the 
owner or operator would be required to monitor for a minimum residence 
time of 0.5 second and a minimum combustion chamber temperature of 
760 deg.C. These values are consistent with the parameters specified in 
Sec. 63.139(c) of the HON for controlling emissions vented from waste 
management units. If the owner or operator complies with the 
alternative standard instead of a percent reduction requirement of 98 
percent or less, the owner or operator would be required to monitor for 
a minimum residence time of 0.75 second and a minimum combustion 
chamber temperature of 816 deg.C. Based on a considerable amount of 
data, we have concluded that properly designed and operated 
incinerators reduce emissions by 98 percent if they maintain these 
residence times and temperatures.
    After completing the settlement agreement, we realized that the 
agreed upon language contains an internal conflict. Specifically, the 
phrase ``98 percent or less'' overlaps with the phrase ``95 percent or 
less.'' Since there are no requirements to control in the range greater 
than 95 percent to less than 98 percent, we believe the best way to 
resolve the conflict is to change ``98 percent or less'' to ``98 
percent.'' If we receive no negative comments on this approach, we will 
make the change in the final amendments.
    In addition to the above change in monitoring for combustion 
devices, we are also proposing to clarify the monitoring requirements 
for non-combustion devices that are used to comply with the alternative 
standard. According to Sec. 63.1366(b)(5), if supplemental gases are 
introduced before the control device, the owner or operator must 
correct the outlet concentration as specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7). 
For non-combustion devices, this means evaluating the supplemental and 
total gas flow rates and calculating a correction factor as specified 
in equation 8 of subpart MMM, but the rule does not clearly specify 
when this evaluation is to occur as part of the monitoring effort. To 
correct this oversight, we are proposing to add a requirement, in 
Sec. 63.1366(b)(5)(ii)(B), to reevaluate the flow rates and the 
correction factor each time a different operating scenario is 
implemented that vents to the subject control device. In addition, we 
are proposing that the initial procedure used to evaluate the flow 
rates and the resulting correction factor be included in the 
Notification of Compliance Status report, and that subsequent 
reevaluations and revised correction factors be included in the 
Periodic report that is submitted after the change in the operating 
scenarios.
13. Definitions
    We are proposing technical corrections to the definitions of 
``process vent,'' ``Group 1 wastewater stream,'' ``recovery device,'' 
``wastewater,'' and ``supplemental gas.''
    The promulgated rule, defines a ``process vent'' as an undiluted 
and uncontrolled emission stream that contains at least 20 ppmv HAP. We 
are proposing to change this concentration cutoff to 50 ppmv to be 
consistent with the MACT floor analysis and the proposed change in the 
control level for the alternative standard (see section II.B.4 of this 
preamble).

[[Page 17502]]

    In the promulgated rule, a maintenance wastewater stream that 
contains 5.3 megagrams (Mg) of HAP per discharge event is considered to 
be a ``Group 1 wastewater stream.'' We did not intend to require an 
evaluation of all HAP in the determination of group status for 
maintenance wastewater streams; we meant the same HAP that are used to 
determine the group status for process wastewater streams. Therefore, 
we are proposing to change the definition to specify that a maintenance 
wastewater stream is a Group 1 wastewater stream if it contains 5.3 Mg 
of compounds in Table 9 of subpart G of part 63 per discharge event. We 
are proposing an identical change to correct the definition of 
``wastewater.''
    The definition of the term ``recovery device'' in the promulgated 
rule specifies that a decanter and other equipment, based on the 
operating principle of gravity separation, may be a recovery device 
only if they receive two-phase liquid streams. To address the 
possibility that some process streams contain more than two liquid 
phases, we are proposing to replace the term ``two-phase'' with the 
term ``multi-phase.''
    Finally, to be consistent with the proposed change in the 
concentration cutoff in the definition of ``process vent,'' as 
described above, we are also proposing to revise the concentration 
cutoff in the definition of ``supplemental gas.''
14. References
    In Sec. 63.1362(c)(2)(iv), we are proposing to replace the 
incorrect reference to paragraph (k) with the correct reference to 
paragraph (j). In Sec. 63.1365(a)(2) we are proposing to replace the 
incorrect reference to Sec. 63.1363(d) with the correct reference to 
Sec. 63.1362(d).

C. Other Amendments To Correct the Rule

    In addition to the proposed changes to address issues raised by 
petitioners, we are proposing other changes to clarify requirements, 
correct errors, and ensure that the rule is implemented as intended.
1. Coal Tar Distillation
    We are proposing to exempt coal tar distillation from the 
requirements of subpart MMM. Based on recent discussions with the 
industry, we understand that one or more of the distillate fractions 
from coal tar distillation is often used to produce creosote, which is 
a PAI. The proposed changes described below to the definition of 
``intermediate'' clarify that the distillate fraction would be an 
intermediate. When more than 50 percent of the distillate fraction is 
used in the production of creosote, the distillate is also an integral 
intermediate. Thus, in the absence of any other changes to the rule, 
coal tar distillation would be a PAI process unit subject to the rule. 
Typically, this is our intended result for integral intermediate 
processes that are not already subject to another MACT rule, but coal 
tar distillation is different.
    The Background Information Document for the HON (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart G) illustrates a hierarchy of chemical production processes 
(EPA-453/D-92-016a, November 1992). This hierarchy is based on a 
listing of chemicals first developed in an October 1983 EPA report 
titled ``Industrial Organic Chemical Use Trees.'' The top level of the 
hierarchy consists of petroleum refineries, natural gas plants, and 
coal tar distillation plants which supply the basic chemicals used as 
raw materials in the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry. 
Below this level are high volume intermediates and lower volume 
finished chemicals. Production of many of the high volume intermediates 
(and some finished products) is subject to the HON. Other MACT rules 
cover production primarily of lower level chemicals in the hierarchy. 
The soon to be proposed MON, however, is specifically intended to apply 
to chemical manufacturing processes at all levels in the hierarchy that 
are not subject to any other MACT rule. Therefore, since coal tar 
distillation is at the top of the hierarchy, we believe that it should 
be excluded from the requirements of the PAI rule and be subject to the 
MON.
2. Intermediates
    The promulgated rule defines an intermediate as ``an organic 
compound that is produced by chemical reaction and that is further 
processed or modified in one or more additional chemical reaction steps 
to produce another intermediate or a PAI.'' This definition limits 
intermediates to only those compounds that are produced by chemical 
synthesis. At the time this definition was written, we were considering 
a series of extractions to be a single process. We now realize that 
individual extractions in the series may more properly be considered 
individual processes, particularly if the material that does not 
ultimately get processed into a PAI is also a useful intended product 
(or is processed into one). Therefore, we are proposing to revise the 
definition to read as follows: ``an intermediate means an organic 
material that is further processed or modified to ultimately produce a 
PAI.''
    3. Offsite Discharge of Wastewater
    We are making several technical corrections to the requirements 
specified in Sec. 63.1362(d)(14) because the current language does not 
convey our intent. As promulgated, this paragraph specifies 
requirements for all wastewater streams that are sent offsite for 
biological treatment. Our intent, however, was to mirror an option in 
Sec. 63.1256(a)(5)(ii)(D) of the Pharmaceuticals NESHAP that provides 
compliance alternatives to suppression requirements.
    To achieve our intent, we are proposing five changes to 
Sec. 63.1363(d)(14). First, we are proposing to clarify that it is an 
option to the otherwise applicable requirements. Second, we are 
proposing to specify that the option applies only to Group 1 wastewater 
streams (and residuals removed from Group 1 wastewater streams), except 
that it also applies to Group 2 wastewater streams if the offsite 
treatment facility complies with the 95 percent mass reduction option. 
This change is needed to be consistent with the onsite requirements 
(i.e., Group 2 wastewater streams are not subject to management and 
treatment requirements onsite, except when complying with the 95 
percent required mass reduction option). Third, the current language 
limits the option to wastewater discharged only to offsite treatment. 
We are proposing to specify that the option also applies to wastewater 
discharged to onsite treatment not owned or operated by the source. 
This change would make the option consistent with other rules (e.g., 
Sec. 63.132(g) of the HON and Sec. 63.1256(a)(5)(ii)(D) of the 
Pharmaceuticals NESHAP). Fourth, the current language specifies that 
the 5 percent emission limitation applies to HAP on list 1 in Table 36 
to subpart G of the HON. We are proposing to revise the provision to 
require the 5 percent demonstration for soluble HAP listed in Table 3 
to subpart GGG because these are the HAP for which the option was 
developed. Finally, the current language mistakenly applies regardless 
of the HAP in the wastewater stream, whereas the option in subpart GGG 
is limited to wastewater streams (and residuals) that contain less than 
50 ppmw of partially soluble HAP. This limitation is critical because 
the option is expected to achieve control equivalent to that achieved 
by complying with Sec. 63.132(g) only for soluble HAP. To correct this 
oversight, we are proposing to specify that the option applies only to 
Group 1

[[Page 17503]]

wastewater (or residuals from Group 1 streams) that contain less than 
50 ppmw of partially soluble HAP (i.e., the HAP compounds listed in 
Table 2 of subpart GGG).
4. Requirements for Scrubber Effluent
    Under the HON, control devices are considered to be part of the 
chemical manufacturing process unit. Therefore, effluent from a 
scrubber is considered wastewater if it is discarded and meets the flow 
rate and HAP concentration cutoffs in the definition of wastewater. If 
the effluent also meets the definition of a Group 1 wastewater stream, 
it is subject to the wastewater standards. This approach in the HON 
ensures that pollutants removed from an emission stream are destroyed 
rather than simply transferred between media.
    In subpart MMM, our intent was to have scrubber effluent be subject 
to the same requirements as in the HON. However, because we did not 
include control devices in the definition of a PAI process unit, the 
rule is silent on how to handle scrubber effluent. To correct this 
oversight, we are proposing to revise the definition of wastewater to 
include effluent from a scrubber used to control emissions from a PAI 
process. We decided not to change the definition of ``PAI process 
unit'' to include control devices because we do not want control 
devices to be included in reconstruction analyses. If a PAI process 
unit includes control devices, the control devices become part of the 
affected source and would be included in reconstruction analyses.
5. Engineering Assessments
    To comply with most formats of the process vent standards, 
Sec. 63.1365(c)(1) requires an owner or operator to determine 
uncontrolled emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.1365(c)(2). This 
paragraph requires the owner or operator to estimate emissions from 
certain batch emission episodes by using specified equations in the 
rule. For other types of emission episodes, including those from 
continuous operations, the owner or operator must estimate emissions by 
conducting an engineering assessment. A variety of techniques may be 
used in an engineering assessment, including emissions tests. 
Typically, all data and procedures used in an engineering assessment 
must be included in the Precompliance plan. The only specified 
exception to this reporting requirement is when more than a 20 percent 
difference exists between test data and emissions calculated using the 
equations; such a difference suggests that the equations are not 
applicable for the specific application.
    We believe the language used in the engineering assessment 
provisions has two shortcomings. First, the requirement to submit test 
results as part of the Precompliance plan was intended to apply only to 
previously conducted tests. The results from a new test also may be 
used to determine uncontrolled emissions as part of an engineering 
assessment, but there is no need to submit the results in the 
Precompliance plan because a notification of the test and a test plan 
must be submitted 60 days prior to the test in accordance with 
Sec. 63.1368(m). Second, because emissions from continuous operations 
are constant over time, we do not need to review the results from a 
previous test of continuous operations prior to the compliance date. 
Provided the test was conducted in accordance with the test methods and 
procedures specified in Sec. 63.1365(b), the results would be 
acceptable for demonstrating uncontrolled emission levels. Thus, the 
results could be submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status 
report rather than the Precompliance plan.
    To clarify these points, we are proposing to revise 
Sec. 63.1365(c)(2)(ii)(A). The revised paragraph specifies that, for 
vents with variable emission stream characteristics, engineering 
assessments that are based on previous tests must be included in the 
Precompliance plan, except as currently specified in the rule for 
situations where tests for batch emission episodes differ from the 
estimated emissions by more than 20 percent. Engineering assessments 
based on new tests, and engineering assessments for vents without 
variable emission stream characteristics (i.e., continuous operations) 
based on previous tests, may be submitted in the Notification of 
Compliance Status report.
6. Leak Inspections for Closed-Vent Systems
    The rule requires leak inspections for closed-vent systems that are 
used to convey vent streams from waste management units and equipment 
leaks. For waste management units, the applicable requirements are 
specified in Sec. 63.148 of the HON because the provisions in that 
section are referenced from Secs. 63.133 through 63.137, and these 
sections are referenced from Sec. 63.1362(d). For equipment leaks, the 
applicable requirements are specified in Sec. 63.172 of the HON, which 
is referenced from Sec. 63.1363(b)(3). Closed-vent systems used to 
convey emissions from process vents and storage vessels are subject 
only to the requirements to prevent flow through bypass lines that are 
specified in Sec. 63.1362(j).
    We are proposing to require identical leak inspections for all 
closed-vent systems that convey emissions from process vents, storage 
vessels, or waste managements units. The proposed requirements are 
consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.148 (i.e., annual sensory 
or instrument inspections, depending on the type of closed-vent system 
construction). These requirements are needed for all closed-vent 
systems to ensure that the required emission reductions are being 
achieved. Adding these requirements will also make subpart MMM 
consistent with other MACT rules, which may reduce the chance of 
inadvertent compliance errors at facilities subject to multiple MACT 
rules. However, rather than reference Sec. 63.148 from subpart MMM and 
specify all of the exceptions to subsequent references, we have decided 
to incorporate the provisions from Sec. 63.148 in the applicable 
sections of subpart MMM. Inspection requirements would be added in 
Sec. 63.1366(h), recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.1367(f), and 
reporting requirements in Sec. 63.1368(g)(2)(iii) and (xi). In 
addition, we are proposing to add a statement in Sec. 63.1362(d)(16) 
specifying the applicable provisions in subpart MMM that take the place 
of references to Sec. 63.148 from Secs. 63.133 through 63.137.
7. Wastewater Test Methods
    To be consistent with other recent rules, we are proposing to add a 
provision to Sec. 63.1365(b)(8) that would allow an owner or operator 
to analyze wastewater using Method 8260 or Method 8270 in ``Test 
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods'' (EPA 
Publication No. SW-846, Third Edition, September 1986, as amended by 
Update I, November 15, 1992).
8. Notification of Process Changes
    Section 63.1368(h)(1) specifies that a quarterly report is required 
whenever a process change is made. Our intent, both in this rule and in 
the Pharmaceutical Production NESHAP (subpart GGG), is that a process 
change means the startup of a new operating scenario. Both rules 
require the owner or operator to prepare operating scenarios that 
describe the equipment, emissions, controls, and monitoring for each 
process. A new operating scenario must be prepared each time the owner 
or operator makes a change to produce a new product. A new operating 
scenario must also be prepared for any

[[Page 17504]]

change to an existing process that is not within the scope of a current 
operating scenario. Therefore, to clarify the meaning of the term 
``process change,'' we are proposing to add a statement in 
Sec. 63.1368(h) specifying that, for reporting purposes, a process 
change means the startup of a new process. We are also proposing to 
require this notification in the next Periodic report (i.e., the 
Periodic report filed following the change) rather than in quarterly 
reports because we believe that separate and more frequent reporting of 
this information is an unnecessary burden.

