[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 135 (Monday, July 16, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38864-38917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12018]



[[Page 38863]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 
Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black 
Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery 
Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 38864]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-AR-2006-0897; FRL-8330-1]
RIN 2060-AN44


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 
Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black 
Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery 
Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing six national emissions standards for hazardous 
air pollutants for seven area source categories. The final emissions 
standards and associated requirements for two area source categories 
(Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication) are combined in one subpart. These final rules include 
emission standards that reflect the generally available control 
technologies or management practices in each of these area source 
categories.

DATES: These final rules are effective on July 16, 2007. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these 
rules is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 
16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0897. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is 
not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2825; fax number: (919) 
541-3207; e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information presented in this 
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for Final Area Source Standards
III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal
    A. NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
    Area Sources
    B. NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources
    C. NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium 
Compounds
    D. NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Fabrication Area Sources
    E. NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources
    F. NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources
IV. Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title V 
Permitting Requirements
    A. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
    B. Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication
    C. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
    D. Wood Preserving
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Basis for Area Source Standards
    B. Proposed NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production 
Area Sources
    C. Proposed NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources
    D. Proposed NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: 
Chromium Compounds
    E. Proposed NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Fabrication Area Sources
    F. Proposed NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area 
Sources
    G. Proposed NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources
    H. Proposed Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from 
Title V Permitting Requirements
    I. Compliance with Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    J. Compliance with Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by these 
final standards include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
           Category              NAICS  code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry:
Acrylic and modacrylic fibers   325222...........  Area source
 production.                                        facilities that
                                                    manufacture
                                                    polymeric organic
                                                    fibers using
                                                    acrylonitrile as a
                                                    primary monomer.
Carbon black production.......  325182...........  Area source
                                                    facilities that
                                                    manufacture carbon
                                                    black using the
                                                    furnace, thermal, or
                                                    acetylene
                                                    decomposition
                                                    process.
Chemical manufacturing:         325188...........  Area source
 chromium compounds.                                facilities that
                                                    produce chromium
                                                    compounds,
                                                    principally sodium
                                                    dichromate, chromic
                                                    acid, and chromic
                                                    oxide, from chromite
                                                    ore.
Flexible polyurethane foam      326150...........  Area source
 production.                                        facilities that
                                                    manufacture foam
                                                    made from a
                                                    polyurethane
                                                    polymer.

[[Page 38865]]

 
Flexible polyurethane foam      326150...........  Area source
 fabrication operations.                            facilities that cut
                                                    or bond flexible
                                                    polyurethane foam
                                                    pieces together or
                                                    to other substrates.
Lead acid battery               335911...........  Area source
 manufacturing.                                     facilities that
                                                    manufacture lead
                                                    acid storage
                                                    batteries made from
                                                    lead alloy ingots
                                                    and lead oxide.
Wood preserving...............  321114...........  Area source
                                                    facilities that
                                                    treat wood such as
                                                    lumber, ties, poles,
                                                    posts, or pilings
                                                    with a preservative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11393 of 
subpart LLLLLL (NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production 
Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11400 of subpart MMMMMM (NESHAP for Carbon 
Black Production Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11407 of subpart NNNNNN 
(NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds), 
40 CFR 63.11414 of subpart OOOOOO (NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane 
Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11421 of 
subpart PPPPPP (NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area 
Sources), or 40 CFR 63.11428 of subpart QQQQQQ (NESHAP for Wood 
Preserving Area Sources). If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the 
air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative 
as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

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

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

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review 
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 
September 14, 2007. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 
objection to these final rules that was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.

II. Background Information for Final Area Source Standards

    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least 
30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, as the result of emissions of 
area sources,\1\ pose the greatest threat to public health in urban 
areas. Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban 
Air Toxics Strategy, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest 
potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to 
as the ``Urban HAP.'' See 64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3) 
requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area 
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the 
emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject to regulation. EPA listed the 
source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP 
emissions in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.\2\ Sierra Club 
sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source 
categories listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) 
within the time frame specified by the statute. See Sierra Club v. 
Johnston, No. 01-1537 (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006, the court issued an 
order requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d) 
for those area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 
112(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An area source is a stationary source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions that is not a major source. A major source 
is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP.
    \2\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 
Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area source category list 
several times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other things, the order requires that, by June 15, 2007, EPA 
complete standards for six area source categories. On April 4, 2007, we 
proposed NESHAP for the following seven listed area source categories 
that we have selected to meet the June 15, 2007 deadline: (1) Acrylic 
and Modacrylic Fibers Production; (2) Carbon Black Production; (3) 
Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds; (4) Flexible Polyurethane 
Foam Production; (5) Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations; 
(6) Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing; and (7) Wood Preserving. See 72 FR 
16632. These final NESHAP complete the required regulatory action for 
seven area source categories.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of 
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under 
section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for 
area sources ``which provide for the use of generally available control 
technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As explained in the proposed 
NESHAP, we are setting standards for these seven area source categories 
pursuant to section 112(d)(5). See 72 FR 16638, April 7, 2007.

III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal

    This section summarizes the final rules and identifies and 
discusses changes since proposal. For changes that were made as a 
result of public comments, we have provided detailed explanations of 
the changes and the rationale in the responses to comments in section V 
of this preamble.

A. NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    This final rule applies to any existing or new acrylic or 
modacrylic fibers production plant that is an area source of HAP. The 
owner or operator of an existing area source must comply with all the 
requirements of this area source

[[Page 38866]]

NESHAP by January 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new area source 
must comply with this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007 or upon 
initial startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards
    The Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category 
was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of the 
Urban HAP acrylonitrile (AN). In response to comments, we have revised 
the proposed AN requirements for existing area sources to include a new 
compliance alternative. We have also revised the compliance provisions 
for existing area sources to allow facilities to change the operating 
limits for a wet scrubber control device.
    Existing area sources. The final standards for existing area 
sources apply to emissions from the control devices for polymerization 
and monomer recovery process equipment, spinning lines at plants that 
do not have a monomer recovery process, and AN storage tanks. As 
proposed, we are adopting the State permit requirements applicable to 
the one existing area source as the NESHAP for existing acrylic and 
modacrylic fibers production area sources.
    No changes have been made since proposal to the AN emissions limits 
for control devices for polymerization and monomer recovery process 
equipment. The AN emissions limit for the control device for 
polymerization process equipment is 0.2 pound per hour (lb/hr). The AN 
emissions limit for the control device for monomer recovery process 
equipment is 0.05 lb/hr.
    In response to comments, we have revised the proposed rule to 
include an alternative compliance option for existing area sources. The 
new compliance option in Sec.  63.11395(b)(3) allows an existing area 
source to comply with the same requirements that apply to process vents 
for new area sources. Although the two requirements are expressed in 
different units, they provide an equivalent level of control.
    No changes have been made since proposal to the control device 
parameter operating limits for wet scrubbers. The daily average water 
flow rate to the wet scrubber control device for polymerization process 
equipment must not drop below 50 liters per minute (l/min). For the wet 
scrubber control device for monomer recovery process equipment, the 
daily average water flow rate must not drop below 30 l/min. We have 
revised the proposed standard to include procedures for changing the 
operating limits based on the results of a performance test. These 
procedures are contained in Sec.  63.11395(k).
    As explained in the proposed rule, this rule does not include 
requirements for spinning lines for existing sources that remove 
residual AN using a monomer recovery process prior to spinning. As 
proposed, existing sources that do not have a monomer recovery process 
prior to spinning must meet the requirements for spinning lines in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart YY.
    Acrylonitrile storage tanks meeting certain capacity/vapor pressure 
conditions must comply with one of three control options: (1) A fixed 
roof in combination with an internal floating roof, (2) an external 
floating roof, or (3) a closed vent system and control device.
    In response to comments, we are clarifying in the final rule that 
process and maintenance wastewater containing AN must be treated in a 
wastewater treatment system. We are deleting the definition of 
``wastewater'' because we have specifically defined ``process 
wastewater'' and ``maintenance wastewater.''
    New area sources. No changes have been made to the proposed 
emissions standards for new area sources. The final standards apply to 
process vents, fiber spinning lines, AN storage tanks, process 
wastewater, maintenance wastewater, and equipment leaks. The process 
vent requirements apply to each vent stream with an AN concentration of 
50 parts per million by volume (ppmv) or greater and a flow rate of 
0.005 cubic meters per minute or greater. The owner or operator must 
control AN emissions from process vents meeting this threshold by 
reducing uncontrolled emissions by 98 weight percent or meeting an 
emissions limit of 20 ppmv by venting vapors through a closed vent 
system to a recovery device, control device, or flare. The owner or 
operator must determine which process vents meet the threshold noted 
above by using the procedures and methods in Sec.  63.1104 of subpart 
YY.
    The emissions limits for fiber spinning lines require the owner or 
operator to: (1) Reduce AN emissions by 85 weight-percent (e.g., by 
venting emissions from a total enclosure through a closed vent system 
to a control device that meets the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS), (2) reduce AN emissions from the spinning line to 0.5 
pounds of AN per ton (lb/ton) of acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced, 
or (3) reduce the AN concentration of the spin dope to less than 100 
parts per million by weight (ppmw). The requirements in Sec.  
63.1103(b)(4) of subpart YY apply to an enclosure for a fiber spinning 
line.
    For all AN storage vessels at a new area source, the owner or 
operator must: (1) Reduce AN emissions by 98 weight-percent by venting 
emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control 
devices as specified in Sec.  63.982(a)(1) of subpart SS or reduce AN 
emissions by 95 weight-percent or greater by venting emissions through 
a closed system to a recovery device as specified in Sec.  63.993 of 
subpart SS; or (2) comply with the equipment standards for internal or 
external floating roofs in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW.
    Process wastewater and maintenance wastewater at new sources are 
subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.1106(a) and (b) of subpart YY. 
We are clarifying that wastewater that contains AN but which is below 
the thresholds for control in subpart YY must be treated in a 
wastewater treatment system. The owner or operator is also required to 
comply with the equipment leak requirements in subpart YY. Subpart YY 
applies the requirements in either subpart TT or UU to equipment that 
contains or contacts 10 percent by weight or greater of AN and that 
operates at least 300 hours per year.
3. Compliance Requirements
    No significant changes have been made to the compliance provisions 
for existing sources. As proposed, we are including in this final 
NESHAP the monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in the State operating permit for the one existing area 
source. The only change since proposal is the addition of records of 
process and maintenance wastewater streams that are treated in a 
wastewater treatment system. Specifically, for existing sources, 
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) are required to measure 
and record the scrubber water flow rates at least every 15 minutes. The 
owner or operator of an existing source must determine compliance with 
the daily average operating limits for the scrubber water flow rates on 
a monthly basis and submit quarterly compliance reports to EPA or the 
delegated authority. Compliance with the operating limits is to be 
determined on a monthly basis; quarterly compliance reports also are 
required. The owner or operator must keep records of each monthly 
compliance determination and retain the records for at least 2 years 
following the date of each compliance determination. If the daily 
average water flow rate falls below the required operating limit, the 
owner or operator must submit a report to EPA or the delegated 
authority that identifies the

