[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63852-63911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22310]



[[Page 63851]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2003 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 63852]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0121; FRL-7551-3]
RIN 2060-AE82


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing facilities. The final rule establishes emission limits 
and work practice standards for new and existing miscellaneous organic 
chemical manufacturing process units, wastewater treatment and 
conveyance systems, transfer operations, and associated ancillary 
equipment and implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by 
requiring all major sources to meet hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 
emission standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT). The HAP emitted from miscellaneous organic 
chemical manufacturing facilities include toluene, methanol, xylene, 
hydrogen chloride, and methylene chloride. Exposure to these substances 
has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as 
irritation of the lung, eye, and mucous membranes, effects on the 
central nervous system, and cancer. We do not have the type of current 
detailed data on each of the facilities and the people living around 
the facilities covered by the final rule for this source category that 
would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual 
population exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and the 
potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the 
extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the 
populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the 
adverse effects do occur, and the final rule reduces emissions, 
subsequent exposures will be reduced. The final rule will reduce HAP 
emissions by 16,800 tons per year for existing facilities that 
manufacture miscellaneous organic chemicals.

DATES: This rule is effective November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. OAR-2003-0121 and A-96-04 are located at the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air & Radiation Docket & 
Information Center (6102T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, 
Washington, DC 20460.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Category                            NAICS\*\                       Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................  3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, and    Producers of specialty organic
                              3259, with several exceptions..            chemicals, explosives, certain polymers
                                                                         and resins, and certain pesticide
                                                                         intermediates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.2435 of the 
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Docket. We have established official public dockets for this action 
under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0121 and A-96-04. The official public 
docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this 
action, any public comments received, and other information related to 
this action. All items may not be listed under both docket numbers, so 
interested parties should inspect both docket numbers to ensure that 
they have received all materials relevant to the final rule. Although a 
part of the official docket, the public docket does not include 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the 
collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air 
and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 
B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying docket materials.
    Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the 
public docket also is available through EPA's electronic public docket 
and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing 
of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those 
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 
Portions of the docket materials are available electronically through 
Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0121. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number. You may still 
access publicly available docket materials through the Docket ID No. A-
96-04.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of the rule will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 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.
    Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for 
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit January 9, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 
objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable specificity 
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial 
review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements

[[Page 63853]]

established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in civil 
or criminal proceedings brought to enforce these requirements.
    Background Information Document. The EPA proposed the NESHAP for 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing on April 4, 2002 (67 FR 
16154), and received 53 comment letters on the proposal. A background 
information document (BID) (``National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry, Summary of Public Comments and Responses,'') 
containing EPA's responses to each public comment is available in 
Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0121.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What is the history of the source categories?
    D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants 
emitted from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing?
    E. How did we develop the final rule?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What are the affected sources and emission points?
    B. What are the emission limitations and work practice 
standards?
    C. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
    D. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
    E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air emission reduction impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy 
impacts?
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. What changes to applicability did the commenters suggest?
    B. How did we change the compliance dates?
    C. How did we develop the standards?
    D. Standards for Process Vents
    E. Storage Tank Standards
    F. Standards for Wastewater Systems
    G. Standards for Equipment Leaks
    H. Standards for Transfer Racks
    I. Pollution Prevention
    J. Initial Compliance
    K. Ongoing Compliance
    L. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    M. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
    N. Change Management
    O. Overlapping Requirements
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and some area sources of HAP and to 
establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. A 
major source of HAP is a stationary source or group of stationary 
sources located within a contiguous area under common control that has 
the potential to emit greater than 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 
tons per year (tpy)) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any 
combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost 
of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control 
is commonly referred to as MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures that all major sources achieve the level of control 
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in 
each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor 
cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 
practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for 
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, 
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the 
best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer 
than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. In considering whether to establish standards 
more stringent than the floor, we must consider cost, non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Is the History of the Source Categories?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish rules for 
categories of emission sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, we 
published an initial list of 174 source categories to be regulated (57 
FR 31576). The listing was our best attempt to identify major sources 
of HAP by manufacturing category. Following the publication of that 
listing, we published a schedule for the promulgation of emission 
standards for each of the 174 listed source categories. At the time the 
initial list was published, we recognized that we might have to revise 
the list from time to time as better information became available.
    Based on information we collected in 1995, we realized that several 
of the original source categories on the list had similar process 
equipment, emission characteristics and applicable control 
technologies. Additionally, many of these source categories were on the 
same schedule for promulgation, by November 15, 2000. Therefore, we 
decided to combine a number of source categories from the original 
listing into one broad set of emission standards. Today's final rule 
reflects the subsumption of the following source categories into a new 
source category called Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing: 
benzyltrimethylammonium chloride production, carbonyl sulfide 
production, chelating agents production, chlorinated paraffins 
production, ethylidene norbornene production, explosives production, 
hydrazine production, photographic chemicals production, phthalate 
plasticizers production, rubber chemicals production, symmetrical 
tetrachloropyridine production, OBPA/1,3-diisocyanate production, alkyd 
resins production, polyester resins production, polyvinyl alcohol 
production, polyvinyl acetate emulsions production, polyvinylbutyral 
production, polymerized vinylidene chloride production, 
polymethylmethacrylate production, maleic anhydride copolymers 
production, ammonium sulfate production--caprolactam by-product plants, 
and quaternary ammonium

[[Page 63854]]

compounds production. Along with these 22 source categories, the 
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category is also 
defined to include other organic chemical manufacturing processes which 
are not being covered by any other MACT standards.
    Today's action establishes final standards for miscellaneous 
organic chemical manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF).

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the Pollutants Emitted 
From Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing?

    The CAA was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality 
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and 
welfare and the productive capacity of the population'' (see section 
101(b) of the CAA). These NESHAP will protect public health by reducing 
emissions of HAP from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
facilities.
    Miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities emit an 
estimated 21,900 Mg/yr (24,100 tpy) of organic and inorganic HAP. 
Organic HAP include toluene, methanol, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone, 
ethyl benzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, and vinyl acetate. Inorganic HAP 
emitted by this industry include hydrogen chloride (HCl) and some HAP 
metals in the form of particulate matter (PM). The final rule reduces 
HAP emissions from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
facilities by 68 percent. As a result of controlling these HAP, the 
final NESHAP will also reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds 
(VOC). A summary of the potential health effects caused by exposure to 
these pollutants is presented in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 
FR 16154).

E. How Did We Develop the Final Rule?

    We proposed the NESHAP for the miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing source category on April 4, 2002 (67 FR 16154) and 
provided an 85-day comment period. We received a total of 55 comment 
letters. A copy of each of the comment letters is available in Docket 
No. OAR-2003-0121 or A-96-04.
    The final rule reflects full consideration of all the comments we 
received on the proposed rule, as well as our reassessment of certain 
data in the rulemaking record. Major public comments on the proposed 
subpart FFFF, along with our responses to the comments, are summarized 
in section IV of this preamble. A detailed response to all comments is 
included in the Background Information Document for the promulgated 
standards (Docket No. OAR-2003-0121). Comments on the proposed 
miscellaneous coating manufacturing NESHAP will be summarized and 
discussed in the subpart HHHHH promulgation package.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?

    Emission points identified from miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing production include process vents, storage tanks, 
equipment leaks, transfer operations, and wastewater collection and 
treatment systems. The affected source subject to this subpart is the 
facilitywide collection of miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
process units (MCPU), wastewater treatment and conveyance systems, 
transfer operations, and associated ancillary equipment such as heat 
exchange systems that are located at a major source of HAP as defined 
in section 112(a) of the CAA. An MCPU includes a miscellaneous organic 
chemical manufacturing process, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2550, and must 
meet the following criteria: (1) It manufactures any material or family 
of materials described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(1); it processes, uses, or 
produces HAP described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(2); and, except for certain 
process vents that are part of a chemical manufacturing process unit, 
as identified in 40 CFR 63.100(j)(4), the MCPU is not part of an 
affected source under another subpart of 40 CFR part 63. The MCPU is 
defined according to the equipment used to make the subject material, 
and it includes storage tanks that are associated with the process.
    New sources are created by reconstructing existing sources, 
constructing new ``greenfield'' facilities, or constructing an addition 
to an existing source that is a dedicated MCPU and has the potential to 
exceed 10 tpy of an individual HAP or 25 tpy of combined HAP. 
Reconfiguration of existing equipment does not constitute 
``construction.''

B. What Are the Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards?

    The final rule regulates HAP emissions from miscellaneous organic 
chemical manufacturing facilities that are determined to be major 
sources. The standards apply to existing sources as well as new 
sources.
Process Vents
    The final standards for existing batch and continuous process vents 
are set at a floor level of control and include requirements for 
organic and inorganic HAP. For batch process vents, the final standards 
require you to reduce uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the sum 
of all batch process vents within the process by 98 percent if 
uncontrolled emissions exceed 4,540 kilograms per year (kg/yr) (10,000 
pounds per year (lb/yr)). No control of vents is required for processes 
that are limited to uncontrolled emissions of 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lb/
yr) or less, as calculated on a rolling 365-day basis. A second control 
option for batch vents is to reduce the sum of all batch process vents 
within the process by 95 percent using recovery devices.
    For continuous process vents, the final standards require control 
of vents determined to have a total resource effectiveness (TRE) index 
equal to or less than 1.9. The standards require you to reduce HAP 
emissions by at least 98 percent by weight if the TRE of the outlet 
gaseous stream after the last recovery device is less than 1.9, or to 
reduce the outlet total organic compound (TOC) concentration to 20 
parts per million by volume (ppmv) or less. For continuous process 
vents, we reference the process vent standards contained in 40 CFR part 
63, subpart SS.
    For inorganic HAP, we set the standards based on the floor and made 
no distinction between batch and continuous streams. The standards for 
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP (i.e., HCl, hydrogen fluoride (HF), and 
chlorine (C12)) were determined to be 99 percent control of 
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP from the sum of all process vents in 
processes with uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions 
equal to or greater than 1,000 lb/yr. The final rule also requires 
control of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions generated by the 
combustion control of halogenated streams, which are defined by a mass 
emission rate of halogen atoms contained in organic compounds of 0.45 
kilograms per hour (kg/hr) or more. Specifically, hydrogen halide and 
halogen HAP emissions must be reduced after the combustion device by 99 
percent, to no more than 0.45 kg/hr, or to no more than 20 ppmv. 
Alternatively, the halogen atom mass rate before the combustion device 
may be reduced to no more than 0.45 kg/hr or to no more than 20 ppmv. 
The MACT floor for PM HAP emissions from process vents at existing 
sources is no

[[Page 63855]]

emissions reduction, and we did not set a standard above the floor.
    We defined the term ``process'' to include all equipment that 
collectively function to produce a material or family of materials that 
are covered by the source category. For batch process vents, we also 
established an equivalent mass cutoff of 200 lb/yr in the final rule 
that corresponds to the 50 ppmv concentration.
    The new source standards for batch and continuous process vents 
follow the same formats as described above. However, some of the 
applicability triggers are more stringent. All batch process vents 
within a process for which the uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from 
batch process vents exceed 1,360 kg/yr (3,000 lb/yr) must be reduced by 
either 98 percent using a control device or 95 percent using a recovery 
device. All continuous process vents with a TRE of less than or equal 
to 5.0 must be controlled by 98 percent. For inorganic HAP, the 
standards for new sources are identical to the standards for existing 
sources. The new source standard for PM HAP emissions from process 
vents is 97 percent control for each process with uncontrolled PM HAP 
emissions greater than or equal to 400 lb/yr. Control requirements for 
halogenated streams are also the same as for existing sources.
Storage Tanks
    The final rule requires existing sources to control emissions from 
storage tanks having capacities greater than or equal to 38 cubic 
meters (m3) (10,000 gallons (gal)) and storing material with 
a HAP partial pressure of greater than 6.9 kilopascals (kPa) (1.0 pound 
per square inch absolute (psia)). For new sources, the standards 
require control of storage tanks having capacities greater than or 
equal to 38 m3 (10,000 gal) and storing material with a HAP 
partial pressure of greater than 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia). For both existing 
and new sources, the required control is to use a floating roof or to 
reduce the organic HAP emissions by 95 percent by weight or more. We 
also concluded in a revised analysis that for small storage tanks 
(capacities <10,000 gal), that there is a ``no emission reduction'' 
MACT floor, and we did not specify a standard because the total impacts 
of a more stringent regulatory alternative were found to be 
unreasonable. Additionally, we concluded that the new source MACT floor 
as proposed is appropriate (95 percent control of all tanks with 
capacities of 10,000 gal and storing material with a HAP partial 
pressure of 0.1 psia) for all tanks.
Wastewater
    The final rule requires management and treatment of Group 1 
wastewater streams and residuals removed from Group 1 wastewater 
streams to be consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 
63, subpart G. For the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, the 
characteristics of Group 1 wastewater streams are defined with the 
following characteristics at the point of determination (POD):
    [sbull] Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an 
annual average concentration greater than 50 parts per million by 
weight (ppmw) and a combined total annual average concentration of 
soluble and partially soluble HAP of 10,000 ppmw or greater at any 
flowrate.
    [sbull] Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an 
annual average concentration greater than 50 ppmw and a combined total 
annual average concentration of soluble and partially soluble HAP of 
1,000 ppmw or greater at an annual average flowrate of 1 liter per 
minute (lpm) or greater.
    [sbull] Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an 
annual average concentration of 50 ppmw or less and soluble HAP at an 
annual average concentration of 30,000 ppmw or greater and a total 
annual load of soluble HAP of 1 tpy or greater.
    At new sources, the requirements are identical to those for 
existing sources, but the applicability triggers on individual streams 
are more stringent. In addition to controlling streams that meet the 
thresholds for existing sources, control is also required for the 
following streams at their POD:
    [sbull] Process wastewater containing an annual average HAP 
concentration exceeding 10 ppmw of compounds listed in Table 8 of 40 
CFR part 63, subpart G, with annual average flowrate greater than 0.02 
lpm.
    [sbull] Process wastewater containing partially soluble HAP at an 
annual average concentration of 50 ppmw or less and soluble HAP at an 
annual average concentration of 4,500 ppmw or greater and a total 
annual load of soluble HAP of 1 tpy or greater.
    The final rule also requires compliance with the requirements of 40 
CFR 63.105 for maintenance wastewater streams, and compliance with the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.149 for liquid streams in open systems within 
an MCPU.
Transfer Racks and Ancillary Sources
    The final standards for transfer racks, maintenance wastewater, and 
heat exchange systems are unchanged from the proposal, and they are 
identical to the requirements in the hazardous organic NESHAP (HON). 
For transfer operations, we are requiring the HON level of control for 
transfer racks that load greater than 0.65 million liters per year (l/
yr) (0.17 million gallons per year (gal/yr)) of liquid products that 
contain organic HAP with a partial pressure of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia). For 
each transfer rack that meets these thresholds, total organic HAP 
emissions must be reduced by 98 percent by weight or more, or the 
displaced vapors must be returned to the process or originating 
container. For maintenance wastewater, you must prepare a plan for 
minimizing emissions. For heat exchange systems, you must implement a 
monitoring program to detect leaks into the cooling water.
Equipment Leaks
    For equipment leaks, the final rule requires implementation of a 
leak detection and repair (LDAR) program. For processes with no 
continuous process vents, you must implement the program in 40 CFR part 
63, subpart TT. For processes with at least one continuous process 
vent, you must implement the program in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. 
Alternatively, you may elect to comply with the requirements in 40 CFR 
part 65, subpart F (i.e., the Consolidated Federal Air Rule).
Pollution Prevention
    The final rule also includes a pollution prevention alternative for 
existing sources that meets the control level of the MACT floor and may 
be implemented in lieu of the emission limitations and work practice 
standards described above. The pollution prevention alternative 
provides a way for facilities to comply with MACT by reducing overall 
consumption of HAP in their processes; therefore, it is not applicable 
for HAP that are generated in the process or for new sources. 
Specifically, you must demonstrate that the production-indexed 
consumption of HAP has decreased by at least 65 percent from a 3-year 
average baseline set no earlier than the 1994 through 1996 calendar 
years. The production-indexed consumption factor is expressed as the 
mass of HAP consumed, divided by the mass of product produced. The 
numerator in the factor is the total consumption of the HAP, which 
describes all the different areas where it can be consumed, either 
through losses to the environment, consumption in the process as a 
reactant, or otherwise destroyed.

[[Page 63856]]

Emissions Averaging Provisions
    The final rule incorporates the emissions averaging provisions in 
40 CFR part 63, subpart G (the HON), with some changes to accommodate 
batch process vents. For example, the final rule specifies that 
uncontrolled emissions from batch process vents are to be calculated 
using the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, and performance 
testing must be conducted under worst case conditions, as defined in 
subpart GGG.
Alternative Standard
    The final rule contains an alternative standard for process vents 
and storage tanks. When emissions are controlled using combustion 
control devices, the alternative standard requires control to an 
undiluted TOC concentration of 20 ppmv or less and an undiluted 
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less. For 
noncombustion control devices, the TOC concentration and total hydrogen 
halide and halogen HAP concentration both must be reduced to 50 ppmv or 
less. Continuous monitoring of outlet TOC and total hydrogen halide and 
halogen HAP is required for compliance with this alternative standard.

C. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

Process Vents
    The final rule requires calculation of uncontrolled emissions as a 
first step in demonstrating compliance with the 98 percent or 95 
percent reduction requirement for batch process vents. This initial 
calculation of uncontrolled emissions is not required if you choose to 
control process vents using the alternative standard or using specified 
combustion devices. For continuous process vents, the final rule 
requires calculation of the TRE index values using the procedures 
contained in the HON for continuous process vents.
    To verify that the required reductions have been achieved, you must 
either test or use calculation methodologies, depending on the emission 
stream characteristics, control device, and the type of process vent. 
For each continuous process vent with a TRE less than or equal to 1.9, 
compliance with the percent reduction emission limitation must be 
verified through performance testing. For batch process vents, initial 
compliance demonstrations must be conducted in accordance with the 
requirements in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GGG). Specifically, performance tests are required for control 
devices handling greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of HAP, while either 
engineering assessments or performance tests are allowed for control 
devices with lower loads and for condensers. Performance tests must be 
conducted under worst-case conditions if the control device is used to 
control emissions from batch process vents.
Storage Tanks, Transfer Racks, and Wastewater
    To demonstrate initial compliance with emission limits and work 
practice standards for storage tanks, transfer racks, and wastewater 
systems, the final rule allows you to either conduct performance tests 
or document compliance using engineering calculations. The initial 
compliance procedures are specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS 
(National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, 
Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process), 
subpart WW (National Emission Standards for Storage Vessels (Tanks--
Control Level 2)), and subpart G (the HON), for control devices used to 
reduce emissions from storage tanks and transfer racks, storage tanks 
controlled with floating roofs, and wastewater sources, respectively.

D. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    The final rule requires monitoring, inspections, and calculations 
to demonstrate ongoing compliance. Typically, continuous monitoring 
(i.e., every 15 minutes) of emissions or operating parameters is 
required when using a control device or wastewater treatment device. If 
operating parameters are monitored, operating limits must be 
established during the initial compliance demonstration. Periodic 
inspections are required for emission suppression equipment on waste 
management units and floating roofs on storage tanks and wastewater 
tanks. For processes that have Group 2 batch process vents (i.e., total 
organic HAP emissions less than 10,000 lb/yr), you must track the 
number of batches produced to show that emissions remain below the 
Group 1 threshold.
    Continuous monitoring requirements for control devices are 
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, with some exceptions specified 
in the final rule. For example, the final rule requires that monitoring 
data during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) be used 
in daily averages, whereas subpart SS excludes such data from averages. 
For batch process vents, you may request approval to set operating 
limits for individual or groups of emission episodes using the results 
of the performance test and applicable supplementary information. To 
use this approach, you must provide rationale for your selected 
operating limits in your precompliance report. As an alternative to 
daily averaging, the final rule also allows averaging over a batch or 
segment of a batch for control devices used to reduce emissions from 
batch process vents. For control devices that do not control more than 
1 tpy of HAP emissions, only a daily verification that the control 
device is operating as designed is required.
    Inspections for floating roofs must be conducted in accordance with 
40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. All monitoring and inspection requirements 
for wastewater systems must be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 
63, subpart G.

E. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    Recordkeeping and reporting requirements are outlined in the 
General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as 
the requirements in referenced subpart G (the HON), subpart SS 
(National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, 
Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process), 
subpart TT (National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control 
Level 1), subpart UU (National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--
Control Level 2 Standards), and subpart WW (National Emission Standards 
for Storage Vessels--Control Level 2). The sections of subpart A that 
apply to the final rule are designated in Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 
40 CFR part 63. Additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
specific to the final rule. For example, you are required to submit a 
precompliance report if you choose to comply using an alternative 
monitoring approach, use an engineering assessment to demonstrate 
compliance, or comply using a control device handling less than 1 tpy 
of HAP emissions. The final rule also references the SSM recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. 
Under these provisions, SSM records are required only for events during 
which excess emissions occur or events when the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan (SSMP) was not followed.
    Consistent with the General Provisions, you must submit an initial 
notification, a notification of compliance status (NOCS) report, and 
compliance reports. The initial notification is required within 120 
days of the effective date of 40 CFR part 63,

[[Page 63857]]

subpart FFFF. That brief notification serves to alert appropriate 
agencies (State agencies and EPA Regional Offices) of the existence of 
your affected source and puts them on notice for future compliance 
actions. The NOCS report, which is due 150 days after the compliance 
date of the NESHAP, is a comprehensive report that describes the 
affected source and the strategy being used to comply. The NOCS report 
is also an important aspect of the title V permitting strategy for 
sources subject to subpart FFFF. Compliance reports are required every 
6 months.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?

    We estimate nationwide baseline HAP emissions from miscellaneous 
organic chemical manufacturing sources to be 21,900 Mg/yr (24,200 tpy). 
We project that the final rule will reduce HAP emissions by about 
15,200 Mg/yr (16,800 tpy). Because many of the HAP emitted by 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities are also VOC, 
the NESHAP will also reduce VOC.
    Combustion of fuels in combustion-based control devices and to 
generate electricity and steam will increase secondary emissions of 
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), and PM less than 10 microns in diameter 
(PM10) by about 870 Mg/yr (960 tpy). These impacts were 
estimated assuming electricity is generated in coal-fired power plants, 
steam is produced in natural gas-fired industrial boilers, and natural 
gas is used as the auxiliary fuel in incinerators and flares.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The cost impacts include the capital cost to install control 
devices and monitoring equipment, and include the annual costs involved 
in operating control devices and monitoring equipment, implementing 
work practices, and conducting performance tests. The annual cost 
impacts also include the cost savings generated by reducing the loss of 
product or solvent in the form of emissions. The total capital cost for 
existing sources is estimated to be $127 million, and the total annual 
cost for existing sources is estimated to be $75.1 million per year.
    We estimate that in the first 3 years after the effective date of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, that the annual cost burden will average 
$3,150/yr per respondent for recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 
This estimate was based on having 251 sources. Most of these costs are 
for new and reconstructed sources that must be in compliance upon 
startup; other costs are for existing sources to prepare initial 
notifications and plans. In the fourth year after the effective date, 
existing facilities must begin to monitor and record operating 
parameters to comply with operating limits and prepare compliance 
reports, which will significantly increase the annual burden 
nationwide.
    We expect that the actual compliance cost impacts of the NESHAP 
will be less than described above because of the potential to use 
common control devices, upgrade existing control devices, implement 
emissions averaging, or comply with the alternative standard. Because 
the effect of such practices is highly site-specific and data were 
unavailable to estimate how often the lower cost compliance practices 
could be utilized, we could not quantify the amount by which actual 
compliance costs might be reduced.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The economic impact analysis for 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, 
shows that the expected price increase for affected output is 0.5 
percent, and the expected change in production of affected output is a 
reduction of 0.3 percent. One plant closure is expected out of the 207 
facilities affected by the final rule. It should be noted that the 
baseline economic conditions of the facility predicted to close affect 
the closure estimate provided by the economic model, and that the 
facility predicted to close appears to have low profitability levels 
currently. Therefore, no adverse impact is expected to occur for those 
industries that produce miscellaneous organic chemicals affected by the 
NESHAP, such as soaps and cleaners, industrial organic chemicals, and 
agricultural chemicals.

D. What Are the Non-air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

    With the assumption that overheads from steam stripping will be 
recoverable as material or fuel, no solid waste is expected to be 
generated from steam stripping of wastewater streams. No solid waste is 
expected to be generated from controls of other emission points. We 
expect the overall energy demand (i.e., for auxiliary fuel in 
incinerators, electricity generation, and steam production) to increase 
by an estimated 6.1 million gigajoules per year (5.8 trillion British 
thermal units per year).

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

A. What Changes to Applicability Did the Commenters Suggest?

    Comment: Several commenters suggested using only one industrial 
classification code, preferably the NAICS. The commenters also 
recommended increasing the specificity of the NAICS codes to six 
digits. As an alternative, one commenter suggested that the codes be 
scrapped and applicability be based simply on the manufacture of 
organic chemicals. Finally, the commenters requested exceptions for all 
codes that refer to inorganic chemical manufacturing processes.
    Response: We decided to retain both the SIC and NAICS codes in the 
final rule. Although SIC codes are being phased out, we decided to 
retain them because many industries still use these codes, and they 
were the basis for the selecting industries that received the section 
114 information request. We rejected the suggestion to use six-digit 
NAICS codes because the list would be unnecessarily long; listing 
exclusions is much shorter. For the final rule, we also decided to list 
only the three-digit NAICS code for the chemical manufacturing 
subsector (325) rather than the seven four-digit codes for industry 
groups within this subsector because 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, 
applies to all of the industry groups. However, there are selected 
manufacturing processes within both the SIC and NAICS industry groups 
for which the final rule is not applicable. These processes are 
exempted in the final rule by listing only the applicable six-digit 
NAICS code. Thus, a process described by a listed six-digit NAICS code 
is exempt even if it falls within an otherwise applicable SIC code. The 
exemptions cover all but three of the processes described by NAICS 
codes 325131, 325181, 325188, 325314, 325991, and 325992. The three 
processes within these otherwise exempt categories are hydrazine, 
reformulating plastics resins from recycled plastics products, and 
photographic chemicals.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that hydrazine manufacturing should 
not be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, and the Hydrazine 
Manufacturing source category should be delisted because within the 
next few months, there will no longer be major sources within the 
source category; emissions from hydrazine manufacturing are too low to 
trigger controls; and hydrazine is an inorganic compound. If hydrazine 
is not removed from the miscellaneous

[[Page 63858]]

organic chemical manufacturing source category, one of the two 
commenters suggested that alternative testing methods are needed for 
hydrazine and that the definition of TOC should be changed to include 
hydrazine. The other commenter pointed out that the TRE equation is 
meaningless for hydrazine manufacturing plants because it requires 
sources to determine the hourly emission rate of organic HAP, and 
hydrazine and the raw materials used to produce hydrazine (e.g., 
chlorine, caustic soda, and ammonia) are all inorganic.
    Response: Subpart FFFF covers the manufacture of hydrazine because 
it was one of the source categories subsumed, and the standards are 
based on a broad variety of chemical manufacturing processes. We 
developed separate standards for hydrogen halide and halogen emissions 
that require 99 percent control when uncontrolled hydrogen halide and 
halogen emissions exceed 1,000 lb/yr per process. However, hydrazine 
itself is also a HAP. Therefore, process vents containing hydrogen 
halide and halogen HAP would be subject to standards for hydrogen 
halide and halogen emissions. Hydrazine emissions from process vents 
would be subject to either the continuous process vent standards or the 
batch process vent standards. For the purposes of calculating the TRE 
for continuous process vents or mass emissions for comparison with the 
10,000 lb/yr applicability threshold for batch process vents, the final 
rule specifies that hydrazine is to be considered an organic HAP.
    Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for photographic 
processing chemicals such as fixers, bleaches, and developers because 
HAP emissions from the processes are minimal, the equipment to 
manufacture these compounds are mixing vessels, and the processes do 
not appear to be included in the MACT floor. The commenter suggested 
that administrative burdens associated with the final rule, including 
calculating uncontrolled emissions, are not warranted.
    Response: We have not exempted manufacturing processes for 
photographic processing chemicals. The manufacturing equipment and 
emission characteristics, such as mixing vessels and their associated 
emissions from vapor displacement and evaporative losses, are 
represented by processes contained in the database.
    Comment: Many commenters supported the concept of treating process 
vents from the production of energetics as a separate class of emission 
streams subject to alternative requirements or a lesser degree of 
control for safety reasons. Several commenters provided specifics on 
the hazards posed by incineration-based controls and made 
recommendations that included providing definitions for energetics, 
waiving requirements for energetics or establishing a process where 
safe control technology can be identified on a case-by-case basis, and 
considering other control alternatives for compounds such as organic 
peroxides, powdered metals, metal catalysts, and highly flammable gases 
such as ethylene oxide and hydrogen. One of the commenters indicated 
that condensation and carbon adsorption are not effective on some 
compounds, such as nitroglycerine, which is unstable at low 
temperatures and cannot be safely controlled by carbon adsorption 
because it spontaneously combusts. The commenter supported a definition 
for energetics that includes ``propellants, explosives, and 
pyrotechnics.'' A second commenter suggested defining explosives as 
material included in the U.S. Department of Transportation hazardous 
materials tables (49 CFR 172.101) and listed as Hazard Class I 
hazardous material to include all Class I materials, or specifically 
materials in Divisions 1.1 through 1.6. The commenter indicated that 
using this approach, explosive manufacturers would know who they are 
because they are already shipping their materials as explosives; 
manufacturers who make materials that have some energetic properties, 
but are not shipped as explosives, would clearly be excluded. A third 
commenter requested that other compounds also be included in the 
subclass as explosives, particularly organic peroxides. The commenter 
cited EPA's rationale in providing a similar exclusion from control 
according to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), subpart CC 
for organic peroxide producers. A fourth commenter agreed and requested 
that EPA incorporate language already included at 40 CFR 264.1080(d) 
(duplicated at Sec.  265.1080(d)) and 40 CFR 264.1089(i) (duplicated at 
Sec.  265.1089(i)) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The commenter also 
suggested that other streams exist in the industry that may also meet 
this definition. For instance, reactive radioactive mixed waste 
wastewaters generated under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act and 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act are exempted from closed conveyance 
requirements per 40 CFR 264.1080(b)(6). The U.S. Department of Energy 
requested this exemption because the radioactive mixed waste (RMW) 
containers ``cannot be tightly sealed due to unacceptable pressure 
buildup of hydrogen gas to levels which can . . . create a potentially 
serious explosion hazard.'' The commenters requested that EPA include 
language that allows facilities to document the hazardous nature of 
their wastewater streams and petition for exemption from the wastewater 
standards.
    Response: In the proposal, we recognized that the 98 percent 
control requirement for all process vents within affected processes 
would force incineration technology, and that this technology might not 
be appropriate for all process vent streams. Therefore, we also allowed 
95 percent reduction of process vents if ``recovery'' control 
technology was employed to achieve required reductions. We envisioned 
at the time that the majority of this technology would be condensation. 
We solicited comments in the proposal on what commenters would consider 
achievable reductions from appropriate control technologies and how to 
define energetics. With the exception of the nitroglycerin example, we 
did not receive many comments that indicated that 95 percent control 
could not be achieved in most cases. Regarding organic peroxides, the 
add-on control requirement of RCRA, subpart CC, is 95 percent; 
therefore, EPA's earlier decision that indefinitely stayed requirements 
for producers of organic peroxides is consistent with the assumption 
that even 95 percent control cannot be achieved in these cases. 
Similarly, just as some reactive radioactive mixed wastewaters cannot 
be safely managed in closed systems, as one commenter suggested, there 
may be other situations that exist where sources may not be able to 
achieve the control efficiencies required by the final standards 
because of safety concerns. Based on the specific comments we received, 
we have concluded that it is appropriate to narrowly define a class of 
energetics and organic peroxides producers and allow, on a case-
specific basis, a procedure to request an alternative compliance 
option. For these materials, the owner or operator must prepare and 
submit documentation in the precompliance report similar to the 
requirements in 40 CFR 264.1089(i) and 265.1089(i), explaining why an 
undue safety hazard would be created if the air emission controls 
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, were installed on process 
vents, wastewater, and storage tanks containing energetics and organic 
peroxides, and describing what practices would be implemented to

[[Page 63859]]

minimize HAP emissions from energetics and organic peroxides 
manufacturing.
    We did not broadly define energetics to encompass reactive or 
explosive conditions and the presence of highly flammable gases such as 
ethylene oxide and hydrogen. Based on past rules, we realize that 
combustion technology may not be appropriate in these cases, but other 
control technologies achieving relatively high control efficiencies are 
available and technically feasible.
    Finally, the final rule includes a definition of ``energetics'' 
that is based on the definitions suggested by the commenters, and a 
definition of ``organic peroxides'' that is taken from 40 CFR 
264.1080(d):
    Energetics means propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics and 
include materials listed at 49 CFR 172.101 as Hazard Class I Hazardous 
Materials, Divisions 1.1 through 1.6.
    Organic peroxides means organic compounds containing the bivalent -
o-o-structure which may be considered to be a structural derivative of 
hydrogen peroxide where one or both of the hydrogen atoms has been 
replaced by an organic radical.
    Borrowing from language contained in 40 CFR 264.1080(d), only 
processes producing ``organic peroxides as the predominant products 
manufactured by the process'' and manufacturing ``more than one 
functional family of organic peroxides or multiple organic peroxides 
within one functional family,'' with one or more of these organic 
peroxides that ``could potentially undergo self-accelerating thermal 
decomposition at or below ambient temperatures'' would be eligible for 
identical treatment as energetics.
    Comment: One commenter asked for clarification that only solvent 
recovery operations operating at chemical manufacturing facilities are 
covered under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The commenter also 
suggested adding a paragraph to the final rule to alert wastewater 
treatment operators that the final rule might apply to them.
    Response: We have not included the suggested language because 
solvent recovery operations are in fact covered by 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF, even if they are not located at a chemical manufacturing 
facility. However, offsite operations that are part of an affected 
source under another subpart of 40 CFR part 63, such as the Offsite 
Waste and Recovery Operations NESHAP (subpart DD), are not subject to 
subpart FFFF, as specified in Sec.  63.2435(b)(3) of the final rule. 
Secondly, offsite treatment facilities are not affected sources but 
they may be required to treat wastewaters according to the provisions 
in subpart FFFF. Operators will be notified by respective dischargers 
of their obligation to treat in accordance with Sec.  63.132(g)(1), as 
referenced in Table 7 to subpart FFFF of part 63.
    Comment: A number of commenters identified concerns with the 
``family of materials'' concept and requested that EPA either eliminate 
it or make several changes. Several commenters suggested that the term 
is inconsistent with the floor determination and the information 
collection request (ICR), which allowed respondents to group materials 
but did not require it. One commenter suggested that the family of 
materials concept would discourage innovative or new and changed 
products due to constantly changing calculations and control 
requirements and increased administrative burden associated with 
tracking families. The commenter also stated that the concept is 
incompatible with flexible batch processes and could lead to division 
of products and equipment that are emitting to the same vent or 
groupings of products located in different buildings. The commenter 
suggested that grouping be conducted on shared process vents rather 
than families.
    Four of the commenters suggested two key concepts to incorporate 
into the definition: the need to be able to group together processes 
with essentially identical emission sources and/or stream 
characteristics; and the recognition that, under some circumstances, 
functionality (e.g., end use or product characteristics) may be an 
appropriate option in lieu of chemical composition. One of the 
commenters also suggested that we revise the list of examples because 
the proposed examples appear to be much broader categories of products 
than what other parts of the definition seem to allow and apply the 
concept only to batch process units in the same operational area.
    One commenter stated that if EPA insisted on regulating equipment 
based on a ``family of materials'' concept, it should be limited to 
batch processes, and the emission threshold from the batch database 
should be recalculated. Finally, one of the commenters suggested that 
if EPA does not remove the family of materials concept, EPA must allow 
facilities to exclude from a family of materials grouping all 
individual products when the manufacture results in uncontrolled HAP 
emissions of less than 500 lb/yr for nondedicated batch operations or 
100 lb/yr for dedicated batch operations.
    Response: The concept of ``family of materials'' is merely a 
logical grouping to describe materials that have very similar 
production and emission stream characteristics such that they can be 
considered as a single process. The final rule bases its control 
requirement on the sum of uncontrolled emissions within a process 
grouping. Only processes with uncontrolled organic HAP emissions of 
greater than 5 tpy are required to be controlled by 98 percent. 
Therefore, the definition of process determines what sources are 
included within a process grouping, which in turn affects applicable 
requirements and must be clearly specified in the final rule. In the 
proposed rule, we introduced the term family of materials to describe 
materials that vary only slightly in molecular structure, functional 
groups or other characteristics and are produced using procedures that 
result in essentially identical HAP emission streams from essentially 
identical emission sources. Our intent in requiring the grouping of 
these materials is to keep operators from artificially breaking them up 
into separate ``processes'' to avoid control requirements. We consider 
this concept to be important and have retained it in the final rule, 
with some modifications. Further, from our concept of ``standard 
batch,'' we would say that each family of materials has the same 
``standard batch.''
    The standard batch concept was developed to allow owners and 
operators to identify and characterize emission events associated with 
a process. Once the emissions from each process are characterized, the 
owner or operator can merely count the number of batches conducted per 
year for each process to determine uncontrolled and controlled HAP 
emissions and compliance requirements. The standard batch concept 
provides a manageable way to document emissions; processes with the 
same identical standard batch should be considered the same process.
    We agree with the commenters that our proposed definition did not 
adequately convey the concept of identical emission streams 
characteristics. We note that as long as groupings are also based on 
identical HAP emission characteristics, a grouping based on 
functionality is still compatible with the concept of having only one 
standard batch per process, which is a cornerstone of our compliance 
implementation strategy. Therefore, we have incorporated the suggested 
option so that the final definition requires identical emissions and 
either similar composition or functionality.
    We reject the argument that the database is flawed because we did 
not require groupings when we surveyed