9. Technical Corrections

    We are proposing numerous technical corrections throughout the rule 
to improve consistency, correct terminology and references, and clarify 
our intent.
    a. Definitions. We are proposing to revise the definition of 
``consumption'' to clarify requirements for the pollution prevention 
alternative. Currently, the rule specifies that compliance with 
pollution prevention is not allowed for HAP generated in the process if 
the HAP are not part of the production-indexed consumption factor. 
However, the rule does not explain how generated HAP are to be included 
in the consumption factor. In the preamble to the promulgated rule (64 
FR 33576), we indicated our intent to revise the definition of 
``consumption'' to consider quantities of HAP that are generated by the 
process as well as those that are brought into the process, provided 
the HAP generated in the process are the same as the HAP added to the 
process. Due to an oversight, this change was not made in the 
promulgated rule. Therefore, we are proposing to make the change now.
    The definition of ``PAI process unit'' states that formulation of 
pesticide products is not considered part of a PAI process unit. To 
clarify the rule, we are proposing to define formulation of pesticide 
products as the mixing, blending, or dilution of a PAI with one or more 
other PAI or inert ingredients. These are operations that occur after a 
PAI has been produced and purified. The formulation may be performed by 
the PAI producer or by others. Implicit in the proposed definition is 
our assumption that no PAI is manufactured by blending another PAI with 
other materials. If this assumption is false, we would reconsider the 
proposed definition. Therefore, we are requesting information about any 
PAI production process that consists of blending one PAI with other 
materials to produce another PAI, and we are requesting any suggestions 
for clarifying the definition of formulation.
    We are proposing minor corrections to several additional terms. In 
the definition of ``Group 1 storage vessel,'' we are proposing editing 
changes to clarify the two sets of cutoffs for storage vessels at new 
affected sources. In the definition of ``process vent,'' we are 
proposing to replace the incorrect reference to Method 1818 with the 
correct reference to Method 18. In the definition of ``PAI process 
unit,'' we are proposing to replace the incorrect reference to 
Sec. 63.1362(l) with the correct reference to Sec. 63.1362(k).
    b. Equipment Leak Requirements. We are proposing numerous changes 
to clarify and correct the equipment leak provisions in Sec. 63.1363. 
Most of the changes are discussed in table 1 below. Changes to the 
procedures for designating equipment as unsafe-to-monitor, difficult-
to-monitor, and inaccessible in Sec. 63.1363(f) are discussed in the 
following paragraphs because they are too extensive to include in the 
table. The proposed changes are intended to clarify the requirements 
and make them consistent with the HON and other rules.
    One change is intended to address a difference in terminology 
between Sec. 63.1363(f) and the referenced requirements in Sec. 63.172 
of the HON for closed-vent systems. According to Sec. 63.1363(f)(2)(i), 
an owner or operator may designate a closed-vent system as unsafe-to-
monitor if monitoring personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger 
as a consequence of complying with the monitoring requirements in 
Sec. 63.1363(f)(1)(iii) and, by extension, Sec. 63.172. This provision 
may cause confusion because, strictly speaking, Sec. 63.172 contains 
inspection requirements, not monitoring requirements. To eliminate this 
potential confusion, we are proposing to revise Sec. 63.1363(f)(2)(i) 
so that it refers to both inspection requirements for closed-vent 
systems and monitoring requirements for other types of equipment. We 
are also proposing to make a similar change in Sec. 63.1363(f)(3)(i) 
for difficult-to-monitor equipment.
    Although equipment subject to Sec. 63.1363(f) is exempt from the 
standard monitoring requirements, monitoring is still required, 
typically on a less frequent schedule. The rule requires the owner or 
operator to prepare a written plan that specifies the schedule to be 
followed. The rule also specifies that unsafe-to-monitor equipment must 
be monitored no more frequently than the periodic monitoring schedule 
otherwise applicable, and difficult-to-monitor equipment must be 
monitored at least once per year. We are proposing to clarify that the 
applicable schedule for unsafe-to-monitor equipment is the one that 
applies to the group of processes in which the equipment is located. 
The standard monitoring schedule for valves might be less frequent than 
once per year. Therefore, we are also proposing to allow monitoring of 
difficult-to-monitor equipment on the periodic monitoring schedule 
otherwise applicable to the group of processes in which the equipment 
is located. To determine these schedules, the equipment must be 
assigned to a group of processes; therefore, we are proposing to add a 
statement requiring all equipment to be assigned to a group of 
processes (but the equipment need not all be assigned to the same group 
of processes). A final proposed change to the monitoring schedule 
provisions is to specify that monitoring of parts of closed-vent 
systems that are designated as unsafe-to-monitor be no more frequent 
than annually, and parts of closed-vent systems that are difficult-to-
monitor must be inspected at least once every 5 years.
    Several proposed changes address the types of equipment and 
percentage of equipment that may be designated as unsafe-to-monitor, 
difficult-to-monitor, or inaccessible. Currently, any type of equipment 
may be designated in any of the three categories. We are proposing to 
specify the specific types of equipment that can receive each 
designation. For example, only connectors can be designated as 
inaccessible, but connectors cannot be designated as difficult-to-
monitor. In addition, the rule currently specifies that no more than 3 
percent of each type of equipment at new sources may be designated as 
difficult-to-monitor or inaccessible. We are proposing to specify that 
the restriction for difficult-to-monitor equipment applies only to 
valves and that the restriction for inaccessible equipment applies only 
to connectors. Finally, we are proposing to delete the statements that 
specify that any equipment at an existing source may be designated as 
difficult-to-monitor or inaccessible. These statements are unnecessary 
because one reaches the same conclusion when the rule is silent on this 
point.
    Two proposed changes would add provisions that were inadvertently 
left out of the rule. One change is to add a criterion for designating 
a connector as inaccessible. The other change is to add a statement 
specifying that inaccessible, ceramic, and ceramic-lined connectors are 
exempt from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the rule.

[[Page 17505]]

    c. Table 4 to Subpart MMM. This table specifies control 
requirements for items of equipment that are part of open systems for 
certain liquid streams within PAI process units. We are proposing three 
changes to make the rule internally consistent, clarify our intent, and 
eliminate overlapping requirements.
    The table includes numerous references to Sec. 63.1256(h)(2) of 
subpart GGG. We are proposing to replace these references with 
references to Sec. 63.139(c) of the HON to make the control 
requirements for the items of equipment in open systems consistent with 
the requirements specified in Sec. 63.1362(d) for equipment used to 
manage and treat wastewater streams.
    For manholes, we are proposing to delete the option to vent 
emissions to a fuel gas system. This option should not have been 
included because we did not include requirements specific to fuel gas 
systems anywhere in the rule. Our intent is that fuel gas systems are a 
form of control device, and the requirements for control devices apply.
    Finally, we are proposing to change the control requirements for 
tanks used to manage liquid streams in open systems. Table 4 currently 
requires control consistent with the control required for wastewater 
tanks (i.e., installation of a fixed roof and, if certain conditions 
are met, vent emissions to a control device). However, because the 
liquid streams managed in such tanks are also process streams, the 
tanks are process tanks. A vent on a process tank with a fixed roof is 
also subject to the requirements for process vents. To eliminate this 
overlap, we are proposing to replace the vent stream control 
requirements in Table 4 with a statement that vents on these tanks are 
process vents.
    d. Miscellaneous Corrections. We are proposing several changes 
throughout subpart MMM to correct referencing and typesetting errors, 
clarify terminology, improve consistency within subpart MMM and with 
other rules, clarify intent, and eliminate overlapping requirements. 
These changes are described in Table 1 in this preamble.

             Table 1.--Technical Corrections to Subpart MMM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Subpart MMM               Description of proposed correction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1362(b)(5)(ii)......  Paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii)
                                specify the required HCl and chlorine
                                emission reductions for a new source.
                                The requirements differ depending on the
                                uncontrolled emissions from the process.
                                Currently, paragraph (ii) applies to
                                processes with emissions ``greater than
                                or equal to 6.8 Mg/yr and less than 191
                                Mg/yr.'' To eliminate both an overlap
                                between paragraphs (i) and (ii) and a
                                gap between paragraphs (ii) and (iii),
                                we are proposing to change paragraph
                                (ii) so that it applies to processes
                                with uncontrolled emissions ``greater
                                than 6.8 Mg/yr and less than or equal to
                                191 Mg/yr.''
Sec.  63.1362(b)(6)..........  We are proposing to delete the reference
                                to paragraph (b)(3)(iii) because there
                                is no such paragraph.
Sec.  63.1362(d).............  We are proposing to require compliance
                                with Secs.  63.132 through 63.147
                                instead of Secs.  63.131 through 63.147
                                because Sec.  63.131 is now a reserved
                                section.
Sec.  63.1362(d)(2)..........  We are proposing to replace the reference
                                to Secs.  63.132 through 63.148 with a
                                reference to Secs.  63.132 through
                                63.147 because Sec.  63.148 is not part
                                of the wastewater provisions. This
                                change would make paragraph (d)(2)
                                consistent with paragraph (d)
                                introductory text. We are also proposing
                                to delete the exception specified in
                                subparagraph (d)(2)(v) because the
                                reference is not applicable for
                                wastewater tanks.
Sec.  63.1362(h)(3)..........  Because of the proposed change to a
                                concentration limit of 50 ppmv when non-
                                combustion devices are used to comply
                                with the alternative standard (see
                                section II.B.5), we are also proposing
                                to specify that process vents and
                                storage vessels controlled to 50 ppmv
                                may not be used in emissions averaging.
Sec.  63.1363................  Throughout Sec.  63.1363 we have used the
                                terms ``group of process units'' and
                                ``group of processes'' interchangeably.
                                This could be a source of confusion
                                because only the term ``group of
                                processes'' is defined in the rule (in
                                Sec.  63.1363(b)). Therefore, we are
                                proposing to replace every use of the
                                term ``group of process units'' with the
                                term ``group of processes.''
Sec.  63.1363(a)(1)..........  We are proposing to edit this paragraph
                                to clarify that the closed-vent systems
                                and control devices that are subject to
                                Sec.  63.1363 are only those closed-vent
                                systems and control devices that are
                                used to control emissions from equipment
                                leaks.
Sec.  63.1363(a)(10)(ii) and   The amended HON and Sec.
 (iii).                         63.1363(b)(3)(iii) of subpart MMM
                                require monitoring outside of the
                                regularly scheduled periodic monitoring
                                only as an option in Sec.
                                63.174(c)(1)(i) for connectors that are
                                reconnected after being opened.
                                Therefore, we are proposing to replace
                                the reference to Sec.  63.174(e) with a
                                reference to Sec.  63.174(c)(1)(i).
Sec.  63.1363(b)(3)(iii).....  One change is to simplify the references
                                by specifying in one sentence that all
                                of the paragraphs in Sec.  63.174(b)(3)
                                do not apply and are replaced by
                                paragraphs in Sec.  63.1363(b)(3)(iii);
                                all of the monitoring requirements would
                                be contained within Sec.
                                63.1363(b)(3)(iii). A second proposed
                                change is to specify that the monitoring
                                frequency must be increased to once
                                every 2 years if at least 0.5 percent
                                but less than 1.0 percent of the
                                connectors monitored in an 8-yr
                                monitoring period are leaking; the
                                proposed change is consistent with the
                                requirements for 4-yr monitoring
                                periods. A third proposed change is to
                                clarify that Sec.  63.174(h), the
                                requirements for inaccessible
                                connectors, does not apply and that the
                                owner or operator shall instead comply
                                with Sec.  63.1363(f).
Sec.  63.1363(b)(3)(iv)......  We are proposing to specify in Sec.
                                63.1363(b)(3)(iv) that, for pumps, the
                                phrase ``at the frequencies specified in
                                Table 1 of this subpart'' in Sec.
                                63.178(c)(3)(iii) shall mean
                                ``quarterly'' for the purposes of
                                subpart MMM (i.e., even if a pump is
                                operated less than full-time, it must be
                                monitored at least once in every quarter
                                that it operates).
Sec.  63.1363(b)(3)(vi)......  To clarify the requirements for PAI
                                owners and operators, we are proposing
                                to add a statement in Sec.
                                63.1363(b)(3)(vi) specifying that when
                                various sections in subpart H reference
                                other sections in subpart H, the
                                references shall be to the sections as
                                modified in Sec.  63.1363.
Sec.  63.1363(c)(2)(i).......  We are proposing to add compliance with
                                Sec.  63.178 to the list of exceptions
                                to clarify that the quarterly monitoring
                                is not required if the owner or operator
                                complies with the pressure testing
                                option of the alternative means of
                                emission limitation in Sec.  63.178.

[[Page 17506]]