[[Page 38867]]

exceedance; the owner or operator would be required to submit the 
report within 10 days of the exceedance.
    The owner or operator of an existing source must conduct a 
performance test for each control device for polymerization process 
equipment and monomer recovery process equipment. A performance test is 
not required for an existing source if a prior performance test has 
been conducted using the methods required by this rule, which are the 
requirements contained in Sec.  63.1104 of subpart YY, and either no 
process changes have been made since the test, or the owner or operator 
can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or 
without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process 
changes.
    For AN storage tanks at existing sources, the owner or operator 
must comply with the applicable testing, inspection, and notification 
procedures in 40 CFR 60.113b(a) and the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements in 40 CFR 60.115b and 60.116b of subpart Kb. The testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 
65, subpart C apply if the owner or operator elected to comply with the 
part 65 control option for AN storage tanks. See 40 CFR 60.110b(e).
    The owner or operator of an existing area source must comply with 
certain notification requirements in Sec.  63.9 of the General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These requirements include a 
notification of applicability and a notification of compliance status. 
In the notification of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), 
the owner or operator of an existing source may certify initial 
compliance with the emissions limits based on a previous performance 
test if applicable. We have revised the proposed certification of 
compliance for the emissions limit to include a certification for the 
new alternative compliance option for process vents. The owner or 
operator must also certify initial compliance with the NSPS 
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
    We are also requiring that the owner or operator of an existing 
source comply with the requirements for startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM) plans, reports, and records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). As 
proposed, we are allowing additional time (6 months after promulgation) 
to allow for preparation of the plan.
    No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance 
provisions for new area sources. The owner or operator of a new area 
source must perform assessments \3\ to identify affected process vents, 
equipment, and wastewater streams; conduct initial performance tests 
and/or compliance demonstrations; and comply with the monitoring, 
inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in each 
applicable subpart. For process vents, the owner or operator must 
comply with all testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. For other emissions 
sources, the owner or operator must comply with all testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 
63, subpart SS or WW for AN tanks, and subpart TT or UU for equipment 
leaks. Only specified provisions in subpart G apply for process 
wastewater and maintenance wastewater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These assessments are used to determine which process vents 
and wastewater streams must be controlled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The owner or operator of a new area source is also required to 
comply with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), 
including requirements for notifications; performance tests and 
reports; SSM plans and reports; recordkeeping, and reporting. We have 
identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 
applicable to existing and new sources.

B. NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    The final NESHAP applies to each new or existing carbon black 
production facility that is an area source of HAP. The owner or 
operator of an existing affected source must comply with all the 
requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007. The owner or 
operator of a new affected source must comply by July 16, 2007 or upon 
initial startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards
    The Carbon Black Production area source category was listed 
pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for regulation for its contribution of 
the Urban HAP POM (polycyclic organic matter). We have made no changes 
since proposal to the emissions standards for this source category.
    This final NESHAP requires the owner or operator of an existing or 
new source to control HAP emissions from each carbon black production 
main unit filter process vent that has a HAP concentration equal to or 
greater than 260 ppmv. The specific control requirements are: (1) 
Reduce emissions of HAP by using a flare meeting all the requirements 
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS; or (2) reduce total HAP emissions by 98 
weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is less, by 
venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of 
control devices meeting the requirements 40 CFR 63.982(a)(2).
3. Compliance Requirements
    We have made no changes to the proposed compliance provisions for 
carbon black production area sources. For existing and new area 
sources, we are adopting in this final NESHAP the testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in subpart YY. The owner or 
operator must demonstrate compliance with the emissions limit for 
existing and new area sources by monitoring the operating parameters of 
the control device or devices selected to comply with the requirements 
of the NESHAP.
    The owner or operator of an existing or new area source must comply 
with the subpart YY notification requirements in 40 CFR 63.1110. In the 
notification of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.1110(d), the 
owner or operator of an existing source may demonstrate initial 
compliance with the emissions standards based on the results of a 
performance test that has been previously conducted provided certain 
conditions are met (e.g., using the same methods as the test methods in 
the final rule).
    As proposed, we are requiring that the owner or operator of an 
existing area source comply with the SSM requirements in 40 CFR 
63.1111. Section 63.1111(a)(1) of subpart YY requires that the source 
include provisions for an SSM plan.

C. NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    The final rule applies to the owner or operator of a new or 
existing area source that manufactures chromium compounds. The owner or 
operator of an existing area source must comply with all the 
requirements of this area source NESHAP by January 16, 2008. The owner 
or operator of a new affected source must comply by July 16, 2007 or 
upon initial startup, whichever is later. In response to comments, we 
have also added a definition of ``chromium compounds manufacturing 
facility.''
2. Emissions Standards
    The Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds area source category 
was listed for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its

[[Page 38868]]

contribution of the Urban HAP chromium. We have not revised the 
emissions standards for this area source category since proposal. 
However, we have revised Table 1 of subpart NNNNNN to clarify the 
regulated process equipment. These changes include revising the title 
of Table 1 to refer to emissions sources instead of emissions points, 
changing the ``filter for sodium chromate slurry'' to ``residue dryer 
system'', changing the ``reactor used to produce chromic acid'' to the 
``melter used to produce chromic acid'', and removing the ``sodium 
evaporation unit'' from the table. These changes do not affect the 
estimated level of emissions control or reduction for the rule.
    The final NESHAP requires new and existing facilities to operate a 
capture system that collects gases and fumes from each emissions source 
and conveys the gases to a PM control device that controls emissions to 
the levels required in the rule. Emissions limits for PM, in lb/hr 
format, are established based on the process rate of the emissions 
source. The PM emissions limits apply to more than 20 emissions sources 
in the production of chromium compounds, including sodium chromate, 
sodium dichromate, chromic acid, chromic oxide, and chromium dehydrate 
at new and existing sources.
3. Compliance Requirements for Existing Area Sources
    As proposed, the compliance requirements for existing area sources 
are based on the operation and maintenance, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in the title V permit of the area source located 
in North Carolina. The title V permit includes requirements for 
inspections and maintenance of each type of control device, semiannual 
reports of any deviation, and records of control device inspections and 
maintenance. The control devices used by the existing area sources in 
this source category include baghouses, dry electrostatic 
precipitators, wet electrostatic precipitators, and wet scrubbers. The 
monitoring requirements for existing area sources consist of inspection 
and maintenance requirements specific to the type of control device.
    In response to comments, we have revised the proposed requirements 
for initial and periodic inspections of control devices in several 
respects. The final rule requires an initial inspection for each 
installed control device which has operated within 60 days of the 
compliance date. An initial inspection for an installed control device 
which has not operated within 60 days of the compliance date must be 
conducted prior to startup. In addition, we have revised the 
requirements for initial inspections of the internal components of 
control devices to state that an initial inspection is not required if 
an inspection has been performed within the past 24 months (for an 
electrostatic precipitator) or within the past 12 months (for a 
baghouse or wet scrubber). The proposed requirements for initial 
inspections that do not require shutting down the process and control 
device, such as inspecting baghouses and ductwork for leaks and 
verifying proper operation of electrostatic precipitators and wet 
scrubbers, have not been revised. We have also clarified the timing for 
periodic inspections by requiring subsequent inspections 12 or 24 
months after the last inspections and then annual or biennial 
inspections thereafter. We have also revised the final rule to clarify 
that the requirements for internal inspections of control devices do 
not apply to cyclonic scrubbers installed upstream of electrostatic 
precipitators.
    For a baghouse, this final NESHAP requires monthly visual 
inspections of the system ductwork and baghouse units for leaks. The 
plant owner or operator must conduct an annual inspection of the 
interior of each baghouse for structural integrity and condition of the 
filter fabric. For electrostatic precipitators, plants are required to 
conduct: (1) A daily check to verify that the electronic controls for 
corona power and rapper operation are functioning, that the corona 
wires are energized, and that adequate air pressure is present on the 
rapper manifold; (2) a monthly visual inspection of the system 
ductwork, cyclones (if applicable), housing unit, and hopper for leaks; 
and (3) a biennial internal inspection to determine the condition and 
integrity of corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, 
and air diffuser plates. For wet electrostatic precipitators, plants 
also must conduct a daily check to verify water flow and a biennial 
internal inspection to determine the condition and integrity of plate 
wash spray heads. For wet scrubbers, plants are required to conduct: 
(1) A daily check to verify water flow to the scrubber; (2) a monthly 
visual inspection of the system ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks; 
and (3) an annual internal inspection for structural integrity and 
condition of the demister and spray nozzle.
    The owner or operator of an existing plant must record the results 
of each inspection, the results of any maintenance performed on the 
control device, and the date and time of each recorded action. The 
results of inspections and maintenance of control equipment must be 
recorded in a logbook (written or electronic). The logbook must be kept 
onsite and made available to the permitting authority upon request. The 
owner or operator of an existing plant is required to report any 
deviations from the emissions limits or monitoring requirements in a 
semiannual report submitted to the permitting authority.
    The owner or operator of an existing area source must submit an 
initial notification of applicability and a notification of compliance 
status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). In the notification of 
compliance status required by 40 CFR 63.9(h), the owner or operator 
must certify that equipment has been installed and is operating for 
each regulated emissions point and that the plant will comply with the 
inspection and maintenance requirements. A performance test is not 
required if a performance test has been conducted within the past 5 
years using the specified test methods, and either no process changes 
have been made since the test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate 
that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, 
reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes. The final rule 
also requires that the owner or operator comply with either the 
requirements for SSM plans and reports in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) or with the 
requirements in this final rule. The owner or operator is required to 
submit a report if an event occurs that results in emissions in excess 
of a PM limit and lasts for more than 4 hours.
4. Compliance Requirements for New Area Sources
    No changes have been made to the compliance requirements for new 
area sources. The owner or operator of a new source must install and 
operate a bag leak detection system for each baghouse used to comply 
with a PM emissions limit. For additional information on bag leak 
detection systems that operate on the triboelectric effect, see 
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'', U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
September 1997, EPA-454/R-98-015, NTIS publication number PB98164676. 
This document is available from the National Technical Information 
Service (NTIS), 5385 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
    The owner or operator of a new source that uses a control device 
other than a baghouse must submit a