[[Page 63860]]

the industry. Although we did not require groupings, we encouraged 
respondents to group materials and provided guidance ``that products 
that involve different HAP or different process equipment in case of 
dedicated processes should not be grouped together.'' This language is 
basically consistent with the family of materials concept, and we note 
that many processes in our database appear to be material groupings. 
Therefore, we did not revise the MACT floor or proposed standards for 
batch vents. We also have not incorporated the suggestion to exempt 
``individual products for which the manufacture results in less than 
500 lb/yr uncontrolled HAP emissions for nondedicated batch 
operations'' because this language is unnecessary and inappropriate. 
Although the commenter may not have provided information on individual 
products with less than 500 lb/yr (e.g., the commenter could have 
grouped families and emissions would be over 500 lb/yr and required to 
be reported), we expect that some respondents applied the 500 lb/yr 
reporting test on families of materials, based on the substantive 
number of groupings reported. Thus, there is no basis for exempting 
individual products for which the manufacture results in HAP emissions 
below the suggested 500 lb/yr threshold. Finally, because the final 
rule makes no distinction between ``batch'' and ``continuous'' 
processes, but rather on batch and continuous emissions, we do not 
restrict the concept to batch ``processes.''
    One commenter objected to the grouping of processes that are 
conducted in separate buildings and areas. Our proposed and final 
definition of process is not equipment specific. If the same product is 
manufactured in more than one set of equipment, emissions from all 
equipment must be considered when comparing to the 5 tpy mass 
applicability limit. The final rule is written this way because many 
manufacturers use nondedicated equipment to conduct their processes, 
and there is the potential that processing can be moved from one area 
to another easily to avoid regulation. Therefore, we do not restrict 
the family of materials grouping according to location.
    Comment: Many comments addressed various concepts in the definition 
of miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process. Several 
commenters considered the definition to be too lengthy and confusing. 
Some suggested removing statements that do not define the process. 
Others asked for clarification of various terms used within the 
definition such as ``nondedicated,'' ``nondedicated solvent recovery,'' 
``equipment,'' and ``product.'' Two commenters stated that ``product or 
isolated intermediate'' should be changed to ``miscellaneous organic 
chemical product.''
    Several commenters objected to various requirements for 
nondedicated formulation operations. For example, some commenters 
opposed the requirement that all nondedicated formulation operations be 
considered a single process. They noted that the ICR did not request 
data for aggregated formulation operations and, thus, the MACT floor 
was based on separate formulation processes. Other commenters requested 
clarification of the term ``contiguous area'' as it relates to 
formulation operations. Several commenters found the exclusion for 
formulation operations that involve ``mixing'' to be confusing. They 
also requested that all formulation operations be exempt, not just 
those that are nondedicated and involve mixing, because none of these 
operations result in many emissions. One commenter expressed concern 
that estimating emissions for ``hundreds'' of small vents with minimal 
emissions for all the various formulated products would be burdensome, 
and control would be very costly. One commenter asked for an 
explanation of why nondedicated formulation operations (and 
nondedicated solvent recovery operations) are treated differently than 
other nondedicated operations.
    Several commenters stated that cleaning operations should be part 
of the process only if they are routine and predictable because these 
are the only cleaning operations for which emissions can be estimated 
and included in a standard batch. Other commenters added that cleaning 
should not be part of the process if it involves opening of process 
vessels because there are no practical control methods for such events.
    Response: Except for nondedicated solvent recovery and formulation 
operations, miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing processes are 
product based, meaning that all equipment used to manufacture a product 
is to be included in determining process vent control. We think this 
product-based approach is necessary because owners and operators may 
have the flexibility to manufacture the same product in more than one 
distinct area in a way that would avoid control under an equipment-
based standard. However, in the case of solvent recovery operations 
such as distillation operations, defining a process by product would 
mean that each separately recovered product would be a separate 
process, which would result in fewer ``processes'' triggering the 
control requirement for the same equipment. The same is true for 
nondedicated formulation operations, where various finished materials 
could be formulated for shipment or as final product. Considering these 
two types of nondedicated operations as single processes also likely 
reflects the way in which these operations are managed and permitted. 
Further, we think respondents reported their data following this 
convention. Often, these operations will vary only in the type of HAP 
used. If the same HAP solvent is used for a variety of products, the 
emission stream characteristics per batch will essentially be the same. 
Therefore, considering a number of these operations as a single process 
actually simplifies recordkeeping. Note, however, that the final rule 
contains two key exemptions for batch process vents that may exempt 
many of the emission sources contributing to ``minimal'' emissions that 
the commenter is describing (i.e., 50 ppmv or 200 lb/yr).
    Although our proposed definition excluded ``mixing,'' we meant to 
exclude ``mixing of coatings,'' since this operation is to be covered 
by 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. When a product is blended or mixed 
with other materials in equipment that is dedicated to the manufacture 
of a single product, the mixing is included as part of the 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process.
    We wanted to limit nondedicated solvent and formulation processes 
to related operations within the same area, which is the reason for the 
language regarding ``contiguous operations.'' However, we agree with 
one of the commenters that the term contiguous also conveys other 
meanings and, therefore, have revised the definition to refer to ``each 
nondedicated solvent recovery (or formulation) operation.'' The intent 
is to limit the process to operations located within a distinct 
operating area.
    We agree that nonroutine cleaning operations involving vessel 
openings should not be considered as part of a process because they are 
difficult to characterize within a standard batch. These emissions 
would be attributed to startup and shutdown events, which are addressed 
separately in the final rule. In some instances, however, cleaning that 
is conducted within enclosed equipment between batches or between 
campaigns should be considered part of a process; these operations 
often consist of conducting solvent rinses through the equipment. 
Emissions from these

[[Page 63861]]

operations are similar to emissions during processing and the final 
rule's emission estimation procedures are suitable for these events. 
Therefore, they can be included in a standard batch for a given product 
and can be practically implemented.
    Comment: Some commenters are confused about how a process ends with 
the production of an ``isolated intermediate'' or product. One 
commenter stated that a process should end with the production of an 
isolated intermediate. Subsequent manufacturing operations using the 
intermediate should be considered part of a different process, and 
emissions from the operation should be managed separately from the 
emissions for the isolated intermediate process. A second commenter 
objected to the language in the proposal preamble that qualified the 
meaning of ``stored'' to be long-term storage, or that the material 
must be shipped offsite. The commenters stated that the term 
``storage'' without qualification as to the length of storage or the 
purpose of storage is sufficient. A third commenter was concerned that 
the first sentence stated that an isolated intermediate is a 
``product,'' but the second sentence stated that many ``isolated 
intermediates'' many be produced in the manufacture of a product; and 
that to be an isolated intermediate, a material must be stored, but the 
definition of storage tanks specifically excludes tanks storing 
isolated intermediates. The commenter stated that the definition needs 
to define the end of an MCPU where that MCPU produces a material that 
is not itself a commercial product. Two commenters wanted clarification 
that the term isolated intermediate refers to an organic material and 
suggested changing the term to ``isolated organic intermediate'; and 
four commenters suggested that the term be limited to batch processes.
    Response: The concept of isolated intermediate is to identify a 
repeatable sequence of processing events that yield a material that is 
stable and subsequently stored before it undergoes further processing. 
The concept was introduced because many chemical processors have the 
capability to conduct intermediate processing steps in non-sequential 
order or even to conduct some processing steps offsite. Requiring an 
operator to consider all processing steps or campaigns that result in a 
final product may not yield a repeatable standard batch because of the 
possibility that not all steps would be conducted every time, or that 
some processing would depend on the availability of equipment and not 
be sequential; therefore, we limit the definition of process to the 
manufacture of an isolated intermediate. The concept that an isolated 
intermediate must be stored is important in that, if there is no 
``break'' in the processing operations, there is no end of a process. 
We have, in the final rule, revised the definition of storage tank and 
process tank. Storage effectively occurs when material is stored and 
not processed over the course of a batch process. Therefore, we have 
eliminated the inconsistency regarding storage so that a storage tank 
can mark the end of a process if it is truly a storage tank and not a 
process tank, surge control vessel, or bottoms receiver. To limit 
confusion between listing the various vessel types that could be 
construed as process tanks, we eliminated the descriptive terms drums, 
totes, day tanks, and storage tanks.
    We have not revised the definition to include the term ``organic.'' 
Our proposed and final definition clearly indicates that the material 
must be described by 40 CFR 63.2435(b). We have not limited the term to 
batch processes because the revised definitions of storage tank, surge 
control vessel, and bottoms receiver, make this distinction 
unnecessary. Additionally, we avoided basing any requirements on the 
differences between batch and continuous ``processes'' because 
processes can often contain both batch and continuous operations. 
Finally, we agree that the term isolated intermediate also is necessary 
to clarify that a material that is not itself a commercial product can 
be considered a product of a process.

B. How Did We Change the Compliance Dates?

    Comment: Several commenters stated that area sources that become 
major sources should have 3 years to comply. The commenters indicated 
that the proposed requirement to comply within 1 year deviates from 40 
CFR 63.6(c)(5) of the General Provisions and requirements in other 
rules, and the proposal preamble provides no justification for the 
shorter time period. One commenter also noted that there is no 
difference in the level of effort needed to comply relative to that for 
a major source.
    Response: We agree to reference the General Provisions directly for 
compliance requirements for an area source that becomes a major source. 
We consider the 3-year period that the General Provisions allows for 
areas sources to come into compliance after becoming major sources to 
be adequate time. The proposed rule was published on April 4, 2002 and 
the anticipated compliance date is August 2006. Area sources becoming 
major sources after the effective date will have 4-plus years to become 
familiar with the applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. An 
area source that becomes a major source between the effective date and 
the compliance date also has 3 years to come into compliance, except if 
it adds a new affected source (e.g., a dedicated MCPU with the 
potential to emit 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of combined HAP).
    Comment: One commenter operates an offsite treatment facility that 
could receive wastewater from affected sources under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF. This commenter expressed concern with the requirement 
that existing sources be in compliance 3 years after the effective date 
of the final rule because they might not even receive affected 
wastewater until sometime after the compliance date. Therefore, the 
commenter suggested adding a new Sec.  63.2445(f) to read as follows: 
``If you have an offsite treatment operation that receives affected 
wastewater or residue prior to the effective date of this subpart, then 
you must comply with the requirements for offsite treatment operations 
in this subpart no later than the date 3 years after the effective date 
of the subpart. If you have an offsite treatment operation that 
receives affected wastewater or residue after the effective date of 
this subpart, then you must comply with the requirements for offsite 
treatment operations in this subpart prior to receipt of an affected 
wastewater or residue.''
    Response: The proposed rule specified that affected wastewater 
(i.e., ``Group 1'' wastewater in the final rule) that is sent offsite 
for treatment would be subject to Sec.  63.132(g) of the HON. Those 
provisions require the offsite facility to comply with Sec. Sec.  
63.133 through 63.147 for any Group 1 wastewater that they receive. The 
commenter was concerned that an offsite treatment facility would be 
considered to be an existing source and might be unable to demonstrate 
initial compliance (i.e., implement the design and operational 
requirements for waste management units and determine the performance 
of control devices and treatment processes) by the compliance date if 
the facility is not now receiving Group 1 wastewater and the operators 
are unaware whether the facility may receive such wastewater at some 
point in the future.
    We did not add the suggested language because the proposed language 
is clear and already satisfies the commenter's concerns. Although an

[[Page 63862]]

offsite treatment facility will be required to meet the wastewater 
standards and associated compliance provisions if it accepts wastewater 
from an affected source, the offsite treatment facility is not an 
affected source. Therefore, the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.2445 does not apply to an offsite treatment facility. The burden is 
also on the affected source operators to inform the offsite treatment 
facility of their intent, determine if the offsite facility is willing 
to handle the wastewater, and allow the offsite treatment facility time 
to achieve initial compliance before the first shipment.

C. How Did We Develop the Standards?

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA unlawfully failed to set 
standards for all HAP emitted by the source category. According to the 
commenter, examples of HAP for which standards were not set include 
inorganic HAP such as HCl, HF, Cl2, potassium compounds; and 
organic HAP such as maleic and phthalic anhydrides. As support, the 
commenter referenced National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 
(D.C. Cir. 2000). Conversely, other commenters noted that the rule as 
proposed regulates both inorganic and organic HAP, but they suggested 
it should regulate inorganic HAP only when generated by the combustion 
of halogenated organic HAP. Some of these commenters stated that 
focusing on just organic HAP would be consistent with EPA's CAA section 
114 data collection, the corresponding MACT floor analysis, and the 
approach used in other MACT standards. Two commenters noted that EPA 
recognized the inherent differences in the physical/chemical nature of 
inorganic HAP and the different technologies required for their control 
and specifically excluded inorganic HAP from the MACT floor analysis. 
The two commenters also stated that other standards, such as the HCl 
Production MACT, already adequately address inorganic HAP reduction 
requirements. Should EPA decide to regulate inorganic HAP, two 
commenters indicated that we should conduct additional MACT floor 
analyses and then propose separate standards for organic and inorganic 
HAP.
    Response: At proposal, our intent was that all types of gaseous HAP 
would be subject to the batch and continuous process vent standards. 
Similarly, the proposed storage tank standards would apply to all 
gaseous HAP, provided the maximum true vapor pressure for the total HAP 
in the storage tank exceeded the specified threshold. However, 
standards for the remaining emission source types are based on the 
compounds regulated by the HON, which covered organic HAP only. 
Standards for transfer operations and equipment leaks would also apply 
to any individual organic HAP or combination of organic HAP that meet a 
partial pressure threshold. Wastewater standards would apply only to 
those organic HAP that have the potential to volatilize from water 
based on modeling analyses conducted during development of the HON.
    In response to the comments, we decided to develop a MACT floor and 
standards for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP (i.e., HCl, HF, and 
Cl2) emissions from process vents that are separate from the 
analysis for organic HAP emissions. Based on data obtained in responses 
to the original ICR, this MACT floor was determined to be 99 percent 
control of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP from the sum of all vents in 
processes with uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen emissions equal 
to or greater than 1,000 lb/yr. We did not receive any information 
regarding source reduction techniques for hydrogen halide and halogen 
HAP. Generally, we would expect that these compounds are emitted as 
products of reaction, and there may be less opportunity for source 
reduction from these types of process vent emissions when compared to 
organic HAP. However, we structured the MACT floor to consider measures 
of reducing HAP emissions other than add-on control by basing the MACT 
floor on a percent reduction above some uncontrolled emission value. By 
default, implementing source reduction measures reduces ``uncontrolled 
emissions.'' The performance level of 99 percent is the highest control 
level achievable across the source category and is achieved by about 50 
percent of the processes. The primary control devices used in the 
industry are packed-bed scrubbers. Control efficiencies for hydrogen 
halides (acid gases) and halogens depend on the solubility of the HAP 
in the scrubbing liquid, which in turn will vary with the processes 
that emit them. Control device vendors estimate that removal 
efficiencies for inorganic gases range from 95 to 99 percent (EPA-CICA 
Fact Sheet: Packed-Bed/Packed-Tower Scrubber). Therefore, although the 
reported control efficiencies for some processes were in excess of 99 
percent, levels greater than 99 percent may not be uniformly achievable 
under all operating conditions. The best performing of these sources 
are those with the lowest uncontrolled emissions from the sum of all 
vents within the process. Therefore, we ranked all processes 
controlling hydrogen halide and halogen emissions to at least 99 
percent by their uncontrolled emissions, from lowest to highest. For 
the best-performing 12 percent of processes, the median uncontrolled 
emissions rate is 1,000 lb/yr.
    In setting the MACT floor for existing sources, we considered 
whether sources may be using emission reduction techniques other than 
technological controls for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP to determine 
whether such techniques might provide the basis for a floor. However, 
we did not receive any information regarding emission reduction 
techniques for these HAP in response to our ICR request that sources 
provide such information. Accordingly, we do not have information 
indicating that a sufficient percentage of sources are using emission 
reduction techniques for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP to enable us 
to set a MACT floor based on such techniques. Generally, we expect that 
because these HAP are emitted as products of reaction, there may be 
fewer opportunities to reduce process vent emissions of these HAP than 
there are opportunities to reduce emissions of organic HAP. (Organic 
HAP are frequently present in solvents, and solvent use can often be 
reduced; by contrast, reducing emissions of reaction products is more 
difficult because fundamental process changes are typically necessary.) 
Again, however, we do not have any information about the use of 
emission reduction techniques with which to support a floor 
determination.
    Nevertheless, sources may use the pollution prevention option set 
out in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, to meet the 1,000 lb/yr cutoff for 
process vent emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP and thereby 
comply with the relevant standards.
    For new sources, the MACT floor is the same as for existing sources 
because reported control efficiencies in excess of 99 percent are not 
reliable. The final standards for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
emissions from process vents are also based on the MACT floor because 
the total impacts of a regulatory alternative were determined to be 
unreasonable.
    Based on comments received, we decided to review our available data 
and develop a MACT floor for HAP metals in the form of PM, which acts 
as a surrogate for them. Our database shows six facilities emit PM HAP 
(specifically various metal compounds). One of the six facilities is 
controlling emissions from three processes with three different control 
devices, and the lowest control

[[Page 63863]]

efficiency is 97 percent. Since there are only six sources, the MACT 
floor for existing sources is based on the average performance of the 
top five sources. Since only one of the top five sources is 
implementing control, we determined the MACT floor is no emissions 
reduction. The final standard is based on the MACT floor because the 
total impacts of a regulatory alternative were determined to be 
unreasonable.
    In setting the MACT floor, we considered whether some facilities 
may implement emission reduction measures to reduce PM HAP emissions, 
instead of using control technologies. We requested information on 
emission reduction measures in our section 114 information request. Of 
the approximately 40 different process changes reported, however, only 
one facility reported a process change that could be directly 
associated with PM emissions, which was described as ``removing a 
hopper and vent.'' Further, we do not know whether this emission 
reduction measure was effective in reducing PM HAP emissions. 
Therefore, because we lack information indicating that a sufficient 
number of process vents employ such measures to reduce emissions of PM 
HAP to set a floor, we were unable to set a MACT floor based on 
emission reduction measures.
    The new source MACT floor for PM HAP emissions is based on the 
control achieved by the best-performing source. As noted above, the 
best-performing source is routing emission streams from three processes 
to three different control devices: a baghouse (fabric filter), a spray 
chamber and a rotoclone. The baghouse (fabric filter) achieves 97 
percent control and this level is considered the emission control level 
that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source, 
even though the other control devices report higher control 
efficiencies. Particulate control efficiencies are influenced by 
factors such as filtration velocity, particle loading, and particle 
characteristics, which in turn vary depending on the processes that 
emit them. Variations in stream characteristics make it difficult to 
conclude that the higher reported control efficiencies for the other 
control devices could be achieved in practice by all process vents that 
emit PM HAP. Based on ranking of the sources achieving 97 percent 
according to each source's lowest uncontrolled PM HAP emission level, 
the best-performing source is the lowest uncontrolled PM HAP emission 
level for any of the controlled processes (i.e., 400 lb/yr). Thus, the 
new source MACT floor for PM HAP emissions from process vents is 97 
percent control for each process with uncontrolled PM HAP emissions 
greater than or equal to 400 lb/yr.
    Comment: One commenter stated that we unlawfully exempted emission 
points from regulation by establishing applicability cutoffs for both 
new and existing sources. The commenter stated that the rule must apply 
to all sources as required under the CAA, and, thus, cutoffs are 
illegal; and for wastewater, transfer operations, and equipment leaks, 
EPA illegally borrowed cutoffs and MACT floors from other standards. 
The commenter stated that standards must reflect the actual performance 
of the best-performing sources in the miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing category. The commenter objected to 98 percent control 
levels for the process vent floors because reported control 
efficiencies for many process vents exceeded 98 percent. Finally, the 
commenter objected to the use of a work practice standard for equipment 
leak controls. Conversely, several other commenters suggested that the 
rule should specify additional thresholds below which a source would be 
considered to have ``insignificant HAP emissions'' and be exempt from 
control.
    Response: We disagree that every emission point at a major source 
must be required to reduce emissions. First, section 112(a) of the CAA 
defines ``stationary source'' (through reference to section 111(a)) as: 
``* * * any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits 
or may emit any air pollutant * * *.'' (42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  7412(a)(3) 
and 7411(a)(3)). The General Provisions for the MACT program define the 
term ``affected source'' as ``the collection of equipment, activities, 
or both within a single contiguous area and under common control that 
is included in a section 112(c) source category or subcategory for 
which a section 112(d) standard or other relevant standard is 
established pursuant to section 112.'' (40 CFR 63.2). Nothing in the 
definition of ``stationary source'' or in the regulatory definition of 
``affected source'' states or implies that each emission point or 
volume of emissions must be subjected to control requirements in 
standards promulgated under section 112.
    Further, even under the commenter's interpretation of ``stationary 
source,'' the Agency would still have discretion in regulating 
individual emission sources. Section 112(d)(1) allows the Administrator 
to ``distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a 
category or subcategory in establishing such standards * * *.'' We 
interpret this provision for the miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing NESHAP, as we have for previous rules, as allowing 
emission limitations to be established for subcategories of sources 
based on size or volume of materials processed at the affected source. 
Under the discretion allowed by the CAA for the Agency to consider 
``sizes'' of sources, we made the determination that certain small-
capacity and low-use operations (e.g., ``smaller'' storage tanks) can 
be analyzed separately for purposes of identifying the MACT floor and 
determining whether beyond-the-floor requirements are reasonable. In 
addition, our MACT floor determinations for certain categories (e.g., 
process vents), which are set according to section 112(d)(3) of the 
CAA, reflect the performance levels and ``cutoffs'' of the best-
performing sources for which we had information.
    In general, our MACT floor determinations have focused on the best-
performing sources in each source category, and they consider add-on 
control technologies as well as other practices that reduce emissions. 
As part of our information collection effort, we requested information 
on emission source reduction measures. We generally did not receive 
information indicating that, for the emission points covered by 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart FFFF, sources are currently reducing emissions by 
means other than control technologies in sufficient numbers to support 
a MACT floor based on source reduction measures. Accordingly, our 
standards include a performance level that represents the level 
achieved by the best control technology, and a cutoff that represents 
the lowest emission potential that is controlled by the best 12 percent 
of sources. Because the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
source category is broad in terms of the numbers and types of 
processing operations that are covered, one challenge was to develop a 
format by which all sources could be compared to each other to 
establish the best-performing sources. The performance level generally 
is of the format that can be applied to different types of control 
technology and processes and is generally consistent with existing 
rules. Thus, different types of control technology and emission levels 
resulting from existing rules are captured in our MACT floor analysis. 
The cutoff allows owners and operators that have reduced their 
emissions below a certain level using one or more methods, including 
process changes to reduce or eliminate pollution at the source, to 
comply without additional control. Both performance levels and cutoffs 
have been set to account for variations in emission stream

[[Page 63864]]

characteristics so that the standards can be applied consistently 
across the source category. We believe that this approach is consistent 
with the language of section 112(d)(3) that requires us to set the MACT 
floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources.
    Aside from the MACT floor determinations, we also provided a 
pollution prevention compliance alternative to allow compliance with 
the standards by demonstrating a reduction in HAP usage per unit of 
product. This alternative enables owners and operators to comply using 
emission source reduction measures.
    The above discussion notwithstanding, we decided to conduct a MACT 
floor analysis for storage tanks with capacities less than 10,000 gal. 
We concluded that the MACT floor for small tanks at existing sources is 
no emissions reduction because we have information from only eight 
sources that is not sufficient for setting a floor, and only one of the 
best-performing five sources is implementing controls. We did not 
specifically request information for tanks with capacities of less than 
10,000 gal. Based on earlier EPA studies on the organic compound 
manufacturing industry (EPA-450/3-90-025), we estimate the actual 
number of storage tanks with capacities of less than 10,000 gal in our 
source category to be 30 percent of the total number of tanks, or 
approximately 500 tanks. The eight facilities reported information on 
19 tanks, which is not enough information to set the floor. We also 
based the standard for existing storage tanks with capacities less than 
10,000 gal on the MACT floor, because a regulatory alternative was 
determined to be unreasonable.
    As for the new source MACT floor for storage tanks with capacities 
less than 10,000 gal, the best-performing source is controlling 
emissions from two small tanks by 98 percent with thermal incineration. 
One tank has a capacity of 9,800 gal and is storing material with a HAP 
partial pressure of 0.373 psia. The other tank has a capacity of 8,000 
gal and is storing material with a HAP partial pressure of 0.574 psia. 
We consider the first tank to be more stringently controlled because 
partial pressure is the best indicator of emission potential and 
controlling a lower partial pressure is an indication of greater 
stringency. We compared this tank's characteristics to the new source 
MACT floor for larger tanks, which was set at 95 percent control for 
tanks with capacities of greater than 10,000 gal and storing materials 
with HAP partial pressures of 0.1 psia or higher. From an analysis of 
the tanks in our database, we concluded that the new source MACT floor 
for larger tanks is more stringent than a floor based on 98 percent 
reduction for tanks storing material with a HAP partial pressure 
greater than or equal to 0.4 psia. Therefore, we concluded the new 
source MACT floor as proposed to be appropriate for all tanks.
    Finally, we do not have any information indicating that storage 
tanks with capacities less than 10,000 gal are reducing emissions 
through measures other than control technologies. Accordingly, we 
lacked sufficient information to set a floor based on such measures.
    The MACT floors for organic HAP emissions from batch and continuous 
process vents are 98 percent control because this level has been shown 
to be uniformly achievable by well-designed and operated combustion 
devices. During development of the HON, the EPA recognized that thermal 
incineration may achieve greater than 98 percent reduction in some 
cases, but test data show that levels greater than 98 percent may not 
be uniformly achievable under all operating conditions (59 FR 19420, 
April 22, 1994). Similarities in processes and resulting emission 
streams in this industry with that of the HON source category processes 
allow us to draw the same conclusions with regard to achievable 
combustion control efficiencies. A review of the batch process vent 
database indicates that most processes with overall control of 98 
percent or greater are controlled using thermal incinerators and flares 
(110 of 132 processes). We found the performance level for the MACT 
floor to be 98 percent because as much as 15 percent of the 731 
processes in the database were controlled by thermal incineration. 
Similarly, a review of the continuous process vent database indicates 
that most processes with overall control of 98 percent or greater are 
controlled using thermal incinerators and flares (31 of 37 processes). 
We found the performance level for the MACT floor to be 98 percent 
because as much as 15 percent of the 202 processes in the database were 
controlled by thermal incineration. We did not use reported control 
efficiencies for scrubbers used to control organic HAP because we do 
not know the fate of pollutants captured in the scrubber effluent. If 
some of these pollutants are re-released to the air, then the reported 
control efficiencies are not valid.
    For equipment leaks, we considered various formats for the standard 
and determined that a work practice standard based on an LDAR program 
is the most feasible. Unlike other emission sources, leaking components 
are not deliberate emission sources but rather result from mechanical 
limitations associated with process piping and machinery. A well-
managed facility follows a preventive maintenance program to minimize 
leaks, but in all practicality cannot guarantee that no leaks will 
occur. Therefore, an emission standard for equipment leaks would not be 
feasible to enforce or prescribe. At the same time, our data indicate 
that the MACT floor for equipment leaks is an LDAR program. We also 
developed regulatory alternatives on the use of more effective LDAR 
programs. Finally, we note that enclosing components and venting to 
control is allowed, but except in limited cases, we expect the cost to 
be prohibitive.
    Regarding the other commenters' suggestions, we note that the 
standards for all types of emission points contain cutoff values, 
consistent with our MACT floors, below which sources are exempt from 
control. We also concluded that our information did not allow us to 
develop a relationship between the various emission source types such 
that we could identify ``insignificant'' sources merely by the sum of 
actual emissions from process vents.
    Comment: One commenter stated that we failed to properly evaluate 
beyond-the-floor options. According to the commenter, in some cases, we 
stated that the MACT floor option was the most stringent option without 
identifying or evaluating other options (e.g., LDAR for equipment leaks 
was assumed to be the most stringent option). In other cases, the 
commenter noted that the beyond-the-floor option is simply a lowering 
of the cutoff, and as discussed above for the MACT floor, the commenter 
stated that cutoffs should not be allowed. Also, where 98 percent 
control is the MACT floor, the proposed rule did not address why a 
beyond-the-floor option was not selected where data showed higher 
reductions are being achieved.
    Response: Our beyond-the-floor options reflect the most stringent 
performance levels that have been proven and can be applied 
consistently across our source category. It is true that in many cases, 
the beyond-the-floor option was based on simply lowering a cutoff, 
similar to the discussion above for new sources. This is consistent 
with the intent of section 112(d)(3) because better-performing sources 
have lower cutoffs.
    For example, for batch process vents at existing sources, we 
evaluated the

[[Page 63865]]

feasibility of a regulatory alternative that would require 98 percent 
control of batch process vents in processes with uncontrolled organic 
HAP emissions between 5,000 and 10,000 lb/yr. We concluded that the 
total impacts of this alternative are unreasonable in light of the HAP 
emission reductions achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by 
this above-the-floor alternative is 145 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost 
is about $15,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity 
consumption to operate exhaust gas fans is 5.1 million kilowatt hours 
per year (kwh/yr). The incremental steam consumption for steam-assist 
flares is 6 million lb/yr. The incremental fuel energy consumption to 
operate incinerators and flares and to generate electricity is 340 
billion British thermal units (Btu) per year. Total CO, NOX 
and SO2 emissions from combustion of the additional fuel is 
about 66 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts.
    We evaluated the feasibility of a regulatory alternative that would 
require 98 percent control of organic HAP emissions from continuous 
process vents that have a TRE index value between 1.9 and 5.0 at 
existing sources. We concluded that the total impacts of this 
alternative are unreasonable in light of the HAP emission reductions 
achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by this above-the-
floor alternative is about 400 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is about 
$29,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity consumption 
to operate exhaust gas fans is 28 million kwh/yr. The incremental steam 
consumption for steam-assist flares is 83 million lb/yr. The 
incremental fuel energy consumption to operate incinerators and flares, 
generate steam, and generate electricity is 2.4 trillion Btu per year. 
Total CO, NOX, and SO2 emissions from combustion 
of the additional fuel is 400 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or 
solid waste impacts.
    We evaluated the feasibility of a regulatory alternative that would 
require 99 percent control of hydrogen halide and halogen emissions 
from processes with uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen emissions 
between 500 and 1,000 lb/yr at existing sources. We concluded that the 
total impacts of this alternative are unreasonable in light of the 
emission reductions achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by 
this beyond-the-floor alternative is 1.0 Mg/yr, and the incremental 
cost is about $90,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity 
consumption to operate exhaust gas fans is 31,000 kwh/yr, and the 
incremental fuel energy consumption to generate the electricity is 300 
million Btu per year. Total CO, NOX, and SO2 
emissions from the combustion of the additional fuel is 0.27 Mg/yr. The 
incremental wastewater generated from scrubber controls is 400,000 gal/
yr.
    We evaluated the feasibility of a regulatory alternative that would 
require 97 percent control of PM HAP emissions from process vents at 
existing sources if the uncontrolled PM HAP emissions exceeded 400 lb/
yr. The only facility that meets the threshold for control is already 
controlled. Thus, we concluded that the total impacts of this 
alternative are unreasonable in light of the emission reductions 
achieved for a model facility that was based on the characteristics of 
the controlled facility. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by the 
above-the-floor alternative for the model facility is 4.3 Mg/yr, and 
the incremental cost is $68,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental 
electricity consumption to operate exhaust gas fans is about 24,000 
kwh/yr, and the incremental fuel energy consumption to generate the 
electricity is 230 million Btu per year. Total CO, NOX, and 
SO2 emissions from combustion of the additional fuel is 0.2 
Mg/yr. The quantity of solid waste generated could be greater if the 
owner or operator elects to use a dust collector that includes water 
sprays and discharges the collected dust in a slurry form.
    For wastewater, we considered a regulatory alternative that would 
require HON-equivalent control of wastewater streams at existing 
sources that contain soluble HAP at concentrations between 15,000 ppmw 
and 30,000 ppmw or that contain partially soluble or mixed HAP at 
flowrates between 0.5 and 1.0 lpm. We concluded that the total impacts 
of this alternative are unreasonable in light of the emission 
reductions achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by this 
above-the-floor alternative is 160 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is 
about $8,500/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity 
consumption to operate pumps is 45,000 kwh/yr. The incremental steam 
consumption for steam strippers is 8.0 million lb/yr. The incremental 
fuel energy consumption to generate electricity and steam is 12 billion 
Btu per year. Total CO, NOX, and SO2 emissions 
from the combustion of additional fuel to generate the electricity and 
steam is 1 Mg/yr. There may also be solid waste impacts if condensed 
steam and pollutants from the steam stripper cannot be reused. Small 
amounts of wastewater in the form of blowdown from the cooling water 
system for the condenser may also be generated.
    For storage tanks at existing sources, we examined two regulatory 
alternatives. First, for storage tanks with capacities of at least 
10,000 gal, we considered an alternative that would require an internal 
floating roof, external floating roof, or at least 95 percent reduction 
if the partial pressure of HAP stored in the tank is between 0.5 and 
1.0 psia. We concluded that the total impacts of this alternative are 
unreasonable in light of the emission reductions achieved. The 
incremental HAP reduction achieved by this above-the-floor alternative 
is 30 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is $19,000/Mg of HAP controlled. 
The incremental electricity and fuel consumption rates for storage 
tanks controlled with refrigerated condensers are 16,000 kwh/yr and 155 
million Btu per year, respectively. Total CO, NOx, and 
SO2 emissions from combustion of additional fuel is 0.13 Mg/
yr, and there would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts. There also 
would be no environmental impacts or energy impacts for other storage 
tanks controlled with floating roofs. The second regulatory alternative 
that we considered would require 95 percent control for storage tanks 
with capacities less than 10,000 gal. We concluded that the total 
impacts of this alternative are unreasonable in light of the emission 
reductions achieved. On an average tank basis, the incremental HAP 
reduction achieved by this above-the-floor alternative is less than 0.5 
Mg/yr, and the incremental cost would be on the order of $200,000/Mg of 
HAP controlled. The incremental electricity and fuel energy consumption 
rates for storage tanks controlled with refrigerated condensers are 
about 3,100 kwh/yr and 30.0 million Btu per year, respectively. Total 
CO, NOx, and SO2 emissions from combustion of the 
additional fuel are about 0.025 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or 
solid waste impacts.
    Regarding the specific situation described by the commenter in 
which we did not propose a more stringent option than the equipment 
leaks LDAR program, we are not aware of any option that could be 
applied consistently across the source category that would be 
effective. For example, enclosing all components and venting to control 
is allowed for process piping located inside of buildings or 
enclosures, but except in limited cases, we would expect the costs of 
such an option to be prohibitive. Furthermore, we have developed a 
revised MACT floor that consists of an LDAR program consistent with the 
requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. We then

[[Page 63866]]

evaluated a regulatory alternative based on the more comprehensive LDAR 
program specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. We determined that 
this alternative is reasonable for processes that have at least one 
continuous process vent, but the costs are unreasonable for other 
processes. Because the regulatory alternative is implementation of a 
more stringent LDAR program, there are essentially no energy impacts or 
non-air quality health and environmental impacts associated with the 
regulatory alternative.
    Finally, we did not evaluate a regulatory alternative for transfer 
operations because the floor is at the most stringent known 
requirements.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended referencing the Generic 
MACT at 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, UU, and WW, in their entirety to 
specify all of the initial compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting for process vents, transfer operations, storage tanks, 
closed-vent systems, and equipment leaks. Commenters also recommended 
referencing Sec. Sec.  63.132 through 63.149 (and their associated 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.151 and 
63.152) of the HON for all of the requirements for process wastewater 
streams and liquid streams in open systems within MCPU, although one 
commenter recommended referencing the closed-vent system requirements 
in subpart SS instead of the comparable requirements in the HON. 
According to the commenters, the piecemeal referencing in the proposed 
rule was confusing and it expanded some requirements relative to the 
other subparts and missed some requirements in those subparts, which 
resulted in inconsistencies. A particular concern was that the proposed 
approach excluded the use of fuel gas systems and routing emission 
streams to a process.
    Response: To simplify and streamline the final rule and minimize 
the compliance burden, we decided to provide more complete references 
to the other rules with exceptions and additions only where needed. For 
example, we modified the hierarchy of compliance applicability in Sec.  
63.982(f) of the final rule; we overrode some of the initial compliance 
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, with the procedures in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart GGG, for control devices used to control batch process 
vents; we retained the vapor balancing alternative in subpart GGG for 
storage tanks; we have specified different thresholds for Group 1 
wastewater streams; we referenced 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, rather 
than 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, for equipment leaks in processes with 
no continuous process vents; we have specified periodic verification 
procedures rather than continuous monitoring for control devices with 
inlet HAP load less than 1 tpy; we have allowed averaging periods of 
operating blocks as well as operating days for batch operations; we 
retained the recordkeeping concept as proposed based on operating 
scenarios; we retained the precompliance report; and we have specified 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for ``deviations.''
    Comment: Two commenters requested that sources be allowed to follow 
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) 
Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR) for continuous process vents, 
storage tanks, equipment leaks, and transfer operations so that a 
facility with HON and miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
processes can comply with a consistent set of requirements. The 
commenters stated that the maximum use of standardized programs such as 
the CAR will provide the maximum flexibility to a facility nominally 
covered by multiple MACT rule requirements. One commenter stated that 
the American Chemistry Council, EPA, and many other stakeholders 
developed the CAR as the lowest burden, clearest, and most consistent 
set of requirements possible for the chemical industry using the HON 
model and understood that the CAR rule would be a model for future 
chemical industry rules.
    Response: The CAR was developed to provide a consolidated set of 
requirements applicable to storage vessels, process vents, transfer 
racks, and equipment leaks within the SOCMI. The CAR eliminates the 
overlapping requirements of numerous new source performance standards 
(NSPS) and NESHAP for the SOCMI that affect the same processes and 
equipment. These same requirements have also been codified in the 
Generic MACT at 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, UU, and WW. Therefore, a 
facility with both HON and miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
processes can essentially comply with the same set of requirements 
(i.e., the HON processes would use the CAR, and the miscellaneous 
organic chemical manufacturing processes would follow the Generic 
MACT). We think that the reference in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, to 
the Generic MACT standards already provides the opportunity to 
consolidate across a facility, and except for equipment leaks, we do 
not see a benefit to cross-referencing another identical set of 
standards. We decided to specify in the final rule that you may elect 
to comply with equipment leak requirements in the CAR because the CAR 
is equivalent to or more stringent than the requirements in subpart 
FFFF.