 
Sec.  63.1363(c)(2)(iii) and   We are proposing to revise both
 (c)(5)(iv).                    paragraphs to specify that if there are
                                visual indications of liquids dripping
                                during a weekly visual inspection, then
                                you must either monitor using EPA Method
                                21 or eliminate the visual indication of
                                liquids dripping. These changes also
                                would make the paragraphs consistent
                                with the Consolidated Federal Air Rule
                                (CAR) (40 CFR 65.107, subpart F).
Sec.  63.1363(c)(4)(ii)......  We are proposing to revise the paragraph
                                to specify that quarterly monitoring may
                                be reinstated after the 1-year rolling
                                average again indicates that leaking
                                pumps constitute less than 10 percent of
                                the pumps in a group of processes (or
                                fewer than 3 pumps in a group of
                                processes with fewer than 30 pumps).
Sec.  63.1363(c)(3)(i) and     We are proposing to specify the leak
 (c)(5)(vi).                    repair requirements only once, in
                                paragraph (c)(3). We are also proposing
                                editorial changes to specify that when a
                                leak is detected, it must be repaired as
                                specified in paragraph (c)(3).
Sec.  63.1363(c)(6)..........  This paragraph specifies that pumps and
                                agitators without an externally actuated
                                shaft penetrating the pump or agitator
                                housing are exempt from all of the
                                monitoring and repair provisions except
                                for the visual inspections. We are
                                proposing to delete this exception
                                because such pumps and agitators have no
                                seals to inspect for leaks.
Sec.  63.1363(e)(7)(iii).....  We are proposing to add a statement to
                                clarify that the monitoring required by
                                this paragraph is in addition to the
                                monitoring required to satisfy the
                                definitions of ``repaired'' and ``first
                                attempt at repair.'' In addition, we are
                                proposing to add subparagraphs that
                                specify how to conduct the monitoring,
                                that regularly scheduled periodic
                                monitoring may be used to satisfy this
                                requirement, and procedures to follow to
                                determine if the valve must be counted
                                as leaking for purposes of calculating
                                the percent leakers. This language was
                                inadvertently left out of the rule
                                published on June 23, 1999; including it
                                would make this rule consistent with the
                                HON and the CAR (40 CFR 63.168(f) and 40
                                CFR 65.106(d), respectively).
Sec.  63.1363(e)(9)..........  This paragraph specifies that monthly
                                monitoring is not required if a facility
                                has fewer than 250 valves. Instead,
                                monitoring is required quarterly, or
                                less frequently if the percent leaking
                                valves are below specified limits.
                                However, the only less frequent options
                                that are actually specified are the
                                semiannual and biennial options; we
                                inadvertently neglected to include the
                                annual option. Therefore, we are
                                proposing to correct this oversight.
Sec.  63.1363(g)(2)(vi)......  We are proposing to delete the
                                requirement to maintain a list of
                                equipment that is designated as
                                inaccessible so that this paragraph is
                                consistent with one of the proposed
                                changes to Sec.  63.1363(f); and to
                                delete the requirement to maintain a
                                list of equipment for which the owner or
                                operator invokes the delay of repair
                                provisions when repair personnel would
                                be exposed to an immediate danger if
                                attempting to repair without a process
                                shutdown. This requirement is
                                unnecessary because it is redundant with
                                the requirement in Sec.
                                63.1363(g)(4)(v) to record the reason
                                for any delay of repair.
Sec.  63.1365(a)(2)..........  As a result of the proposed change to the
                                standards, compliance based on total
                                organic HAP would no longer be limited
                                to the percent reduction format.
                                Therefore, we are proposing to delete
                                the reference to the ``percent reduction
                                format'' from the third sentence in this
                                paragraph. Our second proposed change is
                                to replace the incorrect reference to
                                Sec.  63.1363(d) with the correct
                                reference to Sec.  63.1362(d).
Sec.  63.1365(b)(11)(iii)(A).  We are proposing to replace the incorrect
                                reference to paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) with
                                the correct reference to paragraph
                                (b)(11)(i)(B).
Sec.  63.1365(c)(2)(i)(C)....  We are proposing to correct the
                                definitions for the terms ``Pj'' and
                                ``m'' that are used in Equation 10 by
                                replacing the phrase ``condensable VOC
                                compounds'' with the phrase
                                ``condensable compounds.''
Sec.  63.1365(c)(2)(i)(D)(4)(  We are proposing to correct Equation 15
 i).                            by replacing the terms ``Pj, 1'' and
                                ``Pj, 2'' with the terms ``Pi, 1'' and
                                ``Pi, 2.'' We are also proposing to
                                correct the definition of the term ``m''
                                by specifying that it counts the number
                                of HAP compounds in the emission stream,
                                not the number of condensable VOC.
Sec.  63.1365(c)(2)(i)(D)(4)(  In the list of definitions of terms for
 iii).                          Equation 17, we are proposing to correct
                                a typographical error; the term
                                ``HAP,1'' should read ``nHAP,1.''
Sec.  63.1365(c)(2)(i)(E)(3).  We are proposing to replace the upper
                                case mole fraction terms with lower case
                                terms; to define the mole fraction term
                                as the liquid phase mole fraction, not
                                the mole fraction in the emission
                                stream; and we are proposing to replace
                                the phrase ``condensable VOC'' with the
                                phrase ``condensable compound'' in the
                                definitions of the terms ``Pj*,''
                                ``xj,'' and ``m.''
Sec.  63.1365(c)(2)(i)(E)(4).  We are proposing to move the Equation 23
                                to its proper location before the
                                definitions list.
Sec.  63.1365(c)(2)(i)(F)....  We are proposing to correct Equation 26
                                by replacing the term ``MWs'' with the
                                term ``MWHAP'' to be consistent with the
                                term in the list of definitions of
                                terms. We are also proposing to correct
                                the definitions of 5the terms ``Pj'' and
                                ``m'' by replacing the phrase
                                ``condensable VOC'' with the phrase
                                ``condensable compounds.''
Sec.  63.1365(d)(3)(ii)......  This paragraph specifies that initial
                                compliance for storage vessels equipped
                                with floating roofs is demonstrated by
                                complying with procedures specified in
                                Sec.  63.120, except as specified in
                                Sec.  63.1362(d)(2)(i), (iv), and (v).
                                Because we are proposing to delete one
                                of the referenced paragraphs (see
                                discussion earlier in this table), we
                                are proposing to state the exceptions in
                                subparagraphs to this paragraph.
Sec.  63.1365(g).............  We are proposing to replace several
                                incorrect references to Sec.  63.1362(h)
                                and (i) with the correct reference to
                                Sec.  63.1362(g).
Sec.  63.1367(a)(3)..........  We are proposing to replace the incorrect
                                reference to paragraph (b)(3)(i) with
                                the correct reference to paragraph
                                (a)(3)(i).

[[Page 17507]]

 
Sec.  63.1367(a)(3)(i).......  We are proposing to clarify that the
                                owner or operator must record the
                                occurrence and duration of each
                                malfunction of process operations,
                                consistent with the requirements in Sec.
                                 63.6(e)(3)(iii) of the General
                                Provisions to 40 CFR part 63.
Sec.  63.1367(b)(4)..........  We are proposing to specify that the
                                records must be updated daily to be
                                consistent with the monitoring
                                requirements specified in Sec.
                                63.1366(c).
Sec.  63.1367(b)(7)..........  We are proposing to revise this paragraph
                                to require a log or schedule of
                                operating scenarios that is updated
                                daily or, at a minimum, each time a
                                different operating scenario takes
                                effect.
Sec.  63.1367(b)(10).........  Table 1 in the rule specifies that Sec.
                                63.10(b)(2) does not apply to subpart
                                MMM because we have specified applicable
                                records in Sec.  63.1367. One of the
                                requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2) is to
                                record all maintenance performed on the
                                air pollution control equipment. We
                                neglected to include this requirement in
                                Sec.  63.1367, but these are important
                                records that we should have required.
                                Therefore, we are proposing to add this
                                paragraph requiring records of this
                                information.
Sec.  63.1367(b)(11).........  We are proposing to add this paragraph
                                requiring records of the results of each
                                inspection and seal gap measurement in
                                accordance with Sec.  63.123(c) through
                                (e). This change would make the
                                recordkeeping requirements consistent
                                with the HON and numerous other rules.
Sec.  63.1368(e)(4)..........  We are proposing to replace the incorrect
                                reference to Sec.  63.1362(i) with the
                                correct reference to Sec.  63.1362(g).
                                We are also proposing to replace the
                                incorrect reference to Sec.
                                63.1365(g)(3) with the correct reference
                                to Sec.  63.1365(g)(1).
Sec.  63.1368(g)(1)..........  We are proposing to clarify that the
                                first report is due no later than 240
                                days after the Notification of
                                Compliance Status report is due, and
                                that subsequent reports are due no later
                                than 60 days after the end of the
                                applicable reporting period.
Sec.  63.1368(g)(2)(xii).....  We are proposing to add this paragraph
                                that requires reporting consistent with
                                Sec.  63.122(d) through (f) of the HON.
                                The referenced paragraphs require that
                                the results of inspections that detected
                                a failure, or seal gap measurements that
                                exceed required limits, be submitted in
                                Periodic reports.
Sec.  63.1368(m).............  We are proposing to replace the incorrect
                                reference to Sec.  63.1365(b)(10)(ii)
                                with the correct reference to Sec.
                                63.1365(b)(11)(iii).
Table 1 to subpart MMM.......  Table 1 to subpart MMM currently
                                specifies that Sec.  63.9(j) does not
                                apply for changes related to compliance
                                for equipment leaks. We are proposing to
                                specify that Sec.  63.9(j) does not
                                apply at all for the purposes of subpart
                                MMM because Sec.  63.1368(h) specifies
                                procedures for notification of changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Are the Administrative Requirements for the Proposed 
Amendments?

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that these proposed amendments do not 
constitute a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of 
Executive Order 12866. Consequently, this action was not subject to OMB 
review.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    Today's proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. 
They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because State and 
local governments do not own or operate any sources that would be 
subject to this rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
today's action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on these proposed 
amendments from State and local officials.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.''
    The final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
the proposed rule amendments.

[[Page 17508]]

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. Today's proposed amendments 
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on 
technology performance, not health or safety risks. Furthermore, the 
final rule has been determined not to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the 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 to have 
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that today's proposed amendments do not 
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local, or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. For existing sources, 
the total annual cost of the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 
NESHAP has been estimated to be approximately $39.4 million (64 FR 
33559, June 23, 1999). Today's proposed amendments do not add new 
requirements that would increase this cost. Thus, today's proposed 
amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 
of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that these proposed 
amendments contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments because they contain no 
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon 
them. Therefore, today's proposed amendments are not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), As Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed 
amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
code 325320 that has up to 500 employees; (2) a small business in NAICS 
code 325199 that has up to 1,000 employees; (3) 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 
(4) 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 today's proposed 
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The EPA has determined that none of the small entities will 
experience a significant impact because the proposed amendments impose 
no additional regulatory requirements on owners or operators of 
affected sources.
    Although these proposed amendments will not have a significant 
economic impact, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of the 
proposed amendments on small entities. Many of the proposed amendments 
define optional means of compliance. For example, vapor balancing was 
added as an optional means of compliance for storage tanks, compliance 
may be demonstrated for either TOC or total organic HAP rather than 
only TOC, monitoring of combustion device operating parameters would be 
allowed under the alternative standard as an option to correcting to 3 
percent oxygen, and we have specified additional EPA test methods that 
may be used to analyze wastewater without performing the validation 
procedures specified in Method 301 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63. We 
also are proposing to add a provision that would allow an owner or 
operator to request an extension to the specified period of planned 
routine maintenance of control devices for storage vessels during which 
the owner or operator is exempt from the standards. The proposed 
amendments also simplify the initial compliance demonstration 
requirements and recordkeeping requirements for processes that are 
controlled by a dedicated control device. We continue to be interested 
in the potential impacts of the proposed amendments on small entities 
and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB has approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the 1999 NESHAP under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control 
number 2060-0370. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has 
been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1807.01), and

[[Page 17509]]

a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at U. S. EPA, Office 
of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    Today's proposed amendments to the NESHAP will have no net impact 
on the information collection burden estimates made previously. An 
oversight has been corrected by adding recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for add-on control devices for storage tanks equipped with 
floating roofs. The promulgated rule only included recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements for add-on control devices for storage tanks 
even though add-on control devices and floating roofs were considered 
in the cost impacts and burden estimates. Also, the proposed amendments 
clarify the intent of several provisions in the 1999 NESHAP and correct 
inadvertent omissions and minor drafting errors in the 1999 NESHAP. 
Therefore, the ICR has not been revised.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 
104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    During the rulemaking, EPA searched for voluntary consensus 
standards that might be applicable. The search identified 22 voluntary 
consensus standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA 
standard reference methods in the rule, but after review, none were 
considered practical alternatives to the specified EPA methods. An 
assessment of these voluntary consensus standards is presented in the 
preamble to the 1999 NESHAP (64 FR 33588, June 23, 1999). Today's 
proposed amendments specify additional EPA methods that may be used to 
determine the concentration of HAP in wastewater samples without 
conducting the validation procedures specified in Sec. 63.144, but no 
additional voluntary consensus standards have been identified. The EPA 
welcomes comments on this aspect of these proposed amendments and, 
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should 
be used in this rule.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 
22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: March 20, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart MMM--National Emission Standards for Pesticide Active 
Ingredient Production

    2. Section 63.1360 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
    c. Revising paragraph (d)(3);
    d. Redesignating paragraph (d)(4) as paragraph (d)(5) and adding a 
new paragraph (d)(4);
    e. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text;
    f. Revising paragraphs (f)(2) through (4) and adding paragraph 
(f)(5);
    g. Revising paragraph (h); and
    h. Revising paragraph (i)(1).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1360  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) New source applicability. A new affected source subject to this 
subpart and to which the requirements for new sources apply is defined 
according to the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) Any dedicated PAI process unit that meets the criteria 
specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) For which construction, as defined in Sec. 63.1361, commenced 
after November 10, 1997, or reconstruction commenced after [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (ii) That has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 
tons/yr of combined HAP.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Production of ethylene;
    (4) Coal tar distillation; and
* * * * *
    (f) Storage vessel applicability determination. An owner or 
operator shall follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) 
through (5) of this section to determine whether a storage vessel is 
part of the affected source to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *
    (2) Unless otherwise excluded under paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section, the storage vessel is part of a PAI process unit if either the 
input to the vessel from the PAI process unit is greater than or equal 
to the input from any other PAI or non-PAI process unit, or the output 
from the vessel to the PAI process unit is greater than or equal to the 
output to any other PAI or non-PAI process unit. If the greatest input 
to and/or output from a shared storage vessel is the same for two or 
more process units, including one or more PAI process units, the owner 
or operator must assign the storage vessel to any one of the PAI 
process units that meet this condition.
    (3) Unless otherwise excluded under paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section, where a storage vessel is located in a tank farm (including a 
marine tank farm), the applicability of this subpart shall be 
determined according to the provisions in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) The storage vessel in the tank farm is not subject to the 
provisions of this subpart if the greatest input to or output from the 
storage vessel is for a non-PAI process unit. The input and output 
shall be determined among only those process units that share the 
storage vessel and that do not have an intervening storage vessel for 
that product (or raw material, as appropriate).
    (ii) Except for storage vessels in a tank farm excluded in 
accordance with

[[Page 17510]]

paragraph (f)(3)(i), applicability of this subpart shall be determined 
according to the provisions in paragraphs (f)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of 
this section.
    (A) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(C) of this section, 
this subpart does not apply to the storage vessel in a tank farm if 
each PAI process unit that receives material from or sends material to 
the storage vessel has an intervening storage vessel for that material.
    (B) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(C) of this section, 
a storage vessel in a tank farm shall be assigned to the PAI process 
unit that receives the greatest amount of material from or sends the 
greatest amount of material to the storage vessel and does not have an 
intervening storage vessel. If two or more PAI process units have the 
same input to or output from the storage vessel in the tank farm, then 
the storage vessel in the tank farm may be assigned to any one of the 
PAI process units that meet this condition.
    (C) As an alternative to the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(f)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section, even if an intervening storage 
vessel is present, an owner or operator may elect to assign a storage 
vessel in a tank farm to the PAI process unit that sends the most 
material to or receives the most material from the storage vessel. If 
two or more PAI process units have the same input to or output from the 
storage vessel in the tank farm, then the storage vessel in the tank 
farm may be assigned to any one of the PAI process units that meet this 
condition.
    (iii) With respect to a process unit, an intervening storage vessel 
means a storage vessel connected by hard-piping to the process unit and 
to the storage vessel in the tank farm so that the product or raw 
material entering or leaving the process flows into (or from) the 
intervening storage vessel and does not flow directly into (or from) 
the storage vessel in the tank farm.
    (4) If use varies from year to year, then use for the purposes of 
this subpart for existing sources shall be based on the utilization 
that occurred during the year preceding June 23, 1999 or, if the 
storage vessel was not in operation during that year, the use shall be 
based on the expected use in the 5 years after startup. This 
determination shall be reported as part of an operating permit 
application or as otherwise specified by the permitting authority.
    (5) If the storage vessel begins receiving material from (or 
sending material to) another process unit, or ceasing to receive 
material from (or send material to) a PAI process unit, or if there is 
a significant change in the use of the storage vessel, the owner or 
operator shall reevaluate the ownership determination for the storage 
vessel.
* * * * *
    (h) Applicability of process units included in a process unit 
group. An owner or operator may elect to develop process unit groups in 
accordance with paragraph (h)(1) of this section. For the PAI process 
units in these process unit groups, the owner or operator may comply 
with the provisions in overlapping MACT standards, as specified in 
paragraphs (h)(2) through (4) of this section, as an alternative means 
of demonstrating compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
    (1) Develop, revise, and document changes in a process unit group 
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 
through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Initially, identify a non-dedicated PAI process unit that is 
operating on December 23, 2003 or a date after December 23, 2003, and 
identify all processing equipment that is part of this PAI process 
unit, based on descriptions in operating scenarios.
    (ii) Add to the group any other non-dedicated PAI and non-dedicated 
non-PAI process units expected to be operated in the 5 years after the 
date specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section, provided they 
satisfy the criteria specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) 
of this section. Also identify all of the processing equipment used for 
each process unit based on information from operating scenarios and 
other applicable documentation.
    (A) Each PAI process unit that is added to a group must have some 
processing equipment that is part of one or more PAI process units that 
are already in the process unit group.
    (B) Each non-PAI process unit that is added to a group must have 
some processing equipment that is also part of one or more of the PAI 
process units in the group.
    (C) No process unit may be part of more than one process unit 
group.
    (iii) The initial process unit group consists of all of the 
processing equipment for the process units identified in paragraphs 
(h)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (iv) If compliance is to be demonstrated in accordance with 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section, determine the primary product of the 
process unit group according to the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(h)(1)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) The primary product is the type of product (e.g., PAI, 
pharmaceutical product, thermoplastic resin, etc.) that is expected to 
be produced for the greatest operating time in the 5-year period 
specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section.
    (B) If the process unit group produces multiple products equally 
based on operating time, then the primary product is the product with 
the greatest production on a mass basis over the 5-year period 
specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section.
    (C) The primary product of the group must be redetermined if the 
owner or operator does not intend to make that product in the future or 
if it has not been made for 5 years. The results of the redetermination 
must be recorded as specified in Sec. 63.1367(b) and reported in a 
Periodic report no later than the report covering the period for the 
end of the 5th year as specified in Sec. 63.1368(g)(2). If the primary 
product changes, the owner or operator must either demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable subpart as specified in paragraph (h)(3) 
of this section or demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this 
subpart MMM.
    (v) Add process units developed in the future in accordance with 
the conditions specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of 
this section.
    (vi) Maintain records of changes in the process units in each 
process unit group as specified in Sec. 63.1367(b)(9), and maintain 
reports as specified in Sec. 63.1368(f)(9) and (g)(2)(ix).
    (2) If any of the products produced in the process unit group are 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG (Pharmaceuticals MACT), the 
owner or operator may elect to comply with the requirements of subpart 
GGG for the PAI process unit(s) within the process unit group, except 
for the following:
    (i) The emission limit standard for process vents in 
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(i) shall apply in place of Sec. 63.1254(a)(2);
    (ii) When the dates of April 2, 1997 and April 2, 2007 are provided 
in Sec. 63.1254(a)(3)(ii), the dates of November 10, 1997 and November 
10, 2007, respectively, shall apply for purposes of this subpart MMM; 
and
    (iii) Requirements in Sec. 63.1367(a)(5) regarding application for 
approval of construction or reconstruction shall apply in place of the 
provisions in Sec. 63.1259(a)(5).
    (3) If the primary product of a process unit group is determined to 
be a type of material that is subject to another subpart of 40 CFR part 
63 on June 23, 1999 or startup of the first process unit after 
formation of the process unit group, whichever is later, the owner or 
operator may elect to comply with the other subpart for any PAI process 
unit within the process unit group, subject to