[[Page 38869]]

monitoring plan to the permitting authority for approval. The plan must 
describe the control device, the parameters to be monitored, and the 
operating limits for the parameters established during a performance 
test.
    The owner or operator of a new source is required to demonstrate 
initial compliance with each applicable PM emissions limit by 
conducting a performance test according to the requirements in 40 CFR 
63.7. EPA Method 5 or 5D (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), as applicable, 
is to be used to determine the PM emissions. All of the testing, 
monitoring, operation and maintenance, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements of the part 63 General Provisions apply to a new area 
source. We have identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions 
of 40 CFR part 63 applicable to existing and new sources.

D. NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication 
Area Sources

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    This final NESHAP applies to both new and existing flexible foam 
production and flexible foam fabrication plants that are area sources. 
In response to comments, we have revised the compliance dates to allow 
more time for certain existing area sources to comply with the NESHAP. 
The owner or operator of an existing slabstock flexible polyurethane 
foam production-affected source must comply with all of the 
requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2008 instead of 
July 16, 2007. As proposed, the owner or operator of an existing molded 
flexible polyurethane foam production, an existing rebond foam 
production, or an existing flexible polyurethane foam fabrication 
affected source must comply by July 16, 2007. The owner or operator of 
a new area source must comply by July 16, 2007 or at startup, whichever 
is later.
2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices
    The Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane 
Foam Fabrication area source categories were listed pursuant to section 
112(c)(3) for their contribution of the Urban HAP methylene chloride. 
No changes have been made since proposal to the required emissions 
standards and management practices. Table 1 of this preamble summarizes 
the various types of foam production and fabrication area sources 
covered by this final rule and the corresponding regulatory strategies. 
As shown in the table below, slabstock foam producers may still use 
limited amounts of methylene chloride as an auxiliary blowing agent 
(ABA). The technologies determined to be GACT for slabstock foam 
production area sources significantly reduce, but do not always 
eliminate the use of methylene chloride as an ABA. Methylene chloride 
use is prohibited for other uses at foam production and foam 
fabrication facilities.

  Table 1.--Foam Production and Fabrication Processes and Corresponding
                               Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Area source types                     Final regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Slabstock polyurethane foam           a. Emission limits for
 production.                              methylene chloride used as an
                                          auxiliary blowing agent (ABA);
                                         b. Controls on storage vessels;
                                         c. Management practices for
                                          equipment leaks; and
                                         d. Prohibition on use of
                                          methylene chloride as an
                                          equipment cleaner; or
                                          Eliminate use of methylene
                                          chloride in slabstock foam
                                          production processes.
2. Molded polyurethane foam production.  Prohibit use of methylene
                                          chloride as mold release agent
                                          or equipment cleaner.
3. Rebond foam production..............  Prohibit use of methylene
                                          chloride as mold release
                                          agent.
4. Foam fabrication adhesive use.......  Prohibit use of methylene
                                          chloride adhesives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For slabstock foam production area sources, we are requiring 
emissions limits and management practices to reduce methylene chloride 
emissions from the production line, storage tanks, leaking equipment, 
and equipment cleaning. Emissions limits for methylene chloride used as 
an ABA are based on a formula which varies depending on the grades of 
foam being produced. Vapor balance systems or carbon beds are required 
for methylene chloride storage vessels. The management practices 
require plants to identify and correct leaking pumps and other 
equipment in methylene chloride service. Specifically, owners or 
operators must check periodically for equipment leaks (from quarterly 
for pumps and valves to annual for connectors) using EPA Method 21 (40 
CFR part 60, appendix A). Leaks, which are defined as a reading of 
10,000 parts per million (ppm) or greater, must be corrected within 15 
days of when they are detected. The use of methylene chloride to clean 
mix heads and other equipment is prohibited.
    Slabstock foam facilities that do not use any methylene chloride at 
the facility are not subject to these emissions limitations and 
management practices. Such facilities are, however, required to submit 
a one-time report.
    This final rule prohibits the use of methylene chloride-based mold 
release agents at molded and rebond foam facilities, methylene 
chloride-based equipment cleaners at molded foam facilities, and 
methylene chloride-based adhesives for foam fabrication.
3. Compliance Requirements
    No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance 
requirements. Slabstock foam area sources continuing to use methylene 
chloride are required to monitor methylene chloride added at slabstock 
production mixheads and the methylene chloride contained in and added 
to methylene chloride storage tanks. Plants using carbon adsorber 
systems to control emissions from methylene chloride storage tanks must 
monitor the methylene chloride content of exhaust streams from outlet 
vents. Plants using a recovery device to reduce methylene chloride 
emissions are required to comply with a recovered methylene chloride 
monitoring and recordkeeping program.
    The owner or operator of a slabstock foam production area source 
that continues to use methylene chloride as an ABA must submit 
semiannual reports containing information on allowable and actual 
methylene chloride emissions, carbon adsorbers on storage tanks, and 
equipment leaks. Owners and operators are also required to submit 
annual compliance