D. Standards for Process Vents

    Comment: Numerous commenters suggested that we adopt the definition 
of ``batch process vent'' from the Polymer and Resins IV NESHAP. The 
commenters noted that this definition includes an applicability cutoff 
level of 500 lb/yr. Some of the commenters justified using this cutoff, 
or a similar mass-based limit, for the miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing source category because 50 percent of batch process vents 
in the database emit less than 500 lb/yr and account for only 0.2 
percent of total emissions, it would be more enforceable, and it would 
not be affected by dilution. One commenter suggested adding exemptions 
for vents used less than 300 hours per year (hr/yr) or emitting less 
than 1,000 lb/yr because batch processes often have hundreds of minor 
vents that are used only occasionally or have minimal emissions, and it 
would be prohibitively expensive to control these vents. Other 
commenters supported the 50 ppmv minimum control threshold but 
suggested that the concentration should be based on annual average vent 
HAP concentrations and emissions averaged over numerous emission 
episodes. They suggested using the existing annual average batch vent 
flowrate and annual average batch vent concentration equations found in 
Sec.  63.1323 of subpart JJJ. Many commenters also requested exclusions 
for opening of process equipment for material addition, inspection, and 
for health and safety vents. The commenters indicated that the 
exclusion for opening equipment is supported by the EPA database 
because those facilities that reported fugitive emissions from batch 
operations did not control them. Furthermore, the commenters cited the 
precedent of the Offsite Waste and Recovery Operations MACT, which 
relieves operators of the requirement to vent emissions through a 
closed-vent system during sampling of tank contents and removal of 
sludges.
    Response: In general, we agree with the comments relating to adding 
a mass cutoff comparable to the 50 ppmv concentration limit. The use of 
a mass cutoff may be simpler than calculating the concentration in some 
situations, such as where emissions are known, but not the total volume 
of air in the system or the duration of an emission event (e.g., 
emissions data developed from a mass balance). Being allowed to exclude 
vents based on emissions in addition to concentration may simplify the 
applicability determination procedure

[[Page 63867]]

in some cases. However, we determined that a lower cutoff than the 500 
lb/yr is more appropriate. Of the approximately 1,500 process vents 
with concentrations less than 50 ppmv, the average (mean) mass emission 
rate is about 235 lb/yr. To establish a mass cutoff in the final rule 
that corresponds to the 50 ppmv concentration, we rounded this value to 
200 lb/yr. If more than one emission episode contributes to a process 
vent, or if process vents within a process are piped or ducted 
together, the cutoff applies to the combined total.
    The averaging period for determining the concentration was not 
specified in the proposed process vent definition; however, the 
proposed rule essentially required emissions to be calculated for each 
emissions episode. This means the averaging time for a concentration 
determination is over a single emission episode. The equations found in 
Sec.  63.1323 of subpart JJJ would divide the total mass per batch by 
8,760 hr/yr, which is not our intent. Therefore, we did not revise the 
definition to be consistent with the definition in subpart JJJ, but we 
have clarified that the concentration cutoff applies to emission 
episodes. The mass cutoff discussed above also applies to emission 
episodes. Thus, if a gas stream from any one episode meets the 50 ppmv 
cutoff, the process vent is affected.
    Streams with less than 50 ppmv were specifically exempted from the 
vent definition to limit the introduction of dilution gases containing 
little to no HAP into emission streams as a means of diluting them and 
exempting them from control. Allowing averaging between streams of less 
than 50 ppmv with other emission episodes, as the commenters suggested, 
would effectively allow such dilution.
    Therefore, we do not allow averaging across episodes to yield an 
average concentration for the purposes of determining whether a stream 
is affected.
    We have decided to exempt some emissions releases that result from 
safety and hygiene practices because it is unlikely that these vents 
would reach the 50 ppmv concentration level. The exemption also will 
relieve owners and operators from the burden of demonstrating that they 
meet the concentration level. Specifically, the definition of ``batch 
process vent'' excludes flexible elephant trunk systems that draw 
ambient air (i.e, systems that are not ducted, piped, or otherwise 
connected to the unit operations) away from operators that could be 
exposed to fumes when vessels are opened.
    We also note that although equipment openings without the presence 
of capture hoods and vents were not addressed specifically in the 
proposed rule, they would be subject to the provisions for certain 
liquid streams in open systems inside processes. Under these 
provisions, if the equipment meets the specified design and operating 
characteristics (e.g., a tank with a capacity greater than 10,000 gal), 
then routine opening of the equipment would not be allowed. Also, 
opening events that are not routine and conducted as part of 
maintenance activities can be addressed in the facility's SSMP. 
Finally, regarding the commenter's request to exempt emergency vents, 
the SSMP can be used to address these events as well.
    Comment: One commenter stated that MACT floors must be based on an 
average of existing regulatory limits, not on actual emissions data. 
According to the commenter, using actual emissions data violates 
section 302(k) of the CAA.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. Nothing in section 302(k) 
of the CAA prohibits the use of actual emission data in setting MACT 
floors. The MACT floor was developed using all available information. 
The evaluation included, but was not limited to, information about 
existing regulatory limits. We also collected information from sources 
in the industry and States during 1997 that was the source of actual 
emissions data. A CAA section 114 ICR was sent to 194 facilities in the 
spring of 1997. The facilities which received the ICR were identified 
from EPA's 1993 toxic release inventory database which included 
information on facilities in SIC codes 282, 284, 286, 287, 289, or 386. 
Information on continuous processes came from emissions and permit 
databases from the following States: Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, 
Illinois, Missouri, California, and New Jersey.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the methodology utilized in 
determining the MACT floor for batch processes fails to accurately 
reflect the processes of the adhesives and coatings industry because, 
to the best of the commenter's knowledge, none of the 11 companies that 
own all of the sources in the MACT floor analysis makes adhesives. 
Other commenters noted that air-bearing vents, which cannot safely go 
to a flare or incinerator, should be considered separately from non-
air-bearing vents because it is much harder to obtain high control 
efficiencies without using a combustion device. One commenter requested 
that spray dryer operations and post-spray dryer solids handling 
systems be excluded from the MCPU because the commenter is unaware of 
any facilities currently controlling such emission streams, it would be 
very costly to control such streams, and spray dryers are not 
specifically discussed in the MACT floor documentation.
    Response: In the development of our database, we solicited 
information from a number of industries thought to be representative of 
this source category. Processing operations such as the synthesis of 
resins or polymers that are used as bases for adhesives are expected to 
result in emission sources with characteristics similar to other 
specialty chemical processes in this source category. Therefore, we 
expect the emission stream characteristics of the adhesives industry to 
have similar characteristics as those of other industries covered by 
this source category and have, therefore, not developed a separate 
category for this industry.
    We disagree with the suggestion to consider air-bearing vents 
separately from other vents in the development of the MACT floor. 
Roughly half of the process vents in our batch process vents database 
have concentrations of 50 ppmv or less. These streams, which include 
many air-bearing streams from dryers and other sources, were exempt 
from the definition of process vent in the proposed rule because we 
recognize that it is not technically or economically feasible to 
require control of these streams. For process vents containing greater 
than 50 ppmv HAP, the final rule also allows compliance by meeting an 
outlet concentration limit as an alternative to a percent reduction 
standard. This alternative is provided to assist owners and operators 
in complying with the standards for low concentration streams.
    Our process vent database includes spray dryers at two facilities. 
It also includes over 25 records for ``dryers'' at other facilities, 
some of which may pertain to spray dryers. As noted above, our database 
also includes air-bearing vents, which have characteristics likely to 
resemble those of emission streams from spray dryers. Therefore, we 
determined that these emission sources are represented in our database, 
and that the MACT floor properly sets the level of control for these 
vent streams.
    Comment: Various commenters indicated the MACT floor for continuous 
process vents should be recalculated because of the following perceived 
problems with the database and analysis: a process vent at the BP 
Chemicals, Wood River plant (formerly Amoco Petroleum Additives), 
should be

[[Page 63868]]

removed from the database because no such vent ever existed; the 
database includes errors such as emission points that are not 
continuous process vents; the analysis was conducted on a facility 
basis rather than a vent basis; flowrate assumptions are too high; the 
sample population is too small; and the database is skewed by a 
disproportionate number of sources in ozone nonattainment areas.
    Response: To develop the MACT floor for continuous process vents, 
we relied on available information from State permitting databases. To 
the best of our knowledge, these data reflect the sources that will be 
subject to requirements for continuous process vents. Although many of 
these facilities are in ozone nonattainment areas, the commenters have 
provided no evidence that this is not representative of sources that 
will be subject to the final standards. We disagree with the 
commenter's assertion that the analysis should be conducted on a vent 
basis rather than a facility basis. Our analysis was designed to 
identify what level of emissions would not be controlled by facilities 
that would be considered the best-controlled sources in the industry. 
That level of emissions, characterized by the vent with the highest TRE 
index value below which all other vents were controlled, became the TRE 
cutoff value for the facility. We consider the analysis valid and in 
keeping with the statutory MACT requirements of CAA section 112(d)(3). 
Regarding our assumption of flowrate in cases where no flowrate data 
were available, we note that our assumed flowrate is the average of the 
available flowrates. In response to the objection that the sample 
population was too small, we note that it is derived from many of the 
major chemical producing States, and we estimate that it represents 
about half of the affected sources with continuous process vents. 
However, we agree that the vent at the BP facility should be excluded 
because it never existed. Without this vent, the TRE threshold for 
control of continuous process vents is now 1.9 rather than 2.6.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that control devices 
installed prior to April 4, 2002, be grandfathered from the 98 percent 
reduction requirement if they achieve 90 or 95 percent control of 
organic HAP. The commenters noted that many companies may be faced with 
abandoning existing control devices and installing new devices to get 
only an incremental reduction in HAP emissions, and they noted that 
other MACT rules (e.g., pharmaceuticals and pesticide active 
ingredients) allow the continued use of existing controls that have a 
lower efficiency than the standard. One commenter also indicated that 
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) have difficulty in achieving 98 
percent control.
    Response: Since the final rule provides less stringent control 
requirements for control devices that can recover materials for reuse, 
we assume that the bulk of the concern related to control devices is 
for incinerators that will not meet 98 percent. Devices such as RTO are 
typically installed to control high air flow, low concentration 
streams. Therefore, while this type of device may not meet the 98 
percent control requirement, the final rule also allows sources to 
demonstrate compliance with an outlet concentration limit, which may be 
achievable by an RTO when the uncontrolled HAP concentration in the 
vent stream is low. We note also that the batch vent requirements 
contain options for monitoring parameters in lieu of correcting outlet 
concentration for 3 percent oxygen (O2). Finally, the final 
rule includes a provision that may enable some sources to group 
nondedicated processing equipment together and comply only with the 
requirements in the rule that apply to the primary product made in the 
equipment.

E. Storage Tank Standards

    Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed definition 
of ``storage tank'' is inconsistent with the ICR, MACT floor 
calculations for both storage tanks and process vents, EPA 
applicability determination documents, and other MACT rules; likely to 
lead to compliance confusion; and likely to force replacement of many 
existing floating roof tank controls at huge costs for negligible 
benefits. Many of the commenters recommended revising the storage tank 
definition to match the actual assignment of tanks in the storage tanks 
database and recalculating the MACT floor.
    Response: The definition of ``storage tank'' in the proposed rule 
was based on the treatment of process tanks and storage tanks in the 
pharmaceuticals industry, a predominantly batch industry. The basis for 
only considering raw material feedstock tanks as true storage tanks was 
that the product tanks were seldom of the size at which the storage 
tank capacity cutoffs were set in many rules, and that a predominant 
number of tanks were used within processes as feed tanks from one unit 
operation to another. As such, emission events from these tanks usually 
would be calculated based on displacement resulting from filling the 
tank, usually on a per batch basis, and included in the operating 
scenario for an entire process. Emissions, therefore, were tied to the 
number of batches produced, as the material was transferred into and 
out of these tanks during each batch. We consider these tanks to be 
true process tanks and expect that the batch processors in the 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing industry would agree with 
this treatment.
    We recognize, however, that this industry contains significant 
numbers of continuous processors. We also recognize that this industry 
is more varied than the pharmaceuticals industry and that there are 
more tanks that are of a size and function that would be treated as 
storage tanks in other rules. For example, product rundown tanks and 
product storage tanks are not based on the number of batches, and 
material remains in the tank or is ``stored'' on a fairly continuous 
basis. The tanks are not filled and emptied during batch operations. 
These tanks are storage tanks and are recognized as such in the final 
rule.
    We agree that the responses to the section 114 ICR would be based 
on the HON and NSPS definitions, and we have revised the storage tank 
definition to be consistent with the HON and NSPS. Although defined 
separately, the HON treats surge control vessels and bottoms receivers, 
types of tanks found in predominantly continuous processes that 
function in receiving material between continuous operations, exactly 
like storage tanks. We kept these terms and requirements in the final 
rule, but revised the definition of surge control vessel to be 
consistent with the definition of continuous process vent (i.e., surge 
control vessels must precede continuous reactors or distillation 
operations). We also added a definition for ``process tank'' to clarify 
which tanks we would consider as part of the batch process vent 
standards. The changes do not affect MACT floors; they only change 
applicability under the storage tank standards or under the batch 
process vent standards.

F. Standards for Wastewater Systems

    Comment: Numerous commenters urged elimination of the requirement 
to enclose sewers and tankage for conveyance to treatment of wastewater 
streams with primarily soluble HAP. The commenters stated that soluble 
HAP do not volatilize significantly from wastewater streams upstream of 
biological treatment, but the cost to suppress emissions would be 
significant. Some commenters suggested exempting from control those

[[Page 63869]]

wastewater streams that contain soluble HAP unless at least 5 percent 
of the total soluble HAP is emitted from the waste management units. 
Commenters were particularly concerned about this issue for the final 
rule because much more methanol is present in miscellaneous organic 
chemical manufacturing processes than in processes subject to the HON, 
particularly because 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, applies to HAP that 
are used as solvents. Another commenter claimed the available data do 
not support a floor of HON-equivalent control for streams with HAP 
concentrations less than 10,000 ppmw.
    Response: We considered the request for separate treatment of 
wastewater containing soluble HAP. We began by reviewing the 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing wastewater database, and 
we determined that wastewater containing soluble HAP compounds are 
generally managed separately from wastewater containing partially 
soluble HAP compounds in this industry. This separate treatment by the 
industry justifies the evaluation of separate floors in accordance with 
the commenter's requests. For the 60 facilities in the miscellaneous 
organic chemical manufacturing wastewater database, there are a total 
of 364 records (streams), excluding streams with HAP that are not 
listed on Table 9 to subpart G of 40 CFR part 63 (the HON), HAP 
concentrations less than 1,000 ppmw, and HAP concentrations greater 
than or equal to 1,000,000 ppmw. Of this total, 192 of the streams 
contain partially soluble or a mixture of partially soluble and soluble 
HAP, and 172 of the streams contain only soluble HAP. Only 26 streams 
contain a mixture of soluble and partially soluble HAP.
    When we reevaluated the floors separately, we found that for the 
partially soluble and mixed streams, data show that considerably more 
than 12 percent of the streams that meet either of the HON cutoff 
criteria also received treatment consistent with HON treatment 
requirements (i.e., the best-performing miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing sources are those that implement HON-equivalent 
procedures). Of the 53 streams with flowrates greater than 1 lpm and 
concentrations of partially soluble or mixed streams less than 10,000 
ppmw, nine are managed and treated according to HON levels. Therefore, 
we revised the flow cutoff in the MACT floor from 10 lpm to 1 lpm for 
streams with concentrations greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw and 
less than 10,000 ppmw; the other cutoffs of greater than or equal to 
10,000 ppmw at any flowrate for partially soluble and mixed streams are 
unchanged. Another 42 streams had flowrates between 0.1 and 1.0, but 
only one was controlled. Therefore, we concluded that a sufficient 
number of streams below the cutoffs were not controlled to support a no 
emissions reduction floor determination.
    We also identified a MACT floor for the 172 wastewater streams at 
33 facilities that contain only soluble HAP. We ranked the 33 
facilities based on the lowest concentration and flowrate of a 
wastewater stream that was managed and treated according to the HON 
requirements. The top five facilities were found to manage and treat 
all their soluble HAP containing wastewater consistent with the 
requirements in the HON. The median of the lowest concentrations in 
wastewater streams at these five facilities was found to be 30,000 
ppmw. The lowest soluble HAP load for any stream at the five MACT 
facilities was 1,663 lb/yr (which we rounded to 1 tpy). Therefore, we 
determined that the MACT floor consists of the management and treatment 
requirements in the HON for wastewater streams containing at least 
30,000 ppmw of soluble HAP and at least 1 tpy of soluble HAP. 
Wastewater streams with soluble HAP above these concentration and load 
cutoffs are considered Group 1 wastewater streams in the final rule. We 
also evaluated a beyond-the-floor alternative based on controlling 
streams with mixed HAP at flowrates greater than 0.5 lpm and streams 
that contain soluble HAP at concentrations greater than 15,000 ppmw. 
The total impacts of this alternative were determined to be 
unreasonable. Therefore, we set the standard for existing sources at 
the MACT floor.
    For new sources, we determined the MACT floor for wastewater 
containing soluble HAP to be a concentration of 4,500 ppmw at the 1 tpy 
load. The 4,500 ppmw corresponds to the lowest concentration of a 
stream containing only soluble compounds that was managed and treated 
in accordance with the HON. The 1 tpy load cutoff was not lowered in 
going from the existing source standard to the new source standard 
because this level already represents the lowest load cutoff of any 
stream at the five MACT facilities and, therefore, represents the 
performance of the best-controlled similar source.
    Comment: Two commenters indicated the proposed rule lacks criteria 
for evaluating affected wastewater streams from batch process units and 
specialty chemicals manufacture. One of the commenters suggested 
revising the rule so that the emission thresholds for wastewater are 
determined over a representative batch cycle. To accomplish this, the 
commenter suggested that the following definitions be added to the 
rule:
    [sbull] ``Annual average'' means the average over a designated 12-
month period of actual or anticipated operation of the MCPU generating 
wastewater, except for units that are flexible operations or part of 
flexible operations. For flexible operation units, ``annual average'' 
means the average for a standard batch that is representative of the 
designated 12-month period of actual or anticipated operation of the 
MCPU generating wastewater.
    [sbull] ``Standard batch'' means a batch process operated within a 
range of average or typical operating conditions that are documented in 
an operating scenario. Emissions from a ``standard batch'' are based on 
the production activity or product that result in the highest mass of 
HAP in the wastewaters generated by the process equipment during the 
batch cycle.
    The second commenter noted that the proposed rule refers to Sec.  
63.144(c) for establishing the annual average flowrate for wastewater 
streams (i.e., total wastewater volume divided by 525,600 minutes in a 
year). The commenter supported this for continuous process units, but 
recommended that the rule use criteria from 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
GGG, for batch process units since the wastewater streams from batch 
operations may only be operational a few months per year.
    Response: The format for applicability is annual average flowrate 
based on the potential maximum amount of operating hours per year 
(i.e., 8,760). Although the procedure was developed for continuous 
processes, it can be applied to batch processes. When multiplied out, 
the total flow of wastewater equivalent to 1 lpm and 8,760 hr/yr equals 
0.14 million gal/yr (530 m 3 /yr). We recognize that the proposed rule 
did not contain guidance on how to interpret annual average for batch 
processes although our definition of wastewater stream described a 
single wastewater stream as being discarded from an MCPU through a 
single POD. Our intent with this language was to include all wastewater 
streams from single processes that were discharged through a single POD 
as one single wastewater stream. In the HON, annual average 
concentration is the total mass of compounds listed in Table 9 to 
subpart G of 40 CFR part 63 that are in the wastewater stream during 
the designated 12-month period divided by the total mass of the 
wastewater stream during the 12-month period. There is no separate 
consideration in the HON for

[[Page 63870]]

multipurpose batch operations or POD that serve numerous processes 
because the equipment is part of a flexible operation.
    For 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, however, we based the MACT floor 
on data from wastewater streams that were developed based on our 
proposed definition of wastewater. Therefore, the definition of annual 
average is based on wastewater streams from a POD from a single MCPU. 
For flexible operations (e.g., multipurpose equipment not dedicated to 
any single process), we have incorporated the concept of a family of 
materials that considers as a single product the manufacturing 
processes of multiple materials that are related. Additionally, we 
consider ``nondedicated solvent recovery operations'' as a single 
process. Therefore, in these two circumstances, the definition of 
wastewater stream should be based on the total mass and flow out of the 
POD from the sum of all operations considered within the family of 
materials or within the recovery process. In all other cases, the flow 
and concentration of HAP should be based on the total flow of 
wastewater and mass of HAP from all batches of a single process.
    The final rule requires a manufacturer of a family of materials in 
flexible operation units to determine the annual average using a 
procedure consistent with that described by the commenter. 
Specifically, the worst-case product would determine the standard 
batch, and the total flow of wastewater would be based on the total 
flow of wastewater generated by all batches manufactured in any 12-
month period. However, if materials manufactured in the flexible 
operations fell among more than one product not considered part of a 
family of materials, we would consider these separate processes, and 
the annual average concentration and flow would be limited to the 
characteristics of each process.
    Comment: Consistent with comments on the definition of the 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process, one commenter 
suggested revising the definition of ``maintenance wastewater'' to 
clarify that wastewater from routine cleaning operations occurring 
within a batch process is not considered maintenance wastewater. 
Another commenter noted that some cleaning operations are performed for 
equipment preparation and to remove inorganic scale from the equipment 
on an occasional, though somewhat regular basis. The commenter observed 
that these operations are performed between batches, though not between 
every batch or even between batches of different grades. They are 
performed when maintenance is needed or plugging is evident. The 
commenter asked for clarification that the types of cleaning operations 
that do not generate maintenance wastewater are those performed between 
batches for the purposes of changing grades and not those done to 
prepare equipment for maintenance or to remove inorganic foulants.
    Response: We agree with the commenters regarding the need to 
exclude non-routine cleaning operations from other process wastewater 
streams and have included them in the definition of ``maintenance 
wastewater.'' This issue is analogous to the issue of including vents 
from routine cleaning operations as process vents and covering other 
types of events under the SSM provisions.
    Comment: One commenter requested an exemption from the offsite 
certification requirement in 40 CFR 63.132(g)(2), (3) and (4) for any 
facility electing to discharge wastewater streams to a RCRA-permitted 
treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) under 40 CFR parts 264 
and 265. The commenter asserted that a RCRA TSDF should be presumed to 
be acceptable compliance equipment for miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing facilities, and this presumption should be explicitly 
stated in the final rule.
    Response: We agree that RCRA TSDF satisfy the compliance 
requirements in the final rule. The proposed subpart FFFF explicitly 
stated that performance tests, design evaluations, and related 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting would not be required when a 
hazardous waste incinerator is used to meet emission limits. This 
provision is retained in the final rule through the reference to Sec.  
63.988(b)(2), and it applies to offsite treatment facilities as well as 
affected sources. To simplify and clarify the requirements for offsite 
treatment facilities, the final rule states that the affected source 
may indicate in its notification of compliance status (NOCS) report 
that it is shipping the wastewater to an offsite treatment facility 
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 63.138(h), and that the 
wastewater will be treated as hazardous waste; this documentation may 
serve as the certification from the offsite treatment facility.

G. Standards for Equipment Leaks

    Comment: Three commenters stated that the docket does not support 
our conclusion that the HON LDAR program is the MACT floor. Two of the 
commenters also opposed our approach of assigning a single LDAR program 
to each facility. They noted that facilities do not always use the same 
LDAR program for all of their processes. According to one commenter, 
there also are numerous errors and inconsistencies between various 
background memoranda, the section 114 ICR responses, and the equipment 
leaks database that EPA distributed to industry, with no documentation 
in the docket to explain the differences. After obtaining new 
information from some of the facilities in the database, the commenter 
saw no support for a determination that HON-equivalent controls 
establish the MACT floor (i.e., of the estimated 1,220 processes, only 
34, or 2.8 percent, appear to have HON-equivalent programs). The other 
two commenters indicated that the floor (and standard) should be based 
on either the LDAR program in the SOCMI NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart 
VV) or subpart TT of 40 CFR part 63 (the Generic MACT).
    Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the 
available data, we decided to determine the MACT floor on a process 
basis because some facilities do not implement the same LDAR program 
for all of their miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
processes. Therefore, we decided to reevaluate the MACT floor on a 
process basis. Before revising the analysis, we also reviewed the 
specific data entries that were disputed by the commenters.
    Regrettably, the database that was made available to the industry 
was not consistent with the final database that we used to develop the 
MACT floor prior to proposal. As a result, many of the discrepancies 
identified by commenters are addressed simply by using the correct 
database.
    We also reviewed other changes that the commenter recommended and 
made corrections to the database under the following two circumstances: 
when a process is subject to the HON so that only the batch process 
vent emissions are subject to subpart FFFF, and when a facility 
representative informed the commenter that a non-HON LDAR program or no 
program is implemented for a miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing process. After making the revisions, we found 51 of 1,139 
processes are controlled to the HON LDAR (i.e., the best-performing 
LDAR program in use at miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
sources), or 4.5 percent controlled. Based on this result, we could not 
justify a MACT floor at the HON level of control.
    Therefore, we reexamined the processes subject to other LDAR 
programs to develop a revised MACT

[[Page 63871]]

floor. A few processes are subject to LDAR programs required by the 
State of Louisiana, but most other processes subject to LDAR programs 
are implementing various programs required by the State of Texas or the 
program in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. For this analysis, we considered 
the Texas programs and the subpart VV program to be essentially 
equivalent because they all require only sensory monitoring for 
connectors. These programs also are equivalent to the program in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart TT. Only LDAR programs designated as audible/visual/
olfactory (e.g., not Method 21 monitoring) were not considered at least 
equivalent to subpart TT. We found that 236 of the 1,139 processes, or 
21 percent, were controlled at least to the subpart TT level. 
Therefore, we set the floor based on the requirements of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart TT.
    Based on the revised MACT floor, we conducted an analysis of the 
cost of going above the floor to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, 
program. In conducting this analysis, we revised our estimated 
uncontrolled emissions for our model processes by using the initial 
leak rates submitted by the industry in their comments. At the leak 
definitions of 500 ppmv for connectors and valves and 1,000 ppmv for 
pumps, we calculated leak rates of 0.35 percent for connectors, 6.47 
percent for pumps, and 1.66 percent for valves from the data submitted 
by the industry. We also compared these leak rates and their resulting 
emission rates to data collected in the development of the Polymers and 
Resins IV NESHAP and found good agreement. The polymers and resins 
industry leak rates were 0.61 percent for connectors, 8.71 percent for 
pumps, and 1.4 to 1.8 percent for valves. To estimate reductions 
achieved by the LDAR programs, we assumed that the reduction achieved 
by the subpart UU program would be equal to the emissions estimated at 
the performance level of the program. We assumed that the subpart TT 
program would be half as effective as subpart UU for pumps, valves, and 
connectors, and that the reductions for pressure relief valves, open-
ended lines, and sampling connections would be the same under both 
programs.
    We also revised elements in our cost analysis to address commenter 
concerns. The revised analysis assumes that a facility required to 
implement an LDAR program will hire a subcontractor based on our 
understanding that this is the preferred and common alternative over 
the implementation of an in-house program. The analysis also made use 
of revised cost data from the project files of the Polymers and Resins 
IV NESHAP.
    The revised cost analysis shows that for processes with continuous 
process vents, the cost of the subpart TT program (the MACT floor) is 
$3,200/Mg, the cost of the subpart UU program is $2,800/Mg, and the 
incremental cost to go beyond the MACT floor to the subpart UU program 
is $470/Mg. These costs are considered reasonable. Conversely, for 
batch processes, the costs of the beyond-the-floor option were 
determined to be unreasonable. Therefore, we decided to set the 
standard at the MACT floor for processes with only batch process vents, 
and we selected the beyond-the-floor option of subpart UU for processes 
with at least one continuous process vent.
    Comment: Several commenters generally supported the pressure 
testing option in Sec.  63.1036(b) of subpart UU, which requires that 
new or disturbed equipment be tested for leaks before use. However, the 
commenters are concerned that Sec.  63.1036(b)(1)(iii) could be 
interpreted as requiring facilities to conduct leak tests whenever 
flexible hose connections are changed as part of a reconfiguration to 
make a different product or intermediate. The commenters stated that 
these leak tests would be burdensome because (1) changing flexible 
hoses to make different products may occur as frequently as daily or 
weekly, which would substantially increase the cost of conducting LDAR 
programs and take away from operating time, resulting in lost 
production and sales; (2) more frequent leak tests would also result in 
more emissions because the equipment must be purged to conduct the 
tests; and (3) flexible hoses that have been water tested would often 
have to be flushed with solvent prior to startup, which would add more 
turn-around time and increase waste generation. According to one 
commenter, connecting flexible hoses in different configurations is the 
type of ``routine'' seal breaks that were not intended to trigger LDAR 
pressure testing requirements. Thus, the commenters recommended 
revising Sec.  63.1036(b)(1)(iii) to exempt all routine seal breaks of 
flexible hoses from LDAR requirements. One commenter also recommended 
that pressure testing be allowed as an option for sources that comply 
with the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that pressure testing each 
time process equipment is reconfigured only by changing flexible hose 
connections at a transfer station is excessively burdensome and likely 
to lead to more emissions than it prevents. Therefore, the pressure 
test option in the final rule allows this type of routine disturbance 
without the requirement to conduct a new pressure test. Since the final 
rule allows compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
UU, as an alternative to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
TT, an owner or operator may comply with the pressure testing option in 
subpart UU as an alternative to the requirements of subpart TT.

H. Standards for Transfer Racks

    Comment: One commenter indicated the MACT floor for transfer racks 
was established incorrectly and stated that we have no section 114 ICR 
data to support the transfer racks MACT floor because this information 
was not requested for the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
source category. The commenter indicated that using transfer rack data 
from HON sources or Organic Liquid Distribution (OLD) NESHAP sources is 
not appropriate for the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
source category, even if it does streamline the compliance process. The 
commenter noted that the Group 1 requirements of subpart G of the HON 
apply to a different source category manufacturing different chemicals 
in continuous, generally high-volume processes. The commenter claimed 
we made a ``leap of faith'' in assuming that the emission and control 
data for one source category are appropriate to another totally 
distinct category. The commenter could find no documentation indicating 
that subpart G continuous process load rates and vapor pressure cutoffs 
are applicable to batch subpart FFFF facilities. The commenter argued 
that setting a MACT floor using ``existing available data'' from a 
different source category is inconsistent with CAA requirements and 
requested that an actual transfer rack MACT floor determination be made 
prior to establishing the subpart FFFF control requirements.
    Response: The MACT floor was based on the HON requirements. We did 
not have any specific data from our source category, but we relied on 
information that many of the facilities in this source category are co-
located with facilities subject to the HON. The commenter objected to 
our assumptions because the HON applies to continuous, high volume 
production processes. Although subpart FFFF applies to many processes, 
batch specialty chemicals are a major component of the source category, 
and we agree that individual products are typically manufactured in 
lesser volumes than typical products in the HON source category. 
However, we

[[Page 63872]]

note that transfer operations, which by definition consist of the 
loading racks for tank trucks and rail cars, are more specific to the 
size and type of vessel being loaded than the process that generates 
the products.
    These tank trucks and rail cars are standard in size and 
configuration so that the same tank trucks and rail cars would be 
expected to carry material from either source category. Further, pumps, 
loading arms, and vapor collection and control equipment are not as 
much dependent on the process that generates the materials as the 
products themselves which are composed of either pure HAP or solutions 
containing significant amounts of HAP.
    Our data indicate that 60 percent of the facilities that contain 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing processes also contain 
processes subject to the HON. Additionally, we would expect that 
transfer racks located at these facilities would be used to load 
materials from both HON and miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing processes. Therefore, we consider it reasonable to assume 
a MACT floor based on the requirements of the HON.
    The HON standards were established based on the lowest yearly 
loading rates that are controlled in the source category. Because the 
HON source category manufactures at typically higher volume production 
than what would typically be expected in the miscellaneous organic 
chemical manufacturing source category, and control requirements are 
based on the rack weighted average partial pressure of HAP, it offers a 
conservative approach to the MACT floor when applied to the batch 
specialty chemical industry. Therefore, only transfer racks that load 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing products containing 
significant amounts of HAP are affected by the control requirements.

I. Pollution Prevention

    Comment: Three commenters stated that the pollution prevention (P2) 
option should be broadened to allow more nondedicated batch operations 
or groups of nondedicated batch operations to use P2 for compliance. 
The commenters maintained that calculating and tracking HAP factors for 
individual nondedicated processes would not be viable for small 
operations. One commenter was concerned that only dedicated solvent 
recovery operations may be included in a P2 demonstration; nondedicated 
solvent recovery operations may not be considered in conjunction with 
the processes for which they recover solvents for the P2 alternative 
standard. Similarly, another commenter stated that the proposal is not 
viable because waste solvents from numerous nondedicated batch 
processes are collected and refined at a central recovery unit, and 
Sec.  63.2495(b)(2) of the proposed rule would preclude the merging of 
nondedicated solvent recovery with other processes. The commenter 
suggested including all of the operations in the calculation of a HAP 
consumption factor (including nondedicated recovery operations that 
receive and recover solvents for the operations). In addition, the 
commenter suggested that the production rate should exclude isolated 
intermediates to appropriately reflect the benefits achieved when 
measures are taken to eliminate isolation of intermediates. Because the 
boundaries are well defined, the commenter indicated that such an 
approach would be clearer to implement and enforce. To incorporate this 
approach, the commenter suggested adding a statement to the rule that 
says you may comply with the P2 option for multiple processes and 
associated recovery operations if the Administrator approves your P2 
methodology submitted in the precompliance report.
    Response: After examining the approach suggested by the commenters, 
we have concerns that it would not be consistent with the goals of P2 
and also would not preserve the reductions in HAP consumption that 
would occur if the P2 alternative were limited to each product. The 
commenters suggested facilitywide groupings to demonstrate overall 
reductions in the HAP consumption factors. One of our major concerns 
stems from the fact that specialty chemical facilities will not 
manufacture the same products from the baseline years to the 
contemporaneous period. Under their suggested grouping concept, 
however, a baseline factor could be developed from a different set of 
products than those in the contemporaneous period. In this situation, a 
facility could demonstrate a reduction in the HAP factor by simply not 
manufacturing products that have high HAP consumption. Although these 
efforts could result in a net benefit to the environment, they are not 
considered P2 strategies and, therefore, an owner or operator should 
not take credit for these changes. Secondly, using the same groupings 
concept, a manufacturer could effectively reduce the overall usage of 
HAP in a production process in any given year, but increase the HAP 
factor for that product and still meet the grouping target reductions, 
but not the target reductions on individual product lines. This would 
effectively allow an owner or operator to comply with a P2 alternative 
that could increase the inefficiency and waste within a process. 
Therefore, combining processes or groups of processes as suggested by 
the commenters is not appropriate, and we have not revised the 
alternative per the commenter's requests.
    We also clarified language regarding merging processing steps 
conducted offsite to onsite for the purposes of redrawing a process 
boundary and claiming a reduction in consumption. For example, a 
solvent recovery step conducted offsite or as part of another process 
cannot later be moved onsite or to another process and used to claim a 
reduction in consumption. Such a strategy does not result in true 
emission reductions, but rather is a result of moving process 
boundaries.
    Comment: Several commenters were concerned that the proposed P2 
option would not allow for the generation of HAP other than HAP being 
used in the process. They noted that based on the definition of 
``consumption'' and Sec.  63.2495(b) of the proposed rule, if the HAP 
used by the process are not the same as those generated in the process, 
then the generated HAP must meet the otherwise applicable standards. 
One commenter suggested revising the definition of consumption to 
include HAP generated in the process, and the other commenters 
suggested incorporating generated HAP into the calculation of the HAP 
factor or the target HAP reduction.
    Response: We do not agree with the suggested changes. The P2 
alternative specifies that HAP generated in the process that are not 
introduced into the process and part of the consumption factor must be 
controlled per the standard requirements. This restriction is needed to 
ensure that reductions anticipated from the implementation of the 
alternative will occur. Consider a situation where the incoming 
quantity of HAP is considerably less than the amount of HAP generated 
in the process. Further, suppose the entire quantity of HAP generated 
in the process is emitted through a process vent (i.e., no waste or 
wastewater). If the P2 alternative were to allow the quantity of HAP 
generated to be considered as part of the consumption factor, then the 
P2 standard could be met by capturing and recovering only 65 percent of 
the HAP emitted, which may not preserve the reductions we anticipated 
from the implementation of the standards as written. Therefore, we have 
not

[[Page 63873]]

modified the alternative according to the commenters' requests.