[[Page 17511]]

the requirement in this paragraph (h)(3). Emissions from PAI Group 1 
process vents, as defined in Sec. 63.1361, must be reduced in 
accordance with the control requirements for Group 1 vents as specified 
in the alternative subpart. The criteria in the alternative subpart for 
determining which process vents must be controlled do not apply for the 
purposes of paragraph (h)(3) of this section.
    (4) The requirements for new and reconstructed sources in the 
alternative subpart apply to all PAI process units in the process unit 
group if and only if the affected source under the alternative subpart 
meets the requirements for construction or reconstruction.
    (i) * * *
    (1) Compliance with other MACT standards. (i) After the compliance 
dates specified in Sec. 63.1364, an affected source subject to the 
provisions of this subpart that is also subject to the provisions of 
any other subpart of 40 CFR part 63 may elect, to the extent the 
subparts are consistent, under which subpart to maintain records and 
report to EPA. The affected source shall identify in the Notification 
of Compliance Status report required by Sec. 63.1368(f) under which 
authority such records will be maintained.
    (ii) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1364, at an 
offsite reloading or cleaning facility subject to Sec. 63.1362(b)(6), 
compliance with the emission standards and associated initial 
compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of any 
other subpart of 40 CFR part 63 constitutes compliance with the 
provisions of Sec. 63.1362(b)(6)(vii)(B) or (C). The owner or operator 
of the affected storage vessel shall identify in the Notification of 
Compliance Status report required by Sec. 63.1368(f) the subpart of 40 
CFR part 63 with which the owner or operator of the offsite reloading 
or cleaning facility complies.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.1361 is amended by:
    a. Revising the definitions for ``Construction,'' ``Consumption,'' 
``Group 1 storage vessel,'' ``Group 1 wastewater stream,'' 
``Intermediate,'' ``Process,'' ``Process unit group,'' ``Process 
vent,'' ``Recovery device,'' ``Supplemental gases,'' and ``Wastewater';
    b. Revising ``equipment identified in Sec. 63.1362(l)'' to read 
``equipment identified in Sec. 63.1362(k)'' in the definition of 
``pesticide active ingredient manufacturing process unit (PAI process 
unit);'' and
    c. Adding definitions in alphabetical order for ``Dedicated PAI 
process unit,'' ``Formulation of pesticide products,'' ``Non-dedicated 
PAI process unit,'' ``Reconfiguration,'' and ``Reconstruction.''
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1361  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Construction means the onsite fabrication, erection, or 
installation of an affected source or dedicated PAI process unit. 
Addition of new equipment to an affected source does not constitute 
construction, provided the new equipment is not a dedicated PAI process 
unit with the potential to emit 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr 
of combined HAP, but it may constitute reconstruction of the affected 
source or PAI process unit if it satisfies the definition of 
reconstruction in this section. At an affected source, changing raw 
materials processed and reconfiguring non-dedicated equipment to create 
a non-dedicated PAI process unit do not constitute construction.
    Consumption means the quantity of all HAP raw materials entering a 
process in excess of the theoretical amount used as reactant, assuming 
100 percent stoichiometric conversion. The raw materials include 
reactants, solvents, and any other additives. If HAP are generated in 
the process as well as added as raw material, consumption includes the 
quantity generated in the process.
* * * * *
    Dedicated PAI process unit means a PAI process unit constructed 
from equipment that is fixed in place and designed and operated to 
produce only a single product or co-products. The equipment is not 
designed to be reconfigured to create different process units, and it 
is not operated with different raw materials so as to produce different 
products.
* * * * *
    Formulation of pesticide products means the mixing, blending, or 
diluting of a PAI with one or more other PAI's or inert ingredients.
* * * * *
    Group 1 storage vessel means a storage vessel at an existing 
affected source with a capacity equal to or greater than 75 m\3\ and 
storing material with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or 
equal to 3.45 kPa, a storage vessel at a new affected source with a 
capacity equal to or greater than 40 m\3\ and storing material with a 
maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 16.5 kPa, or a 
storage vessel at a new affected source with a capacity greater than or 
equal to 75 m\3\ and storing material with a maximum true vapor 
pressure greater than or equal to 3.45 kPa.
* * * * *
    Group 1 wastewater stream means process wastewater at an existing 
or new source that meets the criteria for Group 1 status in 
Sec. 63.132(c) for compounds in Table 9 of subpart G of this part or a 
maintenance wastewater stream that contains 5.3 Mg of compounds in 
Table 9 of subpart G of this part per discharge event.
* * * * *
    Intermediate means an organic compound that is manufactured in a 
process and that is further processed or modified in one or more 
additional steps to ultimately produce a PAI.
* * * * *
    Non-dedicated PAI process unit means a process unit that is not a 
dedicated PAI process unit.
* * * * *
    Process means a logical grouping of processing equipment which 
collectively function to produce a product. For the purpose of this 
subpart, a PAI process includes all, or a combination of, reaction, 
recovery, separation, purification, treatment, cleaning, and other 
activities or unit operations, which are used to produce a PAI or 
integral intermediate. Ancillary activities are not considered a PAI 
process or any part of a PAI process. Ancillary activities include 
boilers and incinerators (not used to comply with the provisions of 
Sec. 63.1362), chillers or refrigeration systems, and other equipment 
and activities that are not directly involved (i.e., they operate 
within a closed system and materials are not combined with process 
fluids) in the processing of raw materials or the manufacturing of a 
PAI. A PAI process and all integral intermediate processes for which 
100 percent of the annual production is used in the production of the 
PAI may be linked together and defined as a single PAI process unit.
* * * * *
    Process unit group means a group of process units that manufacture 
PAI's and products other than PAI's by alternating raw materials or 
operating conditions, or by reconfiguring process equipment. A process 
unit group is determined according to the procedures specified in 
Sec. 63.1360(g).
    Process vent means a point of emission from processing equipment to 
the atmosphere or a control device. The vent may be the release point 
for an emission stream associated with an individual unit operation, or 
it may be the release point for emission streams from multiple unit 
operations that have

[[Page 17512]]

been manifolded together into a common header. Examples of process 
vents include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used for 
product recovery, bottom receivers, surge control vessels, reactors, 
filters, centrifuges, process tanks, and product dryers. A vent is not 
considered to be a process vent for a given emission episode if the 
undiluted and uncontrolled emission stream that is released through the 
vent contains less than 50 ppmv HAP, as determined through process 
knowledge that no HAP are present in the emission stream; using an 
engineering assessment as discussed in Sec. 63.1365(b)(2)(ii); from 
test data collected using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; or 
from test data collected using any other test method that has been 
validated according to the procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of 
this part. Process vents do not include vents on storage vessels 
regulated under Sec. 63.1362(c), vents on wastewater emission sources 
regulated under Sec. 63.1362(d), or pieces of equipment regulated under 
Sec. 63.1363.
* * * * *
    Reconfiguration means disassembly of processing equipment for a 
particular non-dedicated process unit and reassembly of that processing 
equipment in a different sequence, or in combination with other 
equipment, to create a different non-dedicated process unit.
    Reconstruction, as used in Sec. 63.1360(b), shall have the meaning 
given in Sec. 63.2, except that ``affected or previously unaffected 
stationary source'' shall mean either ``affected facility'' or ``PAI 
process unit.''
    Recovery device, as used in the wastewater provisions, means an 
individual unit of equipment capable of, and normally used for the 
purpose of, recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive 
heating value), use, reuse, or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. 
Examples of equipment that may be recovery devices include organic 
removal devices such as decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation 
units. To be a recovery device, a decanter and any other equipment 
based on the operating principle of gravity separation must receive 
only multi-phase liquid streams.
* * * * *
    Supplemental gases means any nonaffected gaseous streams (streams 
that are not from process vents, storage vessels, equipment or waste 
management units) that contain less than 50 ppmv TOC and less than 50 
ppmv total HCl and chlorine, as determined through process knowledge, 
and are combined with an affected vent stream. Supplemental gases are 
often used to maintain pressures in manifolds or for fire and explosion 
protection and prevention. Air required to operate combustion device 
burner(s) is not considered a supplemental gas.
* * * * *
    Wastewater means water that meets either of the conditions 
described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition and is discarded 
from a PAI process unit that is at an affected source:
    (1) Is generated from a PAI process or a scrubber used to control 
emissions from a PAI process and contains either:
    (i) An annual average concentration of compounds in Table 9 of 
subpart G of this part of at least 5 ppmw and has an average flow rate 
of 0.02 L/min or greater; or
    (ii) An annual average concentration of compounds in Table 9 of 
subpart G of this part of at least 10,000 ppmw at any flow rate;
    (2) Is generated from a PAI process unit as a result of maintenance 
activities and contains at least 5.3 Mg of compounds listed in Table 9 
of subpart G of this part per individual discharge event.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.1362 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A);
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A);
    c. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(ii);
    d. Revising paragraph (b)(6);
    e. Revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text;
    f. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv) introductory text;
    g. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(B);
    h. Revising paragraphs (c)(3) through (6);
    i. Adding paragraph (c)(7);
    j. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
    k. Revising paragraph (d)(2) introductory text;
    l. Removing paragraph (d)(2)(v);
    m. Revising paragraphs (d) (12) through (14);
    n. Adding paragraphs (d) (15) and (16);
    o. Revising paragraph (h) (2) introductory text;
    p. Revising paragraphs (h) (2)(i) and (iii); and
    q. Revising paragraphs (h) (3) and (4).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1362  Standards.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) To outlet concentrations less than or equal to 20 ppmv; or
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) To outlet concentrations less than or equal to 20 ppmv; or
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) If HCl and Cl2 emissions, including HCl generated 
from combustion of halogenated process vent emissions, from the sum of 
all process vents within a process are greater than 6.8 Mg/yr and less 
than or equal to 191 Mg/yr, these HCl and Cl2 emissions 
shall be reduced by 94 percent or to an outlet concentration less than 
or equal to 20 ppmv.
* * * * *
    (6) Alternative standard. As an alternative to the provisions in 
paragraphs (b) (2) through (5) of this section, the owner or operator 
may route emissions from a process vent to a combustion control device 
achieving an outlet TOC concentration, as calibrated on methane or the 
predominant HAP, of 20 ppmv or less, and an outlet concentration of HCl 
and Cl2 of 20 ppmv or less. If the owner or operator is 
routing emissions to a non-combustion control device or series of 
control devices, the control device(s) must achieve an outlet TOC 
concentration, as calibrated on methane or the predominant HAP, of 50 
ppmv or less, and an outlet concentration of HCl and Cl2 of 
50 ppmv or less. Any process vents within a process that are not routed 
to such a control device or series of control devices must be 
controlled in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2)(ii), 
(b)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(iv), (b)(3)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(ii), or 
(b)(5)(iii) of this section, as applicable.
    (c) * * *
    (2) Standard for existing sources. Except as specified in 
paragraphs (c)(4), (5), and (6) of this section, the owner or operator 
of a Group 1 storage vessel at an existing affected source, as defined 
in Sec. 63.1361, shall equip the affected storage vessel with one of 
the following:
* * * * *
    (iv) A closed vent system meeting the conditions of paragraph (j) 
of this section and a control device that meets any of the following 
conditions:
* * * * *
    (B) Reduces organic HAP emissions to outlet concentrations of 20 
ppmv or less; or
* * * * *
    (3) Standard for new sources. Except as specified in paragraphs 
(c)(4), (5), and (6) of this section, the owner or operator of a Group 
1 storage vessel at a new source, as defined in Sec. 63.1361, shall 
equip the affected storage vessel in