J. Initial Compliance

    Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed 
requirements to complete initial compliance demonstrations and submit 
the NOCS report by the compliance date are unworkable and unreasonably 
and unfairly shorten the 3-year compliance period. Based on the 
commenters' experience, the entire 3-year period is needed to permit, 
plan, design, procure, install, and shakedown the equipment necessary 
for MACT compliance. In addition, the 150-day period after the 
compliance date that other rules allow before the NOCS report is due 
allows facilities to properly test their control systems, perform 
necessary shakedown operations, and set the parametric operating limits 
using actual data. The commenters requested that the final rule defer 
to the General Provisions regarding the timeline for initial compliance 
demonstrations and allow the NOCS report to be submitted no later than 
150 days after the compliance date. Another commenter requested that 
area sources that become major sources be allowed up to 3 years to 
comply with the final rule because the level of effort would be the 
same as for any existing source when the rule is promulgated.
    Response: We accept the argument that some facilities with numerous 
processes and controls may need the full 3 years from the promulgation 
date to the compliance date to bring all of the equipment on-line 
before completing the initial compliance demonstration. Therefore, we 
decided to change the due date for the NOCS report. In the final rule, 
the NOCS report for all sources, including area sources that become 
major sources, is due no later than 150 days after the compliance date. 
In addition, the final rule specifies that the compliance date for area 
sources that become major sources is 3 years after the area source 
becomes a major source.
    Comment: Several commenters indicated that references to Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(ii) of the pharmaceutical MACT in the proposed rule 
inappropriately restrict the use of engineering assessments. The 
commenters indicated that the rule should not require sources to 
demonstrate that the calculation methods specified in the rule are not 
appropriate in order to be allowed to calculate uncontrolled HAP 
emissions using an engineering assessment. The commenters also objected 
to language in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(ii) that restricts the use of 
modified equations to those that the source can demonstrate have been 
used to meet other regulatory obligations. The commenters indicated 
that they should only be required to show that the selected method for 
determining uncontrolled HAP emissions is appropriate, and that it has 
no impact on the applicability assessment or compliance determination.
    Response: We did not revise the restrictions on the use of the 
modified equations as requested because the suggested changes would not 
maintain our objective of having a replicable compliance protocol that 
is applied consistently across the source category. Therefore, the 
final rule, like the proposed rule, restricts the use of engineering 
assessments to situations where the equations are not appropriate.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the procedures for 
calculating uncontrolled HAP emissions be modified in the final rule so 
that it represents ``post condenser'' emissions if the condenser is 
recovering HAP for reflux, reuse, or use as a fuel. The commenters 
stated that, for many types of emission events, the proposed equations 
would require the use of the vessel temperature rather than the 
temperature of the receiver that receives condensed liquid. The 
commenters indicated that the procedures ignore the emission reduction 
realized by the condenser, inflates the uncontrolled emissions, and is 
inconsistent with the MACT floor database.
    Response: We disagree with the suggested change. Our position is 
that uncontrolled emissions should be determined at the point the vent 
stream leaves the process and prior to entering any control device. A 
condenser that meets the definition of ``process condenser'' is 
considered integral to the process, and uncontrolled emissions are 
calculated at the outlet of the condenser. Process condensers must 
initiate vapor-to-liquid phase change in an emission stream from 
equipment that operates above the boiling or bubble point, including 
condensers located prior to a vacuum source. All other condensers serve 
primarily to reduce or remove air pollutants, with or without some 
product recovery benefits; therefore, uncontrolled emissions should be 
calculated prior to the condenser. This approach does not inflate 
uncontrolled emissions; it characterizes them properly. Furthermore, if 
a condenser is determined to be an air pollution control device, the 
removal efficiency is included as part of the overall control 
efficiency for the process; it does not ignore the emission reduction 
realized by the condenser. Finally, we consider the approach to be 
consistent with our database because we provided clear instructions 
with the ICR regarding how to report emissions from condensers, and we 
trust that most respondents followed those instructions.
    Comment: Two commenters objected to the proposed requirements for 
testing control devices that treat emissions from batch process vents 
under absolute or hypothetical worst-case conditions, as described in 
the Pharmaceutical Production MACT (Sec.  63.1257(b)(8)). One of the 
commenters was concerned that facilities would be forced to generate 
unwanted or off-specification material in order to satisfy the 
requirements for worst-case conditions. This commenter requested that 
the final rule either defer to the General Provisions at Sec.  
63.7(e)(1), which require testing under normal operating conditions, or 
replace paragraph Sec.  63.2470(c) in its entirety with a reference to 
the performance test requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. The 
second commenter stated that the worst-case testing provisions are 
technically infeasible and unjustified based on existing EPA 
regulations. That commenter noted that the Polymers and Resins IV 
NESHAP recognized this issue and require sources to test under worst-
case actual production conditions as opposed to hypothetical worst-case 
conditions (i.e., Sec.  63.1325(c) of subpart JJJ).
    One commenter also suggested that worst-case conditions may not 
always occur at the highest pollutant loading. According to the 
commenter, the control efficiency of thermal oxidizers generally 
increases as the loading increases, and the more challenging compliance 
demonstration would, therefore, occur under actual/normal operating 
conditions when the pollutant loading is changing several times over 
the course of a batch cycle. The commenter requested that the final 
rule allow facilities the option of using either the Polymers and 
Resins IV NESHAP testing protocols or the Pharmaceutical NESHAP testing 
protocols as a site-specific election in the pre-test protocols that 
facilities must submit prior to testing.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters' suggestion that sources 
be allowed to conduct performance tests under ``normal operating 
conditions.'' Specifically, we disagree with a commenter's contention 
that operators would be forced to generate unwanted or off-
specification material in order to satisfy the requirements of worst-
case conditions. The final rule, like the proposed rule, allows the 
source to test under ``hypothetical worst-case conditions'' as an 
alternative to testing under absolute worst-case conditions. 
Hypothetical worst-case conditions are

[[Page 63874]]

simulated test conditions that, at a minimum, contain the highest HAP 
load of emissions that would be predicted to be vented to the control 
device based on an emission profile developed by the owner or operator. 
For example, an owner or operator could arrange to boil off a more 
volatile compound than those actually used in processes in separate 
equipment that can be connected to the ductwork upstream of the control 
device (if the emissions profile shows that this would represent worst-
case conditions for the control device) and then test the control 
device. In this example, the owner or operator would not have to 
manufacture any unplanned products or generate products that do not 
meet normal specifications.
    Also, when sources test under worst-case conditions, this should 
eliminate (or at least reduce) the need for any retesting at a later 
date when conditions change. If a source tested under ``normal 
operating conditions,'' then any change from these conditions could/
should trigger a need to retest the source under the ``revised'' normal 
operating conditions. The concept of worst-case conditions allows 
sources to anticipate potential changes so that only one (initial) test 
is generally required.
    We agree with the commenter's assertion that worst-case conditions 
for thermal oxidizers may not occur at the highest pollutant loading. 
One extreme is when inlet concentrations are low (less than 1,000 
ppmv). For these inlet conditions, the final rule allows compliance 
with a 20 ppmv outlet concentration limit instead of requiring 98 
percent reduction. For streams with higher concentrations, higher loads 
are likely associated with higher flowrates. As the flowrate increases, 
residence time in the combustion chamber decreases, which could reduce 
performance. Therefore, we require the test at highest load.
    Comment: One commenter stated that facilities should be able to use 
the results of compliance testing in one reactor configuration done 
under another MACT standard for an identical configuration regulated 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, even if the HAP vent to two 
separate, yet identical control devices.
    Response: The final rule does not allow sources to ``borrow'' test 
results from one control device and apply those results to another 
``identical'' control device. Factors other than the design of a 
control device can affect its performance and, therefore, each control 
device must be tested separately.
    Comment: One commenter requested that we allow facilities the 
option of using EPA Method 320 for any initial compliance option for 
batch or continuous streams and allow the use of EPA Method 320 for 
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that monitor HF, other 
fluorochemicals, and halogenated compounds in addition to those that 
monitor HCl.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that EPA Method 320, Fourier 
Transform Infrared (FTIR), is an acceptable method to demonstrate 
compliance for any type of batch or continuous vent stream. Therefore, 
the final rule includes EPA Method 320 as an option for measuring any 
of the listed HAP in a vent stream. We note, however, that unless 
Method 320 has been validated at a ``similar source,'' the tester must 
validate Method 320 for that application by following the procedures in 
Section 13 of Method 320. To clarify the requirements for CEMS, Sec.  
63.2450(g)(1)(i) of the final rule specifies that a monitoring plan is 
required for CEMS other than an FTIR meeting Performance Specification 
(PS) 15 to measure hydrogen halide and halogen HAP, rather than only 
HCl.
    Comment: Three commenters requested changes and clarification of 
the requirements for establishing operating limits. One commenter 
requested that the requirements be consistent with those in Sec.  
63.1334(b)(3) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJ. A second commenter 
interpreted the proposed language to mean that an average is calculated 
from the values of the three test runs and then an engineering analysis 
may be applied to establish an operating limit that accounts for 
expected process variation. That commenter also requested a description 
of the process to be used and the timeframe under which the 
Administrator will conduct the review and approval of operating limits 
established in accordance with Sec.  63.2470(e)(3)(i) of the proposed 
rule.
    A third commenter took issue with the requirement that the 
operating parameter(s) be set at the average value measured during the 
performance test. The commenter noted that other chemical industry 
regulations allow the measured value to be adjusted based on 
engineering assessment and claimed that this is critical because 
performance tests must be run at representative conditions because of 
process variability, production schedules, and ambient conditions, 
e.g., a condenser may be tested on a cool day but the outlet 
temperature for compliance must reflect the hottest day as well.
    Response: The final rule references the procedures in 40 CFR part 
63, subpart SS, for establishing operating limits, except that for 
control devices used for batch process vents, Sec.  63.2460(c)(3) 
specifies additional procedures for setting the limits. Although the 
provisions differ slightly from what is described by the third 
commenter in that the performance test must be conducted at worst-case 
conditions, owners or operators can utilize engineering assessments to 
develop either a single limit for the entire process or multiple levels 
for different emission episodes within the process. These requirements 
ensure that the performance test captures challenging conditions that 
are not always present because of the variable nature of batch vents. 
If no Group 1 batch process vents are vented to the control device, 
then operating limits may be set using the results of the performance 
test and engineering assessment procedures as specified in subpart SS 
and consistent with the procedures described by the commenter. For 
batch process vents, we consider it appropriate that the initial 
compliance procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, be consistent 
with the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG.
    The final rule explicitly states in Sec.  63.2460(c)(3) that 
operating limits based on the results of performance tests supplemented 
by other information must be reported in the source's precompliance 
report and approved by the Administrator. However, operating limits 
based on the average of the three test runs do not require preapproval. 
The final rule, like the proposed rule, also requires the owner or 
operator to submit in the precompliance report the test conditions, 
data, calculations, and other information used to establish operating 
limits in accordance with Sec.  63.2460(c)(3). The precompliance report 
will be approved or disapproved within 90 days after receipt by EPA.
    Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed rule did 
not address situations where a process has both batch and continuous 
unit operations or cases where batch vents and continuous vents are 
combined into a common header system. Another commenter suggested that 
batch vents manifolded together with continuous process vents should be 
treated as continuous process vents. Two of the commenters suggested 
that we resolve the issue of combined vent streams by deferring to 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SS, for regulation of process vents. One commenter 
noted that subpart SS contains language at Sec.  63.982(f) that governs 
how compliance with manifolded vents is determined and requested that 
this concept also be extended to allow for control devices that control 
vents subject to more than

[[Page 63875]]

one MACT standard, where completion of a successful compliance 
determination for one standard meets the compliance determination 
requirements of the other MACT standards where the control device 
controls similar HAP. Other commenters suggested that we allow 
compliance demonstrations for combined streams similar to the 
provisions under the Generic MACT for the Polycarbonate Production 
source category (40 CFR part 63, subpart YY), and add a definition of 
``combined vent stream'' based on the definition in 40 CFR 63.1101 
(subpart YY).
    Response: The final rule clarifies requirements for combined 
streams in a manner similar to that described in Sec.  63.982(f), but 
extends these requirements to deal with batch process vents and 
wastewater vent streams. For a combined stream, if any of the 
continuous process vent streams within the aggregated stream would be 
Group 1 by themselves and the batch streams are not Group 1, then the 
provisions of subpart SS may be followed in demonstrating 98 percent 
control of the combined aggregate stream. If a combined stream contains 
Group 1 batch process vents, then the initial compliance provisions for 
batch process vents must be followed in demonstrating 98 percent 
control of the combined aggregate stream. Also, the final rule does not 
allow an option to raise the TRE above 1.0 using a recovery device.
    Subpart SS requires that the performance test be conducted at 
maximum representative operating conditions and only over the batch 
emission episodes that result in the highest organic HAP emission rate 
that is achievable during the 6-month period that begins 3 months 
before and ends 3 months after the compliance assessment. In contrast, 
the initial compliance provisions for batch process vents provided in 
the proposed rule would require that the test be conducted at worst-
case conditions. For industries where products and operations remain 
fairly constant, there should be no significant difference between the 
``worst-case conditions'' described by the batch process vent initial 
compliance provisions and the ``maximum representative'' conditions 
required by subpart SS. However, for control devices that might see a 
wide variability of products and emission stream characteristics, such 
as those in the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing industry, 
the test required by subpart SS may not be representative at a later 
date when products have changed. Therefore, compliance with the batch 
testing provisions is a more comprehensive requirement, and we are 
inclined to retain it under most circumstances. However, in cases where 
the combined stream includes Group 2 batch process vents and no Group 1 
batch process vents, we agree that owners and operators should be 
allowed to follow the compliance demonstration requirements of subpart 
SS.
    A second issue occurs when combining streams changes the 
characteristics of the aggregate stream such that less emission 
reduction may occur. Because control requirements are 98 percent under 
both the batch provisions and continuous (subpart SS) provisions, this 
is not an issue for streams routed to control devices. However, for 
recovery devices, there are differences between meeting 95 percent 
recovery under the batch process vent provisions and meeting a TRE 
index under subpart SS. For example, the overall required emission 
reductions could be lessened by combining a number of low-concentration 
batch streams, that would not trigger control under the batch 
requirements, with a rich continuous stream that would require 
significant control or recovery of material by itself, which would 
raise the outlet TRE value at the outlet of the recovery device and 
allow use of an ineffective recovery device and no further control. 
Similarly, emission reductions could be lessened by aggregating rich 
batch vents (with uncontrolled emissions of greater than 10,000 lb/yr) 
with continuous vents and allowing less than 95 percent control by 
meeting the TRE. In either case, the use of a recovery device to raise 
the TRE index above 1.0 could result in actual emissions above the 
level required had the streams not been aggregated and, therefore, we 
are not allowing this option. Thus, all Group 1/Group 2 determinations 
for vent streams must be made prior to aggregation and prior to any 
recovery device.

K. Ongoing Compliance

    Comment: One commenter requested that the monitoring provisions be 
modeled after 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for continuous vents, and 
that we establish a similar cost-effective level for batch process 
vents. Another commenter stated that the requirements for continuous 
parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) are more fully and correctly 
covered in subpart SS and that the periodic verification requirements 
of Sec.  63.2470(f) are duplicative of title V, wasteful, and 
unnecessary.
    Response: We decided to streamline the compliance procedures and 
promote consistency among rules by referencing subpart SS in its 
entirety for most of the monitoring requirements. For batch process 
vents, however, we retained some additional monitoring provisions from 
the proposed rule that are based on requirements in subpart GGG (the 
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP). One of these provisions allows the 
owner or operator to set monitoring parameter values (i.e., operating 
limits) at levels other than what were obtained from the performance 
test.
    A second provision consistent with subpart GGG is the ``periodic 
verification'' procedure for control devices with inlet HAP emissions 
less than 1 tpy (Sec.  63.2460(c)(5) in the final rule). We do not 
agree with the suggestion that title V periodic monitoring requirements 
are duplicative for control devices with less than 1 tpy HAP load. The 
title V periodic monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) 
apply only where an underlying applicable requirement such as NESHAP 
require no monitoring of a periodic nature. Thus, the title V periodic 
monitoring requirements will not apply where the monitoring 
requirements of subpart FFFF do apply.
    A third provision based on subpart GGG is the option to establish 
averaging periods over either an operating block or an operating day. 
This provision may be useful if each batch is not always completed 
within an operating day or when an owner or operator elects to set 
multiple operating limits for different emission episodes.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed monitoring and 
reporting requirements do not meet the enhanced monitoring requirements 
as set forth in section 114(a)(3) of the CAA and, therefore, are 
``arbitrary and capricious.'' The commenter indicated that some sources 
are exempted from ``any truly effective monitoring strategy'' and that 
``sources with greatest HAP emissions, which fall outside the MACT 
floor due to size, have loosest monitoring requirements.''
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertions. The final 
rule, like the proposed rule, requires monitoring of all control 
devices. To minimize the burden on small operations (e.g., small 
control devices controlling batch process vents), the monitoring 
requirements differ for lower-emitting sources; however, these sources 
are not ``sources with the greatest HAP emissions.'' In addition, Sec.  
63.2525(e) of the final rule requires recordkeeping of emission points 
that fall outside of the MACT threshold for control to be sure that 
these points remain below the threshold.

[[Page 63876]]

    Comment: Two commenters took issue with the monitoring requirements 
for catalytic oxidizers. The first commenter claimed that testing of 
the catalyst activity is unnecessary (as long as the temperature 
differential is maintained, the catalyst is effective); is inconsistent 
with the requirements under other rules that frequently share the 
device; and would force annual outages of the control device for 
sampling with significant negative environmental impacts and costs. The 
commenter recommended that the monitoring requirements for catalytic 
oxidizers be based on the 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, requirements, 
which are based on the HON requirements. The other commenter suggested 
that vendor guarantees/warranties for catalytic incinerators be allowed 
as an alternative to the annual catalyst test or quarterly temperature 
differential check. This commenter noted that some catalyst vendors 
will supply a warranty if certain work practices are followed, such as 
raising the inlet temperature according to a set schedule. This 
commenter's experience indicated that temperature differential set at 
maximum load across the bed is not a particularly good indicator of 
catalyst activity for a variable process vent stream.
    A third commenter expressed support for the monitoring requirements 
for catalytic oxidizers in the proposed rule, but requested that we 
make it clear that the catalyst activity test is not the only 
compliance alternative allowed and define what an annual catalyst test 
entails. The commenter further stated that, if a performance test must 
be done annually, EPA should consider if the cost of a performance test 
(e.g, $15,000) can be justified annually. If verifying the catalyst 
activity does not require a performance test, then the commenter stated 
EPA should establish guidelines on how to conduct the annual test.
    Response: We agree that maintaining a temperature differential 
across the bed is evidence that the catalyst is effective, and it is a 
valid means of demonstrating ongoing compliance. It also is the 
requirement specified in subpart SS and many other rules and by 
referencing subpart SS, it is included in the final rule. However, we 
also included the catalyst test option from the proposed rule because, 
as one commenter points out, it is difficult to maintain the required 
differential across the catalyst bed when the organic load into the 
catalytic incinerator fluctuates, even though it may actually still be 
achieving the same reduction efficiency. This could be a particular 
concern when the initial performance test must be conducted under 
worst-case conditions, which generally is the maximum load. This option 
requires catalyst bed inlet temperature monitoring and an annual 
catalyst activity level check. When monitoring only the inlet 
temperature, the catalyst activity level check also is needed; unlike 
thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizer performance cannot be ensured 
simply by monitoring the operating temperature. Catalyst beds can 
become poisoned and rendered ineffective without any apparent change in 
operation. An activity level check can consist of passing an organic 
compound of known concentration through a sample of the catalyst, 
measuring the percentage reduction of the compound across the catalyst 
sample, and comparing that percentage reduction to the percentage 
reduction for a fresh sample of the same type of catalyst. Based on 
information from a company that offers such services, the cost is less 
than $800.
    We do not agree that vendor guarantees based on following specific 
work practices are an acceptable alternative for monitoring the 
performance of catalytic oxidizers. Our experience is that the 
performance of air pollution control devices can degrade over time if 
they are not properly maintained, and that most owners and operators 
try to follow the vendor's recommended work practices as a preventative 
measure. In some cases, the vendor guarantees are only valid during the 
first year of operation of the control device. More importantly, basing 
compliance solely on vendor guarantees (that are tied to work 
practices) would mean that an ``unexpected'' deterioration in the 
performance of the catalytic oxidizer would go undetected and 
unreported because no direct monitoring of the catalytic oxidizer would 
be performed. Therefore, the final rule does not include the suggested 
alternative.
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the requirement for 
continuous pH monitoring for caustic scrubbers is unwarranted and often 
impractical. For batch operations, these commenters stated that it 
should only be necessary to verify that the scrubber is operating 
properly just before and just after each batch. The commenters also 
asserted that continuous pH meters are often unreliable in harsh 
service conditions and are subject to plugging, corrosion, or 
contamination.
    Two commenters stated that measurement of pH is not appropriate for 
caustic scrubbers because most, if not all, have a pH near 14, which 
makes the measurement irrelevant. According to the commenters, the 
titration curve is typically so steep that the pH measurement is not 
useful in controlling the scrubber. These commenters requested that the 
final rule be written to allow the measurement of caustic strength 
without the need to request EPA approval; otherwise, numerous 
facilities will need to request approval to measure caustic strength 
daily in lieu of daily pH monitoring, which would appear to place an 
undue burden on facilities and the regulatory organizations that must 
review the site-specific plans.
    Response: As previously noted, the final rule references the 
monitoring requirements in subpart SS. For all halogen scrubbers 
(including caustic scrubbers), Sec.  63.994 requires continuous pH 
monitoring. We have decided to retain the requirement for continuous 
monitoring in the final rule. This approach maintains consistency with 
other rules that reference subpart SS. It also addresses the 
commenters' concern that the steep titration curve makes pH a poor 
parameter for daily monitoring when pH is normally about 14 (i.e., for 
systems where the recirculating scrubber solution is replaced on a 
batch basis rather than continuously adjusted to maintain relatively 
constant conditions). Finally, we have decided to allow continuous 
measurement of caustic strength at the scrubber outlet as an 
alternative to the continuous monitoring of pH because caustic strength 
is directly related to pH.
    Comment: Many commenters objected to the requirement to calculate a 
daily 365-day rolling summation of emissions to demonstrate compliance 
with the 10,000 lb/yr limit for batch process vents. According to these 
commenters, sources should be allowed to calculate a 12-month rolling 
summation instead of the daily summation because daily calculations 
would be burdensome, particularly for facilities manufacturing many 
products or products with emissions well below the limit. One of the 
commenters also suggested replacing the 365-day rolling summation 
calculation with methodology, like in 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJ, 
whereby the highest-emitting batch recipe for any given product is 
determined and the number of batches are recorded to demonstrate that a 
process has less than 10,000 lb/yr uncontrolled emissions. Two 
commenters also are uncertain how to calculate daily emissions from 
batch processes that are carried out over several days. Another 
commenter indicated that the existing monitoring and recordkeeping 
requirements in title V and/or state minor new source review permits 
are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the limit.

[[Page 63877]]

    Response: In order to demonstrate continuously that uncontrolled 
organic HAP emissions from a process have not exceeded 10,000 lb/yr, 
the proposed rule would require daily calculations of the emissions in 
the preceding 365 days. It appears that the commenters interpreted this 
requirement to be much more involved than we intended. We expected 
that, as part of the initial compliance demonstration, an owner or 
operator would determine the uncontrolled batch process vent emissions 
for a standard batch and divide this value into 10,000 to determine the 
number of batches that could be run in a 365-day period. One way to 
demonstrate continuous compliance would be to track the number of 
batches produced each day and show that the running total number of 
batches for the preceding 365 days does not exceed the number 
calculated during the initial compliance demonstration. The only 
potentially complicating twist to this process is that the total has to 
be adjusted to account for any difference in emissions when a 
nonstandard batch is operated, but we expect such events to be 
uncommon.
    The final rule retains essentially the same requirement as the 
proposed rule because daily summations are needed to demonstrate 
continuous compliance, and we do not consider the demonstration to be 
unduly burdensome. However, upon consideration of the comments, we have 
decided to make three changes in Sec.  63.2525(e) in the final rule to 
clarify our intent and perhaps reduce the burden. First, to address the 
situation of a batch that is run during more than a single calendar 
day, we specify that the record that the batch was run should be 
assigned to the day the batch is completed. Second, we agree that 
physically calculating the summations does not need to be performed 
each day, provided the necessary data are collected in an appropriate 
fashion so that each of the daily calculations can be performed at a 
later date. The final rule allows the calculations to be performed 
monthly. Note that each day that exceeds the limit is still a separate 
deviation. Finally, we edited the language to clarify that alternative 
records that correlate to the total emissions, such as the number of 
batches, may be maintained.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns with the proposed 
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements for continuous 
parameter monitoring and requested that they be removed from the rule. 
One commenter indicated that the proposed QA/QC requirements are being 
introduced in a piecemeal fashion while they are still evolving, are 
technically unworkable, impose substantial burdens for no apparent 
benefit, significantly reduce monitor availability, may have 
unfavorable environmental impacts, and may create safety concerns. In 
addition, the commenter indicated that the proposed design and data 
availability requirements overlap with or conflict with existing 
language in subpart SS. The commenter noted that we decided not to 
promulgate similar QA/QC requirements in subpart SS. The commenter 
indicated that the justification for not adopting the requirements in 
subpart SS is correct and should be applied for subpart FFFF as well. 
Other commenters also noted that EPA's Emissions Measurement Center 
staff and industry are working to develop QA/QC procedures for 
parametric monitoring, and they recommended relying on requirements in 
existing rules until those efforts are finalized. One commenter 
considered the proposed QA/QC requirements for pH probes and flow 
meters to be particularly impractical and burdensome.
    Response: As mentioned previously, the monitoring requirements in 
the final rule are based largely on subpart SS and, thus, the sections 
of the proposed rule referenced by the commenters (i.e., Sec.  
63.2475(c) through (f)) no longer apply. We have deleted these QA/QC 
requirements for the same reasons we decided not to implement similar 
proposed QA/QC requirements in subpart SS (67 FR 46260, July 12, 2002). 
Specifically, we are currently developing performance specifications 
for CPMS to be followed by owners and operators of all sources subject 
to standards under 40 CF[reg] part 63, which includes subpart FFFF. 
Also, subpart SS currently specifies requirements for CPMS, and the 
requirements of subpart SS are referenced by 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
FFFF. Even though they may not be as specific as those proposed, we 
decided it would be premature to promulgate performance specifications 
for subpart FFFF when the performance specifications that would 
ultimately be promulgated for all 40 CFR part 63 may be significantly 
different.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed requirement in 
Sec.  63.2475(g) to install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator at 
the inlet or outlet of a control device if the flow to that control 
device could be intermittent. One commenter recommended that Sec.  
63.2475(g) be deleted because the closed-vent system bypass monitoring 
provisions of subpart SS already indicate whether a control device is 
being bypassed. Similarly, the second commenter questioned the need for 
flow indicators and asserted that if the concern is diversion of the 
vent to the atmosphere, then this prohibition should be so stated. That 
commenter was also concerned that, since essentially all batch process 
vents have intermittent flows, the requirement for flow indicators on 
vents with intermittent flows translates into the installation of 
numerous flow indicators with high QA/QC costs. The commenter noted 
that car seals or monthly inspections are allowed in other rules and 
requested that the flow indicator requirement be withdrawn, or that we 
explain how the expense in maintaining such devices translates into an 
environmental benefit. A third commenter also questioned whether the 
intent was to detect no flow or to detect when a bypass is occurring. 
The commenter contended that detecting no flow for batch processes is 
not useful because the flows are intermittent. If the intent is to 
detect bypasses to the atmosphere, the commenter requested that the 
final rule incorporate text from 40 CFR 63.114(d)(1) and (2) to clarify 
the intent.
    Two commenters requested that the final rule allow the following 
alternatives to the use of flow indicators: indicators of vent gas 
flow, such as duct positions or fan operation; and the use of on/off 
interlock type devices that are not subject to calibration. One 
commenter contended that maintaining records of an interlocked valve 
limit-switch position should be sufficient when the valve only opens to 
allow flow when pressure is above a specified level.
    Response: The commenters are confusing the requirement in Sec.  
63.2475(g) of the proposed rule with the requirement in Item 4 of Table 
5 of the proposed rule. Table 5 of the proposed rule would require a 
flow indicator in a bypass line to indicate any diversion of flow from 
the control device. On the other hand, the proposed requirement in 
Sec.  63.2475(g) to install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator at 
the inlet or outlet of a control device if the flow to that control 
device could be intermittent is for identifying periods when monitored 
parameter readings should not be included in the daily or block 
average. This provision was included because periods of no flow are 
equivalent to periods of non-operation (i.e., the control device is not 
actually reducing emissions during these periods and, therefore, should 
not be used to demonstrate ongoing compliance).
    Both provisions have been retained in the final rule. The 
requirements for

[[Page 63878]]

bypass lines are specified in 40 CFR 63.983(a)(3), which are referenced 
from Sec.  63.2450 of the final rule. The requirement to use flow 
indicators to identify periods of no flow through control devices is 
specified in Sec.  63.2460(c)(7) of the final rule. We also note that 
the final rule allows the use of car seals and lock and key 
configurations as an alternative to the use of flow indicators in 
bypass lines. Furthermore, the definition of ``flow indicator'' in 40 
CFR 63.981 does not restrict the type of device that can be used as a 
flow indicator in a bypass line. However, we have not allowed seal 
mechanism alternatives in Sec.  63.2460(c)(7) of the final rule because 
these techniques cannot identify periods of no flow through a control 
device.
    The definition of ``flow indicator'' in 40 CFR 63.981 is also 
inadequate for the purposes of Sec.  63.2460(c)(7) of the final rule 
because it includes any device that only indicates whether the valve 
position would allow gas flow to be present in the control device. 
Therefore, the final rule specifies that for the purposes of Sec.  
63.2460(c)(7), ``flow indicator'' means a device which indicates 
whether gas flow is present in a line. Also note that the required 
number of flow indicators required by Sec.  63.2460(c)(7) is related to 
the number of control devices, not the number of batch process vents.
    Comment: One commenter claimed that the requirement not to use 
periods of ``no-flow'' in data averages is impossible to meet because 
most regulated streams have many periods of no flow (i.e., more than 25 
percent of the time) and, thus, this requirement would force 
noncompliance with the data availability requirement. The commenter 
contended that no flow periods are only relevant when flow is the 
parameter being monitored (e.g., scrubber flow). The commenter noted 
that, where the parameter being monitored is not flow, then as long as 
the control device is operating properly (e.g., flare has pilot flame, 
combustion device is operating at or above its minimum temperature), 
the rule requirements are met, regardless of flow.
    Response: We decided to retain the ``no flow'' provision in the 
final rule. This provision is consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
GGG. It was added to subpart GGG to ensure that a source would not 
incur a ``deviation'' from the operating limits during periods when 
there are no HAP emissions being routed to the control device. For the 
same reason, it is applicable to the miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing source category as well. We also note that periods of no 
flow are excluded from the operating hours when calculating the 75 
percent data availability requirement and, therefore, excluding these 
data will not result in non-compliance with the data availability 
requirements.

L. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Comment: Several commenters suggested moving the necessary 
recordkeeping elements from the definition of ``operating scenario'' to 
a new paragraph in the recordkeeping section (Sec.  63.2525). In 
addition, the commenters recommended excluding the following 
requirements from both the definition and the new recordkeeping 
section: a description of emission episode durations and a listing of 
vent-by-vent control levels for every operating scenario. Several 
commenters also expressed concern with the provision that a change in 
any of the elements of the definition constitutes a new operating 
scenario. They considered this provision burdensome because variations 
in some of the listed information (e.g., a change in calculation and 
engineering analyses) can be construed as requiring separate operating 
scenarios even if the variation does not change the applicable 
requirements. One commenter stated that the manufacture of a new 
product in existing nondedicated equipment should not trigger a new 
operating scenario unless the compliance approach is different for the 
new product than it is for existing products. Furthermore, the 
commenter stated that reconfiguring equipment in a process or across 
processes should not in and of itself trigger a new operating scenario, 
unless it triggers new applicable requirements.
    Response: After considering these suggestions, we decided to move 
the recordkeeping elements from the proposed definition to Sec.  
63.2525 of the final rule, but we did not change the recordkeeping 
elements themselves. We did not exclude the emission episode durations 
from the list of recordkeeping elements because this is an essential 
element in the calculation of emissions for events such as a purge or a 
vacuum operation. Note that if duration is not used in the calculation 
for a particular emission event or is not necessary in the compliance 
demonstration, there is no need to include it in the operating 
scenario. We did not exclude the requirement to specify vent-by-vent 
control levels because this information is important when batch process 
vents within a process are controlled to different levels. Also, 
because continuous process vents are regulated individually, it is 
important to identify the actual control level for each vent. If all 
vents are controlled to the same level, then a simple statement 
indicating the control level is all that is needed for the operating 
scenario.
    We also clarify in Sec.  63.2525 that records are required of only 
those elements that are applicable (i.e., the level of detail required 
for some compliance options will be greater than for others). For 
example, for compliance with the 20 ppmv outlet concentration standard 
when worst-case conditions are defined by the conveyance system 
limitations rather than by the process, it is not necessary to provide 
emission calculations for vents that are routed to the control device.
    Comment: One commenter recommended deleting the requirement to 
submit as part of the compliance report each new operating scenario 
operated during the reporting period. Several other commenters asked 
that we revise the language to specifically require only a listing of 
the new operating scenarios in the compliance reports. According to one 
commenter, operating scenarios duplicate title V requirements, which is 
unnecessary and confusing. Another commenter stated that the 
requirement to submit each new operating scenario could result in the 
generation of a significant quantity of information, especially for 
batch processors who have the potential for hundreds of different 
operating scenarios. One commenter stated that the requirement to 
submit operating scenarios as part of the compliance report when there 
are deviations is unwarranted. According to the commenter, while 
listing the scenarios under which a source was operating during 
noncompliance events may be necessary, listing all of the scenarios 
under which a process unit might be operating is excessive and 
unnecessary.
    Response: The final rule clarifies requirements for documenting and 
reporting operating scenarios. Our position is that submitting 
operating scenarios is critical to enforcement of the final rule, as 
they provide much of the information required to demonstrate 
compliance. Information in operating scenarios also is the cornerstone 
of the management of change strategy that was developed to address the 
constantly changing processing environment associated with batch 
processors. Although this management of change flexibility is optional 
at the discretion of the regulatory authority, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
FFFF, provides the framework for implementing the strategy. Therefore, 
the final rule retains the requirement that complete operating 
scenarios must be submitted.