[[Page 17513]]

accordance with any one of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (4) Alternative standard. As an alternative to the provisions in 
paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, the owner or operator of an 
existing or new affected source may route emissions from storage 
vessels to a combustion control device achieving an outlet TOC 
concentration, as calibrated on methane or the predominant HAP, of 20 
ppmv or less, and an outlet concentration of hydrogen chloride and 
chlorine of 20 ppmv or less. If the owner or operator is routing 
emissions to a non-combustion control device or series of control 
devices, the control device(s) must achieve an outlet TOC 
concentration, as calibrated on methane or the predominant HAP, of 50 
ppmv or less, and an outlet concentration of HCl and Cl2 of 
50 ppmv or less.
    (5) Planned routine maintenance. The owner or operator is exempt 
from the specifications in paragraphs (c)(2) through (4) of this 
section during periods of planned routine maintenance of the control 
device that do not exceed 240 hr/yr. The owner or operator may submit 
an application to the Administrator requesting an extension of this 
time limit to a total of 360 hr/yr. The application must explain why 
the extension is needed, it must indicate that no material will be 
added to the storage vessel between the time the 240 hr limit is 
exceeded and the control device is again operational, and it must be 
submitted at least 60 days before the 240 hr limit will be exceeded.
    (6) Vapor Balancing Alternative. As an alternative to the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, the owner or 
operator of an existing or new affected source may implement vapor 
balancing in accordance with paragraphs (c)(6)(i) through (vii) of this 
section.
    (i) The vapor balancing system must be designed and operated to 
route organic HAP vapors displaced from loading of the storage tank to 
the railcar or tank truck from which the storage tank is filled.
    (ii) Tank trucks and railcars must have a current certification in 
accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation pressure test 
requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for 
railcars.
    (iii) Hazardous air pollutants must only be unloaded from tank 
trucks or railcars when vapor collection systems are connected to the 
storage tank's vapor collection system.
    (iv) No pressure relief device on the storage tank, or on the 
railcar or tank truck shall open during loading or as a result of 
diurnal temperature changes (breathing losses).
    (v) Pressure relief devices on affected storage tanks must be set 
to no less than 2.5 psig at all times to prevent breathing losses. The 
owner or operator shall record the setting as specified in 
Sec. 63.1367(b)(8) and comply with the following requirements for each 
pressure relief valve:
    (A) The pressure relief valve shall be monitored quarterly using 
the method described in Sec. 63.180(b).
    (B) An instrument reading of 500 ppmv or greater defines a leak.
    (C) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as 
practicable, but no later than 5 days after it is detected, and the 
owner or operator shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements of 
Sec. 63.1363(g)(4)(i) through (iv).
    (vi) Railcars or tank trucks that deliver HAP to an affected 
storage tank must be reloaded or cleaned at a facility that utilizes 
one of the following control techniques:
    (A) The railcar or tank truck must be connected to a closed vent 
system with a control device that reduces inlet emissions of HAP by 90 
percent by weight or greater; or
    (B) A vapor balancing system designed and operated to collect 
organic HAP vapor displaced from the tank truck or railcar during 
reloading must be used to route the collected HAP vapor to the storage 
tank from which the liquid being transferred originated.
    (vii) The owner or operator of the facility where the railcar or 
tank truck is reloaded or cleaned must comply with the following 
requirements:
    (A) Submit to the owner or operator of the affected storage tank 
and to the Administrator a written certification that the reloading or 
cleaning facility will meet the requirements of this section. The 
certifying entity may revoke the written certification by sending a 
written statement to the owner or operator of the affected storage tank 
giving at least 90 days notice that the certifying entity is rescinding 
acceptance of responsibility for compliance with the requirements of 
this paragraph.
    (B) If complying with paragraph (c)(6)(vi)(A) of this section, 
demonstrate initial compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.1365(d), 
demonstrate continuous compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.1366, keep 
records as specified in Sec. 63.1367, and prepare reports as specified 
in Sec. 63.1368.
    (C) If complying with paragraph (c)(6)(vi)(B) of this section, keep 
records of:
    (1) The equipment to be used and the procedures to be followed when 
reloading the railcar or tank truck and displacing vapors to the 
storage tank from which the liquid originates, and
    (2) Each time the vapor balancing system is used to comply with 
paragraph (c)(6)(vi)(B) of this section.
    (7) Compliance with the provisions of paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of 
this section is demonstrated using the initial compliance procedures in 
Sec. 63.1365(d) and the monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1366. 
Compliance with the outlet concentrations in paragraph (c)(4) of this 
section shall be determined by the initial compliance provisions in 
Sec. 63.1365(a)(5) and the continuous emission monitoring requirements 
of Sec. 63.1366(b)(5).
    (d) Wastewater. The owner or operator of each affected source shall 
comply with the requirements of Secs. 63.132 through 63.147, with the 
differences noted in paragraphs (d)(1) through (16) of this section for 
the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (2) When the storage tank requirements contained in Secs. 63.119 
through 63.123 are referred to in Secs. 63.132 through 63.147, 
Secs. 63.119 through 63.123 are applicable, with the exception of the 
differences noted in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (12) As an alternative to using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, as 
specified in Secs. 63.139(c)(1)(ii) and 63.145(i)(2), the owner or 
operator may elect to use Method 25 or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, as 
specified in Sec. 63.1365(b).
    (13) The requirement to correct outlet concentrations from 
combustion devices to 3 percent oxygen in Sec. 63.139(c)(1)(ii) shall 
apply only if supplemental gases are combined with affected vent 
streams, and the procedures in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7)(i) apply instead of 
the procedures in Sec. 63.145(i)(6) to determine the percent oxygen 
correction. If emissions are controlled with a vapor recovery system as 
specified in Sec. 63.139(c)(2), the owner or operator must correct for 
supplemental gases as specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7)(ii).
    (14) As an alternative to the management and treatment options 
specified in Sec. 63.132(g)(2), any Group 1 wastewater stream (or 
residual removed from a Group 1 wastewater stream) that contains less 
than 50 ppmw of HAP listed in Table 2 to subpart GGG of this part may 
be transferred offsite or to an on-site treatment operation not owned 
or operated by the owner or operator of the source generating the 
wastewater (or residual) if the transferee manages and treats the 
wastewater stream or residual

[[Page 17514]]

in accordance with paragraphs (d)(14)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Treat the wastewater stream or residual in a biological 
treatment unit in accordance with Secs. 63.138 and 63.145.
    (ii) Cover the waste management units up to the activated sludge 
unit. Alternatively, covers are not required if the owner or operator 
demonstrates that less than 5 percent of the total HAP listed in Table 
3 to subpart GGG of this part is emitted.
    (iii) Inspect covers as specified in Sec. 63.1366(h).
    (iv) The reference in Sec. 63.132(g)(2) to ``Sec. 63.102(b) of 
subpart F'' does not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
    (15) When Sec. 63.133 refers to Table 10 to subpart G of this part, 
the maximum true vapor pressures in the table shall be limited to the 
HAP listed in Table 9 to subpart G of this part.
    (16) When the inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 
contained in Sec. 63.148 are referred to in Secs. 63.132 through 
63.147, the inspection requirements in Sec. 63.1366(h), the 
recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.1367(f), and the reporting 
requirements in Sec. 63.1368(g)(2)(iii) and (xi) shall apply for the 
purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) Group 1 emission points that are controlled as specified in 
paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section may not be used to 
calculate emissions averaging credits, unless a nominal efficiency has 
been assigned according to the procedures in Sec. 63.150(i). The 
nominal efficiency must exceed the percent reduction required by 
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for process vents and storage 
vessels, respectively, exceed the percent reduction required in 
Sec. 63.139(c) for control devices used to control emissions vented 
from waste management units, and exceed the percent reduction required 
in Sec. 63.138(e) or (f) for wastewater treatment processes.
    (i) Storage vessels controlled with an internal floating roof 
meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.119(b), an external floating roof 
meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.119(c), or an external floating 
roof converted to an internal floating meeting the specifications of 
Sec. 63.119(d).
* * * * *
    (iii) Wastewater streams that are both managed in waste management 
units that are controlled as specified in Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 
and treated using a steam stripper meeting the specifications of 
Sec. 63.138(d).
    (3) Process vents and storage vessels controlled with a control 
device to an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv or 50 ppmv, as specified 
in paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A), (b)(3)(ii), (b)(6), (c)(2)(iv)(B), or 
(c)(4) of this section, and wastewater streams controlled in a 
treatment unit to an outlet concentration of 50 ppmw, may not be used 
in any averaging group.
    (4) Maintenance wastewater streams, wastewater streams treated in 
biological treatment units, and Group 2 wastewater streams that are not 
managed as specified in Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 may not be included 
in any averaging group.
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.1363 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
    b. Revising paragraphs (a)(10)(ii) and (iii);
    c.-d. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) (A) through (F), adding 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(G), and revising paragraph (b)(3)(w);
    e. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (iii);
    f. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(i);
    g. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(ii);
    h. Revising paragraph (c)(5) introductory text;
    i. Revising paragraph (c)(5)(iv);
    j. Removing paragraphs (c)(5)(vi)(C) and (D);
    k. Adding paragraph (c)(5)(vii);
    l. Revising paragraph (c)(6);
    m. Revising paragraph (c)(9);
    n. Revising paragraph (e)(7)(iii);
    o. Revising paragraph (e)(9);
    p. Revising paragraph (f); and
    q. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(vi).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1363  Standards for equipment leaks.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The provisions of this section apply to ``equipment'' as 
defined in Sec. 63.1361. The provisions of this section also apply to 
any closed-vent systems and control devices required by this section.
* * * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) The identification on a valve in light liquid or gas/vapor 
service may be removed after it has been monitored as specified in 
paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of this section, and no leak has been detected 
during the follow-up monitoring. If an owner or operator elects to 
comply with Sec. 63.174(c)(1)(i), the identification on a connector may 
be removed after it has been monitored as specified in 
Sec. 63.174(c)(1)(i) and no leak is detected during that monitoring.
    (iii) The identification on equipment, except as specified in 
paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of this section, may be removed after it has been 
repaired.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) Section 63.174(b), (f), (g), and (h) shall not apply. In place 
of Sec. 63.174(b), the owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs 
(b)(3)(iii)(C) through (G) of this section. In place of Sec. 63.174(f), 
(g), and (h), the owner or operator shall comply with paragraph (f) of 
this section.
    (B) Days that the connectors are not in organic HAP service shall 
not be considered part of the 3-month period in Sec. 63.174(c).
    (C) If the percent leaking connectors in a group of processes was 
greater than or equal to 0.5 percent during the initial monitoring 
period, monitoring shall be performed once per year until the percent 
leaking connectors is less than 0.5 percent.
    (D) If the percent leaking connectors in the group of processes was 
less than 0.5 percent, but equal to or greater than 0.25 percent, 
during the last required monitoring period, monitoring shall be 
performed once every 4 years. An owner or operator may comply with the 
requirements of this paragraph by monitoring at least 40 percent of the 
connectors in the first 2 years and the remainder of the connectors 
within the next 2 years. The percent leaking connectors will be 
calculated for the total of all monitoring performed during the 4-year 
period.
    (E) The owner or operator shall increase the monitoring frequency 
to once every 2 years for the next monitoring period if leaking 
connectors comprise at least 0.5 percent but less than 1.0 percent of 
the connectors monitored within either the 4 years specified in 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(D) of this section, the first 4 years specified 
in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section, or the entire 8 years 
specified in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. At the end of 
that 2-year monitoring period, the owner or operator shall monitor once 
per year while the percent leaking connectors is greater than or equal 
to 0.5 percent; if the percent leaking connectors is less than 0.5 
percent, the owner or operator may again elect to monitor in accordance 
with paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(D) or (G) of this section, as applicable.
    (F) If an owner or operator complying with the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(D) or (G) of this section for a group of 
processes determines that 1 percent or greater of the connectors are 
leaking, the owner or operator shall

[[Page 17515]]

increase the monitoring frequency to one time per year. The owner or 
operator may again elect to use the provisions of paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(D) or (G) of this section after a monitoring period in 
which less than 0.5 percent of the connectors are determined to be 
leaking.
    (G) Monitoring shall be required once every 8 years, if the percent 
leaking connectors in the group of process units was less than 0.25 
percent during the last required monitoring period. An owner or 
operator shall monitor at least 50 percent of the connectors in the 
first 4 years and the remainder of the connectors within the next 4 
years. If the percent leaking connectors in the first 4 years is equal 
to or greater than 0.35 percent, the monitoring program shall revert at 
that time to the appropriate monitoring frequency specified in 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(D), (E), or (F) of this section.
    (iv) Section 63.178, shall apply, except as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(3)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Section 63.178(b), requirements for pressure testing, shall 
apply to all processes, not just batch processes.
    (B) For pumps, the phrase ``at the frequencies specified in Table 1 
of this subpart'' in Sec. 63.178(c)(3)(iii) shall mean ``quarterly'' 
for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Monitoring. Each pump and agitator subject to this section 
shall be monitored quarterly to detect leaks by the method specified in 
Sec. 63.180(b), except as provided in Sec. 63.177, Sec. 63.178, 
paragraph (f) of this section, and paragraphs (c)(5) through (9) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (iii) Visual inspections. Each pump and agitator shall be checked 
by visual inspection each calendar week for indications of liquids 
dripping from the pump or agitator seal. If there are indications of 
liquids dripping from the seal at the time of the weekly inspection, 
the owner or operator shall follow the procedure specified in either 
paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section prior to the next 
weekly inspection.
    (A) The owner or operator shall monitor the pump or agitator by the 
method specified in Sec. 63.180(b). If the instrument reading indicates 
a leak as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, a leak is 
detected.
    (B) The owner or operator shall eliminate the visual indications of 
liquids dripping.
    (3) * * *
    (i) When a leak is detected pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i), 
(c)(2)(iii)(A), (c)(5)(iv)(A), or (c)(5)(vi)(B) of this section, it 
shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 
calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(3)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) If, calculated on a 1-year rolling average, 10 percent or more 
of the pumps in a group of processes (or 3 pumps in a group of 
processes with fewer than 30 pumps) leak, the owner or operator shall 
monitor each pump once per month, until the calculated 1-year rolling 
average value drops below 10 percent (or three pumps in a group of 
processes with fewer than 30 pumps).
* * * * *
    (5) Exemptions. Each pump or agitator equipped with a dual 
mechanical seal system that includes a barrier fluid system and meets 
the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (vii) is 
exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4)(iii) 
of this section, except as specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(A) and 
(vii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iv) Each pump/agitator is checked by visual inspection each 
calendar week for indications of liquids dripping from the pump/
agitator seal. If there are indications of liquids dripping from the 
pump or agitator seal at the time of the weekly inspection, the owner 
or operator shall follow the procedures specified in either paragraph 
(c)(5)(iv)(A) or (B) of this section prior to the next required 
inspection.
    (A) The owner or operator shall monitor the pump or agitator using 
the method specified in Sec. 63.180(b) to determine if there is a leak 
of organic HAP in the barrier fluid. If the instrument reading 
indicates a leak, as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, 
a leak is detected.
    (B) The owner or operator shall eliminate the visual indications of 
liquids dripping.
* * * * *
    (vii) When a leak is detected pursuant to paragraph (c)(5)(iv)(A) 
or (vi)(B) of this section, the leak must be repaired as specified in 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (6) Any pump/agitator that is designed with no externally actuated 
shaft penetrating the pump/agitator housing is exempt from the 
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (9) If more than 90 percent of the pumps in a group of processes 
meet the criteria in either paragraph (c)(5) or (6) of this section, 
the group of processes is exempt from the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (iii) When a leak is repaired, the valve shall be monitored at 
least once within the first 3 months after its repair. Days that the 
valve is not in organic HAP service shall not be considered part of 
this 3-month period. The monitoring required by this paragraph is in 
addition to the monitoring required to satisfy the definitions of 
``repaired'' and ``first attempt at repair.''
    (A) The monitoring shall be conducted as specified in 
Sec. 63.180(b) and (c) as appropriate, to determine whether the valve 
has resumed leaking.
    (B) Periodic monitoring required by paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) 
of this section may be used to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 
(e)(7)(iii) of this section, if the timing of the monitoring period 
coincides with the time specified in paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of this 
section. Alternatively, other monitoring may be performed to satisfy 
the requirements of paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of this section, regardless 
of whether the timing of the monitoring period for periodic monitoring 
coincides with the time specified in paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of this 
section.
    (C) If a leak is detected by monitoring that is conducted pursuant 
to paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of this section, the owner or operator shall 
follow the provisions of paragraphs (e)(7)(iii)(C)(1) and (2) of this 
section to determine whether that valve must be counted as a leaking 
valve for purposes of paragraph (e)(6) of this section.
    (1 If the owner or operator elects to use periodic monitoring 
required by paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section to satisfy 
the requirements of paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of this section, then the 
valve shall be counted as a leaking valve.
    (2) If the owner or operator elects to use other monitoring prior 
to the periodic monitoring required by paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of 
this section to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of 
this section, then the valve shall be counted as a leaking valve unless 
it is repaired and shown by periodic monitoring not to be leaking.
* * * * *
    (9) Any equipment located at a plant site with fewer than 250 
valves in organic HAP service in the affected source is exempt from the 
requirements