[[Page 63879]]

    However, we have written the final rule to clarify that only one 
copy of any operating scenario must be submitted. Specifically, we 
wrote the final rule to require that the actual operating scenarios for 
planned processes, rather than just a list of operating scenarios, must 
be submitted in the NOCS report. Any operating scenarios in the future 
for new processes must be submitted in the compliance report for the 
reporting period in which the operating scenario is first operated. The 
notification of process change, which for the final rule is included as 
part of the compliance report, must contain revised operating scenarios 
for changes to existing processes. We also eliminated the statement in 
the provisions for notification of process changes that specifies ``a 
process change means the startup of a new process'' because it is 
inconsistent with the above mentioned clarifications. Finally, we 
deleted the requirement to submit operating scenarios with other 
information about deviations in the compliance report because the 
operating log, by definition, is a listing of the scheduled operating 
scenarios, and a copy of the operating scenarios themselves would 
already have been submitted either as part of the NOCS report or in a 
previous compliance report.
    Comment: According to the proposed definition, one type of 
deviation is any instance in which an affected source fails to meet any 
term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable 
requirement in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, and that is included in 
the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a 
permit. One commenter recommended deleting this language from the 
definition because it appears to extend the definition to requirements 
imposed under title V, rather than subpart FFFF. For example, the 
commenter suggested that if a permitting authority imposes a throughput 
requirement on a storage tank subject to subpart FFFF or a 
NOX limit on a control device used to comply with subpart 
FFFF, this language could be read to make any deviation of those limits 
reportable and a potential violation under subpart FFFF, as well as 
under title V.
    Response: We have not deleted the cited language because we 
disagree with the commenter's interpretation that it extends deviations 
to requirements under title V. Paragraph (2) of the proposed definition 
of ``deviation'' is an important clarification. Sources are obligated 
under title V and 40 CFR part 70 to report as deviations any failure to 
meet ``any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable 
requirement in [subpart FFFF] and that is included in the operating 
permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit.'' As 
such, the paragraph does not add any additional obligations. However, 
it does clarify for source owners and operators reviewing subpart FFFF 
that this is their obligation for deviation reporting under title V.
    Comment: Four commenters recommended using different terms or 
significantly changing the definition of deviation. Two commenters 
recommended replacing the term ``deviation'' with the term 
``excursion'' throughout the rule to avoid confusion that could be 
caused because the proposed definition of deviation differs from the 
meaning normally ascribed to the term in the title V program. One 
commenter suggested using ``excursion'' to apply to situations where 
the monitored parameter is outside of the required range, and using the 
term ``deviation'' to represent an actual demonstrated excess emissions 
event or nonconformance with a published standard in the rule.
    Response: We have not changed the terminology. According to the 
definition, a deviation includes any instance in which an owner or 
operator fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by 40 
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, including but not limited to any emission 
limit, operating limit, or work practice standard. An ``excursion,'' as 
defined in 40 CFR part 63, subparts G and SS, is a failure to meet an 
operating limit. Therefore, excursions are a deviation under subpart 
FFFF.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the attempt to extend 
deviation reporting to work practices in Sec.  63.2520(d)(5) and (e) of 
the proposed rule is unclear, arbitrary, and capricious. The commenter 
stated that each work practice standard itself identifies what has to 
be reported in the compliance report. According to the commenter, 
adding a new, undefined requirement to report ``deviations from the 
requirements for work practice standards in Table 19'' just adds 
confusion and appears to add a new arbitrary class of deviation that is 
not supported in any rulemaking record. In addition, the commenter was 
unsure how we expect facilities to measure deviations from some of the 
work practices (e.g., fugitive monitoring) listed in Table 19. 
Therefore, the commenter recommended that we remove the requirement for 
deviation reporting for work practice standards from Sec.  
63.2520(d)(5)(i) and (ii), including the list of information items in 
Sec.  63.2520(d)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) (operating time, deviations, and 
operating logs/scenarios). The commenter also recommended deleting the 
phrase ``or work practice standard'' from Sec.  63.2520(e). This 
commenter stated that Sec.  63.2520(d)(5)(ii)(B) and (iii)(D) and the 
availability of more detailed records are all that are needed to 
identify deviations.
    Response: A deviation is defined, in part, as ``any instance in 
which an affected source fails to meet any requirement or obligation 
established by this subpart, including * * * any * * * work practice 
standard.'' Specifically, a source must report ``any instance'' where 
it has not complied with any work practice standard. For instance, 
compliance with the work practice standard for equipment leaks includes 
monitoring and inspecting on the applicable schedule, monitoring for 
the correct leak definition, repairing leaks within the specified 
timeframe, and keeping records, as well as reporting the information 
specified in Sec.  63.1018(a) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, or Sec.  
63.1039(b) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. We would also find this 
information useful in assessing compliance with the work practice 
standards. If a source failed to repair a leak within the specified 
timeframe, it would be required to report that as a deviation. However, 
we have decided that submitting operating logs is unnecessary for 
deviations from the work practice standard for equipment leaks.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the time period 
when deviations can occur. According to the commenter, it is not 
possible to have a deviation until operating limits and continuous 
monitoring system (CMS) parameters have been established. The commenter 
noted that, as provided in the General Provisions, compliance with 
these limits begins with the submission of the NOCS report.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's conclusion. Section 
112(i)(3) of the CAA statutorily forbids allowing more than 3 years 
from the effective date of the standards to achieve compliance. 
Therefore, at any time after the compliance date, a source may be found 
out of compliance, even if that is before the NOCS report is due or the 
date that performance tests are conducted.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended deleting the requirement to 
submit operating logs as part of the compliance report when there are 
deviations. According to the commenters, this requirement is unclear, 
in part because it does not define ``operating logs,'' which could be

[[Page 63880]]

broadly interpreted and will mean different things to different people; 
it will not benefit EPA in compliance reviews because operating logs do 
not contain information relevant to a noncompliance event, and they may 
not reflect the actual cause of the event; and it is burdensome. As an 
example of the potential burden, one commenter noted that, for a source 
monitoring 50,000 components monthly for 6 months, a deviation from the 
equipment leak work practice standard would require a submittal of 
4,500 pages of operating logs (based on 300,000 component readings at 
66 lines per page).
    Response: The operating log, which is a record required by Sec.  
63.2525(c) of the final rule, is simply a schedule or list of the 
operating scenarios that have been run. We clarified this requirement 
in the final rule by stating it is to be ``updated each time a 
different operating scenario is put into operation.'' The reporting 
requirement in Sec.  63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(K) of the final rule has also 
been written to clarify that the operating log is only required for 
days during which deviations occurred. Furthermore, since deviations of 
the work practice standard for equipment leaks are unlikely to be 
associated with a single operating day, the final rule specifies that 
logs do not have to be submitted for such deviations.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended deleting the precompliance 
report. One of the commenters noted that a precompliance report is not 
required by the HON. According to the second commenter, the 
precompliance report duplicates the review and approval process of 
title V and the content of the NOCS report and greatly reduces 
available compliance time. The commenter also argued that the 
precompliance report is unworkable because it requires data that can 
only be obtained from the performance test and from operating 
experience.
    Response: We contend that the precompliance report is a valuable 
tool for the regulatory agency responsible for making compliance 
determinations for the affected source. Its purpose differs 
significantly from the compliance plan that is part of the title V 
requirements. It provides an enforcement official or inspector with 
some initial background information about the process being controlled, 
the types of emissions associated with the process, corresponding 
control equipment, and the monitoring parameters that have been or will 
be correlated to the process conditions.
    A precompliance report is not required for all facilities. The main 
purpose of the precompliance report is that it is the mechanism by 
which an affected source requests approval to use alternative 
monitoring parameters, alternative techniques allowed in the final rule 
(e.g., pollution prevention), and calculations or other compliance 
procedures that differ from those prescribed in the final rule. In 
return for this flexibility, it is important that alternative 
procedures be approved before the compliance date to ensure that there 
is no noncompliance resulting from selection of an unacceptable 
approach. Furthermore, many of the alternative techniques in the final 
rule are more complicated than standard requirements like those in the 
HON. Therefore, we have retained the precompliance report in the final 
rule.
    Comment: Two commenters claimed that much of the information 
required to be submitted in the NOCS report is already required by the 
referenced subparts or the General Provisions, and the additional 
information that must be submitted under the proposed rule is 
excessive.
    Response: In general, the final rule references the notification 
requirements in the applicable subparts (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts 
G, SS, and GGG) and specifies only the necessary exceptions and 
additional requirements. However, the overall requirements are the same 
as the proposal. We generally disagree with the commenter regarding the 
request to delete requirements beyond those in the referenced subparts. 
For example, requirements to identify operating scenarios are 
applicable to continuous operations. Because the operating scenario 
need only be as detailed as necessary to demonstrate compliance with 
the final rule, the operating scenario for a continuous operation may 
not require as much information as one for batch operations. If, for 
example, a continuous operation has only continuous process vents and 
storage tanks, no calculation of uncontrolled or controlled emissions 
is necessary to satisfy the requirement of Sec.  63.2525(b)(7) of the 
final rule; instead, calculations and engineering analyses consist of 
TRE calculations for the continuous vents. We note that for every 
element of the operating scenario described in Sec.  63.2525(b), 
information is required that is necessary to document how the source is 
complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. However, we have also made 
some changes and clarifications to the NOCS requirements. For example, 
for operating limits, only the resulting values are to be reported, and 
the procedure used to establish them is supporting documentation that 
is maintained as a record. For applicability, only the results of 
applicability determinations have to be submitted. Supporting 
documentation is maintained as a record under Sec.  63.2525(a)(1).
    Comment: Several commenters requested the following changes in the 
compliance reporting schedule and due dates: (1) Clarify when the first 
report is due because the proposed language appears to be internally 
inconsistent, (2) change the beginning date of the first reporting 
period to the date the notification of compliance status is due rather 
than the compliance date, and (3) allow 60 days rather than 30 days to 
prepare the report after the end of the reporting period.
    Response: The final rule clarifies our intent that the first 
reporting period is to span a period between 6 and 12 months. To be 
consistent with other rules, we also decided to provide 60 days to 
prepare the compliance reports. Although we have decided to make the 
notification of compliance status due 150 days after the compliance 
date rather than by the compliance date, the reporting period for the 
first compliance report is unchanged in the final rule because sources 
must be operating monitoring equipment and conducting other ongoing 
compliance activities beginning on the compliance date.
    Comment: Two commenters were concerned that some of the data that 
must be submitted in the precompliance report are CBI and should not be 
required. Commenters also are concerned that some of the requested 
information for operating scenarios is CBI.
    Response: We recognize that certain information needed to complete 
the precompliance report and operating scenarios in the NOCS report may 
be confidential. Precompliance and NOCS reports are considered to be 
submitted to the Administrator under CAA section 114 even if they are 
submitted to a State or local agency acting on the Administrator's 
behalf (40 CFR 2.301(b)(2)) and, as such, are entitled to protection 
under section 114(c) of the CAA or 40 CFR 2.201-2.311, provided they 
meet the criteria set forth in the statute and regulations. If you 
claim that any portion of these reports is entitled to such protection, 
the material that is claimed as confidential must be clearly designated 
in the submission.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the notification of process 
change requirements in Sec.  63.2515(f) of the proposed rule. One 
commenter stated that the requirement to report any process change, 
change in operating scenarios, or change in information submitted in 
the NOCS report would be impossibly burdensome for complex

[[Page 63881]]

specialty batch processing systems, and it would offer no environmental 
benefit. According to the commenter, frequent, even daily, changes are 
normal and necessary requirements of such facilities. The commenter 
stated that facilities should only be required to report changes that 
result in non-conformance with emission limits or control efficiency 
requirements, or that cause a process to exceed the 10,000 lb/yr 
uncontrolled HAP threshold, thereby triggering compliance requirements 
under subpart FFFF.
    Other commenters stated that the proposed notification of process 
change requirement is too expansive, imposing a reporting burden which 
totally duplicates title V change requirements. One of these commenters 
stated that there is no need to submit reports for a process change 
unless the process change brings about new applicable requirements. 
According to the commenter, an example of a situation where there would 
be no need to report is the startup of a new process in an existing 
MCPU for a new product, or family of products, which emits no HAP; or 
requires no new or different controls, work practices, or monitoring; 
and brings about no new applicable requirements. Both commenters noted 
that any process change that generates a new or modified applicable 
requirement may be anticipated by the facility and would be reported 
and/or incorporated in the title V permit. Therefore, according to the 
two commenters, providing 60-day prior notifications of process changes 
(e.g., in separate notices or in the semiannual compliance report) 
would be unnecessary, wasteful, and burdensome. Therefore, the 
commenters recommended deleting the notification of process change 
requirement in Sec.  63.2515(f).
    Response: We disagree with the commenters. These records are needed 
to document continuous compliance. As stated before, the level of 
detail associated with information provided in operating scenarios 
depends on the compliance options and strategy chosen. For example, we 
provide concepts like standard batches to account for variability that 
could be introduced into a process without triggering new applicable 
requirements. Standard batches mean a range of operating conditions can 
be covered as part of a single operating scenario. Likewise, 
demonstrating initial compliance under worst-case conditions means 
information in the notification of compliance status should rarely 
change. Therefore, we do not agree that the requirements to report 
process changes are unnecessarily burdensome.

M. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

    Comment: Several commenters requested changes to the definition of 
``startup.'' Their primary concern is the statement that excludes the 
first time equipment is put into operation after a shutdown for 
maintenance and at the start of a campaign to produce a product that 
has been produced in the past. One commenter stated that actions to 
bring a batch campaign online, regardless of whether previous campaigns 
of that product have been run in the past, to be completely different 
and more complex than the routine activities conducted between batches 
within a campaign, and these operations are not always predictable. 
Another commenter indicated startups should apply after shutdowns for 
maintenance to avoid safety and environmental issues associated with 
trying to run controls with air and/or inerts in the system. Finally, 
one commenter claimed the exclusions are illegal because we did not 
collect information for periods of SSM.
    Several commenters also opposed the exclusions from the definition 
of ``shutdown'' for the cessation of a batch process at both the end of 
a campaign and for routine maintenance. According to one commenter, 
shutting down a process unit after a campaign involves completely 
different and more complex procedures than those conducted between 
batches in a campaign; these operations are not always predictable, and 
there is no difference between shutting down between campaigns and a 
maintenance shutdown of a continuous process after a production run.
    Response: We have considered similar comments on previous 
rulemakings involving batch processors. Commenters in the past 
suggested that operating practices for controls used with batch 
processes are the same as those for controls used with continuous 
processes and argued for similar provisions. Our response was to 
provide a definition of startup and shutdown that would consider 
situations when operators would be unfamiliar with the equipment 
operation or it might not be possible to follow standard operating 
procedures. However, we thought that a startup after maintenance, after 
switching to a product that has been produced in the past, or the 
startups between batches during a campaign are all routine, normal 
operating conditions that should result in the same standard batch. 
Similarly, we considered shutdown at the end of a campaign, between 
batches, or for planned, preventative maintenance to be normal 
operations and resulting in the same standard batch. Our rationale for 
providing separate requirements for continuous processes was that a 
startup or shutdown for any reason results in operation under 
conditions different from the normal steady-state operation, which is 
not the case for batch operations.
    We accept the commenters' statement that actions to bring a batch 
campaign on-line, regardless of whether previous campaigns of that 
product have been run, or after a shutdown for maintenance, could be 
completely different and more complex than the routine activities 
conducted between batches within a campaign. This could also be the 
case, as commenters argue, after cessation of operation for various 
reasons. Therefore, we are persuaded that when these operations are 
outside of operations covered by a standard batch (or a nonstandard 
batch, as described below), that they should be covered by the SSM 
provisions.
    Related to this issue is our concept of nonstandard batch, which 
describes a situation where operations are conducted outside the range 
of conditions established by a standard batch or where steps are 
repeated or deleted that contribute to emissions from the batch and, 
therefore, must be considered in determining compliance. For example, 
if QA/QC metrics are not met at a certain step of a process, and a 
material must be recrystallized or purified to a greater degree than 
originally prescribed by the standard operating procedure, extended 
processing steps must be considered. In these instances, owners and 
operators are required to calculate emissions from the nonstandard 
batch and verify compliance with the standards. These instances would 
not be considered part of the SSM provisions because they can be 
reasonably anticipated. As a result, we have defined the term 
``nonstandard batch'' in the final rule to describe situations that are 
not standard batches, but also are not malfunctions.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that SSM provisions in proposed 
Sec.  63.2490 are unlawful. According to the commenter, allowing 
sources to avoid enforcement actions merely by demonstrating that they 
were in compliance with their own SSM plans necessarily allows them to 
operate in less than continuous compliance even if their deviations 
were avoidable. The commenter indicated that the CAA makes it clear 
that sources must be in compliance with emissions standards 
continuously, except for unavoidable deviations during SSM.

[[Page 63882]]

    Response: We recently adopted final amendments to the General 
Provisions which address the concerns raised by the commenter (68 FR 
32586, May 30, 2003). The final amendments clarify that Sec.  
63.6(e)(1)(i) establishes a general duty to minimize emissions. During 
a period of SSM, that general duty requires an owner or operator to 
reduce emissions to the greatest extent consistent with safety and good 
air pollution control practices. However, ``during an SSM event, the 
general duty to minimize emissions does not require an owner or 
operator to achieve the levels required by the applicable MACT standard 
at other times, or to make further efforts to reduce emissions if such 
levels have been successfully achieved.'' As discussed in the preamble 
to the final amendments, we disagree with the commenter's legal 
position that sources' compliance with SSMP requirements in lieu of 
applicable emission standards is permissible only where violations of 
emission limitations are ``unavoidable.'' As stated in the preamble to 
the final amendments to the General Provisions, ``[w]e believe that we 
have discretion to make reasonable distinctions concerning those 
particular activities to which the emission limitations in a MACT 
standard apply * * * However, we note that the general duty to minimize 
emissions is intended to be a legally enforceable duty which applies 
when the emission limitations in a MACT standard do not apply, thereby 
limiting exceedances of generally applicable emission limitations to 
those instances where they cannot be reasonably avoided.'' (68 FR 
32590, May 30, 2003). We further explained that the general duty to 
minimize emissions requires that owners or operators review their SSMP 
on an ongoing basis and make appropriate improvements to ensure that 
excess emissions are avoided.
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with a number of the proposed 
SSM requirements. They indicated that monitored parameter values during 
periods of SSM should not be included in daily averages, and that to do 
so distorts the results for periods of normal operation and is 
inconsistent with the General Provisions and previous rules. Commenters 
also stated that it is not possible to have a deviation from the 
emission limit or work practice standard during SSM periods because the 
only requirement during such periods is to comply with the SSMP. 
Therefore, the commenters stated that the definition of ``deviation'' 
is inconsistent with the General Provisions and should be changed to 
delete the statement that conflicts with this point, and there should 
be no requirement to document deviations during SSM periods in the 
compliance reports. According to the commenters, records of every SSM 
event, as required by the General Provisions, are unnecessary and 
wasteful. The commenters recommended replacing this provision, like in 
many other rules, with a requirement to keep records only of events 
during which excess emissions occur. Finally, commenters recommended 
deleting the requirement to submit an immediate SSM report each time 
actions taken differ from the SSMP.
    Response: We disagree with the comment that the definition of 
deviation is inconsistent with the General Provisions. As recently 
amended, 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) requires operation at all times 
(including periods of SSM) in a manner consistent with safety and good 
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The General 
Provisions state that the general duty to minimize emissions during a 
period of SSM does not require the owner or operator to achieve 
emission levels that would be required by the applicable standard at 
other times if this is not consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices, thus allowing for compliance with the SSMP 
in the event that the standard cannot otherwise be met. However, we 
further clarified in the recent amendments that a source will not be 
considered to have satisfied the duty to minimize emissions merely 
because it complied with an inadequate SSMP. Furthermore, the General 
Provisions do not say there cannot be a deviation during periods of 
SSM. They only state (in Sec.  63.7(e)(1)) that emissions in excess of 
the level of the relevant standard during periods of SSM shall not be 
considered a violation of the relevant standard, unless a determination 
of noncompliance is made under Sec.  63.6(e). As discussed in response 
to the previous comment, recent final amendments to the General 
Provisions changed Sec.  63.6(e) to clarify a source's compliance 
obligations during SSM events. As noted previously, the final rule 
references most of the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. For 
calculating daily averages, subpart SS specifies that monitoring data 
collected during periods of SSM are to be excluded. However, we 
excluded this provision from 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. If data from 
SSM events are excluded from the daily (or block) average, then we 
would not have sufficient information to assess whether a deviation has 
occurred for a day containing a reported SSM event that we subsequently 
determine is not properly an SSM event.
    Another requirement in subpart SS is that records of SSM events 
(i.e., confirmation that actions taken were consistent with the SSMP or 
a description of any inconsistent actions) must be maintained only if 
excess emissions occur. For the final subpart FFFF, we decided that 
this requirement, rather than records of every SSM event as specified 
in the General Provisions, provides sufficient information about SSM 
events (note that it applies for all SSM periods, not just those 
subject to subpart SS), which means determination of excess emissions 
is critical. The final rule defines excess emissions as ``emissions 
greater than those allowed by the emission limit.'' When a CMS is used 
to demonstrate compliance with an operating limit, this means excess 
emissions occur when the operating limit is not met. As noted above, 
compliance with an operating limit is based on a daily or block 
average, not an average over shorter periods such as a period of SSM. 
Thus, SSM records are required for each SSM event that occurs when you 
have a deviation of the operating limit for the day or block.
    We disagree with the commenter's contention that sources should not 
be required to report deviations that occur during SSM events. 
Reporting of deviations from emission limits, operating limits, and 
work practice standards that occur during SSM events is necessary 
because events claimed to be SSM events by the source may not be viewed 
as approved SSM events by EPA. Furthermore, Sec.  63.998(c)(1)(ii)(E) 
and (d)(3) of subpart SS already require records of each SSM event 
during which excess emissions occur, and as such the additional 
requirement to report such records is not unduly burdensome.
    We agree that immediate notifications are not necessary. The 
industries covered by this source category generally have extensive 
upset/SSM reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and state reporting 
requirements that should be adequate in supplying timely notification 
of events. Further, the final rule requires information regarding 
actions inconsistent with the SSMP to be submitted in semiannual 
compliance reports. For these reasons, and to maintain consistency with 
the HON and the CAR rules, we have overridden the immediate SSM 
reporting required by Sec. Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iv) and 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of 
the General Provisions.

[[Page 63883]]

N. Change Management

    Comment: Regarding EPA's solicitation of comments concerning 
process change management, one commenter suggested relying on the title 
V constructions for process change management whenever possible. 
According to the commenter, adding change management provisions to the 
rule (beyond requiring facilities that change the underlying potential 
to emit assumptions to comply with the construction and/or operating 
permit requirements of their permitting authority) could only be 
justified when a campaign is introduced that changes the underlying 
evaluation of the worst case for a specific production unit. Otherwise, 
the commenter argued, any additional change management requirements 
would just increase the compliance burden on already overworked 
permitting authorities.
    The commenter specifically requested that Sec.  63.2515(f) be 
modified to exempt from separate reporting any process change that is 
managed according to regulations and procedures required by a 
permitting authority under an approved title V program. The commenter 
requested that facilities that process such a change request through 
the title V program or incorporate the change into a title V permit 
should only have to designate in that filing how the change impacts the 
40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, compliance program at the facility. 
According to the commenter, this change would significantly decrease 
the burden on permitting authorities and facilities by requiring the 
permitting authorities to manage the same issue only once.
    Regarding the solicitation of comments about change management 
being required for facilities complying with the alternate standard, 
the commenter stated that, for any facility restricting control device 
emissions to a documented 20 ppmv, the activities occurring before the 
control device are not able to significantly change the emissions 
profile to the environment as long as the maximum air flow through the 
control device does not change.
    Response: Our intent in requiring operating scenarios, testing 
under worst-case conditions, and specification of conditions under 
which process changes are reported is to provide a framework for 
managing changes that may be frequent because of the nature of batch 
specialty chemical processing operations without introducing additional 
burden on permitting authorities and facilities. We intend, for 
example, that the standard batch and overall operating scenario cover 
the anticipated range of conditions of a process; only in cases where a 
change is made that would fall outside of the standard batch would a 
new standard batch and operating scenario be required. However, we 
consider it inappropriate for the final rule to exempt any process 
change that is managed according to title V, as one commenter 
requested. For all practical purposes, 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, 
specifies the information required to determine applicable requirements 
for the MACT standards that are incorporated into the title V permits. 
Finally, the final rule is consistent with the commenter's proposed 
approach to managing change for a process in which a control device is 
tested under worst-case conditions using limitations of the capture and 
conveyance system. The operating scenario in this case is simple, and 
no detailed information on the emission events controlled by the device 
are necessary. Likewise, if a process change occurred in the process, 
no new operating scenario is required because the existing operating 
scenario still applies.
    Comment: One commenter made two comments regarding EPA's 
solicitation of comments on process change management as it relates to 
title V permits. First, noting that the solicitation of comments 
specifically referenced the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT, the 
commenter stated that the consideration under that rule authorizing 
States to allow facilities to introduce new processes into existing 
equipment or install stockpiled equipment without reopening title V 
permits would apply with equal force to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. 
The commenter noted that many batch and specialty chemical facilities 
frequently introduce new processes into existing equipment or install 
stockpiled equipment. According to the commenter, such facilities need 
to have the flexibility to respond quickly to the results of their 
research and development activities and changes in market conditions in 
a cost-effective manner and without opening a lengthy permitting 
process. Therefore, the commenter recommended that we provide a 
discussion of change management for subpart FFFF that is similar to 
that provided in the preamble to the final Pharmaceuticals Production 
MACT.
    Second, the commenter noted that the Pharmaceuticals Production 
MACT encouraged States to allow for flexible permitting of facilities 
and avoid permit revisions where reasonably anticipated alternative 
operating scenarios can be established in title V permits and supported 
with detailed operating logs. The commenter also noted that the 
pharmaceuticals change strategy authorized new process equipment to be 
brought into service, without permit modification, where it is either 
like-kind replacement or existing onsite equipment not in current 
service. According to the commenter, the miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing source category would involve the same industry contacts 
and supporting rationales that we cited in the Pharmaceuticals 
Production NESHAP. Therefore, the commenter recommended that we include 
similar provisions in subpart FFFF.
    Response: As the commenter noted, the preamble to the final 
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP (63 FR 50309, September 21, 1998) 
provided a detailed discussion of change management procedures as 
applied to pharmaceuticals production. We have decided not to include a 
similar discussion here. Sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
FFFF, may discuss their interest in change management procedures with 
EPA or the appropriate permitting authority on an individual basis.

O. Overlapping Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters requested that the rule include 
language to address potential overlap between 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
FFFF, and various 40 CFR part 60 and part 61 rules. Each commenter was 
concerned with a different group of rules, but collectively they 
include subparts K, Ka, Kb, VV, DDD, III, NNN, and RRR in part 60 and 
subparts V, Y, BB, and FF in part 61. Typically, the commenters 
requested language consistent with language in other rules such as the 
HON, or language specifying that compliance with subpart FFFF 
constitutes compliance with an overlapping rule. For vents in an MCPU 
that contain no HAP but are subject to control under 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts DDD, III, NNN, and RRR, one commenter requested a provision 
that would allow facilities to opt to meet the continuous process vent 
requirements of subpart FFFF in lieu of continuing to comply with the 
NSPS requirements.
    Response: We agree that there is a need to address potential 
overlap between subpart FFFF and various part 60 and part 61 rules, and 
we have written the final rule accordingly. In general, the language is 
consistent with language in previous rules. For example, the final rule 
includes language consistent with Sec.  63.110(e)(1) for overlap with 
subpart FF of part 61. To address overlap with subpart BB of part

[[Page 63884]]

61, we included language consistent with language in Sec.  63.110(c) of 
the HON. We also included language for overlap with subpart DDD of part 
60 that is similar to the proposed language for subparts III, NNN, and 
RRR. In addition, for an MCPU with process vents that contain no HAP, 
but are subject to control requirements under subpart DDD, III, NNN, or 
RRR, the final rule also includes the suggestion to allow compliance 
with the control requirements in subpart FFFF for Group 1 process 
vents. In each case, the total organic compounds (TOC) must be 
considered as if they are organic HAP for purposes of compliance with 
subpart FFFF. For storage tanks subject to both subpart FFFF and 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Kb, we decided to keep the proposed language and add 
another option. The new option in the final rule specifies that if 
control is required under subpart Kb and the tank is assigned to an 
MCPU, then compliance with the requirements for Group 1 storage tanks 
under subpart FFFF constitutes compliance with subpart Kb. Since the 
compliance requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, are similar to 
the requirements in subpart Kb, we have decided to address overlap with 
subpart Y of part 61 by including language in the final rule that is 
consistent with the language used to address overlap with subpart Kb. 
We have not included language to address overlap with subparts K and Ka 
of part 60 because these rules apply to tanks storing petroleum 
liquids, which are not included in the miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing source category. Finally, the final rule specifies that 
compliance with subpart FFFF constitutes compliance with subpart V in 
part 61 and subpart VV in part 60; alternatively, if you have an 
affected source with equipment subject to subpart V in part 61 or 
subpart VV in part 60, you may elect to comply solely with either 
subpart FFFF or the other applicable rule.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed applicability 
provisions and definitions do not go far enough to prevent multipurpose 
equipment from being subject to more than one MACT standard. Commenters 
suggested exempting all operations subject to another part 63 rule; 
designating subpart FFFF as the single applicable rule, or allowing 
facilities to pick any one of the applicable MACT rules; and using 
``primary product'' and process unit group (PUG) concepts for 
clarifying applicability.
    Response: We recognize that 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, will 
affect manufacturers of specialty chemicals and other products whose 
multipurpose production processes are subject to other MACT standards, 
creating situations where there are overlapping requirements. The 
challenge is how to consolidate overlapping requirements and still 
maintain the MACT reductions anticipated from each of the various 
standards. Many MACT standards that regulate specialty chemicals, 
pesticide active ingredients (PAI), SOCMI, and polymers and resins have 
specific language relating to overlap. The predominant method of 
addressing possible overlap is by designating a primary product and 
requiring compliance with the final rule that applies to the primary 
product at all times when the flexible process unit is operating. The 
presumption is that the equipment should be regulated according to the 
standard that effectively applies for a majority of products produced.
    After considering the provisions in previous rules, we decided to 
include in the final rule a provision that is essentially the same as 
in the PAI rule. This provision is based on developing a PUG from a 
collection of multipurpose equipment, determining the primary product 
for the PUG, and, generally, complying with the rule that applies to 
the primary product for all process units within the PUG. If the 
primary product is determined to be miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing materials, then you must comply with subpart FFFF for all 
process units in the PUG. If the primary product is determined to be 
pharmaceutical products or PAI, then you must comply with 40 CFR part 
63, subpart GGG or subpart MMM, respectively, for all MCPU in the PUG. 
Although we consider it unlikely, it is possible that the primary 
product of a PUG, as determined according to the procedures in subpart 
FFFF, could be material subject to another MACT rule such as 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart JJJ, even though it was not determined to be the 
primary product according to the procedures in subpart JJJ (i.e., the 
PUG is a flexible operation unit under subpart JJJ). In this case, 
subpart FFFF only requires compliance with subpart FFFF for the MCPU in 
the PUG.
    The PUG concept also overrides certain applicability provisions in 
other overlapping standards. For example, if the primary product of a 
PUG that is also a flexible operation unit for the purposes of subpart 
JJJ is determined to be an miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
product, then the redetermination procedures for nonaffected units in 
subpart JJJ no longer apply. Another example is that subpart GGG no 
longer applies to pharmaceutical process units in a PUG for which the 
primary product is determined to be miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing material. Similarly, if the primary product of a PUG is 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing material, then any PAI 
process units in the PUG that previously were required to comply with 
subpart MMM now must comply with subpart FFFF.
    A slight difference exists between the PUG language in the PAI rule 
and this current PUG language. In the PAI rule, each process unit in 
the PUG must have some processing equipment that overlaps with at least 
one other PAI process unit in the group. For subpart FFFF, this 
restriction has been revised to require only that each process unit 
must have processing equipment that overlaps with any other process 
unit (of any kind) in the group. This language allows greater 
flexibility in setting the boundaries of the PUG and potentially 
increases the number of operations considered as part of a PUG, 
extending the potential for consolidation of overlapping requirements 
and enabling all the operations considered part of a flexible unit 
operation in earlier MACT standards to fall into the same PUG. Since 
the change also creates the possibility that PUG developed under 
subparts MMM and FFFF would not be identical, subpart FFFF specifies 
that an owner or operator may use a PUG developed under subpart MMM 
rather than developing a PUG under subpart FFFF.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the final rule should specify a 
date in the future where the MACT standard for a particular equipment 
configuration is ``set'' to avoid having to redetermine applicability 
as processes and equipment change.
    Response: Previous part 63 rules require a prospective review of 
the 5 year period from the compliance date to predict the primary 
product and, with the exception of the HON, a subsequent periodic 
redetermination ranging from every year to every 5 years, or upon 
permanent cessation of the primary product production. We recognize 
that redetermination is a burden in that it may require changing 
control strategies to comply with a different rule if the primary 
product changes. To minimize any burden associated with such changes, 
the final rule requires a redetermination only if the PUG stops 
manufacturing the primary product. As with the initial determination, 
the redetermination is based on a 5-year projection of production. 
After redetermination, the PUG becomes

[[Page 63885]]

subject to whatever rule applies to the new primary product. In the 
absence of earlier declarations that production of the primary product 
has ceased, not making the primary product for a period of 5 years will 
be considered evidence that manufacturing of the primary product has 
ceased.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that we make sure there is no 
overlap between the OLD MACT and 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. Several 
commenters also asked for clarification of how to comply when there is 
overlap between subparts FFFF and HHHHH.
    Response: The preamble to the proposed OLD rule stated our intent 
that all of the distribution sources at miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing affected sources would be subject only to subpart FFFF, 
not the OLD rule. The proposed OLD rule also states that those emission 
sources that are controlled under the provisions of another 40 CFR part 
63 NESHAP would not be part of the OLD affected source. Our position on 
this issue has not changed, and we expect to use the same language in 
the final OLD rule. Thus, subpart FFFF does not need to address overlap 
between the OLD rule and subpart FFFF because there will be no overlap.
    The final rule handles overlapping requirements between subparts 
FFFF and HHHHH the same as described above for overlap between subpart 
FFFF and other part 63 rules. In addition, we have made changes to the 
definition of miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process and 
to the affected source that are designed to clarify which equipment is 
subject to subpart FFFF and which is subject to subpart HHHHH.
    Comment: Two commenters requested that the final rule allow 
consolidation of all equipment leak LDAR programs under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF, or any other single program. One of the commenters noted 
that many facilities are complying with a number of different programs 
that are effectively equivalent in terms of environmental protection, 
and consolidation will reduce confusion and eliminate significant 
enforcement effort by EPA and States in determining which LDAR program 
applies to which portion of a facility.
    Response: The final rule allows for considerable consolidation of 
LDAR programs and specifies that compliance with subpart FFFF 
constitutes compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, and 40 CFR part 
61, subpart V. Furthermore, Sec.  63.2535(d) of the final rule 
specifies that an owner or operator with an affected source under 
subpart FFFF and equipment subject to either 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
GGG or MMM, may elect to comply with subpart GGG or MMM, respectively, 
for all such equipment. The final rule also allows an owner or operator 
to elect to comply with the LDAR requirements in 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart F (i.e., the CAR).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines a ``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 entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified 
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within 
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action 
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or 
recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information requirements are not enforceable 
until OMB approves them. The ICR number is 1969.02.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of the CAA (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in 
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The final NESHAP require maintenance inspections of the control 
devices but do not require any notifications or reports beyond those 
required by the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 
The recordkeeping requirements collect only the specific information 
needed to determine compliance.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the final rule) is estimated to total 71 labor hours 
per year at a total annual cost of $3,150 for 251 respondents. These 
estimates include one-time submissions of notifications and 
precompliance reports, preparation of an SSMP with semiannual reports 
for any event when the procedures in the plan were not followed, 
preparation of semiannual compliance reports, and recordkeeping. Total 
annualized capital/startup costs associated with the monitoring 
requirements for the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $256,000 
per year. Average operation and maintenance costs associated with the 
monitoring requirements for the 3-year period are estimated at $92,000 
per year.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved 
by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 
in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the

[[Page 63886]]

approved information collection requirements contained in the final 
rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. The 
EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes 
of assessing the impact of the rule on small entities, small entity is 
defined as: (1) A small business ranging from up to 500 employees to up 
to 1,000 employees, depending on the NAICS code; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district, or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant 
in its field. The maximum number of employees to be considered a small 
business for each NAICS code is shown in the preamble to the proposed 
rule (67 FR 16178).
    After considering the economic impacts of the final rule on small 
entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Our economic analysis identified as small businesses 27 of the 113 
companies owning affected miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
facilities. This constitutes 24 percent of the affected businesses. 
Although small businesses represent 24 percent of the companies within 
the source category, they are expected to incur 6 percent of the total 
industry compliance costs of $75 million. According to EPA's economic 
assessment, there is one small firm with compliance costs equal to or 
greater than 3 percent of its sales. In addition, there are three small 
firms with cost-to-sales ratios between 1 percent and 3 percent.
    An economic impact analysis was performed to estimate the changes 
in product price and production quantities for the firms affected by 40 
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The analysis shows that of the 49 facilities 
owned by affected small firms, one is expected to shut down after the 
implementation of the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
NESHAP.
    It should be noted that the baseline economic condition of the 
facility predicted to close affects the closure estimate provided by 
the economic model, i.e., facilities that are already experiencing 
adverse economic conditions will be more severely impacted than those 
that are not, and that the facility predicted to close appears to have 
low profitability levels currently.
    Although the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing NESHAP 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to limit the impact of the 
rule on small entities. We have worked closely with the American 
Chemical Council and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers 
Association. These trade organizations, which represent the majority of 
facilities covered by subpart FFFF, have represented their members at 
stakeholder meetings throughout the standards development process. We 
also worked with the small chemical manufacturers to develop a format 
for the process vent standard that is reasonable for the production of 
chemicals using batch processing in nondedicated equipment and provide 
several alternative ways to comply with the standards to allow as much 
flexibility as possible. Emissions averaging and the pollution 
prevention alternative standards help those small entities that have 
been proactive in reducing their HAP emissions and usage, respectively. 
Another alternative standard requires the outlet concentration of the 
control device to be less than 20 ppmv. Under this alternative, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are greatly reduced. In 
addition, we have included in the preamble guidance for 40 CFR part 70 
requirements to minimize title V permit modifications for owners and 
operators that make frequent changes to their processes.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
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, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual costs of the 
final rule for any year is estimated to be about $75 million. Thus, the 
final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 
of the UMRA.
    In addition, the NESHAP contain no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they 
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose 
obligations upon them. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and

[[Page 63887]]

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132. None of the sources are owned or operated by 
State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to the final rule.

F. 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. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments 
own or operate miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process 
units. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 1985, April 23, 
1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns 
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The 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. The final rule is not 
subject to the Executive Order because it is based on technology 
performance and not health or safety risks.

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

    The final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 
Approximately 51 million kwh/yr of electricity will be needed to 
operate refrigeration units, fans, and pumps for control systems. 
Approximately 680 million lb/yr of steam will be needed to operate 
steam-assist flares and steam strippers. Approximately 4.3 billion 
standard cubic feet per year (scf/yr) of natural gas will be needed to 
operate thermal oxidizers and flares, and about 1.0 billion scf/yr will 
be needed to generate steam. Generating the electricity will consume 
about 17,700 tpy of coal.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory and 
procurement 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, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The final rule involves technical standards. The final rule uses 
EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 15, 18, 25, 
25A, 305, 316, 320, 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, 1671, 8260, and 8270. 
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify 
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. The 
search and review results have been documented and placed in the docket 
for the NESHAP (Docket OAR-2003-0121). The search for emissions 
monitoring procedures for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates 
subject to emission limitations in these NESHAP identified 19 voluntary 
consensus standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA 
standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the available 
standards, EPA determined that 13 of the candidate consensus standards 
would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, and 
validation data. The 13 standards are: ASME C00031 or Performance Test 
Code 19-10-1981, ASTM D3154-91 (1995), ASTM D3464-96, ASTM D3796-90 
(1998), ASTM D5835-95, ASTM D6060-96, ASTM E337-84 (Reapproved 1996), 
CAN/CSA Z2232.2-M-86, European Norm (EN) 12619 (1999), EN 1911-1,2,3 
(1998), ISO 9096:1992, ISO 10396:1993, and ISO 10780:1994. Of the six 
remaining candidate consensus standards, the following five are under 
development or under EPA review: ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ASME/BSR MFC 13m, 
ASTM D5790-95 (1995), ISO/DIS 12039, and ISO/FDIS 14965. The EPA plans 
to follow, review, and consider adopting these candidate consensus 
standards after their development and further review by EPA is 
completed.
    One consensus standard, ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases 
described below for inclusion in these NESHAP in addition to the 
currently available EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A for measurement of organic HAP or total organic compounds. Therefore, 
the standard ASTM D6420-99 is cited in the final rule.
    Similar to EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also 
a performance-based method for measurement of gaseous organic 
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific 
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages 
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less 
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method 
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 (Docket OAR-2003-0121) is a suitable 
alternative to Method 18 only where the target compound(s) are those 
listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99; and the target concentration is 
between 150 ppb(v) and 100 ppm(v).
    For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, 
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies 
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, 
as detailed in section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed, 
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no 
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water 
soluble. For target

[[Page 63888]]

compound(s) not listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, and not 
amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 does not 
apply.
    As a result, EPA cites ASTM D6420-99 in subpart FFFF of part 63. 
The EPA also cites Method 18 as a gas chromatography (GC) option in 
addition to ASTM D6420-99. This will allow the continued use of GC 
configurations other than GC/MS.
    Some EPA testing methods and performance standards are specified in 
Sec. Sec.  63.2450(g) and 63.2485(h) of subpart FFFF. Subpart FFFF also 
references EPA testing methods specified in 40 CFR part 63, subparts G 
and SS. Most of the standards have been used by States and industry for 
more than 10 years. Nevertheless, under Sec.  63.7(f), the final rule 
also allows any State or source to apply to EPA for permission to use 
an alternative method in place of any of the EPA testing methods or 
performance standards listed in the NESHAP.

J. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 25, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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


0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding a new subpart FFFF to read as follows:

Subpart FFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.2430 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.2435 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?
63.2440 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

Compliance Dates

63.2445 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limits, Work Practice Standards, and Compliance Requirements

63.2450 What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
63.2455 What requirements must I meet for continuous process vents?
63.2460 What requirements must I meet for batch process vents?
63.2465 What requirements must I meet for process vents that emit 
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP or PM HAP?
63.2470 What requirements must I meet for storage tanks?
63.2475 What requirements must I meet for transfer racks?
63.2480 What requirements must I meet for equipment leaks?
63.2485 What requirements must I meet for wastewater streams and 
liquid streams in open systems within an MCPU?
63.2490 What requirements must I meet for heat exchange systems?

Alternative Means of Compliance

63.2495 How do I comply with the pollution prevention standard?
63.2500 How do I comply with emissions averaging?
63.2505 How do I comply with the alternative standard?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.2515 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.2520 What reports must I submit and when?
63.2525 What records must I keep?

Other Requirements and Information

63.2535 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is 
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?
63.2540 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.2545 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.2550 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart FFFF of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work 
Practice Standards for Continuous Process Vents
Table 2 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work 
Practice Standards for Batch Process Vents
Table 3 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits for Hydrogen 
Halide and Halogen HAP Emissions or PM HAP Emissions from Process 
Vents
Table 4 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits for Storage 
Tanks
Table 5 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work 
Practice Standards for Transfer Racks
Table 6 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
Table 7 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Requirements for Wastewater 
Streams and Liquid Streams in Open Systems Within an MCPU
Table 8 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Partially Soluble Hazardous Air 
Pollutants
Table 9 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Soluble Hazardous Air Pollutants
Table 10 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Requirements for Heat Exchange 
Systems
Table 11 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 12 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart FFFF of Part 63

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.2430  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing. This subpart also establishes requirements to 
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limits, 
operating limits, and work practice standards.


Sec.  63.2435  Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to the requirements in this subpart if you own 
or operate miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process units 
(MCPU) that are located at, or are part of, a major source of hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP) emissions as defined in section 112(a) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (b) An MCPU includes equipment necessary to operate a miscellaneous 
organic chemical manufacturing process, as defined in Sec.  63.2550, 
that satisfies all of the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section. An MCPU also includes any assigned storage 
tanks and product transfer racks; equipment in open systems that is 
used to convey or store water having the same concentration and flow 
characteristics as wastewater; and components such as pumps, 
compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling connection 
systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and 
instrumentation systems that are used to manufacture any material or 
family of materials described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of 
this section.

[[Page 63889]]

    (1) The MCPU produces material or family of materials that is 
described in paragraph (b)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of this 
section.
    (i) An organic chemical or chemicals classified using the 1987 
version of SIC code 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, or 386, except 
as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
    (ii) An organic chemical or chemicals classified using the 1997 
version of NAICS code 325, except as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of 
this section.
    (iii) Quaternary ammonium compounds and ammonium sulfate produced 
with caprolactam.
    (iv) Hydrazine.
    (v) Organic solvents classified in any of the SIC or NAICS codes 
listed in paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section that are 
recovered using nondedicated solvent recovery operations.
    (2) The MCPU processes, uses, or produces any of the organic HAP 
listed in section 112(b) of the CAA or hydrogen halide and halogen HAP, 
as defined in Sec.  63.2550.
    (3) The MCPU is not an affected source or part of an affected 
source under another subpart of this part 63, except for process vents 
from batch operations within a chemical manufacturing process unit 
(CMPU), as identified in Sec.  63.100(j)(4). For this situation, the 
MCPU is the same as the CMPU as defined in Sec.  63.100, and you are 
subject only to the requirements for batch process vents in this 
subpart.
    (c) The requirements in this subpart do not apply to the operations 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Research and development facilities, as defined in section 
112(c)(7) of the CAA.
    (2) The manufacture of ammonium sulfate as a by-product, if the 
slurry entering the by-product manufacturing process contains 50 parts 
per million by weight (ppmw) HAP or less or 10 ppmw benzene or less. 
You must retain information, data, and analysis to document the HAP 
concentration in the entering slurry in order to claim this exemption.
    (3) The affiliated operations located at an affected source under 
subparts GG (National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing 
and Rework Facilities), KK (National Emission Standards for the 
Printing and Publishing Industry), JJJJ (NESHAP: Paper and Other Web 
Coating), future MMMM (NESHAP: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal 
Parts and Products), and SSSS (NESHAP: Surface Coating of Metal Coil) 
of this part 63. Affiliated operations include, but are not limited to, 
mixing or dissolving of coating ingredients; coating mixing for 
viscosity adjustment, color tint or additive blending, or pH 
adjustment; cleaning of coating lines and coating line parts; handling 
and storage of coatings and solvent; and conveyance and treatment of 
wastewater.
    (4) Fabricating operations such as spinning a polymer into its end 
use.
    (5) Production activities described using the 1997 version of NAICS 
codes 325131, 325181, 325188 (except the requirements do apply to 
hydrazine), 325314, 325991 (except the requirements do apply to 
reformulating plastics resins from recycled plastics products), and 
325992 (except the requirements do apply to photographic chemicals).
    (6) Tall oil recovery systems.
    (d) If the predominant use of a transfer rack loading arm or 
storage tank (including storage tanks in series) is associated with a 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process, and the loading 
arm or storage tank is not part of an affected source under a subpart 
of this part 63, then you must assign the loading arm or storage tank 
to the MCPU for that miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
process. If the predominant use cannot be determined, then you may 
assign the loading arm or storage tank to any MCPU that shares it and 
is subject to this subpart. If the use varies from year to year, then 
you must base the determination on the utilization that occurred during 
the year preceding November 10, 2003 or, if the loading arm or storage 
tank was not in operation during that year, you must base the use on 
the expected use for the first 5-year period after startup. You must 
include the determination in the notification of compliance status 
report specified in Sec.  63.2520(d). You must redetermine the primary 
use at least once every 5 years, or any time you implement emissions 
averaging or pollution prevention after the compliance date.
    (e) For nondedicated equipment used to create at least one MCPU, 
you may elect to develop process unit groups (PUG), determine the 
primary product of each PUG, and comply with the requirements of the 
subpart in 40 CFR part 63 that applies to that primary product as 
specified in Sec.  63.2535(l).


Sec.  63.2440  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing affected source.
    (b) The miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing affected 
source is the facilitywide collection of MCPU and heat exchange 
systems, wastewater, and waste management units that are associated 
with manufacturing materials described in Sec.  63.2435(b)(1).
    (c) A new affected source is described by either paragraph (c)(1) 
or (2) of this section.
    (1) Each affected source defined in paragraph (b) of this section 
for which you commenced construction or reconstruction after April 4, 
2002, and you meet the applicability criteria at the time you commenced 
construction or reconstruction.
    (2) Each dedicated MCPU that has the potential to emit 10 tons per 
year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of combined HAP, and you commenced 
construction or reconstruction of the MCPU after April 4, 2002. For the 
purposes of this paragraph, an MCPU is an affected source in the 
definition of the term ``reconstruction'' in Sec.  63.2.
    (d) An MCPU that is also a CMPU under Sec.  63.100 is reconstructed 
for the purposes of this subpart if, and only if, the CMPU meets the 
requirements for reconstruction in Sec.  63.100(l)(2).

Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.2445  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new affected source, you must comply with this 
subpart according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) If you startup your new affected source before November 10, 
2003, then you must comply with the requirements for new sources in 
this subpart no later than November 10, 2003.
    (2) If you startup your new affected source after November 10, 
2003, then you must comply with the requirements for new sources in 
this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
    (b) If you have an existing source on November 10, 2003, you must 
comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart no 
later than November 10, 2006.
    (c) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.2515 
according to the schedule in Sec.  63.2515 and in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
required to comply with the emission limits, operating limits, and work 
practice standards in this subpart.

Emission Limits, Work Practice Standards, and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.2450  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limits and work 
practice standards in Tables 1 through 7 to this

[[Page 63890]]

subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM), and you must meet the requirements specified in 
Sec. Sec.  63.2455 through 63.2490 (or the alternative means of 
compliance in Sec.  63.2495, Sec.  63.2500, or Sec.  63.2505), except 
as specified in paragraphs (b) through (s) of this section. You must 
meet the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements 
specified in Sec. Sec.  63.2515, 63.2520, and 63.2525.
    (b) Determine halogenated vent streams. You must determine if an 
emission stream is a halogenated vent stream, as defined in Sec.  
63.2550, by calculating the mass emission rate of halogen atoms in 
accordance with Sec.  63.115(d)(2)(v). Alternatively, you may elect to 
designate the emission stream as halogenated.
    (c) Requirements for combined emission streams. When organic HAP 
emissions from different emission types (e.g., continuous process 
vents, batch process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, and 
waste management units) are combined, you must comply with the 
requirements of either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) Comply with the applicable requirements of this subpart for 
each kind of organic HAP emissions in the stream (e.g., the 
requirements of Table 1 to this subpart for continuous process vents 
and the requirements of Table 4 to this subpart for emissions from 
storage tanks).
    (2) Determine the applicable requirements based on the hierarchy 
presented in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section. For a 
combined stream, the applicable requirements are specified in the 
highest-listed paragraph in the hierarchy that applies to any of the 
individual streams that make up the combined stream. For example, if a 
combined stream consists of emissions from Group 1 batch process vents 
and any other type of emission stream, then you must comply with the 
requirements in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section for the combined 
stream; compliance with the requirements in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this 
section constitutes compliance for the other emission streams in the 
combined stream. Two exceptions are that you must comply with the 
requirements in Table 3 to this subpart and Sec.  63.2465 for all 
process vents with hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions, and 
recordkeeping requirements for Group 2 applicability or compliance are 
still required (e.g., the requirement in Sec.  63.2525(f) to track the 
number of batches produced and calculate rolling annual emissions for 
processes with Group 2 batch process vents).
    (i) The requirements of Table 2 to this subpart and Sec.  63.2460 
for Group 1 batch process vents, including applicable monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting.
    (ii) The requirements of Table 1 to this subpart and Sec.  63.2455 
for continuous process vents that are routed to a control device, as 
defined in Sec.  63.981, including applicable monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting.
    (iii) The requirements of Table 5 to this subpart and Sec.  63.2475 
for transfer operations, including applicable monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting.
    (iv) The requirements of Table 7 to this subpart and Sec.  63.2485 
for emissions from waste management units that are used to manage and 
treat Group 1 wastewater streams and residuals from Group 1 wastewater 
streams, including applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
    (v) The requirements of Table 4 to this subpart and Sec.  63.2470 
for control of emissions from storage tanks, including applicable 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
    (vi) The requirements of Table 1 to this subpart and Sec.  63.2455 
for continuous process vents after a recovery device including 
applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
    (d) Except when complying with Sec.  63.2485, if you reduce organic 
HAP emissions by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to any 
combination of control devices (except a flare) or recovery devices, 
you must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.982(c) and the requirements 
referenced therein.
    (e) Except when complying with Sec.  63.2485, if you reduce organic 
HAP emissions by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a 
flare, you must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.982(b) and the 
requirements referenced therein.
    (f) If you use a halogen reduction device to reduce hydrogen halide 
and halogen HAP emissions from halogenated vent streams, you must meet 
the requirements of Sec.  63.994 and the requirements referenced 
therein. If you use a halogen reduction device before a combustion 
device, you must determine the halogen atom emission rate prior to the 
combustion device according to the procedures in Sec.  63.115(d)(2)(v).
    (g) Requirements for performance tests. The requirements specified 
in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section apply instead of or in 
addition to the requirements specified in subpart SS of this part 63.
    (1) Conduct gas molecular weight analysis using Method 3, 3A, or 3B 
in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    (2) Measure moisture content of the stack gas using Method 4 in 
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    (3) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device 
contains carbon disulfide, you must conduct emissions testing according 
to paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) If you elect to comply with the percent reduction emission 
limits in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart, and carbon disulfide is 
the principal organic HAP component (i.e., greater than 50 percent of 
the HAP in the stream by volume), then you must use Method 18, or 
Method 15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to measure carbon disulfide at 
the inlet and outlet of the control device. Use the percent reduction 
in carbon disulfide as a surrogate for the percent reduction in total 
organic HAP emissions.
    (ii) If you elect to comply with the outlet total organic compound 
(TOC) concentration emission limits in Tables 1 through 7 to this 
subpart, and the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device 
contains greater than 10 percent (volume concentration) carbon 
disulfide, you must use Method 18 or Method 15 to separately determine 
the carbon disulfide concentration. Calculate the total HAP or TOC 
emissions by totaling the carbon disulfide emissions measured using 
Method 18 or 15 and the other HAP emissions measured using Method 18 or 
25A.
    (4) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or Method 
26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to comply with any of the 
emission limits specified in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart, you 
may use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. When using Method 
320, you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of 
Method 320, unless you demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure 
has been conducted at a similar source.
    (5) Section 63.997(c)(1) does not apply. For the purposes of this 
subpart, results of all initial compliance demonstrations must be 
included in the notification of compliance status report, which is due 
150 days after the compliance date, as specified in Sec.  
63.2520(d)(1).
    (h) Design evaluation. To determine the percent reduction of a 
small control device, you may elect to conduct a design evaluation as 
specified in Sec.  63.1257(a)(1) instead of a performance test as 
specified in subpart SS of this part 63. You must establish the 
value(s)

[[Page 63891]]

and basis for the operating limits as part of the design evaluation.
    (i) Outlet concentration correction for supplemental gases. In 
Sec.  63.997(e)(2)(iii)(C), the correction to 3 percent oxygen for 
emission streams at the outlet of combustion devices is required if you 
add supplemental gases, as defined in Sec.  63.2550, to the vent stream 
or manifold.
    (j) Continuous emissions monitoring systems. Each continuous 
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) must be installed, operated, and 
maintained according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8 and paragraphs 
(j)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according 
to the applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
B, and according to paragraph (j)(2) of this section, except as 
specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section. For any CEMS meeting 
Performance Specification 8, you must also comply with appendix F, 
procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60.
    (i) If you wish to use a CEMS other than an Fourier Transform 
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) meeting the requirements of Performance 
Specification 15 to measure hydrogen halide and halogen HAP before we 
promulgate a Performance Specification for such CEMS, you must prepare 
a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.8.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) You must determine the calibration gases and reporting units 
for TOC CEMS in accordance with paragraph (j)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of 
this section.
    (i) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 9 or 15 
requirements, determine the target analyte(s) for calibration using 
either process knowledge of the control device inlet stream or the 
screening procedures of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream.
    (ii) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor 
performance of a combustion device, calibrate the instrument on the 
predominant organic HAP and report the results as carbon (C 1 ), and 
use Method 25A or any approved alternative as the reference method for 
the relative accuracy tests.
    (iii) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor 
performance of a noncombustion device, determine the predominant 
organic HAP using either process knowledge or the screening procedures 
of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream, calibrate the monitor 
on the predominant organic HAP, and report the results as 
C1. Use Method 18, ASTM D6420-99, or any approved 
alternative as the reference method for the relative accuracy tests, 
and report the results as C1.
    (3) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS 
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and according to the 
applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, 
except that the schedule in Sec.  63.8(e)(4) does not apply, and the 
results of the performance evaluation must be included in the 
notification of compliance status report.
    (4) The CEMS data must be reduced to operating day or operating 
block averages computed using valid data consistent with the data 
availability requirements specified in Sec.  63.999(c)(6)(i)(B) through 
(D), except monitoring data also are sufficient to constitute a valid 
hour of data if measured values are available for at least two of the 
15-minute periods during an hour when calibration, quality assurance, 
or maintenance activities are being performed. An operating block is a 
period of time from the beginning to end of batch operations within a 
process. Operating block averages may be used only for batch process 
vent data.
    (5) If you add supplemental gases, you must correct the measured 
concentrations in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section and 
Sec.  63.2460(c)(6).
    (k) Continuous parameter monitoring. The provisions in paragraphs 
(k)(1) through (4) of this section apply in addition to the 
requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) in 
subpart SS of this part 63.
    (1) You must record the results of each calibration check and all 
maintenance performed on the CPMS as specified in Sec.  
63.998(c)(1)(ii)(A).
    (2) When subpart SS of this part 63 uses the term ``a range'' or 
``operating range'' of a monitored parameter, it means an ``operating 
limit'' for a monitored parameter for the purposes of this subpart.
    (3) As an alternative to measuring pH as specified in Sec.  
63.994(c)(1)(i), you may elect to continuously monitor the caustic 
strength of the scrubber effluent.
    (4) As an alternative to the inlet and outlet temperature 
monitoring requirements for catalytic incinerators as specified in 
Sec.  63.988(c)(2), you may elect to comply with the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (k)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Monitor the inlet temperature as specified in subpart SS of 
this part 63.
    (ii) Check the activity level of the catalyst at least every 12 
months and take any necessary corrective action, such as replacing the 
catalyst to ensure that the catalyst is performing as designed.
    (iii) Maintain records of the annual checks of catalyst activity 
levels and the subsequent corrective actions.
    (l) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Sections 63.152(f)(7)(ii) 
through (iv) and 63.998(b)(2)(iii) and (b)(6)(i)(A), which apply to the 
exclusion of monitoring data collected during periods of SSM from daily 
averages, do not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
    (m) Reporting. (1) When Sec. Sec.  63.2455 through 63.2490 
reference other subparts in this part 63 that use the term ``periodic 
report,'' it means ``compliance report'' for the purposes of this 
subpart. The compliance report must include the information specified 
in Sec.  63.2520(e), as well as the information specified in referenced 
subparts.
    (2) When there are conflicts between this subpart and referenced 
subparts for the due dates of reports required by this subpart, reports 
must be submitted according to the due dates presented in this subpart.
    (3) Excused excursions, as defined in subparts G and SS of this 
part 63, are not allowed.
    (n) The option in Sec.  63.997(e)(2)(iv)(C) to demonstrate 
compliance with a percent reduction emission limit by measuring TOC is 
not allowed.
    (o) You may not use a flare to control halogenated vent streams or 
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions.
    (p) Opening a safety device, as defined in Sec.  63.2550, is 
allowed at any time conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions.
    (q) If an emission stream contains energetics or organic peroxides 
that, for safety reasons, cannot meet an applicable emission limit 
specified in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart, then you must submit 
documentation in your precompliance report explaining why an undue 
safety hazard would be created if the air emission controls were 
installed, and you must describe the procedures that you will implement 
to minimize HAP emissions from these vent streams.
    (r) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers. For each surge 
control vessel or bottoms receiver that meets the capacity and vapor 
pressure thresholds for a Group 1 storage tank, you must meet emission 
limits and work practice standards specified in Table 4 to this 
subpart.

[[Page 63892]]

    (s) For the purposes of determining Group status for continuous 
process vents, batch process vents, and storage tanks in Sec. Sec.  
63.2455, 63.2460, and 63.2470, hydrazine is to be considered an organic 
HAP.


Sec.  63.2455  What requirements must I meet for continuous process 
vents?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart 
that applies to your continuous process vents, and you must meet each 
applicable requirement specified in paragraphs (b) through (c) of this 
section.
    (b) For each continuous process vent, you must either designate the 
vent as a Group 1 continuous process vent or determine the total 
resource effectiveness (TRE) index value as specified in Sec.  
63.115(d), except as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) You are not required to determine the Group status or the TRE 
index value for any continuous process vent that is combined with Group 
1 batch process vents before a control device or recovery device 
because the requirements of Sec.  63.2450(c)(2)(i) apply to the 
combined stream.
    (2) When a TRE index value of 4.0 is referred to in Sec.  
63.115(d), TRE index values of 5.0 for existing affected sources and 
8.0 for new and reconstructed affected sources apply for the purposes 
of this subpart.
    (3) When Sec.  63.115(d) refers to ``emission reductions specified 
in Sec.  63.113(a),'' the reductions specified in Table 1 to this 
subpart apply for the purposes of this subpart.
    (c) If you use a recovery device to maintain the TRE above a 
specified threshold, you must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.982(e) 
and the requirements referenced therein, except as specified in Sec.  
63.2450 and paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (1) When Sec.  63.993 uses the phrase ``the TRE index value is 
between the level specified in a referencing subpart and 4.0,'' the 
phrase ``the TRE index value is 1.9 but <=5.0'' applies for 
an existing affected source, and the phrase ``the TRE index value is 
5.0 but <=8.0'' applies for a new and reconstructed affected 
source, for the purposes of this subpart.
    (2) [Reserved]


Sec.  63.2460  What requirements must I meet for batch process vents?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart 
that applies to you, and you must meet each applicable requirement 
specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (b) Group status. If a process has batch process vents, as defined 
in Sec.  63.2550, you must determine the group status of the batch 
process vents by determining and summing the uncontrolled organic HAP 
emissions from each of the batch process vents within the process using 
the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii), except as 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) To calculate emissions caused by the heating of a vessel to a 
temperature lower than the boiling point, you must use the procedures 
in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3).
    (2) To calculate emissions from depressurization, you must use the 
procedures in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i)(D)(10).
    (3) To calculate emissions from vacuum systems for the purposes of 
this subpart, the receiving vessel is part of the vacuum system, and 
terms used in Equation 33 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, are defined 
as follows:

P system = absolute pressure of receiving vessel;
P i = partial pressure of the HAP at the receiver 
temperature;
P j = partial pressure of condensable (including HAP) at the 
receiver temperature;
MW i = molecular weight of the individual HAP in the 
emission stream, with HAP partial pressures calculated at the 
temperature of the receiver.

    (4) You may elect to designate the batch process vents within a 
process as Group 1 and not calculate uncontrolled emissions under 
either of the situations described in paragraph (b)(4)(i) or (ii) of 
this section.
    (i) If you comply with the alternative standard specified in Sec.  
63.2505.
    (ii) If all Group 1 batch process vents within a process are 
controlled; you conduct the performance test under hypothetical worst 
case conditions, as defined in Sec.  63.1257(b)(8)(i)(B); and the 
emission profile is based on capture and control system limitations as 
specified in Sec.  63.1257(b)(8)(ii)(C).
    (c) Exceptions to the requirements in subpart SS of this part 63 
are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Process condensers. Process condensers, as defined in Sec.  
63.1251, are not considered to be control devices for batch process 
vents.
    (2) Initial compliance. (i) To demonstrate initial compliance with 
a percent reduction emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart, you must 
compare the sums of the controlled and uncontrolled emissions for the 
applicable Group 1 batch process vents within the process and show that 
the specified reduction is met.
    (ii) When you conduct a performance test or design evaluation for a 
control device used to control emissions from batch process vents, you 
must establish emission profiles and conduct the test under worst-case 
conditions according to Sec.  63.1257(b)(8) instead of under normal 
operating conditions as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1). The requirements 
in Sec.  63.997(e)(1)(i) and (iii) also do not apply for performance 
tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission limits for 
batch process vents. References in Sec.  63.997(b)(1) to ``methods 
specified in Sec.  63.997(e)'' include the methods specified in Sec.  
63.1257(b)(8).
    (iii) As an alternative to conducting a performance test or design 
evaluation for a condenser, you may determine controlled emissions 
using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B).
    (iv) When Sec.  63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B)(7) specifies that condenser-
controlled emissions from an air dryer must be calculated using 
Equation 11 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, with ``V equal to the air 
flow rate,'' it means ``V equal to the dryer outlet gas flow rate,'' 
for the purposes of this subpart. Alternatively, you may use Equation 
12 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, with V equal to the dryer inlet air 
flow rate. Account for time as appropriate in either equation.
    (v) You must demonstrate that each process condenser is properly 
operated according to the procedures specified in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(4)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii)(B). The reference in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B) to the alternative standard in Sec.  63.1254(c) 
means Sec.  63.2505 for the purposes of this subpart. As an alternative 
to measuring the exhaust gas temperature, as required by Sec.  
63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B), you may elect to measure the liquid temperature 
in the receiver.
    (vi) You must conduct a subsequent performance test or compliance 
demonstration equivalent to an initial compliance demonstration within 
180 days of a change in the worst-case conditions.
    (3) Establishing operating limits. You must establish operating 
limits under the conditions required for your initial compliance 
demonstration, except you may elect to establish operating limit(s) for 
conditions other than those under which a performance test was 
conducted as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section and, if 
applicable, paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (i) The operating limits may be based on the results of the 
performance test and supplementary information such as engineering 
assessments and manufacturer's recommendations. These

[[Page 63893]]

limits may be established for conditions as unique as individual 
emission episodes for a batch process. You must provide rationale in 
the precompliance report for the specific level for each operating 
limit, including any data and calculations used to develop the limit 
and a description of why the limit indicates proper operation of the 
control device. The procedures provided in this paragraph (c)(3)(i) 
have not been approved by the Administrator and determination of the 
operating limit using these procedures is subject to review and 
approval by the Administrator.
    (ii) If you elect to establish separate monitoring levels for 
different emission episodes within a batch process, you must maintain 
records in your daily schedule or log of processes indicating each 
point at which you change from one operating limit to another, even if 
the duration of the monitoring for an operating limit is less than 15 
minutes. You must maintain a daily schedule or log of processes 
according to Sec.  63.2525(c).
    (4) Averaging periods. As an alternative to the requirement for 
daily averages in Sec.  63.998(b)(3), you may determine averages for 
operating blocks. An operating block is a period of time that is equal 
to the time from the beginning to end of batch process operations 
within a process.
    (5) Periodic verification. For a control device with total inlet 
HAP emissions less than 1 tpy, you must establish an operating limit(s) 
for a parameter(s) that you will measure and record at least once per 
averaging period (i.e., daily or block) to verify that the control 
device is operating properly. You may elect to measure the same 
parameter(s) that is required for control devices that control inlet 
HAP emissions equal to or greater than 1 tpy. If the parameter will not 
be measured continuously, you must request approval of your proposed 
procedure in the precompliance report. You must identify the operating 
limit(s) and the measurement frequency, and you must provide rationale 
to support how these measurements demonstrate the control device is 
operating properly.
    (6) Outlet concentration correction for supplemental gases. If you 
use a control device other than a combustion device to comply with a 
TOC, organic HAP, or hydrogen halide and halogen HAP outlet 
concentration emission limit for batch process vents, you must correct 
the actual concentration for supplemental gases using Equation 1 of 
this section; you may use process knowledge and representative 
operating data to determine the fraction of the total flow due to 
supplemental gas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO03.000


Where:

Ca = corrected outlet TOC, organic HAP, or hydrogen halide 
and halogen HAP concentration, dry basis, ppmv;
Cm = actual TOC, organic HAP, or hydrogen halide and halogen 
HAP concentration measured at control device outlet, dry basis, ppmv;
Qa = total volumetric flowrate of all gas streams vented to 
the control device, except supplemental gases;
Qs = total volumetric flowrate of supplemental gases.

    (7) If flow to a control device could be intermittent, you must 
install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator at the inlet or outlet 
of the control device to identify periods of no flow. Periods of no 
flow may not be used in daily or block averages, and it may not be used 
in fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement.


Sec.  63.2465  What requirements must I meet for process vents that 
emit hydrogen halide and halogen HAP or PM HAP?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 3 to this subpart 
that applies to you, and you must meet each applicable requirement in 
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
    (b) If any process vents within a process emit hydrogen halide and 
halogen HAP, you must determine and sum the uncontrolled hydrogen 
halide and halogen HAP emissions from each of the process vents within 
the process using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i) 
and (ii).
    (c) If collective uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
emissions from the process vents within a process are greater than or 
equal to 1,000 pounds per year (lb/yr), you must comply with Sec.  
63.994 and the requirements referenced therein, except as specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) When Sec.  63.994(b)(1) requires a performance test, you may 
elect to conduct a design evaluation in accordance with Sec.  
63.1257(a)(1).
    (2) When Sec.  63.994(b)(1) refers to ``a combustion device 
followed by a halogen scrubber or other halogen reduction device,'' it 
means any combination of control devices used to meet the emission 
limits specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (3) Section 63.994(b)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this 
section.
    (d) To demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter (PM) HAP 
emission limit for new sources in Table 3 to this subpart, you must 
comply with paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Use Method 5 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the 
concentration of PM HAP at the inlet and outlet of a control device.
    (2) Comply with the monitoring requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1366(b)(1)(xi) for each fabric filter used to control PM HAP 
emissions.


Sec.  63.2470  What requirements must I meet for storage tanks?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 4 to this subpart 
that applies to your storage tanks, and you must meet each applicable 
requirement specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
    (b) If you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions to a 
fuel gas system or process, you must meet the requirements of Sec.  
63.982(d) and the requirements referenced therein.
    (c) Exceptions to subparts SS and WW of this part 63.
    (1) If you conduct a performance test or design evaluation for a 
control device used to control emissions only from storage tanks, you 
must establish operating limits, conduct monitoring, and keep records 
using the same procedures as required in subpart SS of this part 63 for 
control devices used to reduce emissions from process vents instead of 
the procedures specified in Sec. Sec.  63.985(c), 63.998(d)(2)(i), and 
63.999(b)(2).
    (2) When the term ``storage vessel'' is used in subparts SS and WW 
of this part 63, the term ``storage tank,'' as defined in Sec.  63.2550 
applies for the purposes of this subpart.
    (d) Planned routine maintenance. The emission limits in Table 4 to 
this subpart for control devices used to control emissions from storage 
tanks do not apply during periods of planned routine maintenance. 
Periods of planned routine maintenance of each control device, during 
which the control device does not meet the emission limit specified in 
Table 4 to this subpart, must not exceed 240 hours per year (hr/yr). 
You 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 tank 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.
    (e) Vapor balancing alternative. As an alternative to the emission 
limits specified in Table 4 to this subpart, you may elect to implement 
vapor balancing in accordance with Sec.  63.1253(f), except

[[Page 63894]]

as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) When Sec.  63.1253(f)(6)(i) refers to a 90 percent reduction, 
95 percent applies for the purposes of this subpart.
    (2) To comply with Sec.  63.1253(f)(6)(i), the owner or operator of 
an offsite cleaning and reloading facility must comply with Sec. Sec.  
63.2445 through 63.2550 instead of complying with Sec.  
63.1253(f)(7)(ii).
    (3) You may elect to set a pressure relief device to a value less 
than the 2.5 pounds per square inch gage pressure (psig) required in 
Sec.  63.1253(f)(5) if you provide rationale in your notification of 
compliance status report explaining why the alternative value is 
sufficient to prevent breathing losses at all times.


Sec.  63.2475  What requirements must I meet for transfer racks?

    (a) You must comply with each emission limit and work practice 
standard in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to your transfer 
racks, and you must meet each applicable requirement in paragraphs (b) 
and (c) of this section.
    (b) When the term ``high throughput transfer rack'' is used in 
subpart SS of this part 63, the term ``Group 1 transfer rack,'' as 
defined in Sec.  63.2550, applies for the purposes of this subpart.
    (c) If you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions to a 
fuel gas system or process, you must meet the requirements of Sec.  
63.982(d) and the requirements referenced therein.


Sec.  63.2480  What requirements must I meet for equipment leaks?

    (a) You must meet each requirement in Table 6 to this subpart that 
applies to your equipment leaks, except as specified in paragraphs (b) 
and (c) of this section.
    (b) The requirements for pressure testing in Sec.  63.1036(b) may 
be applied to all processes, not just batch processes.
    (c) For the purposes of this subpart, pressure testing for leaks in 
accordance with Sec.  63.1036(b) is not required after reconfiguration 
of an equipment train if flexible hose connections are the only 
disturbed equipment.


Sec.  63.2485  What requirements must I meet for wastewater streams and 
liquid streams in open systems within an MCPU?

    (a) You must meet each requirement in Table 7 to this subpart that 
applies to your wastewater streams and liquid streams in open systems 
within an MCPU, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (l) of 
this section.
    (b) Wastewater HAP. Where Sec.  63.105 and Sec. Sec.  63.132 
through 63.148 refer to compounds in Table 9 of subpart G of this part 
63, the compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart apply for the 
purposes of this subpart.
    (c) Group 1 wastewater. Section 63.132(c)(1) (i) and (ii) do not 
apply. For the purposes of this subpart, a process wastewater stream is 
Group 1 for compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart if any of the 
conditions specified in paragraphs (c) (1) through (3) of this section 
are met.
    (1) The total annual average concentration of compounds in Table 8 
to this subpart is greater than 50 ppmw, and the combined total annual 
average concentration of compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart is 
greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw at any flowrate.
    (2) The total annual average concentration of compounds Table 8 to 
this subpart is greater 50 ppmw, the combined total annual average 
concentration of compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart is greater 
than or equal to 1,000 ppmw, and the annual average flowrate is greater 
than or equal to 1 l/min.
    (3) The total annual average concentration of compounds in Table 8 
to this subpart is less than or equal to 50 ppmw, the total annual 
average concentration of compounds in Table 9 to this subpart is 
greater than or equal to 30,000 ppmw at an existing source or greater 
than or equal to 4,500 ppmw at a new source, and the total annual load 
of compounds in Table 9 to this subpart is greater than or equal to 1 
tpy.
    (d) Wastewater tank requirements. (1) When Sec. Sec.  63.133 and 
63.147 reference floating roof requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.119 and 
63.120, the corresponding requirements in subpart WW of this part 63 
may be applied for the purposes of this subpart.
    (2) When Sec.  63.133 refers to Table 9 of subpart G of this part 
63, the maximum true vapor pressure in the table shall be limited to 
the HAP listed in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart.
    (3) For the purposes of this subpart, the requirements of Sec.  
63.133(a)(2) are satisfied by operating and maintaining a fixed roof if 
you demonstrate that the total soluble and partially soluble HAP 
emissions from the wastewater tank are no more than 5 percent higher 
than the emissions would be if the contents of the wastewater tank were 
not heated, treated by an exothermic reaction, or sparged.
    (4) The emission limits specified in Sec. Sec.  63.133(b)(2) and 
63.139 for control devices used to control emissions from wastewater 
tanks do not apply during periods of planned routine maintenance of the 
control device(s) of no more than 240 hr/yr. You may request an 
extension to a total of 360 hr/yr in accordance with the procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.2470(d).
    (e) Individual drain systems. The provisions of Sec.  63.136(e)(3) 
apply except as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
    (1) A sewer line connected to drains that are in compliance with 
Sec.  63.136(e)(1) may be vented to the atmosphere, provided that the 
sewer line entrance to the first downstream junction box is water 
sealed and the sewer line vent pipe is designed as specified in Sec.  
63.136(e)(2)(ii)(A).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (f) Closed-vent system requirements. When Sec.  63.148(k) refers to 
closed vent systems that are subject to the requirements of Sec.  
63.172, the requirements of either Sec.  63.172 or Sec.  63.1034 apply 
for the purposes of this subpart.
    (g) Halogenated vent stream requirements. For each halogenated vent 
stream from a Group 1 wastewater stream or residual removed from a 
Group 1 wastewater stream that is vented through a closed-vent system 
to a combustion device to reduce organic HAP emissions, you must meet 
the same emission limits as specified for batch process vents in item 2 
of Table 2 to this subpart.
    (h) Alternative test methods. (1) As an alternative to the test 
methods specified in Sec.  63.144(b)(5)(i), you may use Method 8260 or 
8270 as specified in Sec.  63.1257(b)(10)(iii).
    (2) As an alternative to using the methods specified in Sec.  
63.144(b)(5)(i), you may conduct wastewater analyses using Method 1666 
or 1671 of 40 CFR part 136 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 you 
use Method 1666 or 1671 of 40 CFR part 136.
    (3) As an alternative to using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, as 
specified in Sec. Sec.  63.139(c)(1)(ii) and 63.145(i)(2), you may 
elect to use Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60 as specified in Sec.  63.997.
    (i) Offsite management and treatment option. (1) If you ship 
wastewater to an offsite treatment facility that meets the requirements 
of Sec.  63.138(h), you may elect to document in your notification of 
compliance status report that the wastewater will be treated as 
hazardous waste at a facility that meets the requirements of Sec.  
63.138(h) as an alternative to having the offsite facility submit the 
certification specified in Sec.  63.132(g)(2).
    (2) As an alternative to the management and treatment options 
specified in Sec.  63.132(g)(2), any affected

[[Page 63895]]

wastewater stream (or residual removed from an affected wastewater 
stream) with a total annual average concentration of compounds in Table 
8 to this subpart less than 50 ppmw may be transferred offsite in 
accordance with paragraphs (i)(2) (i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) The transferee (or you) must demonstrate that less than 5 
percent of the HAP in Table 9 to this subpart is emitted from the waste 
management units up to the activated sludge unit.
    (ii) The transferee must treat the wastewater stream or residual in 
a biological treatment unit in accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.138 and 
63.145 and the requirements referenced therein.
    (j) You must determine the annual average concentration and annual 
average flowrate for wastewater streams for each MCPU. The procedures 
for flexible operation units specified in Sec.  63.144 (b) and (c) do 
not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
    (k) The requirement to correct outlet concentrations from 
combustion devices to 3 percent oxygen in Sec. Sec.  63.139(c)(1)(ii) 
and 63.146(i)(6) applies only if supplemental gases are combined with a 
vent stream from a Group 1 wastewater stream. If emissions are 
controlled with a vapor recovery system as specified in Sec.  
63.139(c)(2), you must correct for supplemental gases as specified in 
Sec.  63.2460(c)(6).
    (l) Requirements for liquid streams in open systems. (1) References 
in Sec.  63.149 to Sec.  63.100(b) mean Sec.  63.2435(b) for the 
purposes of this subpart.
    (2) When Sec.  63.149(e) refers to 40 CFR 63.100(l) (1) or (2), 
Sec.  63.2445(a) applies for the purposes of this subpart.
    (3) When Sec.  63.149 uses the term ``chemical manufacturing 
process unit,'' the term ``MCPU'' applies for the purposes of this 
subpart.
    (4) When Sec.  63.149(e)(1) refers to characteristics of water that 
contain compounds in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, the 
characteristics specified in paragraphs (c) (1) through (3) of this 
section apply for the purposes of this subpart.
    (5) When Sec.  63.149(e)(2) refers to characteristics of water that 
contain compounds in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, the 
characteristics specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section apply for 
the purposes of this subpart.