[[Page 17516]]

for monthly monitoring specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this 
section. Instead, the owner or operator shall monitor each valve in 
organic HAP service for leaks once each quarter, or comply with 
paragraphs (e)(4)(iii), (iv), or (v) of this section, except as 
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (f) Unsafe to monitor, difficult-to-monitor, and inaccessible 
equipment.
    (1) Equipment that is designated as unsafe-to-monitor, difficult-
to-monitor, or inaccessible is exempt from the requirements as 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section provided 
the owner or operator meets the requirements specified in paragraph 
(f)(2), (3), or (4) of this section, as applicable. All equipment, 
except connectors that meet the requirements in paragraph (f)(4) of 
this section, must be assigned to a group of processes. Ceramic or 
ceramic-lined connectors are subject to the same requirements as 
inaccessible connectors.
    (i) For pumps and agitators, paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) of 
this section do not apply.
    (ii) For valves, paragraphs (e)(2) through (7) of this section do 
not apply.
    (iii) For connectors, Sec. 63.174(b) through (e) and paragraphs 
(b)(3)(iii)(C) through (G) of this section do not apply.
    (iv) For closed-vent systems, Sec. 63.172(f)(1), (f)(2), and (g) do 
not apply.
    (2) Equipment that is unsafe-to-monitor.
    (i) Valves, connectors, agitators, and any part of closed-vent 
systems may be designated as unsafe-to-monitor if the owner or operator 
determines that monitoring personnel would be exposed to an immediate 
danger as a consequence of complying with the monitoring requirements 
identified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, or 
the inspection requirements identified in paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this 
section.
    (ii) The owner or operator of equipment that is designated as 
unsafe-to-monitor must have a written plan that requires monitoring of 
the equipment as frequently as practicable during safe-to-monitor 
times. For valves, connectors, and agitators, monitoring shall not be 
more frequent than the periodic monitoring schedule otherwise 
applicable to the group of processes in which the equipment is located. 
For closed-vent systems, inspections shall not be more frequent than 
annually.
    (3) Equipment that is difficult-to-monitor.
    (i) A valve, agitator, pump, or any part of a closed-vent system 
may be designated as difficult-to-monitor if the owner or operator 
determines that the equipment cannot be monitored or inspected without 
elevating the monitoring personnel more than 2 meters above a support 
surface or the equipment is not accessible in a safe manner when it is 
in organic HAP service;
    (ii) At a new affected source, an owner or operator may designate 
no more than 3 percent of valves as difficult-to-monitor.
    (iii) The owner or operator of valves, agitators, or pumps 
designated as difficult-to-monitor must have a written plan that 
requires monitoring of the equipment at least once per calendar year or 
on the periodic monitoring schedule otherwise applicable to the group 
of processes in which the equipment is located, whichever is less 
frequent. For any part of a closed-vent system designated as difficult-
to-monitor, the owner or operator must have a written plan that 
requires inspection of the closed-vent system at least once every 5 
years.
    (4) Inaccessible, ceramic, or ceramic-lined connectors.
    (i) A connector may be designated as inaccessible if it is:
    (A) Buried;
    (B) Insulated in a manner that prevents access to the equipment by 
a monitor probe;
    (C) Obstructed by equipment or piping that prevents access to the 
equipment by a monitor probe;
    (D) Unable to be reached from a wheeled scissor-lift or hydraulic-
type scaffold which would allow access to equipment up to 7.6 meters 
above the ground; or
    (E) Not able to be accessed at any time in a safe manner to perform 
monitoring. Unsafe access includes, but is not limited to, the use of a 
wheeled scissor-lift on unstable or uneven terrain, the use of a 
motorized man-lift basket in areas where an ignition potential exists, 
or access would require near proximity to hazards such as electrical 
lines, or would risk damage to equipment.
    (F) Would require elevating the monitoring personnel more than 2 
meters above a permanent support surface or would require the erection 
of scaffold.
    (ii) At a new affected source, an owner or operator may designate 
no more than 3 percent of connectors as inaccessible.
    (iii) If any inaccessible, ceramic, or ceramic-lined connector is 
observed by visual, audible, olfactory, or other means to be leaking, 
the leak shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but no later than 15 
calendar days after the leak is detected, except as provided in 
paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section.
    (iv) Any connector that is inaccessible or that is ceramic or 
ceramic-lined is exempt from the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section.
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) A list of equipment designated as unsafe to monitor or 
difficult to monitor under paragraph (f) of this section and a copy of 
the plan for monitoring this equipment.
* * * * *


Sec. 63.1365  [Amended]

    6. Section 63.1365 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
    c. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
    d. Revising paragraph (a)(6);
    e. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(i) introductory text;
    f. Revising paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A) and (C);
    g. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(ii);
    h. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    i. Revising paragraph (b)(8);
    j. Revising paragraph (b)(11) introductory text;
    k. Revising paragraph (b)(11)(iii) introductory text;
    l. Revising ``paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section'' to read 
``paragraph (b)(11)(i)(B) of this section'' in the last sentence of 
paragraph (b)(11)(iii)(A);
    m. Adding paragraph (b)(11)(iii)(D);
    n. Revising paragraph (b)(11)(iv);
    o. Removing paragraph (b)(12);
    p. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(iii) and (v);
    q. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C);
    r. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(D)(4)(i) and (iii);
    s. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(E)(3) and (4);
    t. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i)(F);
    u. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii) introductory text and paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii)(A);
    v. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A);
    w. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii) introductory text;
    x. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (B);
    y. Revising paragraph (d)(3)(ii);
    z. Revising paragraph (e);
    aa. Revising ``Sec. 63.1362(h)(2)'' to read ``Sec. 63.1362(g)(2)'' 
and revising ``Sec. 63.1362(h)(3)'' to read ``Sec. 63.1362(g)(3)'' in 
paragraph (g) introductory text;
    bb. Revising ``Sec. 63.1362(h)(2)'' to read ``Sec. 63.1362(g)(2)'' 
in paragraph (g)(3)(i);
    cc. Revising ``Sec. 63.1362(h)(3)(i)'' to read 
``Sec. 63.1362(g)(3)(i)'' in paragraph (g)(3)(ii);
    dd. Revising ``Sec. 63.1362(h)(3)(ii)'' to read 
``Sec. 63.1362(g)(3)(ii)'' in paragraph (g)(4) introductory text;

[[Page 17517]]

    ee. Revising ``Sec. 63.1362(h)(3)(ii)(A)'' to read 
``Sec. 63.1362(g)(3)(ii)(A)'' in paragraph (g)(4)(i); and
    ff. Revising ``Sec. 63.1362(i)(3)(ii)(A)'' to read 
``Sec. 63.1362(g)(3)(iii)(A)'' in paragraph (g)(4)(ii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1365  Test methods and initial compliance procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) For a condenser, the design evaluation must consider the vent 
stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature, and must 
establish the maximum temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream 
and the corresponding outlet organic HAP compound concentration level 
or emission rate for which the required reduction is achieved.
* * * * *
    (2) Calculation of TOC or total organic HAP concentration. The TOC 
concentration or total organic HAP concentration is the sum of the 
concentrations of the individual components. If compliance is being 
determined based on TOC, the owner or operator shall compute TOC for 
each run using Equation 6 of this subpart. If compliance is being 
determined based on total organic HAP, the owner or operator shall 
compute total organic HAP using Equation 6 of this subpart, except that 
only organic HAP compounds shall be summed; when determining compliance 
with the wastewater provisions of Sec. 63.1362(d), the organic HAP 
compounds shall consist of the organic HAP compounds in Table 9 of 
subpart G of this part.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.000

Where:

CGT=total concentration of TOC in vented gas stream, average 
of samples, dry basis, ppmv
CGSi,j=concentration of sample components in vented gas 
stream for sample j, dry basis, ppmv
n=number of compounds in the sample
m=number of samples in the sample run
* * * * *
    (5) Initial compliance with alternative standard. Initial 
compliance with the alternative standards in Sec. 63.1362(b)(6) and 
(c)(4) for combustion devices is demonstrated when the outlet TOC 
concentration is 20 ppmv or less, and the outlet HCl and chlorine 
concentration is 20 ppmv or less. Initial compliance with the 
alternative standards in Sec. 63.1362(b)(6) and (c)(4) for 
noncombustion devices is demonstrated when the outlet TOC concentration 
is 50 ppmv or less, and the outlet HCl and chlorine concentration is 50 
ppmv or less. To demonstrate initial compliance, the owner or operator 
shall be in compliance with the monitoring provisions in 
Sec. 63.1366(b)(5) on the initial compliance date. The owner or 
operator shall use Method 18 to determine the predominant organic HAP 
in the emission stream if the TOC monitor is calibrated on the 
predominant HAP.
    (6) Initial compliance with the 20 ppmv outlet limit. Initial 
compliance with the 20 ppmv TOC or total organic HAP concentration is 
demonstrated when the outlet TOC or total organic HAP concentration is 
20 ppmv or less. Initial compliance with the 20 ppmv HCl and chlorine 
concentration is demonstrated when the outlet HCl and chlorine 
concentration is 20 ppmv or less. To demonstrate initial compliance, 
the operator shall use applicable test methods described in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (9) of this section, and test under conditions described 
in paragraphs (b)(10) or (11) of this section, as applicable. The owner 
or operator shall comply with the monitoring provisions in 
Sec. 63.1366(b)(1) through (5) on the initial compliance date.
    (7) * * *
    (i) Combustion device. Except as specified in 
Sec. 63.1366(b)(5)(ii)(A), if the vent stream is controlled with a 
combustion device, the owner or operator must comply with the 
provisions in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) To comply with a TOC or total organic HAP outlet concentration 
standard in Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iv)(A), (b)(4)(ii)(A), (b)(6), 
(c)(2)(iv)(B), (c)(4), (d)(13), or Sec. 63.172, the actual TOC outlet 
concentration must be corrected to 3 percent oxygen.
* * * * *
    (C) The integrated sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3B of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall be used to determine the actual 
oxygen concentration (%O2d). The samples shall be taken 
during the same time that the TOC, total organic HAP, and total HCl and 
chlorine samples are taken. The concentration corrected to 3 percent 
oxygen (Cd) shall be computed using Equation 7 of this 
subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.001

Where:

Cc=concentration of TOC, total organic HAP, or total HCl and 
chlorine corrected to 3 percent oxygen, dry basis, ppmv
Cm=total concentration of TOC, total organic HAP, or total 
HCl and chlorine in the vented gas stream, average of samples, dry 
basis, ppmv
%O2d=concentration of oxygen measured in vented gas stream, 
dry basis, percent by volume
    (ii) Noncombustion devices. If a control device other than a 
combustion device, and not in series with a combustion device, is used 
to comply with a TOC, total organic HAP, or total HCl and chlorine 
outlet concentration standard, the owner or operator must correct the 
actual concentration for supplemental gases using Equation 8 of this 
subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.002

Where:

Ca=corrected outlet TOC, total organic HAP, or total HCl and 
chlorine concentration, dry basis, ppmv
Cm=actual TOC, total organic HAP, or total HCl and chlorine 
concentration measured at control device outlet, dry basis, ppmv
Va=total volumetric flow rate of affected streams vented to 
the control device
Vs=total volumetric flow rate of supplemental gases

    (b) Test methods and conditions. When testing is conducted to 
measure emissions from an affected source, the test methods specified 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (9) of this section shall be used. 
Compliance tests shall be performed under conditions specified in 
paragraphs (b)(10) and (11) of this section.
* * * * *
    (8) Wastewater analysis shall be conducted in accordance with 
Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(i) through (iii) or as specified in paragraph 
(b)(8)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) As an alternative to the methods specified in 
Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(i), an owner or operator may conduct wastewater 
analyses using Method 1666 or 1671 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A, and 
comply with the sampling protocol requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(ii). The validation requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(iii) do not apply if an owner or operator uses Method 
1666 or 1671 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A.
    (ii) As an alternative to the methods specified in 
Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(i), an owner or operator may use procedures specified 
in Method 8260 or 8270 in

[[Page 17518]]

``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' 
EPA Publication No. SW-846, Third Edition, September 1986, as amended 
by Update I, November 15, 1992. An owner or operator also may use any 
more recent, updated version of Method 8260 or 8270 approved by EPA. 
For the purpose of using Method 8260 or 8270 to comply with this 
subpart, the owner or operator must maintain a formal quality assurance 
program consistent with either Section 8 of Method 8260 or Method 8270. 
This program must include the elements related to measuring the 
concentrations of volatile compounds that are specified in paragraphs 
(b)(8)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Documentation of site-specific procedures to minimize the loss 
of compounds due to volatilization, biodegradation, reaction, or 
sorption during the sample collection, storage, and preparation steps.
    (B) Documentation of specific quality assurance procedures followed 
during sampling, sample preparation, sample introduction, and analysis.
    (C) Measurement of the average accuracy and precision of the 
specific procedures, including field duplicates and field spiking of 
the material source before or during sampling with compounds having 
similar chemical characteristics to the target analytes.
* * * * *
    (11) Testing conditions for batch processes. Testing of emissions 
on equipment where the flow of gaseous emissions is intermittent (batch 
operations) shall be conducted at absolute peak-case conditions or 
hypothetical peak-case conditions, as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(11)(i) and (ii) of this section, respectively. Gas stream 
volumetric flow rates shall be measured at 15-minute intervals. Organic 
HAP, TOC, or HCl and chlorine concentration shall be determined from 
samples collected in an integrated sample over the duration of the 
test, or from grab samples collected simultaneously with the flow rate 
measurements (every 15 minutes). If an integrated sample is collected 
for laboratory analysis, the sampling rate shall be adjusted 
proportionally to reflect variations in flow rate. In all cases, a 
site-specific test plan shall be submitted to the Administrator for 
approval prior to testing in accordance with Sec. 63.7(c). The test 
plan shall include the emissions profile described in paragraph 
(b)(11)(iii) of this section. The term ``HAP mass loading'' as used in 
paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section refers to the class 
of HAP, either organic or HCl and chlorine, that the control device is 
intended to control.
* * * * *
    (iii) Emissions profile. The owner or operator may choose to 
perform tests only during those periods of the peak-case episode(s) 
that the owner or operator selects to control as part of achieving the 
required emission reduction. Except as specified in paragraph 
(b)(11)(iii)(D) of this section, the owner or operator shall develop an 
emission profile for the vent to the control device that describes the 
characteristics of the vent stream at the inlet to the control device 
under either absolute or hypothetical peak-case conditions. The 
emissions profile shall be developed based on the applicable procedures 
described in paragraphs (b)(11)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section, as 
required by paragraphs (b)(11)(i) and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (D) Exemptions. The owner or operator is not required to develop an 
emission profile under the circumstances described in paragraphs 
(b)(11)(iii)(D)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If all process vents for a process are controlled using a 
control device or series of control devices that reduce HAP emissions 
by 98 percent or more, no other emission streams are vented to the 
control device when it is used to control emissions from the subject 
process, and the performance test is conducted over the entire batch 
cycle.
    (2) If a control device is used to comply with the outlet 
concentration limit for process vent emission streams from a single 
process (but not necessarily all of the process vents from that 
process), no other emission streams are vented to the control device 
while it is used to control emissions from the subject process, and the 
performance test is conducted over the entire batch cycle.
    (iv) Test duration. Three runs, at a minimum of 1 hour each, are 
required for performance testing. Each test run may be a maximum of 
either 24 hours or the duration of the longest batch controlled by the 
control device, whichever is shorter. Each run must include the same 
absolute or hypothetical peak-case conditions, as defined in paragraph 
(b)(11)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Initial compliance with the organic HAP percent reduction 
requirements specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii), and 
(b)(4)(ii) is demonstrated by determining controlled HAP emissions 
using the procedures described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, 
determining uncontrolled HAP emissions using the procedures described 
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and calculating the applicable 
percent reduction. As an alternative, if the conditions specified in 
paragraph (b)(11)(iii)(D)(1) of this section are met, initial 
compliance may be demonstrated by showing the control device reduces 
emissions by 98 percent by weight or greater using the procedures 
specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (v) Initial compliance with the outlet concentration limits in 
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iv)(A), (b)(3)(ii), (b)(4)(ii)(A), (b)(5)(ii), and 
(b)(5)(iii) is demonstrated when the outlet TOC or total organic HAP 
concentration is 20 ppmv or less and the outlet HCl and chlorine 
concentration is 20 ppmv or less. The owner or operator shall 
demonstrate compliance by fulfilling the requirements in paragraph 
(a)(6) of this section. If an owner or operator elects to develop an 
emissions profile by process as described in paragraph (b)(11)(iii)(A) 
of this section, uncontrolled emissions shall be determined using the 
procedures in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Purging. Emissions from purging shall be calculated using 
Equation 10 of this subpart, except that for purge flow rates greater 
than 100 scfm, the mole fraction of HAP will be assumed to be 25 
percent of the saturated value.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.003