Sec.  63.2490  What requirements must I meet for heat exchange systems?

    (a) You must comply with each requirement in Table 10 to this 
subpart that applies to your heat exchange systems, except as specified 
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (b) The phrase ``a chemical manufacturing process unit meeting the 
conditions of Sec.  63.100 (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section'' in 
Sec.  63.104(a) means ``an MCPU meeting the conditions of Sec.  
63.2435'' for the purposes of this subpart.
    (c) The reference to Sec.  63.100(c) in Sec.  63.104(a) does not 
apply for the purposes of this subpart.

Alternative Means of Compliance


Sec.  63.2495  How do I comply with the pollution prevention standard?

    (a) You may elect to comply with the pollution prevention 
alternative requirements specified in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of 
this section in lieu of the emission limitations and work practice 
standards contained in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart for any MCPU 
for which initial startup occurred before April 4, 2002.
    (1) You must reduce the production-indexed HAP consumption factor 
(HAP factor) by at least 65 percent from a 3-year average baseline 
beginning no earlier than the 1994 through 1996 calendar years. For any 
reduction in the HAP factor that you achieve by reducing HAP that are 
also volatile organic compounds (VOC), you must demonstrate an 
equivalent reduction in the production-indexed VOC consumption factor 
(VOC factor) on a mass basis. For any reduction in the HAP factor that 
you achieve by reducing a HAP that is not a VOC, you may not increase 
the VOC factor.
    (2) Any MCPU for which you seek to comply by using the pollution 
prevention alternative must begin with the same starting material(s) 
and end with the same product(s). You may not comply by eliminating any 
steps of a process by transferring the step offsite (to another 
manufacturing location). You may also not merge a solvent recovery step 
conducted offsite to onsite and as part of an existing process as a 
method of reducing consumption.
    (3) You may comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section for a series of processes, including situations where 
multiple processes are merged, if you demonstrate to the satisfaction 
of the Administrator that the multiple processes were merged after the 
baseline period into an existing process or processes.
    (b) Exclusions. (1) You must comply with the emission limitations 
and work practice standards contained in Tables 1 through 7 to this 
subpart for all HAP that are generated in the MCPU and that are not 
included in consumption, as defined in Sec.  63.2550. Hydrogen halides 
that are generated as a result of combustion control must be controlled 
according to the requirements of Sec.  63.994 and the requirements 
referenced therein.
    (2) You may not merge nondedicated formulation or nondedicated 
solvent recovery processes with any other processes.
    (c) Initial compliance procedures. To demonstrate initial 
compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, you must prepare a 
demonstration summary in accordance with paragraph (c) (1) of this 
section and calculate baseline and target annual HAP and VOC factors in 
accordance with paragraphs (c) (2) and (3) of this section.
    (1) Demonstration plan. You must prepare a pollution prevention 
demonstration plan that contains, at a minimum, the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) (i) through (iii) of this section for each MCPU for 
which you comply with paragraph (a) of this section.
    (i) Descriptions of the methodologies and forms used to measure and 
record consumption of HAP and VOC compounds.
    (ii) Descriptions of the methodologies and forms used to measure 
and record production of the product(s).
    (iii) Supporting documentation for the descriptions provided in 
accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section 
including, but not limited to, samples of operator log sheets and 
daily, monthly, and/or annual inventories of materials and products. 
You must describe how this documentation will be used to calculate the 
annual factors required in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) Baseline factors. You must calculate baseline HAP and VOC 
factors by dividing the consumption of total HAP and total VOC by the 
production rate, per process, for the first 3-year period in which the 
process was operational, beginning no earlier than the period 
consisting of the 1994 through 1996 calendar years.
    (3) Target annual factors. You must calculate target annual HAP and 
VOC factors. The target annual HAP factor must be equal to 35 percent 
of the baseline HAP factor. The target annual VOC factor must be lower 
than the baseline VOC factor by an amount equivalent to the reduction 
in any HAP that is also a VOC, on a mass basis. The target annual VOC 
factor may be the same as the baseline VOC factor if the only HAP you 
reduce is not a VOC.
    (d) Continuous compliance requirements. You must calculate annual 
rolling average values of the HAP and VOC factors (annual factors) in 
accordance with the procedures

[[Page 63896]]

specified in paragraphs (d) (1) through (3) of this section. To show 
continuous compliance, the annual factors must be equal to or less than 
the target annual factors calculated according to paragraph (c)(3) of 
this section.
    (1) To calculate the annual factors, you must divide the 
consumption of both total HAP and total VOC by the production rate, per 
process, for 12-month periods at the frequency specified in either 
paragraph (d) (2) or (3) of this section, as applicable.
    (2) For continuous processes, you must calculate the annual factors 
every 30 days for the 12-month period preceding the 30th day (i.e., 
annual rolling average calculated every 30 days). A process with both 
batch and continuous operations is considered a continuous process for 
the purposes of this section.
    (3) For batch processes, you must calculate the annual factors 
every 10 batches for the 12-month period preceding the 10th batch 
(i.e., annual rolling average calculated every 10 batches), except as 
specified in paragraphs (d)(3) (i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) If you produce more than 10 batches during a month, you must 
calculate the annual factors at least once during that month.
    (ii) If you produce less than 10 batches in a 12-month period, you 
must calculate the annual factors for the number of batches in the 12-
month period since the previous calculations.
    (e) Records. You must keep records of HAP and VOC consumption, 
production, and the rolling annual HAP and VOC factors for each MCPU 
for which you are complying with paragraph (a) of this section.
    (f) Reporting. (1) You must include the pollution prevention 
demonstration plan in the precompliance report required by Sec.  
63.2520(c).
    (2) You must identify all days when the annual factors were above 
the target factors in the compliance reports.


Sec.  63.2500  How do I comply with emissions averaging?

    (a) For an existing source, you may elect to comply with the 
percent reduction emission limitations in Tables 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 to 
this subpart by complying with the emissions averaging provisions 
specified in Sec.  63.150, except as specified in paragraphs (b) 
through (f) of this section.
    (b) The batch process vents in an MCPU collectively are considered 
one individual emission point for the purposes of emissions averaging, 
except that only individual batch process vents must be excluded to 
meet the requirements of Sec.  63.150(d)(5).
    (c) References in Sec.  63.150 to Sec. Sec.  63.112 through 63.130 
mean the corresponding requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.2450 through 
63.2490, including applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
    (d) References to ``periodic reports'' in Sec.  63.150 mean 
``compliance report'' for the purposes of this subpart.
    (e) For batch process vents, estimate uncontrolled emissions for a 
standard batch using the procedures in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii) 
instead of the procedures in Sec.  63.150(g)(2). Multiply the 
calculated emissions per batch by the number of batches per month when 
calculating the monthly emissions for use in calculating debits and 
credits.
    (f) References to ``storage vessels'' in Sec.  63.150 mean 
``storage tank'' as defined in Sec.  63.2550 for the purposes of this 
subpart.


Sec.  63.2505  How do I comply with the alternative standard?

    As an alternative to complying with the emission limits and work 
practice standards for process vents and storage tanks in Tables 1 
through 4 to this subpart and the requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.2455 
through 63.2470, you may comply with the emission limits in paragraph 
(a) of this section and demonstrate compliance in accordance with the 
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (a) Emission limits and work practice standards. (1) You must route 
vent streams through a closed-vent system to a control device that 
reduces HAP emissions as specified in either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or 
(ii) of this section.
    (i) If you use a combustion control device, it must reduce HAP 
emissions as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A), (B), and (C) of this 
section.
    (A) To an outlet TOC concentration of 20 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv) or less.
    (B) To an outlet concentration of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
of 20 ppmv or less.
    (C) As an alternative to paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) of this section, if 
you control halogenated vent streams emitted from a combustion device 
followed by a scrubber, reduce the hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
generated in the combustion device by greater than or equal to 95 
percent by weight in the scrubber.
    (ii) If you use a noncombustion control device(s), it must reduce 
HAP emissions to an outlet total organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv 
or less, and an outlet concentration of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
of 50 ppmv or less.
    (2) Any Group 1 process vents within a process that are not 
controlled according to this alternative standard must be controlled 
according to the emission limits in Tables 1 through 3 to this subpart.
    (b) Compliance requirements. To demonstrate compliance with 
paragraph (a) of this section, you must meet the requirements of Sec.  
63.1258(b)(5)(i) beginning no later than the initial compliance date 
specified in Sec.  63.2445, except as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must comply with the requirements in Sec.  63.983 and the 
requirements referenced therein for closed-vent systems.
    (2) When Sec.  63.1258(b)(5)(i) refers to Sec. Sec.  63.1253(d) and 
63.1254(c), the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section apply for 
the purposes of this subpart.
    (3) You must submit the results of any determination of the target 
analytes or predominant HAP in the notification of compliance status 
report.
    (4) When Sec.  63.1258(b)(5)(i)(B) refers to ``HCl,'' it means 
``total hydrogen halide and halogen HAP'' for the purposes of this 
subpart.
    (5) If you elect to comply with the requirement to reduce hydrogen 
halide and halogen HAP by greater than or equal to 95 percent by weight 
in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) of this section, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Demonstrate initial compliance with the 95 percent reduction by 
conducting a performance test and setting a site-specific operating 
limit(s) for the scrubber in accordance with Sec.  63.994 and the 
requirements referenced therein. You must submit the results of the 
initial compliance demonstration in the notification of compliance 
status report.
    (ii) Install, operate, and maintain CPMS for the scrubber as 
specified in Sec.  63.2450(k), instead of as specified in Sec.  
63.1258(b)(5)(i)(C).
    (6) If flow to the scrubber could be intermittent, you must 
install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator as specified in Sec.  
63.2460(c)(7).
    (7) Use the operating day as the averaging period for CEMS data and 
scrubber parameter monitoring data.

Notification, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.2515  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  
63.6(h)(4) and (5),

[[Page 63897]]

63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (6), and 63.9(b) through (h) that 
apply to you by the dates specified.
    (b) Initial notification. As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you 
startup your affected source before November 10, 2003, you must submit 
an initial notification not later than 120 calendar days after November 
10, 2003.
    (2) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(3), if you startup your new 
affected source on or after November 10, 2003, you must submit an 
initial notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become 
subject to this subpart.
    (c) Notification of performance test. If you are required to 
conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to 
conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the 
performance test is scheduled to begin as required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1). 
For any performance test required as part of the initial compliance 
procedures for batch process vents in Table 2 to this subpart, you must 
also submit the test plan required by Sec.  63.7(c) and the emission 
profile with the notification of the performance test.


Sec.  63.2520  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 11 to this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date in Table 11 to this subpart and according to paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.2445 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the first 6 months after the compliance 
date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.2445.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than August 31 or February 28, whichever date is the first date 
following the end of the first reporting period specified in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than August 31 or February 28, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (c) Precompliance report. You must submit a precompliance report to 
request approval for any of the items in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) 
of this section. We will either approve or disapprove the report within 
90 days after we receive it. If we disapprove the report, you must 
still be in compliance with the emission limitations and work practice 
standards in this subpart by the compliance date. To change any of the 
information submitted in the report, you must notify us 60 days before 
the planned change is to be implemented.
    (1) Requests for approval to set operating limits for parameters 
other than those specified in Sec. Sec.  63.2455 through 63.2485 and 
referenced therein. Alternatively, you may make these requests 
according to Sec.  63.8(f).
    (2) Descriptions of daily or per batch demonstrations to verify 
that control devices subject to Sec.  63.2460(c)(5) are operating as 
designed.
    (3) A description of the test conditions, data, calculations, and 
other information used to establish operating limits according to Sec.  
63.2460(c)(3).
    (4) Data and rationale used to support an engineering assessment to 
calculate uncontrolled emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(ii).
    (5) The pollution prevention demonstration plan required in Sec.  
63.2495(c)(1), if you are complying with the pollution prevention 
alternative.
    (6) Documentation of the practices that you will implement to 
minimize HAP emissions from streams that contain energetics and organic 
peroxides, and rationale for why meeting the emission limit specified 
in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart would create an undue safety 
hazard.
    (7) For fabric filters that are monitored with bag leak detectors, 
an operation and maintenance plan that describes proper operation and 
maintenance procedures, and a corrective action plan that describes 
corrective actions to be taken, and the timing of those actions, when 
the PM concentration exceeds the set point and activates the alarm.
    (d) Notification of compliance status report. You must submit a 
notification of compliance status report according to the schedule in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the notification of compliance 
status report must contain the information specified in paragraph 
(d)(2) of this section.
    (1) You must submit the notification of compliance status report no 
later than 150 days after the applicable compliance date specified in 
Sec.  63.2445.
    (2) The notification of compliance status report must include the 
information in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (ix) of this section.
    (i) The results of any applicability determinations, emission 
calculations, or analyses used to identify and quantify HAP emissions 
from the affected source.
    (ii) The results of emissions profiles, performance tests, 
engineering analyses, design evaluations, flare compliance assessments, 
inspections and repairs, and calculations used to demonstrate initial 
compliance according to Sec. Sec.  63.2455 through 63.2485. For 
performance tests, results must include descriptions of sampling and 
analysis procedures and quality assurance procedures.
    (iii) Descriptions of monitoring devices, monitoring frequencies, 
and the operating limits established during the initial compliance 
demonstrations, including data and calculations to support the levels 
you establish.
    (iv) All operating scenarios.
    (v) Descriptions of worst-case operating and/or testing conditions 
for control devices.
    (vi) Identification of parts of the affected source subject to 
overlapping requirements described in Sec.  63.2535 and the authority 
under which you will comply.
    (vii) The information specified in Sec.  63.1039(a)(1) through (3) 
for each process subject to the work practice standards for equipment 
leaks in Table 6 to this subpart.
    (viii) Identify storage tanks for which you are complying with the 
vapor balancing alternative in Sec.  63.2470(g).
    (ix) Records as specified in Sec.  63.2535(i)(1) through (3) of 
process units used to create a PUG and calculations of the initial 
primary product of the PUG.
    (e) Compliance report. The compliance report must contain the 
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (10) of this 
section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the 
report.

[[Page 63898]]

    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) For each SSM during which excess emissions occur, the 
compliance report must include records that the procedures specified in 
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) were followed or 
documentation of actions taken that are not consistent with the SSMP, 
and include a brief description of each malfunction.
    (5) The compliance report must contain the information on 
deviations, as defined in Sec.  63.2550, according to paragraphs 
(e)(5)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section.
    (i) If there are no deviations from any emission limit, operating 
limit or work practice standard specified in this subpart, include a 
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limits, 
operating limits, or work practice standards during the reporting 
period.
    (ii) For each deviation from an emission limit, operating limit, 
and work practice standard that occurs at an affected source where you 
are not using a continuous monitoring system (CMS) to comply with the 
emission limit or work practice standard in this subpart, you must 
include the information in paragraphs (e)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this 
section. This includes periods of SSM.
    (A) The total operating time of the affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (B) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (C) Operating logs for the day(s) during which the deviation 
occurred, except operating logs are not required for deviations of the 
work practice standards for equipment leaks.
    (iii) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit 
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply 
with an emission limit in this subpart, you must include the 
information in paragraphs (e)(5)(iii)(A) through (L) of this section. 
This includes periods of SSM.
    (A) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (B) The date, time, and duration that each CEMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (C) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (D) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total 
operating time of the affected source during that reporting period.
    (E) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (F) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent 
of the total operating time of the affected source during that 
reporting period.
    (G) An identification of each HAP that is known to be in the 
emission stream.
    (H) A brief description of the process units.
    (I) A brief description of the CMS.
    (J) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (K) Operating logs for each day(s) during which the deviation 
occurred.
    (L) The operating day or operating block average values of 
monitored parameters for each day(s) during which the deviation 
occurred.
    (6) If you use a CEMS, and there were no periods during which it 
was out-of-control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), include a 
statement that there were no periods during which the CEMS was out-of-
control during the reporting period.
    (7) Include each new operating scenario which has been operated 
since the time period covered by the last compliance report and has not 
been submitted in the notification of compliance status report or a 
previous compliance report. For each new operating scenario, you must 
provide verification that the operating conditions for any associated 
control or treatment device have not been exceeded and that any 
required calculations and engineering analyses have been performed. For 
the purposes of this paragraph, a revised operating scenario for an 
existing process is considered to be a new operating scenario.
    (8) Records of process units added to a PUG as specified in Sec.  
63.2525(i)(4) and records of primary product redeterminations as 
specified in Sec.  63.2525(i)(5).
    (9) Applicable records and information for periodic reports as 
specified in referenced subparts F, G, SS, UU, WW, and GGG of this 
part.
    (10) Notification of process change. (i) Except as specified in 
paragraph (e)(10)(ii) of this section, whenever you make a process 
change, or change any of the information submitted in the notification 
of compliance status report, that is not within the scope of an 
existing operating scenario, you must document the change in your 
compliance report. A process change does not include moving within a 
range of conditions identified in the standard batch. The notification 
must include all of the information in paragraphs (e)(10)(i)(A) through 
(C) of this section.
    (A) A description of the process change.
    (B) Revisions to any of the information reported in the original 
notification of compliance status report under paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (C) Information required by the notification of compliance status 
report under paragraph (d) of this section for changes involving the 
addition of processes or equipment at the affected source.
    (ii) You must submit a report 60 days before the scheduled 
implementation date of any of the changes identified in paragraph 
(e)(10)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.
    (A) Any change to the information contained in the precompliance 
report.
    (B) A change in the status of a control device from small to large.
    (C) A change from Group 2 to Group 1 for any emission point.


Sec.  63.2525  What records must I keep?

    You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (k) 
of this section.
    (a) Each applicable record required by subpart A of this part 63 
and in referenced subparts F, G, SS, UU, WW, and GGG of this part 63.
    (b) Records of each operating scenario as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) A description of the process and the type of process equipment 
used.
    (2) An identification of related process vents, including their 
associated emissions episodes if not complying with the alternative 
standard in Sec.  63.2505; wastewater point of determination (POD); 
storage tanks; and transfer racks.
    (3) The applicable control requirements of this subpart, including 
the level of required control, and for vents, the level of control for 
each vent.
    (4) The control device or treatment process used, as applicable, 
including a description of operating and/or testing conditions for any 
associated control device.
    (5) The process vents, wastewater POD, transfer racks, and storage 
tanks (including those from other processes) that are simultaneously 
routed to the control device or treatment process(s).

[[Page 63899]]

    (6) The applicable monitoring requirements of this subpart and any 
parametric level that assures compliance for all emissions routed to 
the control device or treatment process.
    (7) Calculations and engineering analyses required to demonstrate 
compliance.
    (8) For reporting purposes, a change to any of these elements not 
previously reported, except for paragraph (b)(5) of this section, 
constitutes a new operating scenario.
    (c) A schedule or log of operating scenarios updated each time a 
different operating scenario is put into operation.
    (d) The information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 
section for Group 1 batch process vents in compliance with a percent 
reduction emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart if some of the 
vents are controlled to less the percent reduction requirement.
    (1) Records of whether each batch operated was considered a 
standard batch.
    (2) The estimated uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each 
batch that is considered to be a nonstandard batch.
    (e) The information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of 
this section for each process with Group 2 batch process vents or 
uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions from the sum of 
all batch and continuous process vents less than 1,000 lb/yr. No record 
is required if you documented in the notification of compliance status 
report that the MCPU does not process, use, or produce HAP.
    (1) A record of the day each batch was completed.
    (2) A record of whether each batch operated was considered a 
standard batch.
    (3) The estimated uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each 
batch that is considered to be a nonstandard batch.
    (4) Records of the daily 365-day rolling summations of emissions, 
or alternative records that correlate to the emissions (e.g., number of 
batches), calculated no less frequently than monthly.
    (f) A record of each time a safety device is opened to avoid unsafe 
conditions in accordance with Sec.  63.2450(s).
    (g) Records of the results of each CPMS calibration check and the 
maintenance performed, as specified in Sec.  63.2450(k)(1).
    (h) For each CEMS, you must keep records of the date and time that 
each deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another 
period.
    (i) For each PUG, you must keep records specified in paragraphs 
(i)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Descriptions of the MCPU and other process units in the initial 
PUG required by Sec.  63.2535(l)(1)(v).
    (2) Rationale for including each MCPU and other process unit in the 
initial PUG (i.e., identify the overlapping equipment between process 
units) required by Sec.  63.2535(l)(1)(v).
    (3) Calculations used to determine the primary product for the 
initial PUG required by Sec.  63.2535(l)(2)(iv).
    (4) Descriptions of process units added to the PUG after the 
creation date and rationale for including the additional process units 
in the PUG as required by Sec.  63.2535(l)(1)(v).
    (5) The calculation of each primary product redetermination 
required by Sec.  63.2535(l)(2)(iv).
    (j) In the SSMP required by Sec.  63.6(e)(3), you are not required 
to include Group 2 emission points, unless those emission points are 
used in an emissions average. For equipment leaks, the SSMP requirement 
is limited to control devices and is optional for other equipment.
    (k) For each bag leak detector used to monitor PM HAP emissions 
from a fabric filter, maintain records of any bag leak detection alarm, 
including the date and time, with a brief explanation of the cause of 
the alarm and the corrective action taken.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.2535  What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is 
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?

    For any equipment, emission stream, or wastewater stream subject to 
the provisions of both this subpart and another rule, you may elect to 
comply only with the provisions as specified in paragraphs (a) through 
(l) of this section. You also must identify the subject equipment, 
emission stream, or wastewater stream, and the provisions with which 
you will comply, in your notification of compliance status report 
required by Sec.  63.2520(d).
    (a) Compliance with other subparts of this part 63. If you have an 
MCPU that includes a batch process vent that also is part of a CMPU as 
defined in subparts F and G of this part 63, you must comply with the 
emission limits; operating limits; work practice standards; and the 
compliance, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 
batch process vents in this subpart, and you must continue to comply 
with the requirements in subparts F, G, and H of this part 63 that are 
applicable to the CMPU and associated equipment.
    (b) Compliance with 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts AA, BB, and/
or CC. (1) After the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2445, if a 
control device that you use to comply with this subpart is also subject 
to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 
264, subpart AA, BB, or CC; or the monitoring and recordkeeping 
requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart AA, BB, or CC; and you comply 
with the periodic reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 264, subpart 
AA, BB, or CC that would apply to the device if your facility had 
final-permitted status, you may elect to comply either with the 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart; 
or with the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 
264 or 265 and the reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 264, as 
described in this paragraph (b)(1), which constitute compliance with 
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this 
subpart. If you elect to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts 264 and/or 265, you must report 
the information described in Sec.  63.2520(e).
    (2) After the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2445, if you 
have an affected source with equipment that is also subject to 40 CFR 
part 264, subpart BB, or to 40 CFR part 265, subpart BB, then 
compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR 
parts 264 and/or 265 may be used to comply with the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements of this subpart, to the extent that the 
requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 and/or 265 duplicate the requirements 
of this subpart.
    (c) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart Y. After the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2445, you 
are in compliance with the provisions of this subpart FFFF for any 
storage tank that is assigned to an MCPU and that is both controlled 
with a floating roof and in compliance with the provisions of either 40 
CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y. You are in 
compliance with this subpart FFFF if you have a storage tank with a 
fixed roof, closed-vent system, and control device in compliance with 
the provisions of either 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart Y, except that you must comply with the monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this subpart FFFF. 
Alternatively, if a storage tank assigned to an MCPU is subject to 
control under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, 
you may elect to

[[Page 63900]]

comply only with the requirements for Group 1 storage tanks in this 
subpart FFFF.
    (d) Compliance with subpart I, GGG, or MMM of this part 63. After 
the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2445, if you have an 
affected source with equipment subject to subpart I, GGG, or MMM of 
this part 63, you may elect to comply with the provisions of subpart H, 
GGG, or MMM of this part 63, respectively, for all such equipment.
    (e) Compliance with subpart GGG of this part 63 for wastewater. 
After the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2445, if you have an 
affected source subject to this subpart and you have an affected source 
that generates wastewater streams that meet the applicability 
thresholds specified in Sec.  63.1256, you may elect to comply with the 
provisions of this subpart FFFF for all such wastewater streams.
    (f) Compliance with subpart MMM of this part 63 for wastewater. 
After the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2445, if you have an 
affected source subject to this subpart, and you have an affected 
source that generates wastewater streams that meet the applicability 
thresholds specified in Sec.  63.1362(d), you may elect to comply with 
the provisions of this subpart FFFF for all such wastewater streams 
(except that the 99 percent reduction requirement for streams subject 
to Sec.  63.1362(d)(10) still applies).
    (g) Compliance with other regulations for wastewater. After the 
compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2445, if you have a Group 1 
wastewater stream that is also subject to provisions in 40 CFR parts 
260 through 272, you may elect to determine whether this subpart or 40 
CFR parts 260 through 272 contain the more stringent control 
requirements (e.g., design, operation, and inspection requirements for 
waste management units; numerical treatment standards; etc.) and the 
more stringent testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements. Compliance with provisions of 40 CFR parts 260 through 
272 that are determined to be more stringent than the requirements of 
this subpart constitute compliance with this subpart. For example, 
provisions of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272 for treatment units that 
meet the conditions specified in Sec.  63.138(h) constitute compliance 
with this subpart. You must identify in the notification of compliance 
status report required by Sec.  63.2520(d) the information and 
procedures that you used to make any stringency determinations.
    (h) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD, III, NNN, or RRR. 
After the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2445, if you have an 
MCPU that contains equipment subject to the provisions of this subpart 
that are also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD, 
III, NNN, or RRR, you may elect to apply this subpart to all such 
equipment in the MCPU. If an MCPU subject to the provisions of this 
subpart has equipment to which this subpart does not apply but which is 
subject to a standard in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD, III, NNN, or RRR, 
you may elect to comply with the requirements for Group 1 process vents 
in this subpart for such equipment. If you elect any of these methods 
of compliance, you must consider all total organic compounds, minus 
methane and ethane, in such equipment for purposes of compliance with 
this subpart, as if they were organic HAP. Compliance with the 
provisions of this subpart, in the manner described in this paragraph 
(h), will constitute compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD, III, 
NNN, or RRR, as applicable.
    (i) Compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB. (1) After the 
compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2445, a Group 1 transfer rack, 
as defined in Sec.  63.2550, that is also subject to the provisions of 
40 CFR part 61, subpart BB, you are required to comply only with the 
provisions of this subpart.
    (2) After the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2445, a Group 
2 transfer rack, as defined in Sec.  63.2550, that is also subject to 
the provisions of 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB, is required to comply 
with the provisions of either paragraph (l)(2)(i) or (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) If the transfer rack is subject to the control requirements 
specified in Sec.  61.302 of 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB, then you may 
elect to comply with either the requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart 
BB, or the requirements for Group 1 transfer racks under this subpart 
FFFF.
    (ii) If the transfer rack is subject only to reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements under 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB, then you 
are required to comply only with the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements specified in this subpart for Group 2 transfer racks, and 
you are exempt from the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 
CFR part 61, subpart BB.
    (j) Compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. After the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  63.2445, for a Group 1 or Group 2 
wastewater stream that is also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 
61.342(c) through (h), and is not exempt under 40 CFR 61.342(c)(2) or 
(3), you may elect to comply only with the requirements for Group 1 
wastewater streams in this subpart FFFF. If a Group 2 wastewater stream 
is exempted from 40 CFR 61.342(c)(1) under 40 CFR 61.342(c)(2) or (3), 
then you are required to comply only with the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements specified in this subpart for Group 2 
wastewater streams, and you are exempt from the requirements in 40 CFR 
part 61, subpart FF.
    (k) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, and 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart V. After the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.2445, if you 
have an affected source with equipment that is also subject to the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart 
V, you may elect to apply this subpart to all such equipment. 
Alternatively, if you have an affected source with no continuous 
process vents and equipment that is also subject to the requirements of 
40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, you may elect 
to comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, 
as applicable, for all such equipment.
    (l) Applicability of process units included in a process unit 
group. You may elect to develop and comply with the requirements for 
PUG in accordance with paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Procedures to create process unit groups. Develop and document 
changes in a PUG in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) Initially, identify an MCPU that is created from nondedicated 
equipment that will operate on or after November 10, 2003 and identify 
all processing equipment that is part of this MCPU, based on 
descriptions in operating scenarios.
    (ii) Add to the group any other nondedicated MCPU and other 
nondedicated process units expected to be operated in the 5 years after 
the date specified in paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this section, provided 
they satisfy the criteria specified in paragraphs (l)(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 process unit that is added to a group must have some 
processing equipment that is also part of one or more process units in 
the group.
    (B) No process unit may be part of more than one PUG.
    (C) The processing equipment used to satisfy the requirement of 
paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(A) of this section may not be a storage tank or 
control device.

[[Page 63901]]

    (iii) The initial PUG consists of all of the processing equipment 
for the process units identified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (ii) of 
this section. As an alternative to the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, you may use a PUG that 
was developed in accordance with Sec.  63.1360(h) as your initial PUG.
    (iv) Add process units developed in the future in accordance with 
the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 
section.
    (v) Maintain records that describe the process units in the initial 
PUG, the procedure used to create the PUG, and subsequent changes to 
each PUG as specified in Sec.  63.2525(i). Submit the records in 
reports as specified in Sec.  63.2520(d)(2)(ix) and (e)(8).
    (2) Determine primary product. You must determine the primary 
product of each PUG created in paragraph (l)(1) of this section 
according to the procedures specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through 
(iv) of this section.
    (i) The primary product is the type of product (e.g., organic 
chemicals subject to Sec.  63.2435(b)(1), pharmaceutical products 
subject to Sec.  63.1250, or pesticide active ingredients subject to 
Sec.  63.1360) expected to be produced for the greatest operating time 
in the 5-year period specified in paragraph (l)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) If the PUG produces multiple types of products equally based 
on operating time, then the primary product is the type of product with 
the greatest production on a mass basis over the 5-year period 
specified in paragraph (l)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (iii) At a minimum, you must redetermine the primary product of the 
PUG following the procedure specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and (ii) 
of this section every 5 years.
    (iv) You must record the calculation of the initial primary product 
determination as specified in Sec.  63.2525(i)(3) and report the 
results in the notification of compliance status report as specified in 
Sec.  63.2520(d)(8)(ix). You must record the calculation of each 
redetermination of the primary product as specified in Sec.  
63.2525(i)(5) and report the calculation in a compliance report 
submitted no later than the report covering the period for the end of 
the 5th year after cessation of production of the previous primary 
product, as specified in Sec.  63.2520(e)(8).
    (3) Compliance requirements. (i) If the primary product of the PUG 
is determined according to paragraph (l)(2) of this section to be 
material described in Sec.  63.2435(b)(1), then you must comply with 
this subpart for each MCPU in the PUG. You may also elect to comply 
with this subpart for all other process units in the PUG, which 
constitutes compliance with other part 63 rules.
    (ii) If the primary product of the PUG is determined according to 
paragraph (l)(2) of this section to be material not described in Sec.  
63.2435(b)(1), then you must comply with paragraph (l)(3)(ii)(A), (B), 
or (C) of this section, as applicable.
    (A) If the primary product is subject to subpart GGG of this part 
63, then comply with the requirements of subpart GGG for each MCPU in 
the PUG.
    (B) If the primary product is subject to subpart MMM of this part 
63, then comply with the requirements of subpart MMM for each MCPU in 
the PUG.
    (C) If the primary product is subject to any subpart in this part 
63 other than subpart GGG or subpart MMM, then comply with the 
requirements of this subpart for each MCPU in the PUG.
    (iii) The requirements for new and reconstructed sources in the 
alternative subpart apply to all MCPU in the PUG if and only if the 
affected source under the alternative subpart meets the requirements 
for construction or reconstruction.