[[Page 17519]]


Where:

E=mass of HAP emitted
V=purge flow rate at the temperature and pressure of the vessel vapor 
space
R=ideal gas law constant
T=temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute
Pi=partial pressure of the individual HAP
Pj=partial pressure of individual condensable compounds 
(including HAP)
PT=pressure of the vessel vapor space
MWi=molecular weight of the individual HAP
t=time of purge
n=number of HAP compounds in the emission stream
m=number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in the emission 
stream
    (D) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) As an alternative to the procedures described in paragraphs 
(c)(2)(i)(D)(1) and (2) of this section, emissions caused by heating a 
vessel to any temperature less than the boiling point may be calculated 
using Equation 15 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.004

Where:
E=mass of HAP vapor displaced from the vessel being heated
Navg=average gas space molar volume during the heating 
process, as calculated using Equation 16 of this subpart
PT=total pressure in the vessel
Pi,1=partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at 
T1
Pi,2=partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at 
T2
MWHAP=average molecular weight of the HAP compounds, as 
calculated using Equation 14 of this subpart
nHAP,1 = number of moles of total HAP in the vessel 
headspace at T1
nHAP,2 = number of moles of total HAP in the vessel 
headspace at T2
m = number of HAP compounds in the emission stream

* * * * *
    (iii) The difference in the number of moles of total HAP in the 
vessel headspace between the initial and final temperatures is 
calculated using Equation 17 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.005

Where:

nHAP,2 = number of moles of total HAP in the vessel 
headspace at T2
nHAP,1 = number of moles of total HAP in the vessel 
headspace at T1
V = volume of free space in vessel
R = ideal gas law constant
T1 = initial temperature of the vessel contents, absolute
T2 = final temperature of the vessel contents, absolute
Pi, 1 = partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at 
T1
Pi, 2 = partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at 
T2
n = number of HAP compounds in the emission stream

    (E) * * *
    (3) The initial and final partial pressures of the noncondensable 
gas in the vessel are determined using Equations 21 and 22 of this 
subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.007

Where:

Pnc1 = initial partial pressure of the noncondensable gas
Pnc2 = final partial pressure of the noncondensable gas
P1 = initial vessel pressure
P2 = final vessel pressure
Pj* = vapor pressure of each condensable compound (including 
HAP) in the emission stream
xj = mole fraction of each condensable compound (including 
HAP) in the liquid phase
m = number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in the emission 
stream

    (4) The moles of HAP emitted during the depressurization are 
calculated by taking an approximation of the average ratio of moles of 
HAP to moles of noncondensable and multiplying by the total moles of 
noncondensables released during the depressurization, using Equation 23 
of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.008

Where:

nHAP,e = moles of HAP emitted
nHAP,1 = moles of HAP vapor in vessel at the initial 
pressure, as calculated using Equation 18 of this subpart
nHAP,2 = moles of HAP vapor in vessel at the final pressure, 
as calculated using Equation 18 of this subpart

[[Page 17520]]

n1 = initial number of moles of noncondensable gas in the 
vessel, as calculated using Equation 19 of this subpart
n2 = final number of moles of noncondensable gas in the 
vessel, as calculated using Equation 19 of this subpart
* * * * *
    (F) Vacuum systems. Calculate emissions from vacuum systems using 
Equation 26 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.009

Where:

E = mass of HAP emitted
PT = absolute pressure of receiving vessel or ejector outlet 
conditions, if there is no receiver
Pi = partial pressure of individual HAP at the receiver 
temperature or the ejector outlet conditions
Pj = partial pressure of individual condensable compounds 
(including HAP) at the receiver temperature or the ejector outlet 
conditions
La = total air leak rate in the system, mass/time
MWnc = molecular weight of noncondensable gas
t = time of vacuum operation
MWHAP = average molecular weight of HAP in the emission 
stream, as calculated using Equation 14 of this subpart, with HAP 
partial pressures calculated at the temperature of the receiver or 
ejector outlet, as appropriate
n = number of HAP components in the emission stream
m = number of condensable compounds (including HAP) in the emission 
stream
* * * * *
    (ii) Engineering assessments. The owner or operator shall conduct 
an engineering assessment to determine uncontrolled HAP emissions for 
each emission episode that is not due to vapor displacement, purging, 
heating, depressurization, vacuum systems, gas evolution, or air 
drying. For a given emission episode caused by any of these seven types 
of activities, the owner or operator also may request approval to 
determine uncontrolled HAP emissions based on an engineering 
assessment. Except as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this 
section, all data, assumptions, and procedures used in the engineering 
assessment shall be documented in the Precompliance plan in accordance 
with Sec. 63.1367(b). An engineering assessment includes, but is not 
limited to, the information and procedures described in paragraphs 
(c)(2)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section.
    (A) Test results, provided the tests are representative of current 
operating practices at the process unit. For process vents without 
variable emission stream characteristics, an engineering assessment 
based on the results of a previous test may be submitted in the 
Notification of Compliance Status report instead of the Precompliance 
plan. Results from a previous test of process vents with variable 
emission stream characteristics will be acceptable in place of values 
estimated using the procedures specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this 
section if the test data show a greater than 20 percent discrepancy 
between the test value and the estimated value, and the results of the 
engineering assessment shall be included in the Notification of 
Compliance Status report. For other process vents with variable 
emission stream characteristics, engineering assessments based on the 
results of a previous test must be submitted in the Precompliance plan. 
For engineering assessments based on new tests, the owner or operator 
must comply with the test notification requirements in Sec. 63.1368(m), 
and the results of the engineering assessment may be submitted in the 
Notification of Compliance Status report rather than the Precompliance 
plan.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Initial compliance with a percent reduction requirement for 
total organic HAP shall be determined by measuring either total organic 
HAP or TOC at the inlet and outlet of the control. Initial compliance 
with a percent reduction requirement for total HCl and chlorine shall 
be determined by measuring the HCl and chlorine at the inlet and outlet 
of the control device. All measurements shall be conducted using the 
test methods and procedures described in paragraph (b) of this section. 
Concentrations shall be calculated from the data obtained through 
emission testing according to the procedures in paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (iii) Condensers. The owner or operator using a condenser as a 
control device shall determine controlled emissions for each batch 
emission episode according to the engineering methodology in paragraphs 
(c)(3)(iii)(A) through (G) of this section. The owner or operator must 
measure the exhaust gas temperature and show that it is less than or 
equal to the temperature used in the applicable equation. Individual 
HAP partial pressures shall be calculated as specified in paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) At the reasonably expected maximum filling rate, Equations 35 
and 36 of this subpart shall be used to calculate the mass rate of 
total organic HAP or TOC at the inlet and outlet of the control device.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.011

Where:
Cij, Coj=concentration of sample component j of 
the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
respectively, dry basis, ppmv
Ei, Eo=mass rate of total organic HAP or TOC at 
the inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, dry basis, 
kg/hr
Mij, Moj=molecular weight of sample component j 
of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
respectively, g/gmole
Qi, Qo=flow rate of gas stream at the inlet and 
outlet of the control device, respectively, dscmm
K2=constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (parts per 
million)-1 (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) (kilogram/
gram) (minute/hour), where standard temperature is 20 deg.C

[[Page 17521]]

    (B) The percent reduction in total organic HAP or TOC shall be 
calculated using Equation 37 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP02.012

Where:
R=control efficiency of control device, percent
Ei=mass rate of total organic HAP or TOC at the inlet to the 
control device as calculated under paragraph (d)(l)(i)(A) of this 
section, kilograms organic HAP per hour
Eo=mass rate of total organic HAP or TOC at the outlet of 
the control device, as calculated under paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this 
section, kilograms organic HAP per hour
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Comply with the procedures described in Sec. 63.120(a), (b), 
or (c), as applicable, with the differences specified in paragraphs 
(d)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) When the term ``storage vessel'' is used in Sec. 63.120, the 
definition of the term ``storage vessel'' in Sec. 63.1361 shall apply 
for the purposes of this subpart.
    (B) When the phrase ``the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.100 
of subpart F of this part'' is referred to in Sec. 63.120, the phrase 
``the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.1364'' shall apply for the 
purposes of this subpart.
    (C) When the phrase ``the maximum true vapor pressure of the total 
organic HAP in the stored liquid falls below the values defining Group 
1 storage vessels specified in Table 5 or Table 6 of this subpart'' is 
referred to in Sec. 63.120(b)(1)(iv), the phrase ``the maximum true 
vapor pressure of the total organic HAP in the stored liquid falls 
below the values defining Group 1 storage vessels specified in 
Sec. 63.1361'' shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (e) Initial compliance with wastewater provisions. The owner or 
operator shall demonstrate initial compliance with the wastewater 
requirements by complying with the applicable provisions in 
Sec. 63.145, except that the owner or operator need not comply with the 
requirement to determine visible emissions that is specified in 
Sec. 63.145(j)(1), and references to compounds in Table 8 of subpart G 
of this part are not applicable for the purposes of this subpart. When 
Sec. 63.145(i) refers to Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, the owner or 
operator may use any method specified in Sec. 63.1362(d)(12) to 
demonstrate initial compliance with this subpart.
* * * * *
    7. Section 63.1366 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b)(5);
    b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(8) introductory 
text;
    c. Revising paragraph (b)(8)(iii); and
    d. Adding paragraph (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1366  Monitoring and inspection requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Monitoring for the alternative standards.
    (i) For control devices that are used to comply with the provisions 
of Sec. 63.1362(b)(6) and (c)(4), the owner or operator shall monitor 
and record the outlet TOC concentration and the outlet total HCl and 
chlorine concentration at least once every 15 minutes during the period 
in which the device is controlling HAP from emission streams subject to 
the standards in Sec. 63.1362. A TOC monitor meeting the requirements 
of Performance Specification 8 or 9 of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 
shall be installed, calibrated, and maintained, according to Sec. 63.8. 
The owner or operator need not monitor the total HCl and chlorine 
concentration if the owner or operator determines that the emission 
stream does not contain HCl or chlorine. The owner or operator need not 
monitor for TOC concentration if the owner or operator determines that 
the emission stream does not contain organic compounds.
    (ii) If supplemental gases are introduced before the control 
device, the owner or operator must either correct for supplemental 
gases as specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7) or, if using a combustion 
control device, comply with the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(A) 
of this section. If the owner or operator corrects for supplemental 
gases as specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7)(ii) for non-combustion control 
devices, the flow rates must be evaluated as specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (A) Provisions for combustion devices. As an alternative to 
correcting for supplemental gases as specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7), 
the owner or operator may monitor residence time and firebox 
temperature according to the requirements of paragraphs 
(b)(5)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) of this section. Monitoring of residence time 
may be accomplished by monitoring flow rate into the combustion 
chamber.
    (1) If complying with the alternative standard instead of achieving 
a control efficiency of 95 percent or less, the owner or operator must 
maintain a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds and a minimum 
combustion chamber temperature of 760 deg.C.
    (2) If complying with the alternative standard instead of achieving 
a control efficiency of 98 percent or less, the owner or operator must 
maintain a minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds and a minimum 
combustion chamber temperature of 816 deg.C.
    (B) Flow rate evaluation for non-combustion devices. To demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the requirement to correct for supplemental 
gases as specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7)(ii) for non-combustion 
devices, the owner or operator must evaluate the volumetric flow rate 
of supplemental gases, Vs, and the volumetric flow rate of 
all gases, Va, each time a new operating scenario is 
implemented based on process knowledge and representative operating 
data. The procedures used to evaluate the flow rates, and the resulting 
correction factor used in Equation 8 of this subpart, must be included 
in the Notification of Compliance Status report and in the next 
Periodic report submitted after an operating scenario change.
* * * * *
    (8) Violations. Exceedances of parameters monitored according to 
the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (iv) through (ix), and 
(b)(5)(i)(A) of this section, or excursions as defined by paragraphs 
(b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section, constitute violations of the 
operating limit according to paragraphs (b)(8)(i), (ii), and (iv) of 
this section. * * *
* * * * *
    (iii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(8)(iv) of this section, 
exceedances of the 20 or 50 ppmv TOC outlet emission limit, averaged 
over the operating day, will result in no more than one violation per 
day per control device. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(8)(iv) of 
this section, exceedances of the 20 or 50 ppmv HCl and chlorine outlet 
emission limit, averaged over the operating day, will result in no more 
than one violation per day per control device.
* * * * *
    (h) Leak inspection provisions for vapor suppression equipment.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (h)(9) and (10) of this 
section, for each vapor collection system, closed-vent system, fixed 
roof, cover, or enclosure required to comply with this section, the 
owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs 
(h)(2) through (8) of this section.