Sec.  63.2540  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 12 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 
Provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


Sec.  63.2545  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated authority 
such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal 
agency, then that agency also has the authority to implement and 
enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office 
to find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or 
tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) 
of this section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are 
not delegated to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission limits and 
work practice standards in Sec.  63.2450(a) under Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.2550  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    (a) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 
subpart SS of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in 
subpart SS of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.  63.981, 
except as specified in Sec. Sec.  63.2450(k)(2) and (m), 63.2470(c)(2), 
63.2475(b), and paragraph (i) of this section.
    (b) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 
subpart TT of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in 
subpart TT of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.  
63.1001.
    (c) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 
subpart UU of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in 
subpart UU of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.  
63.1020.
    (d) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 
subpart WW of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and subpart 
WW of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.  63.1061, except 
as specified in Sec. Sec.  63.2450(m), 63.2470(c)(2), and paragraph (i) 
of this section.
    (e) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  63.132 through 63.149, the terms used in this subpart and 
Sec. Sec.  63.132 through 63.149 have the meaning given them in 
Sec. Sec.  63.101 and 63.111, except as specified in Sec.  63.2450(m) 
and paragraph (i) of this section.
    (f) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  63.104 and 63.105, the terms used in this subpart and in 
Sec. Sec.  63.104 and 63.105 of this subpart have the meaning given 
them in Sec.  63.101, except as specified in Sec. Sec.  63.2450(m), 
63.2490(b), and paragraph (i) of this section.
    (g) For an affected source complying with requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  63.1253, 63.1257, and 63.1258, the terms used in this 
subpart and in Sec. Sec.  63.1253, 63.1257, and 63.1258 have the 
meaning given them in Sec.  63.1251, except as specified in Sec.  
63.2450(m) and paragraph (i) of this section.
    (h) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 40 
CFR part 65, subpart F, the terms used in this subpart and in 40 CFR 
part 65, subpart

[[Page 63902]]

F, have the meaning given them in 40 CFR 65.2.
    (i) All other terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean 
Air Act (CAA), in 40 CFR 63.2, and in this paragraph (i). If a term is 
defined in Sec.  63.2, Sec.  63.101, Sec.  63.111, Sec.  63.981, Sec.  
63.1001, Sec.  63.1020, Sec.  63.1061, Sec.  63.1251, or Sec.  65.2 and 
in this paragraph (i), the definition in this paragraph (i) applies for 
the purposes of this subpart.
    Ancillary activities means boilers and incinerators (not used to 
comply with the emission limits in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart), 
chillers and refrigeration systems, and other equipment and activities 
that are not directly involved (i.e., they operate within a closed 
system and materials are not combined with process fluids) in the 
processing of raw materials or the manufacturing of a product or 
isolated intermediate.
    Batch operation means a noncontinuous operation involving 
intermittent or discontinuous feed into equipment, and, in general, 
involves the emptying of the equipment after the operation ceases and 
prior to beginning a new operation. Addition of raw material and 
withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a batch operation.
    Batch process vent means a vent from a unit operation or vents from 
multiple unit operations within a process that are manifolded together 
into a common header, through which a HAP-containing gas stream is, or 
has the potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Examples of batch 
process vents include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used 
for product recovery, reactors, filters, centrifuges, and process 
tanks. The following are not batch process vents for the purposes of 
this subpart:
    (1) Continuous process vents;
    (2) Bottoms receivers;
    (3) Surge control vessels;
    (4) Gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas system(s);
    (5) Vents on storage tanks, wastewater emission sources, or pieces 
of equipment subject to the emission limits and work practice standards 
in Tables 4, 6, and 7 to this subpart;
    (6) Drums, pails, and totes;
    (7) Flexible elephant trunk systems that draw ambient air (i.e., 
the system is not ducted, piped, or otherwise connected to the unit 
operations) away from operators when vessels are opened; and
    (8) Emission streams from emission episodes that are undiluted and 
uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP or less than 200 lb/yr. 
The HAP concentration or mass emission rate may be determined using any 
of the following: process knowledge that no HAP are present in the 
emission stream; an engineering assessment as discussed in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(ii); equations specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i), as 
applicable; test data using Methods 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; 
or any other test method that has been validated according to the 
procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part 63.
    Bottoms receiver means a tank that collects bottoms from continuous 
distillation before the stream is sent for storage or for further 
downstream processing.
    Construction means the onsite fabrication, erection, or 
installation of an affected source or MCPU. Addition of new equipment 
to an MCPU subject to existing source standards does not constitute 
construction, but it may constitute reconstruction of the affected 
source or MCPU if it satisfies the definition of reconstruction in 
Sec.  63.2.
    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 a HAP is generated in 
the process as well as added as a raw material, consumption includes 
the quantity generated in the process.
    Continuous process vent means the point of discharge to the 
atmosphere (or the point of entry into a control device, if any) of a 
gas stream if the gas stream has the characteristics specified in Sec.  
63.107(b) through (h), or meets the criteria specified in Sec.  
63.107(i), except:
    (1) The reference in Sec.  63.107(e) to a chemical manufacturing 
process unit that meets the criteria of Sec.  63.100(b) means an MCPU 
that meets the criteria of Sec.  63.2435(b);
    (2) The reference in Sec.  63.107(h)(4) to Sec.  63.113 means Table 
1 to this subpart;
    (3) The references in Sec.  63.107(h)(7) to Sec. Sec.  63.119 and 
63.126 mean Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart; and
    (4) For the purposes of Sec.  63.2455, all references to the 
characteristics of a process vent (e.g., flowrate, total HAP 
concentration, or TRE index value) mean the characteristics of the gas 
stream.
    Dedicated MCPU means an MCPU that consists of equipment that is 
used exclusively for one process, except that storage tanks assigned to 
the process according to the procedures in Sec.  63.2435(d) also may be 
shared by other processes.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limit, operating limit, or work 
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart.
    Energetics means propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics and 
include materials listed at 49 CFR 172.101 as Hazard Class I Hazardous 
Materials, Divisions 1.1 through 1.6.
    Equipment means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief 
device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, 
connector, and instrumentation system in organic HAP service; and any 
control devices or systems used to comply with Table 6 to this subpart.
    Excess emissions means emissions greater than those allowed by the 
emission limit.
    Family of materials means a grouping of materials with the same 
basic composition or the same basic end use or functionality produced 
using the same basic feedstocks with essentially identical HAP emission 
profiles (primary constituent and relative magnitude on a pound per 
product basis) and manufacturing equipment configuration. Examples of 
families of materials include multiple grades of the same product or 
different variations of a product (e.g., blue, black, and red resins).
    Group 1 batch process vent means each of the batch process vents in 
a process for which the collective uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 
from all of the batch process vents are greater than or equal to 10,000 
lb/yr at an existing source or greater than or equal to 3,000 lb/yr at 
a new source.
    Group 2 batch process vent means each batch process vent that does 
not meet the definition of Group 1 batch process vent.
    Group 1 continuous process vent means a continuous process vent 
with a total resource effectiveness index value, calculated according 
to Sec.  63.2455(b), that is less than 1.9 at an existing source and 
less than 5.0 at a new source.
    Group 2 continuous process vent means a continuous process vent 
that

[[Page 63903]]

does not meet the definition of a Group 1 continuous process vent.
    Group 1 storage tank means a storage tank with a capacity greater 
than or equal to 10,000 gal storing material that has a maximum true 
vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal to 6.9 kilopascals at 
an existing source or greater than or equal to 0.69 kilopascals at a 
new source.
    Group 2 storage tank means a storage tank that does not meet the 
definition of a Group 1 storage tank.
    Group 1 transfer rack means a transfer rack that loads more than 
0.65 million liters/year of liquids that contain organic HAP with a 
rack-weighted average partial pressure, as defined in Sec.  63.111, 
greater than or equal to 1.5 pound per square inch absolute.
    Group 2 transfer rack means a transfer rack that does not meet the 
definition of a Group 1 transfer rack.
    Group 1 wastewater stream means a wastewater stream consisting of 
process wastewater at an existing or new source that meets the criteria 
for Group 1 status in Sec.  63.2485(c) for compounds in Tables 8 and 9 
to this subpart and/or a wastewater stream consisting of process 
wastewater at a new source that meets the criteria for Group 1 status 
in Sec.  63.132(d) for compounds in Table 8 to subpart G of this part 
63.
    Group 2 wastewater stream means any process wastewater stream that 
does not meet the definition of a Group 1 wastewater stream.
    Halogenated vent stream means a vent stream determined to have a 
mass emission rate of halogen atoms contained in organic compounds of 
0.45 kilograms per hour or greater determined by the procedures 
presented in Sec.  63.115(d)(2)(v).
    Hydrogen halide and halogen HAP means hydrogen chloride, hydrogen 
fluoride, and chlorine.
    In organic HAP service means that a piece of equipment either 
contains or contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 5 percent 
by weight of total organic HAP as determined according to the 
provisions of Sec.  63.180(d). The provisions of Sec.  63.180(d) also 
specify how to determine that a piece of equipment is not in organic 
HAP service.
    Isolated intermediate means a product of a process that is stored 
before subsequent processing. An isolated intermediate is usually a 
product of a chemical synthesis, fermentation, or biological extraction 
process. Storage of an isolated intermediate marks the end of a 
process. Storage occurs at any time the intermediate is placed in 
equipment used solely for storage.
    Large control device means a control device that controls total HAP 
emissions of greater than or equal to 10 tpy, before control.
    Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining 
of process fluid from components in the MCPU into an individual drain 
system in preparation for or during maintenance activities. Maintenance 
wastewater can be generated during planned and unplanned shutdowns and 
during periods not associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities 
that can generate maintenance wastewater include descaling of heat 
exchanger tubing bundles, cleaning of distillation column traps, 
draining of pumps into an individual drain system, and draining of 
portions of the MCPU for repair. Wastewater from routine cleaning 
operations occurring as part of batch operations is not considered 
maintenance wastewater.
    Maximum true vapor pressure has the meaning given in Sec.  63.111, 
except that it applies to all HAP rather than only organic HAP.
    Miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process means all 
equipment which collectively function to produce a product or isolated 
intermediate that are materials described in Sec.  63.2435(b). For the 
purposes of this subpart, process includes any, all or a combination of 
reaction, recovery, separation, purification, or other activity, 
operation, manufacture, or treatment which are used to produce a 
product or isolated intermediate. A process is also defined by the 
following:
    (1) Routine cleaning operations conducted as part of batch 
operations are considered part of the process;
    (2) Each nondedicated solvent recovery operation is considered a 
single process;
    (3) Each nondedicated formulation operation is considered a single 
process that is used to formulate numerous materials and/or products;
    (4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories are not 
considered part of any process; and
    (5) Ancillary activities are not considered a process or part of 
any process.
    Nondedicated solvent recovery operation means a distillation unit 
or other purification equipment that receives used solvent from more 
than one MCPU.
    Nonstandard batch means a batch process that is operated outside of 
the range of operating conditions that are documented in an existing 
operating scenario but is still a reasonably anticipated event. For 
example, a nonstandard batch occurs when additional processing or 
processing at different operating conditions must be conducted to 
produce a product that is normally produced under the conditions 
described by the standard batch. A nonstandard batch may be necessary 
as a result of a malfunction, but it is not itself a malfunction.
    On-site or on site means, with respect to records required to be 
maintained by this subpart or required by another subpart referenced by 
this subpart, that records are stored at a location within a major 
source which encompasses the affected source. On-site includes, but is 
not limited to, storage at the affected source or MCPU to which the 
records pertain, or storage in central files elsewhere at the major 
source.
    Operating scenario means, for the purposes of reporting and 
recordkeeping, any specific operation of an MCPU as described by 
records specified in Sec.  63.2525(b).
    Organic group means structures that contain primarily carbon, 
hydrogen, and oxygen atoms.
    Organic peroxides means organic compounds containing the bivalent -
o-o-structure which may be considered to be a structural derivative of 
hydrogen peroxide where one or both of the hydrogen atoms has been 
replaced by an organic radical.
    Predominant HAP means as used in calibrating an analyzer, the 
single organic HAP that constitutes the largest percentage of the total 
organic HAP in the analyzed gas stream, by volume.
    Process tank means a tank or vessel that is used within a process 
to collect material discharged from a feedstock storage tank or 
equipment within the process before the material is transferred to 
other equipment within the process or a product storage tank. A process 
tank has emissions that are related to the characteristics of the batch 
cycle, and it does not accumulate product over multiple batches. Surge 
control vessels and bottoms receivers are not process tanks.
    Production-indexed HAP consumption factor (HAP factor) means the 
result of dividing the annual consumption of total HAP by the annual 
production rate, per process.
    Production-indexed VOC consumption factor (VOC factor) means the 
result of dividing the annual consumption of total VOC by the annual 
production rate, per process.
    Quaternary ammonium compounds means a type of organic nitrogen 
compound in which the molecular structure includes a central nitrogen 
atom joined to four organic groups as well as an acid radical of some 
sort.

[[Page 63904]]

    Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment used for the 
purpose of recovering chemicals from process vent streams for reuse in 
a process at the affected source and from wastewater streams for fuel 
value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse, or for sale for 
fuel value, use or reuse. Examples of equipment that may be recovery 
devices include absorbers, carbon adsorbers, condensers, oil-water 
separators or organic-water separators, or organic removal devices such 
as decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation units. To be a 
recovery device for a wastewater stream, a decanter and any other 
equipment based on the operating principle of gravity separation must 
receive only multi-phase liquid streams.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Safety device means a closure device such as a pressure relief 
valve, frangible disc, fusible plug, or any other type of device which 
functions exclusively to prevent physical damage or permanent 
deformation to a unit or its air emission control equipment by venting 
gases or vapors directly to the atmosphere during unsafe conditions 
resulting from an unplanned, accidental, or emergency event. For the 
purposes of this subpart, a safety device is not used for routine 
venting of gases or vapors from the vapor headspace underneath a cover 
such as during filling of the unit or to adjust the pressure in 
response to normal daily diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations. A 
safety device is designed to remain in a closed position during normal 
operations and open only when the internal pressure, or another 
relevant parameter, exceeds the device threshold setting applicable to 
the air emission control equipment as determined by the owner or 
operator based on manufacturer recommendations, applicable regulations, 
fire protection and prevention codes and practices, or other 
requirements for the safe handling of flammable, combustible, 
explosive, reactive, or hazardous materials.
    Shutdown means the cessation of operation of a continuous operation 
for any purpose. Shutdown also means the cessation of a batch 
operation, or any related individual piece of equipment required or 
used to comply with this subpart, if the steps taken to cease operation 
differ from those described in a standard batch or nonstandard batch. 
Shutdown also applies to emptying and degassing storage vessels. 
Shutdown does not apply to cessation of batch operations at the end of 
a campaign or between batches within a campaign when the steps taken 
are routine operations.
    Small control device means a control device that controls total HAP 
emissions of less than 10 tpy, before control.
    Standard batch means a batch process operated within a range of 
operating conditions that are documented in an operating scenario. 
Emissions from a standard batch are based on the operating conditions 
that result in highest emissions. The standard batch defines the 
uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each emission episode defined 
under the operating scenario.
    Startup means the setting in operation of a continuous operation 
for any purpose; the first time a new or reconstructed batch operation 
begins production; for new equipment added, including equipment 
required or used to comply with this subpart, the first time the 
equipment is put into operation; or for the introduction of a new 
product/process, the first time the product or process is run in 
equipment. For batch operations, startup applies to the first time the 
equipment is put into operation at the start of a campaign to produce a 
product that has been produced in the past if the steps taken to begin 
production differ from those specified in a standard batch or 
nonstandard batch. Startup does not apply when the equipment is put 
into operation as part of a batch within a campaign when the steps 
taken are routine operations.
    Storage tank means a tank or other vessel that is used to store 
liquids that contain organic HAP and/or hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
and that has been assigned to an MCPU according to the procedures in 
Sec.  63.2435(d). The following are not considered storage tanks for 
the purposes of this subpart:
    (1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks, 
railcars, barges, or ships;
    (2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere;
    (3) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain HAP only as 
impurities;
    (4) Wastewater storage tanks;
    (5) Bottoms receivers;
    (6) Surge control vessels; and
    (7) Process tanks.
    Supplemental gases are any gaseous streams that are not defined as 
process vents, or closed-vent systems from wastewater management and 
treatment units, storage tanks, or equipment components and that 
contain less than 50 ppmv TOC, as determined through process knowledge, 
that are introduced into vent streams or manifolds. Air required to 
operate combustion device burner(s) is not considered supplemental gas.
    Surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums, and 
intermediate vessels immediately preceding continuous reactors, air-
oxidation reactors, or distillation operations. Surge control vessels 
are used within an MCPU when in-process storage, mixing, or management 
of flowrates or volumes is needed to introduce material into continuous 
reactors, air-oxidation reactors, or distillation operations.
    Total organic compounds or (TOC) means the total gaseous organic 
compounds (minus methane and ethane) in a vent stream.
    Transfer rack means the collection of loading arms and loading 
hoses, at a single loading rack, that are assigned to an MCPU according 
to the procedures specified in Sec.  63.2435(d) and are used to fill 
tank trucks and/or rail cars with organic liquids that contain one or 
more of the organic HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA of this 
subpart. Transfer rack includes the associated pumps, meters, shutoff 
valves, relief valves, and other piping and valves.
    Unit operation means those processing steps that occur within 
distinct equipment that are used, among other things, to prepare 
reactants, facilitate reactions, separate and purify products, and 
recycle materials. Equipment used for these purposes includes, but is 
not limited to, reactors, distillation columns, extraction columns, 
absorbers, decanters, dryers, condensers, and filtration equipment.
    Waste management unit means the equipment, structure(s), and/or 
device(s) used to convey, store, treat, or dispose of wastewater 
streams or residuals. Examples of waste management units include 
wastewater tanks, air flotation units, surface impoundments, 
containers, oil-water or organic-water separators, individual drain 
systems, biological wastewater treatment units, waste incinerators, and 
organic removal devices such as steam and air stripper units, and thin 
film evaporation units. If such equipment is being operated as a 
recovery device, then it is part of a miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing process and is not a waste management unit.
    Wastewater means water that is discarded from an MCPU through a 
single POD and that contains either: an annual average concentration of 
compounds in Table 8 or 9 to this subpart of at least 5 ppmw and has an 
annual average flowrate of 0.02 liters per minute or greater; or an 
annual average concentration of compounds in Table 8 or 9 to this 
subpart of at least 10,000 ppmw at any flowrate. The

[[Page 63905]]

following are not considered wastewater for the purposes of this 
subpart:
    (1) Stormwater from segregated sewers;
    (2) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including testing 
of such systems;
    (3) Spills;
    (4) Water from safety showers;
    (5) Samples of a size not greater than reasonably necessary for the 
method of analysis that is used;
    (6) Equipment leaks;
    (7) Wastewater drips from procedures such as disconnecting hoses 
after cleaning lines; and
    (8) Noncontact cooling water.
    Wastewater stream means a stream that contains only wastewater as 
defined in this paragraph (h).
    Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, 
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated 
pursuant to section 112(h) of the CAA.

Tables to Subpart FFFF of Part 63

    As required in Sec.  63.2455, you must meet each emission limit and 
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your 
continuous process vents:

  Table 1 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards for Continuous Process Vents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             For each . . .                     For which . . .                   Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 continuous process vent......  a. Not applicable..........  i. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP
                                                                        by =98 percent by weight or
                                                                        to an outlet process concentration <=20
                                                                        ppmv as organic HAP or TOC by venting
                                                                        emissions through a closed-vent system
                                                                        to any combination of control devices
                                                                        (except a flare); or
                                                                       ii. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP
                                                                        by venting emissions through a closed
                                                                        vent system to a flare; or
                                                                       iii. Use a recovery device to maintain
                                                                        the TRE above 1.9 for an existing source
                                                                        or above 5.0 for a new source.
2. Halogenated Group 1 continuous         a. You use a combustion      i. Use a halogen reduction device after
 process vent stream.                      control device to control    the combustion device to reduce
                                           organic HAP emissions.       emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen
                                                                        HAP by =99 percent by weight,
                                                                        or to <=0.45 kg/hr, or to <=20 ppmv; or
                                                                       ii. Use a halogen reduction device before
                                                                        the combustion device to reduce the
                                                                        halogen atom mass emission rate to
                                                                        <=0.45 kg/hr or to a concentration <=20
                                                                        ppmv.
3. Group 2 continuous process vent at an  You use a recovery device    Comply with the requirements in Sec.
 existing source.                          to maintain the TRE level    63.993 and the requirements referenced
                                           1.9 but <=5.0.    therein.
4. Group 2 continuous process vent at a   You use a recovery device    Comply with the requirements in Sec.
 new source.                               to maintain the TRE level    63.993 and the requirements referenced
                                           5.0 but <=8.0.    therein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.2460, you must meet each emission limit and 
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your 
batch process vents:

  Table 2 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63. Emission Limits and Work Practice
                    Standards for Batch Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For each . . .          Then you must . . .   And you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Process with Group 1       a. Reduce collective  Not applicable.
 batch process vents.          uncontrolled
                               organic HAP
                               emissions from the
                               sum of all batch
                               process vents
                               within the process
                               by =98
                               percent by weight
                               by venting
                               emissions from a
                               sufficient number
                               of the vents
                               through a closed-
                               vent system to any
                               combination of
                               control devices
                               (except a flare);
                               or
                              b. Reduce collective  Not applicable.
                               uncontrolled
                               organic HAP
                               emissions from the
                               sum of all batch
                               process vents
                               within the process
                               by =95
                               percent by weight
                               by venting
                               emissions from a
                               sufficient number
                               of the vents
                               through a closed-
                               vent system to any
                               combination of
                               recovery devices;
                               or
                              c. For all batch      Not applicable.
                               process vents
                               within the process
                               that are not
                               controlled by
                               venting through a
                               closed-vent system
                               to a flare or to
                               any other
                               combination of
                               control devices
                               that reduce total
                               organic HAP to an
                               outlet
                               concentration <=20
                               ppmv as TOC or
                               total organic HAP,
                               reduce organic HAP
                               emissions by
                               venting emissions
                               from a sufficient
                               number of the vents
                               through a closed-
                               vent system to any
                               combination of
                               recovery devices
                               that reduce
                               collective
                               emissions by =95 percent
                               by weight and/or
                               any combination of
                               control devices
                               that reduce
                               collective
                               emissions by =98 percent
                               by weight.

[[Page 63906]]

 
2. Halogenated Group 1 batch  a. Use a halogen      i. Reduce overall
 process vent for which you    reduction device      emissions of
 use a combustion device to    after the             hydrogen halide and
 control organic HAP           combustion control    halogen HAP by =99 percent;
                                                     or
                                                    ii. Reduce overall
                                                     emissions of
                                                     hydrogen halide and
                                                     halogen HAP to
                                                     <=0.45 kg/hr; or
                                                    iii. Reduce overall
                                                     emissions of
                                                     hydrogen halide and
                                                     halogen HAP to a
                                                     concentration <=20
                                                     ppmv.
                              b. Use a halogen      Reduce the halogen
                               reduction device      atom mass emission
                               before the            rate to <=0.45 kg/
                               combustion control    hr or to a
                               device.               concentration <=20
                                                     ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.2465, you must meet each emission limit in 
the following table that applies to your process vents that contain 
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions or PM HAP emissions:

Table 3 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits for Hydrogen Halide
    and Halogen HAP Emissions or PM HAP Emissions From Process Vents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Process with uncontrolled        Reduce collective hydrogen halide
 hydrogen halide and halogen HAP     and halogen HAP emissions by =99 percent by weight or to
 thn-eq>=1,000 lb/yr.                an outlet concentration <20 ppmv by
                                     venting through a closed-vent
                                     system to any combination of
                                     control devices.
2. Process at a new source with     Reduce overall PM HAP emissions by
 uncontrolled PM HAP emissions       =97 percent by weight.
 from process vents =400 lb/yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.2470, you must meet each emission limit in 
the following table that applies to your storage tanks:

                     Table 4 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits for Storage Tanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             For each . . .                     For which . . .                   Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 storage tank.................  a. The maximum true vapor    i. Reduce total HAP emissions by =95 percent by weight or to <=20 ppmv
                                           the storage temperature is   of TOC or organic HAP and <=20 ppmv of
                                           =76.6             hydrogen halide and halogen HAP by
                                           kilopascals.                 venting emissions through a closed vent
                                                                        system to any combination of control
                                                                        devices (excluding a flare); or
                                                                       ii. Reduce total organic HAP emissions by
                                                                        venting emissions through a closed vent
                                                                        system to a flare; or
                                                                       iii. Reduce total HAP emissions by
                                                                        venting emissions to a fuel gas system
                                                                        or process.
                                          b. The maximum true vapor    i. Comply with the requirements of
                                           pressure of total HAP at     subpart WW of this part, except as
                                           the storage temperature is   specified in Sec.   63.2470; or
                                           <=76.6 kilopascals.         ii. Reduce total HAP emissions by =95 percent by weight or to <20 ppmv
                                                                        of TOC or organic HAP and <20 ppmv of
                                                                        hydrogen halide and halogen HAP by
                                                                        venting emissions through a closed vent
                                                                        system to any combination of control
                                                                        devices (excluding a flare); or
                                                                       iii. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
                                                                        by venting emissions through a closed
                                                                        vent system to a flare; or
                                                                       iv. Reduce total HAP emissions by venting
                                                                        emissions to a fuel gas system or
                                                                        process.
2. Halogenated vent stream from a Group   You use a combustion         Meet one of the emission limit options
 1 storage tank.                           control device to control    specified in Item 2.a.i or ii. in Table
                                           organic HAP emissions.       1 to this subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.2475, you must meet each emission limit and 
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your 
transfer racks:

 Table 5 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                      Standards for Transfer Racks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 transfer rack..........  a. Reduce emissions of total organic
                                     HAP by =98 percent by
                                     weight or to an outlet
                                     concentration <=20 ppmv as organic
                                     HAP or TOC by venting emissions
                                     through a closed-vent system to any
                                     combination of control devices
                                     (except a flare); or

[[Page 63907]]

 
                                    b. Reduce emissions of total organic
                                     HAP by venting emissions through a
                                     closed-vent system to a flare; or
                                    c. Reduce emissions of total organic
                                     HAP by venting emissions to a fuel
                                     gas system or process; or
                                    d. Use a vapor balancing system
                                     designed and operated to collect
                                     organic HAP vapors displaced from
                                     tank trucks and railcars during
                                     loading and route the collected HAP
                                     vapors to the storage tank from
                                     which the liquid being loaded
                                     originated or to another storage
                                     tank connected by a common header.
2. Halogenated Group 1 transfer     a. Use a halogen reduction device
 rack vent stream for which you      after the combustion device to
 use a combustion device to          reduce emissions of hydrogen halide
 control organic HAP emissions.      and halogen HAP by =99
                                     percent by weight, to <=0.45 kg/hr,
                                     or to <=20 ppmv; or
                                    b. Use a halogen reduction device
                                     before the combustion device to
                                     reduce the halogen atom mass
                                     emission rate to <=0.45 kg/hr or to
                                     a concentration <=20 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.2480, you must meet each requirement in the 
following table that applies to your equipment leaks:

                      Table 6 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              For all . . .                And that is part of . . .                 You must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment that is in organic HAP       a. An MCPU with no           i. Comply with the requirements of
 service at an existing source.            continuous process vents.    subpart TT of this part 63 and the
                                                                        requirements referenced therein; or
                                                                       ii. Comply with the requirements of
                                                                        subpart UU of this part 63 and the
                                                                        requirements referenced therein; or
                                                                       iii. Comply with the requirements of 40
                                                                        CFR part 65, subpart F.
                                          b. An MCPU with at least     i. Comply with the requirements of
                                           one continuous process       subpart UU of this part 63 and the
                                           vent.                        requirements referenced therein; or
                                                                       ii. Comply with the requirements of 40
                                                                        CFR part 65, subpart F.
2. Equipment that is in organic HAP       a. Any MCPU................  i. Comply with the requirements of
 service at a new source.                                               subpart UU of this part 63 and the
                                                                        requirements referenced therein; or
                                                                       ii. Comply with the requirements of 40
                                                                        CFR part 65, subpart F.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.2485, you must meet each requirement in the 
following table that applies to your wastewater streams and liquid 
streams in open systems within an MCPU:

Table 7 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Requirements for Wastewater Streams
            and Liquid Streams in Open Systems Within an MCPU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Process wastewater stream......  Comply with the requirements in Sec.
                                      Sec.   63.132 through 63.148 and
                                     the requirements referenced
                                     therein, except as specified in
                                     Sec.   63.2485.
2. Maintenance wastewater stream..  Comply with the requirements in Sec.
                                       63.105 and the requirements
                                     referenced therein, except as
                                     specified in Sec.   63.2485.
3. Liquid streams in an open        Comply with the requirements in Sec.
 system within an MCPU.                63.149 and the requirements
                                     referenced therein, except as
                                     specified in Sec.   63.2485.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As specified in Sec.  63.2485, the partially soluble HAP in 
wastewater that are subject to management and treatment requirements in 
this subpart FFFF are listed in the following table:

  Table 8 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Partially Soluble Hazardous Air
                               Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Chemical name . . .                        CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform).....  71556
2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.....................  79345
3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane.........................  79005
4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride)....  75354
5. 1,2-Dibromoethane.............................  106934
6. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)......  107062
7. 1,2-Dichloropropane...........................  78875
8. 1,3-Dichloropropene...........................  542756
9. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol.........................  95954
10. 2-Butanone (MEK).............................  78933
11. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene..........................  106467

[[Page 63908]]

 
12. 2-Nitropropane...............................  79469
13. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)..................  108101
14. Acetaldehyde.................................  75070
15. Acrolein.....................................  107028
16. Acrylonitrile................................  107131
17. Allyl chloride...............................  107051
18. Benzene......................................  71432
19. Benzyl chloride..............................  100447
20. Biphenyl.....................................  92524
21. Bromoform (tribromomethane)..................  75252
22. Bromomethane.................................  74839
23. Butadiene....................................  106990
24. Carbon disulfide.............................  75150
25. Chlorobenzene................................  108907
26. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)................  75003
27. Chloroform...................................  67663
28. Chloromethane................................  74873
29. Chloroprene..................................  126998
30. Cumene.......................................  98828
31. Dichloroethyl ether..........................  111444
32. Dinitrophenol................................  51285
33. Epichlorohydrin..............................  106898
34. Ethyl acrylate...............................  140885
35. Ethylbenzene.................................  100414
36. Ethylene oxide...............................  75218
37. Ethylidene dichloride........................  75343
38. Hexachlorobenzene............................  118741
39. Hexachlorobutadiene..........................  87683
40. Hexachloroethane.............................  67721
41. Methyl methacrylate..........................  80626
42. Methyl-t-butyl ether.........................  1634044
43. Methylene chloride...........................  75092
44. N-hexane.....................................  110543
45. N,N-dimethylaniline..........................  121697
46. Naphthalene..................................  91203
47. Phosgene.....................................  75445
48. Propionaldehyde..............................  123386
49. Propylene oxide..............................  75569
50. Styrene......................................  100425
51. Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)......  79345
52. Tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride)....  56235
53. Toluene......................................  108883
54. Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-)....................  120821
55. Trichloroethylene............................  79016
56. Trimethylpentane.............................  540841
57. Vinyl acetate................................  108054
58. Vinyl chloride...............................  75014
59. Xylene (m)...................................  108383
60. Xylene (o)...................................  95476
61. Xylene (p)...................................  106423
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As specified in Sec.  63.2485, the soluble HAP in wastewater that 
are subject to management and treatment requirements of this subpart 
FFFF are listed in the following table:

  Table 9 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Soluble Hazardous Air Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Chemical name . . .                        CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Acetonitrile..................................  75058
2. Acetophenone..................................  98862
3. Diethyl sulfate...............................  64675
4. Dimethyl hydrazine (1,1)......................  58147
5. Dimethyl sulfate..............................  77781
6. Dinitrotoluene (2,4)..........................  121142
7. Dioxane (1,4).................................  123911
8. Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether................  .....................
9. Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate.......  .....................
10. Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate.....  .....................

[[Page 63909]]

 
11. Isophorone...................................  78591
12. Methanol.....................................  67561
13. Nitrobenzene.................................  98953
14. Toluidine (o-)...............................  95534
15. Triethylamine................................  121448
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.2490, you must meet each requirement in the 
following table that applies to your heat exchange systems:

 Table 10 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Work Practice Standards for Heat
                            Exchange Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat exchange system, as defined    Comply with the requirements of Sec.
 in Sec.   63.101.                     63.104 and the requirements
                                     referenced therein, except as
                                     specified in Sec.   63.2490.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.2520(a) and (b), you must submit each 
report that applies to you on the schedule shown in the following 
table:

     Table 11 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must    You must submit the
     You must submit a(n)         contain . . .         report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Precompliance report.......  The information    At least 6 months
                                 specified in       prior to the
                                 Sec.               compliance date; or
                                 63.2520(c).        for new sources,
                                                    with the application
                                                    for approval of
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction.
2. Notification of compliance   The information    No later than 150
 status report.                  specified in       days after the
                                 Sec.               compliance date
                                 63.2520(d).        specified in Sec.
                                                    63.2445.
3. Compliance report..........  The information    Semiannually
                                 specified in       according to the
                                 Sec.               requirements in Sec.
                                 63.2520(e).          63.2520(b).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As specified in Sec.  63.2540, the parts of the General Provisions 
that apply to you are shown in the following table:

            Table 12 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart FFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Citation                             Subject                                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1....................  Applicability..........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.2....................  Definitions............................  Yes.
Sec.   63.3....................  Units and Abbreviations................  Yes.
Sec.   63.4....................  Prohibited Activities..................  Yes.
Sec.   63.5....................  Construction/Reconstruction............  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(a).................  Applicability..........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)..........  Compliance Dates for New and             Yes.
                                  Reconstructed sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)..............  Notification...........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)..............  [Reserved].............................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)..............  Compliance Dates for New and             Yes.
                                  Reconstructed Area Sources That Become
                                  Major.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)..........  Compliance Dates for Existing Sources..  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)..........  [Reserved].............................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)..............  Compliance Dates for Existing Area       Yes
                                  Sources That Become Major.
Sec.   63.6(d).................  [Reserved].............................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2)..........  Operation & Maintenance................  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(i), (ii), and  Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Plan      Yes, except information regarding
 (v) through (viii).              (SSMP).                                  Group 2 emission points and equipment
                                                                           leaks is not required in the SSMP, as
                                                                           specified in Sec.   63.2525(j).
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(iii) and (iv)  Recordkeeping and Reporting During SSM.  No, Sec.   63.998(d)(3) and
                                                                           63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G)
                                                                           specify the recordkeeping requirement
                                                                           for SSM events, and Sec.
                                                                           63.2520(e)(4) specifies reporting
                                                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)..............  Compliance Except During SSM...........  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)..........  Methods for Determining Compliance.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)..........  Alternative Standard...................  Yes.

[[Page 63910]]

 
Sec.   63.6(h).................  Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards  Only for flares for which Method 22
                                                                           observations are required as part of
                                                                           a flare compliance assessment.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14).........  Compliance Extension...................  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(j).................  Presidential Compliance Exemption......  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)..........  Performance Test Dates.................  Yes, except substitute 150 days for
                                                                           180 days.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)..............  Section 114 Authority..................  Yes, and this paragraph also applies
                                                                           to flare compliance assessments as
                                                                           specified under Sec.   63.997(b)(2).
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)..............  Notification of Performance Test.......  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)..............  Notification of Rescheduling...........  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(c).................  Quality Assurance/Test Plan............  Yes, except the test plan must be
                                                                           submitted with the notification of
                                                                           the performance test if the control
                                                                           device controls batch process vents.
Sec.   63.7(d).................  Testing Facilities.....................  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)..............  Conditions for Conducting Performance    Yes, except that performance tests for
                                  Tests.                                   batch process vents must be conducted
                                                                           under worst-case conditions as
                                                                           specified in Sec.   63.2460.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)..............  Conditions for Conducting Performance    Yes.
                                  Tests.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3)..............  Test Run Duration......................  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(f).................  Alternative Test Method................  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(g).................  Performance Test Data Analysis.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(h).................  Waiver of Tests........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)..............  Applicability of Monitoring              Yes.
                                  Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)..............  Performance Specifications.............  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..............  [Reserved].............................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..............  Monitoring with Flares.................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)..............  Monitoring.............................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)..........  Multiple Effluents and Multiple          Yes.
                                  Monitoring Systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)..............  Monitoring System Operation and          Yes.
                                  Maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)...........  Routine and Predictable SSM............  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)..........  SSM not in SSMP........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).........  Compliance with Operation and            Yes.
                                  Maintenance Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)..........  Monitoring System Installation.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)..............  CMS Requirements.......................  No. CMS requirements are specified in
                                                                           referenced subparts G and SS of this
                                                                           part 63.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)......  .......................................  Only for the alternative standard, but
                                                                           Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i) does not apply
                                                                           because the alternative standard does
                                                                           not require continuous opacity
                                                                           monitoring systems (COMS).
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)..............  COMS Minimum Procedures................  No. Subpart FFFF does not contain
                                                                           opacity or VE limits.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)..............  CMS Requirements.......................  Only for the alternative standard in
                                                                           Sec.   63.2505.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8)..........  CMS Requirements.......................  Only for the alternative standard in
                                                                           Sec.   63.2505. Requirements for CPMS
                                                                           are specified in referenced subparts
                                                                           G and SS of this part 63.
Sec.   63.8(d).................  CMS Quality Control....................  Only for the alternative standard in
                                                                           Sec.   63.2505.
Sec.   63.8(e).................  CMS Performance Evaluation.............  Only for the alternative standard in
                                                                           Sec.   63.2505, but Sec.
                                                                           63.8(e)(5)(ii) does not apply because
                                                                           the alternative standard does not
                                                                           require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)..........  Alternative Monitoring Method..........  Yes, except you may also request
                                                                           approval using the precompliance
                                                                           report.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..............  Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test..  Only applicable when using CEMS to
                                                                           demonstrate compliance, including the
                                                                           alternative standard in Sec.
                                                                           63.2505.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)-(4)..........  Data Reduction.........................  Only when using CEMS, including for
                                                                           the alternative standard in Sec.
                                                                           63.2505, except that the requirements
                                                                           for COMS do not apply because subpart
                                                                           FFFF has no opacity or VE limits, and
                                                                           Sec.   63.8(g)(2) does not apply
                                                                           because data reduction requirements
                                                                           for CEMS are specified in Sec.
                                                                           63.2450(j).
Sec.   63.8(g)(5)..............  Data Reduction.........................  No. Requirements for CEMS are
                                                                           specified in Sec.   63.2450(j).
                                                                           Requirements for CPMS are specified
                                                                           in referenced subparts G and SS of
                                                                           this part 63.
Sec.   63.9(a).................  Notification Requirements..............  Yes.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5)..........  Initial Notifications..................  Yes.
Sec.   63.9(c).................  Request for Compliance Extension.......  Yes.
Sec.   63.9(d).................  Notification of Special Compliance       Yes.
                                  Requirements for New Source.
Sec.   63.9(e).................  Notification of Performance Test.......  Yes.
Sec.   63.9(f).................  Notification of VE/Opacity Test........  No. Subpart FFFF does not contain
                                                                           opacity or VE limits.

[[Page 63911]]

 
Sec.   63.9(g).................  Additional Notifications When Using CMS  Only for the alternative standard in
                                                                           Sec.   63.2505.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(6)..........  Notification of Compliance Status......  Yes, except subpart FFFF has no
                                                                           opacity or VE limits, and Sec.
                                                                           63.9(h)(2) does not apply because
                                                                           Sec.   63.2520(d) specifies the
                                                                           required contents and due date of the
                                                                           notification of compliance status
                                                                           report.
Sec.   63.9(i).................  Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines......  Yes.
Sec.   63.9(j).................  Change in Previous Information.........  No, Sec.   63.2520(e) specifies
                                                                           reporting requirements for process
                                                                           changes.
Sec.   63.10(a)................  Recordkeeping/Reporting................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).............  Recordkeeping/Reporting................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii),      Records related to SSM.................  No, Sec.  Sec.   63.998(d)(3) and
 (iv), (v).                                                                63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G)
                                                                           specify recordkeeping requirements
                                                                           for periods of SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)........  Records related to maintenance of air    Yes.
                                  pollution control equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x),     CMS Records............................  Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS
 and (xi).                                                                 are specified in referenced subparts
                                                                           G and SS of this part 63.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)...  Records................................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)........  Records................................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).......  Records................................  Only for the alternative standard in
                                                                           Sec.   63.2505.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)........  Records................................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3).............  Records................................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-     Records................................  Only for the alternative standard in
 (15).                                                                     Sec.   63.2505.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8).........  Records................................  No. Recordkeeping requirements are
                                                                           specified in Sec.   63.2525.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1).............  General Reporting Requirements.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2).............  Report of Performance Test Results.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).............  Reporting Opacity or VE Observations...  No. Subpart FFFF does not contain
                                                                           opacity or VE limits.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4).............  Progress Reports.......................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)..........  Periodic Startup, Shutdown, and          No, Sec.   63.2520(e)(4) and (5)
                                  Malfunction Reports.                     specify the SSM reporting
                                                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii).........  Immediate SSM Reports..................  No.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2).........  Additional CMS Reports.................  Only for the alternative standard, but
                                                                           Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii) does not apply
                                                                           because the alternative standard does
                                                                           not require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3).............  Reports................................  No. Reporting requirements are
                                                                           specified in Sec.   63.2520.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii)....  Reports................................  No. Reporting requirements are
                                                                           specified in Sec.   63.2520.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v).....  Excess Emissions Reports...............  No. Reporting requirements are
                                                                           specified in Sec.   63.2520.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v).....  Excess Emissions Reports...............  No. Reporting requirements are
                                                                           specified in Sec.   63.2520.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(viii)..  Excess Emissions Report and Summary      No. Reporting requirements are
                                  Report.                                  specified in Sec.   63.2520.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4).............  Reporting COMS data....................  No. Subpart FFFF does not contain
                                                                           opacity or VE limits.
Sec.   63.10(f)................  Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.11...................  Flares.................................  Yes.
Sec.   63.12...................  Delegation.............................  Yes.
Sec.   63.13...................  Addresses..............................  Yes.
Sec.   63.14...................  Incorporation by Reference.............  Yes.
Sec.   63.15...................  Availability of Information............  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 03-22310 Filed 11-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P