[[Page 17522]]

    (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (h)(6) and (7) of this 
section, each vapor collection system and closed-vent system shall be 
inspected according to the procedures and schedule specified in 
paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section and each fixed roof, 
cover, and enclosure shall be inspected according to the procedures and 
schedule specified in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (i) If the vapor collection system or closed-vent system is 
constructed of hard-piping, the owner or operator shall:
    (A) Conduct an initial inspection according to the procedures in 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section, and
    (B) Conduct annual visual inspections for visible, audible, or 
olfactory indications of leaks.
    (ii) If the vapor collection system or closed-vent system is 
constructed of ductwork, the owner or operator shall:
    (A) Conduct an initial inspection according to the procedures in 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section,
    (B) Conduct annual inspections according to the procedures in 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section, and
    (C) Conduct annual visual inspections for visible, audible, or 
olfactory indications of leaks.
    (iii) For each fixed roof, cover, and enclosure, the owner or 
operator shall:
    (A) Conduct an initial inspection according to the procedures in 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section, and
    (B) Conduct semiannual visual inspections for visible, audible, or 
olfactory indications of leaks.
    (3) Each vapor collection system, closed-vent system, fixed roof, 
cover, and enclosure shall be inspected according to the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Inspections shall be conducted in accordance with Method 21 of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (ii) Detection instrument performance criteria.
    (A) Except as provided in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, 
the detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of Method 
21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, except the instrument response factor 
criteria in section 3.1.2(a) of Method 21 shall be for the average 
composition of the process fluid not each individual VOC in the stream. 
For process streams that contain nitrogen, air, or other inerts which 
are not organic HAP or VOC, the average stream response factor shall be 
calculated on an inert-free basis.
    (B) If no instrument is available at the plant site that will meet 
the performance criteria specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this 
section, the instrument readings may be adjusted by multiplying by the 
average response factor of the process fluid, calculated on an inert-
free basis as described in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (iii) The detection instrument shall be calibrated before use on 
each day of its use by the procedures specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A.
    (iv) Calibration gases shall be as follows:
    (A) Zero air (less than 10 parts per million hydrocarbon in air); 
and
    (B) Mixtures of methane in air at a concentration less than 10,000 
parts per million. A calibration gas other than methane in air may be 
used if the instrument does not respond to methane or if the instrument 
does not meet the performance criteria specified in paragraph 
(h)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. In such cases, the calibration gas may 
be a mixture of one or more of the compounds to be measured in air.
    (v) An owner or operator may elect to adjust or not adjust 
instrument readings for background. If an owner or operator elects to 
not adjust readings for background, all such instrument readings shall 
be compared directly to the applicable leak definition to determine 
whether there is a leak. If an owner or operator elects to adjust 
instrument readings for background, the owner or operator shall measure 
background concentration using the procedures in Sec. 63.180(b) and 
(c). The owner or operator shall subtract background reading from the 
maximum concentration indicated by the instrument.
    (vi) The arithmetic difference between the maximum concentration 
indicated by the instrument and the background level shall be compared 
with 500 parts per million for determining compliance.
    (4) Leaks, as indicated by an instrument reading greater than 500 
parts per million above background or by visual inspections, shall be 
repaired as soon as practicable, except as provided in paragraph (h)(5) 
of this section.
    (i) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 
calendar days after the leak is detected.
    (ii) Repair shall be completed no later than 15 calendar days after 
the leak is detected.
    (5) Delay of repair of a vapor collection system, closed-vent 
system, fixed roof, cover, or enclosure for which leaks have been 
detected is allowed if the repair is technically infeasible without a 
shutdown, as defined in Sec. 63.1361, or if the owner or operator 
determines that emissions resulting from immediate repair would be 
greater than the fugitive emissions likely to result from delay of 
repair. Repair of such equipment shall be complete by the end of the 
next shutdown.
    (6) Any parts of the vapor collection system, closed-vent system, 
fixed roof, cover, or enclosure that are designated, as described in 
Sec. 63.1367(f)(1), as unsafe-to-inspect are exempt from the inspection 
requirements of paragraphs (h)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section 
if:
    (i) The owner or operator determines that the equipment is unsafe 
to inspect because inspecting personnel would be exposed to an imminent 
or potential danger as a consequence of complying with paragraph 
(h)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section; and
    (ii) The owner or operator has a written plan that requires 
inspection of the equipment as frequently as practicable during safe-
to-inspect times. Inspection is not required more than once annually.
    (7) Any parts of the vapor collection system, closed-vent system, 
fixed roof, cover, or enclosure that are designated, as described in 
Sec. 63.1367(f)(2), as difficult-to-inspect are exempt from the 
inspection requirements of paragraphs (h)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii)(A) of 
this section if:
    (i) The owner or operator determines that the equipment cannot be 
inspected without elevating the inspecting personnel more than 2 meters 
above a support surface; and
    (ii) The owner or operator has a written plan that requires 
inspection of the equipment at least once every 5 years.
    (8) Records shall be maintained as specified in Sec. 63.1367(f).
    (9) If a closed-vent system subject to this section is also subject 
to the equipment leak provisions of Sec. 63.1363, the owner or operator 
shall comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.1363 and is exempt from the 
requirements of this section.
    (10) For any closed-vent system that is operated and maintained 
under negative pressure, the owner or operator is not required to 
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (h)(2) through (8) 
of this section.
    8. Section 63.1367 is amended by:
    a. Revising ``paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section'' 
to read ``paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section'' in 
paragraph (a)(3) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(i);
    c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    d. Revising paragraph (b)(4);
    e. Revising paragraph (b)(6)(i);
    f. Adding paragraph (b)(6)(ix) and revising paragraph (b)(7);

[[Page 17523]]

    g. Adding paragraphs (b)(8) through (11); and
    h. Revising paragraph (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1367  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The owner or operator shall record the occurrence and duration 
of each malfunction of the process operations or of air pollution 
control equipment used to comply with this subpart, as specified in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii).
* * * * *
    (b) Records of equipment operation. The owner or operator must keep 
the records specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) of this section 
up-to-date and readily accessible.
* * * * *
    (4) For processes in compliance with the 0.15 Mg/yr emission limit 
of Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(i) or (b)(4)(i), daily records of the rolling 
annual calculations of uncontrolled emissions.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(6)(ix) of this section, 
the initial calculations of uncontrolled and controlled emissions of 
gaseous organic HAP and HCl per batch for each process.
* * * * *
    (ix) As an alternative to the records in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of 
this section, a record of the determination that the conditions in 
Sec. 63.1365(b)(11)(iii)(D)(1) or (2) are met.
    (7) Daily schedule or log of each operating scenario updated daily 
or, at a minimum, each time a different operating scenario is put into 
operation.
    (8) If the owner or operator elects to comply with the vapor 
balancing alternative in Sec. 63.1362(c)(6), the owner or operator must 
keep records of the DOT certification required by 
Sec. 63.1362(c)(6)(ii) and the pressure relief vent setting and leak 
detection records specified in Sec. 63.1362(c)(6)(v).
    (9) If the owner or operator elects to develop process unit groups, 
the owner or operator must keep records of the PAI and non-PAI process 
units in the process unit group, including records of the operating 
time for process units used to establish the process unit group. The 
owner or operator must also keep records of any redetermination of the 
primary product for the process unit group.
    (10) All maintenance performed on the air pollution control 
equipment.
    (11) If the owner or operator elects to comply with Sec. 63.1362(c) 
by installing a floating roof, the owner or operator must keep records 
of each inspection and seal gap measurement in accordance with 
Sec. 63.123(c) through (e) as applicable.
* * * * *
    (f) Records of inspections. The owner or operator shall keep 
records specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Records identifying all parts of the vapor collection system, 
closed-vent system, fixed roof, cover, or enclosure that are designated 
as unsafe to inspect in accordance with Sec. 63.1366(h)(6), an 
explanation of why the equipment is unsafe-to-inspect, and the plan for 
inspecting the equipment.
    (2) Records identifying all parts of the vapor collection system, 
closed-vent system, fixed roof, cover, or enclosure that are designated 
as difficult-to-inspect in accordance with Sec. 63.1366(h)(7), an 
explanation of why the equipment is difficult-to-inspect, and the plan 
for inspecting the equipment.
    (3) For each vapor collection system or closed-vent system that 
contains bypass lines that could divert a vent stream away from the 
control device and to the atmosphere, the owner or operator shall keep 
a record of the information specified in either paragraph (f)(3)(i) or 
(ii) of this section.
    (i) Hourly records of whether the flow indicator specified under 
Sec. 63.1362(j)(1) was operating and whether a diversion was detected 
at any time during the hour, as well as records of the times and 
durations of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the 
control device or the flow indicator is not operating.
    (ii) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with 
Sec. 63.1362(j)(2), hourly records of flow are not required. In such 
cases, the owner or operator shall record that the monthly visual 
inspection of the seals or closure mechanisms has been done and shall 
record the occurrence of all periods when the seal mechanism is broken, 
the bypass line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-
key type lock has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that 
has broken.
    (4) For each inspection conducted in accordance with 
Sec. 63.1366(h)(2) and (3) during which a leak is detected, a record of 
the information specified in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (ix) of this 
section.
    (i) Identification of the leaking equipment.
    (ii) The instrument identification numbers and operator name or 
initials, if the leak was detected using the procedures described in 
Sec. 63.1366(h)(3); or a record of that the leak was detected by 
sensory observations.
    (ii) The date the leak was detected and the date of the first 
attempt to repair the leak.
    (iii) Maximum instrument reading measured by the method specified 
in Sec. 63.1366(h)(4) after the leak is successfully repaired or 
determined to be nonrepairable.
    (iv) ``Repair delayed'' and the reason for the delay if a leak is 
not repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak.
    (v) The name, initials, or other form of identification of the 
owner or operator (or designee) whose decision it was that repair could 
not be effected without a shutdown.
    (vi) The expected date of successful repair of the leak if a leak 
is not repaired within 15 calendar days.
    (vii) Dates of shutdowns that occur while the equipment is 
unrepaired.
    (viii) The date of successful repair of the leak.
    (5) For each inspection conducted in accordance with 
Sec. 63.1366(h)(3) during which no leaks are detected, a record that 
the inspection was performed, the date of the inspection, and a 
statement that no leaks were detected.
    (6) For each visual inspection conducted in accordance with 
Sec. 63.1366(h)(2)(i)(B) or (h)(2)(iii)(B) of this section during which 
no leaks are detected, a record that the inspection was performed, the 
date of the inspection, and a statement that no leaks were detected.
* * * * *
    9. Section 63.1368 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (e) (4);
    b. Revising paragraph (f) (6);
    c. Adding paragraph (f) (9);
    d. Revising paragraph (g) (1) introductory text;
    e. Revising paragraph (g) (2) introductory text;
    f. Adding paragraphs (g)(2)(ix) through (xii);
    g. Revising paragraph (h)(1) introductory text;
    h. Revising ``Sec. 63.1365(b)(10)(ii)'' to read 
``Sec. 63.1365(b)(11)(iii)'' in paragraph (m).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1368  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) For owners and operators complying with the requirements of 
Sec. 63.1362(g), the pollution prevention demonstration summary 
required in Sec. 63.1365(g)(1).
* * * * *

[[Page 17524]]

    (f) * * *
    (6) Identification of emission points subject to overlapping 
requirements described in Sec. 63.1360(i) and the authority under which 
the owner or operator will comply, and identification of emission 
sources discharging to devices described by Sec. 63.1362(l).
* * * * *
    (9) Records of the initial process units used to create each 
process unit group, if applicable.
    (g) * * *
    (1) Submittal schedule. Except as provided in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) 
and (ii) of this section, the owner or operator shall submit Periodic 
reports semiannually. The first report shall be submitted no later than 
240 days after the date the Notification of Compliance Status report is 
due and shall cover the 6-month period beginning on the date the 
Notification of Compliance Status report is due. Each subsequent 
Periodic report shall cover the 6-month period following the preceding 
period and shall be submitted no later than 60 days after the end of 
the applicable period.
* * * * *
    (2) Content of periodic report. The owner or operator shall include 
the information in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (xii) of this section, 
as applicable.
* * * * *
    (ix) Records of process units added to each process unit group, if 
applicable.
    (x) Records of redetermination of the primary product for a process 
unit group.
    (xi) For each inspection conducted in accordance with 
Sec. 63.1366(h)(2) or (3) during which a leak is detected, the records 
specify in Sec. 63.1367(h)(4) must be included in the next Periodic 
report.
    (xii) If the owner or operator elects to comply with the provisions 
of Sec. 63.1362(c) by installing a floating roof, the owner or operator 
shall submit the information specified in Sec. 63.122(d) through (f) as 
applicable. References to Sec. 63.152 from Sec. 63.122 shall not apply 
for the purposes of this subpart.
    (h) * * *
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, 
whenever a process change is made, or any of the information submitted 
in the Notification of Compliance Status report changes, the owner or 
operator shall submit the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 
through (iv) of this section with the next Periodic report required 
under paragraph (g) of this section. For the purposes of this section, 
a process change means the startup of a new process, as defined in 
Sec. 63.1361.
* * * * *
    10. Table 1 to subpart MMM is amended by:
    a. Revising the entry ``63.9(i)-(j);'' and
    b. Adding the entry ``63.9(j)''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

               Table 1 to Subpart MMM of Part 63.--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart MMM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Reference to subpart A                 Applies to subpart MMM                      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
       *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *
                                                          *
63.9(i)...........................  Yes....................................
63.9(j)...........................  No.....................................  Sec.  63.1368(h) specifies
                                                                              procedures for notification of
                                                                              changes.
 
       *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *
                                                          *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Table 4 to subpart MMM is revised to read as follows:

  Table 4 to Subpart MMM.--Control Requirements for Items of Equipment
               That Meet the Criteria of Sec.  63.1362(k)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Item of equipment                   Control requirement
--------------------------------------------------------------a---------
Drain or drain hub................................  (a) Tightly fitting
                                                     solid cover (TFSC);
                                                     or
                                                    (b) TFSC with a vent
                                                     to either a
                                                     process, or to a
                                                     control device
                                                     meeting the
                                                     requirements of
                                                     Sec.  63.139(c); or
                                                    (c) Water seal with
                                                     submerged discharge
                                                     or barrier to
                                                     protect discharge
                                                     from wind.
Manhole b.........................................  (a) TFSC; or
                                                    (b) TFSC with a vent
                                                     to either a process
                                                     or to a control
                                                     device meeting the
                                                     requirements of
                                                     Sec.  63.139(c); or
                                                    (c) If the item is
                                                     vented to the
                                                     atmosphere, use a
                                                     TFSC with a
                                                     properly operating
                                                     water seal at the
                                                     entrance or exit to
                                                     the item to
                                                     restrict
                                                     ventilation in the
                                                     collection system.
                                                     The vent pipe shall
                                                     be at least 90 cm
                                                     in length and not
                                                     exceeding 10.2 cm
                                                     in nominal inside
                                                     diameter.
Lift station......................................  (a) TFSC; or
                                                    (b) TFSC with a vent
                                                     to either a
                                                     process, or to a
                                                     control device
                                                     meeting the
                                                     requirements of
                                                     Sec.  63.139(c); or
                                                    (c) If the lift
                                                     station is vented
                                                     to the atmosphere,
                                                     use a TFSC with a
                                                     properly operating
                                                     water seal at the
                                                     entrance or exit to
                                                     the item to
                                                     restrict
                                                     ventilation in the
                                                     collection system.
                                                     The vent pipe shall
                                                     be at least 90 cm
                                                     in length and not
                                                     exceeding 10.2 cm
                                                     in nominal inside
                                                     diameter. The lift
                                                     station shall be
                                                     level controlled to
                                                     minimize changes in
                                                     the liquid level.
Trench............................................  (a) TFSC; or
                                                    (b) TFSC with a vent
                                                     to either a
                                                     process, or to a
                                                     control device
                                                     meeting the
                                                     requirements of
                                                     Sec.  63.139(c); or
                                                    (c) If the item is
                                                     vented to the
                                                     atmosphere, use a
                                                     TFSC with a
                                                     properly operating
                                                     water seal at the
                                                     entrance or exit to
                                                     the item to
                                                     restrict
                                                     ventilation in the
                                                     collection system.
                                                     The vent pipe shall
                                                     be at least 90 cm
                                                     in length and not
                                                     exceeding 10.2 cm
                                                     in nominal inside
                                                     diameter.
Pipe..............................................  Each pipe shall have
                                                     no visible gaps in
                                                     joints, seals, or
                                                     other emission
                                                     interfaces.
Oil/Water separator...............................  (a) Equip with a
                                                     fixed roof and
                                                     route vapors to a
                                                     process, or equip
                                                     with a closed-vent
                                                     system that routes
                                                     vapors to a control
                                                     device meeting the
                                                     requirements of
                                                     Sec.  63.139(c); or
                                                    (b) Equip with a
                                                     floating roof that
                                                     meets the equipment
                                                     specifications of
                                                     Sec.  60.693
                                                     (a)(1)(i),
                                                     (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2),
                                                     (a)(3), and (a)(4).

[[Page 17525]]

 
Tank..............................................  Maintain a fixed
                                                     roof and consider
                                                     vents as process
                                                     vents.c
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Where a tightly fitting solid cover is required, it shall be
  maintained with no visible gaps or openings, except during periods of
  sampling, inspection, or maintenance.
b Manhole includes sumps and other points of access to a conveyance
  system.
c A fixed roof may have openings necessary for proper venting of the
  tank, such as pressure/vacuum vent, j-pipe vent.

[FR Doc. 02-7223 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P