[[Page 38870]]

certifications. Records are required to demonstrate compliance, 
including a daily operating log of foam runs containing the grades of 
foam produced and related data, and records related to storage tanks 
and equipment leaks. Slabstock foam plants that do not use any 
methylene chloride must submit a one-time certification as part of 
their notification of compliance status.
    Molded foam, rebond foam, and foam fabrication area source 
facilities which operate loop slitters must prepare, and keep on file, 
compliance certifications which certify that the facility is not using 
the prohibited methylene-chloride based products. The area source 
plants must also maintain records documenting that the products they 
are using do not contain any methylene chloride. These can be records 
that would be kept in the absence of this final rule such as adhesive 
usage information and Material Safety Data Sheets. Foam fabrication 
area source plants which do not operate loop slitters have no 
compliance certification or recordkeeping requirements.
    The owner or operator of each slabstock foam affected source that 
continues to use methylene chloride and, therefore, is subject to the 
methylene chloride emissions limits, is required to comply with several 
requirements of the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. We 
have identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions that apply 
to existing and new sources.
    For slabstock foam production facilities that have eliminated the 
use of methylene chloride and are not subject to the emissions 
limitations in this final rule, we are requiring that owners or 
operators submit a notification certifying that they do not use any 
methylene chloride. Slabstock foam facilities that choose to use 
methylene chloride in the future will be subject to the emission limits 
and other requirements discussed above.

E. NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    This final NESHAP applies to new and existing lead acid battery 
manufacturing plants that are area sources. The owner or operator of an 
existing source must comply with all the requirements of this area 
source NESHAP by July 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new source 
must comply with this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007 or at 
startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices
    The Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category was listed 
for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of 
the Urban HAP lead and cadmium. As proposed, we are adopting as the 
NESHAP for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category the 
numerical emissions limits for grid casting, paste mixing, three-
process operations, lead oxide manufacturing, lead reclamation, and 
other lead emitting processes in 40 CFR 60.372 of the new source 
performance standards (NSPS) for lead acid batteries. These lead 
discharge limits are:
     0.40 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of 
exhaust (mg/m\3\) from grid casting facilities,
     1.00 mg/m\3\ from paste mixing facilities,
     1.00 mg/m\3\ from three-process operation facilities,
     5.0 mg per kilogram of lead feed from lead oxide 
manufacturing facilities,
     4.50 mg/m\3\ from lead reclamation facilities, and
     1.0 mg/m\3\ from any other lead-emitting operations.
    We are also adopting the opacity limits from the lead acid battery 
NSPS. The opacity of emissions must be no greater than 5 percent from 
lead reclamation facilities and no greater than 0 percent from any 
affected facility except lead reclamation facilities.
3. Compliance Requirements
    At proposal, we stated that we would adopt in this NESHAP the 
compliance requirements in the NSPS for lead acid batteries. We 
incorrectly stated in the proposal that title V would not add 
monitoring to the proposed NESHAP. While that statement was accurate 
for emissions units controlled by scrubbing systems, it was not 
accurate for emissions units controlled by fabric filters. We 
recognized our error during our consideration of comments submitted on 
the proposal. We have incorporated the part 63 monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for all emissions units 
instead of those in part 60. We concluded that the part 63 General 
Provisions are more appropriate for this NESHAP than are the part 60 
General Provisions that were proposed. We have also added periodic 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for emissions 
units controlled by fabric filters.
    We are adopting in this NESHAP the testing and monitoring and 
requirements in the NSPS for lead acid batteries. These provisions 
include the requirement to conduct a performance test and opacity 
measurement for each source. They also require continuous monitoring of 
the pressure drop for sources controlled by scrubbing systems. In 
addition to these requirements, we added to the final rule daily 
recordkeeping and semiannual reporting requirements for emissions units 
that are controlled by scrubbing systems.
    We added to the final rule monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements for emissions units that are controlled by fabric filters. 
These requirements direct facilities to conduct semiannual inspections 
of fabric filter structure and bags, and to either: (1) Measure and 
record the pressure drop across the fabric filter once per day, or (2) 
conduct daily visible emission observations. If visible emissions are 
detected, the final rule requires that an opacity measurement be made. 
A weekly rather than daily alternative monitoring frequency is also 
available for emissions units that utilize high efficiency particulate 
air (HEPA) filters in combination with fabric filters.
    We are also adopting the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements and the initial notification and notification of 
compliance requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A). We concluded that the part 63 General Provisions are 
more appropriate for this NESHAP than the part 60 General Provisions 
that were proposed.
    We have clarified the deadline for submission of initial 
notifications required by Sec.  63.9 of the General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A). The initial notification of applicability required 
for existing facilities is due by November 13, 2007. The notification 
of compliance status is due 60 days after the 1 year deadline for 
compliance September 15, 2008. We have identified in the final NESHAP 
the applicable General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.
    The final NESHAP allows existing plants to utilize previously 
conducted performance tests, when they are representative of current 
conditions, to demonstrate compliance. Plants without representative 
prior performance tests are required to conduct performance tests by 
180 days after the compliance date.

F. NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    This final NESHAP applies to new and existing wood preserving 
plants

[[Page 38871]]

that are area sources. The owner or operator of an existing source must 
comply with all the requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16, 
2007. The owner or operator of a new source must comply by July 16, 
2007 or at startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices
    The Wood Preserving area source category was listed for regulation 
under section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of the following Urban 
HAP: arsenic, chromium, methylene chloride, and dioxin. The only 
changes to the rule made since proposal are clarifications of 
applicability and the required management practices.
    We are adopting as the NESHAP for the Wood Preserving area source 
category the control technologies and management practices that we have 
determined are generally available, considering cost, for the wood 
preserving industry. We have revised the rule since proposal to clarify 
that the management practices and other recordkeeping and notification 
requirements in the NESHAP apply to those facilities that are using a 
wood preservative containing arsenic, chromium, dioxins, or methylene 
chloride.
    The NESHAP requires that facilities using a pressure treatment 
process use a retort or similarly enclosed vessel for the preservative 
treatment of wood involving any wood preservative containing chromium, 
arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride. Facilities using a thermal 
treatment process involving any wood preservative containing chromium, 
arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride are required to use process 
treatment tanks equipped with air scavenging systems to capture and 
control air emissions.
    This final rule also requires facility owners or operators using 
any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or 
methylene chloride to minimize emissions from process tanks and 
equipment (e.g., retorts, other enclosed vessels, and thermal treatment 
tanks), as well as storage, handling, and transfer operations. These 
standards are to be documented in a management practices plan that must 
include, but not be limited to, the following activities:
     Minimizing preservative usage;
     Maintaining records on the type of treatment process and 
types and amounts of wood preservatives used at the facility;
     For the pressure treatment process, maintaining charge 
records identifying pressure reading(s) inside the retort (or similarly 
enclosed vessel, if applicable);
     For the thermal treatment process, maintaining records 
that an air scavenging system is installed and operated properly during 
the treatment process;
     For the pressure treatment process, we proposed a 
requirement for facilities to fully drain the retort prior to opening 
the retort door. In the final rule, we have clarified this provision to 
require facilities to fully drain the retort to the extent practicable, 
prior to opening the retort door;
     Storing treated wood product on drip pads or in a primary 
containment area to convey preservative drippage to a collection system 
until drippage has ceased;
     Promptly collecting any spills; and
     Performing relevant corrective actions or preventative 
measures in the event of a malfunction before resuming operations.
    Existing written standard operating procedures may be used as the 
management practices plan if those procedures include the minimum 
activities required for a management practices plan.
3. Compliance Requirements
    No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance 
requirements for wood preserving facilities. Plants that use any wood 
preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene 
chloride are required to comply with the notification requirements in 
the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). This final 
rule establishes the content and deadlines for submission of the 
notifications. We have explicitly identified in this final NESHAP the 
applicable General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.
    The final standards require recordkeeping to serve as monitoring 
and deviation reporting to demonstrate compliance. The compliance 
requirements for new and existing area sources are based on certain 
notification requirements in the part 63 General Provisions. The 
initial notification of applicability required by 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2) 
requires the owner or operator to identify the plant as an area source 
subject to the standards. The notification of compliance status 
requires the owner or operator to certify compliance with the 
standards. No other recordkeeping or reporting requirements in the 
General Provisions are applicable.

IV. Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories From Title V Permitting 
Requirements

    Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may 
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that 
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or 
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the 
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a 
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such 
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, 
December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a 
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would 
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements, 
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed 
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V 
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category 
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area 
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any 
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement 
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the 
NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V permits 
(70 FR 75326).
    In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained 
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or 
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given 
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those 
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be 
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section 
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, we 
explained that not all of the four factors must weigh in favor of 
exemption for EPA to determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome 
for a particular area source category. Instead, the factors are to be 
considered in

[[Page 38872]]

combination, and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together, 
support an exemption from title V for a particular source category.
    In response to the proposed rule, we received a comment concerning 
the proposed title V exemptions. In response to this comment, we re-
examined the four factors for each of the area source categories for 
which we had proposed an exemption. As explained below, after 
evaluating the relevant factors, we again conclude that the 
requirements of title V would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area 
source categories for which we proposed an exemption from title V.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether 
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome 
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance 
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether 
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public 
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25, 
2005. As discussed below in sections IV.A through IV.D of this 
preamble, we have determined that the proposed exemptions from title V 
would not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment. 
We therefore finalize the proposed exemptions in this rule.

A. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production

    In sections IV.A through IV.D of this preamble, we apply the four-
factor balancing test to determine whether title V is unnecessarily 
burdensome on the area source category. Starting with the first factor, 
which is to determine whether title V permits would result in 
significant improvements to the compliance requirements for the Acrylic 
and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category, we compared the 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of title V 
permitting to those requirements in the final NESHAP. As noted above 
(see section III.A of this preamble), the final NESHAP adopts the 
compliance requirements in the State-issued permit for the one area 
source plant currently in operation.
    Specifically, this final rule requires CPMS to measure and record 
the water flow rate to the control device (wet scrubber) every 15 
minutes and to determine the daily average flow rate. Periodic visual 
inspections of AN storage tanks equipped with a fixed roof in 
combination with an internal floating roof must be conducted according 
to the NSPS requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. This final 
rule, therefore, contains both continuous and noncontinuous monitoring 
requirements, which constitute periodic monitoring. Under EPA's Final 
Rule Interpreting the Scope of Certain Monitoring Requirements for 
State and Federal Operating Permits Programs (71 FR 75422, December 15, 
2006) (``Interpretive Rule''), if an applicable requirement, such as a 
NESHAP, contains periodic testing or instrumental or non-instrumental 
monitoring (i.e., periodic monitoring), permitting authorities are not 
authorized to assess the sufficiency of or impose new monitoring 
requirements on a case-by-case basis; therefore, title V would not 
impose additional monitoring requirements on sources in this category.
    We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance 
compliance through recordkeeping or reporting requirements, including 
title V requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation 
reports, and an annual compliance certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 
71.6. The final rule for acrylic and modacrylic fibers production 
requires the owner or operator to submit an initial certification of 
compliance that must be signed by a responsible official. In addition, 
the owner or operator must determine compliance with daily average 
operating limits for the water flow rates to each control device on a 
monthly basis and submit compliance reports to EPA or the delegated 
authority on a quarterly basis. Should the daily average water flow 
rate to a wet scrubber control device fall below the operating limits, 
the plant must notify the delegated authority in writing within 10 days 
of the identification of the exceedance. Reports of performance test 
results are required. New and existing sources are also required to 
comply with the requirements for SSM plans, reports, and records in 40 
CFR 63.6(e)(3). When an SSM report must be submitted, it must consist 
of a letter, containing the name, title, and signature of the owner or 
operator or other responsible official who is certifying its accuracy.
    Records are required to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS 
inspection and repair requirements for storage tanks in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Kb. Records are also required for the monthly compliance 
determination for scrubber operating limits. The information required 
in the final rule is similar to the information that must be provided 
in the deviation reports and semiannual monitoring reports required 
under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
    This final rule does not require an annual compliance certification 
report, which is a requirement of a title V permit. See 40 CFR 
70.5(c)(9)(iii) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). The EPA believes that the 
annual certification reporting requirement is not necessary because the 
initial compliance certification and subsequent quarterly reports are 
more than adequate to determine compliance for existing sources. New 
sources must submit notifications and reports required by the part 63 
General Provisions. Moreover, the certifications that new and existing 
sources must submit under the part 63 General Provisions and the final 
rule include initial notification of compliance status; periodic and 
immediate reports under the SSM provisions; and reports of excess 
emissions and monitoring system performance.
    The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the 
final rule for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source 
category are substantially equivalent to such requirements under title 
V. Therefore, we conclude that title V would not result in significant 
improvements to the compliance requirements we are promulgating for 
this area source category.
    We evaluated factor two to determine whether title V permitting 
would impose a significant burden on the area source category and 
whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the source 
may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. Subjecting 
any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that 
do not exist outside of the title V program. The EPA estimated that the 
average annual cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit 
was $7,700 per year per source, including fees, or $38,000 per source 
for a 5-year permit period. See Information Collection Request (ICR) 
for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 
1587.05. There are certain activities associated with the part 70 and 
71 rules that are mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They 
include reading and understanding permit program guidance and 
regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms; 
answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the 
application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; 
collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-
month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation 
reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of 
written, verbal, and

[[Page 38873]]

other communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and 
submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications 
for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and 
submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not 
required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual 
services of professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help 
them understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR 
for part 70 may help to understand the overall burdens and costs, as 
well as the relative burdens, of each activity described here. Also, 
for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 
sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In considering the second factor for the one existing area source 
acrylic and modacrylic fibers plant, we examined the potential economic 
resources of the parent company and whether the source would have any 
difficulty in obtaining assistance from the permitting authority. 
Although this area source plant is small (i.e., it is the smallest of 
the four known plants in the source category), the parent company is a 
multi-national corporation and is not a small business. In addition, 
the plant has worked closely with the State permitting authority to 
obtain State operating permits and a designation as a synthetic minor 
source, which means the plant must keep HAP emissions below the major 
source threshold. The State agency has assigned a staff person who is 
specifically responsible for the permitting of sources at the plant. 
This staff person is familiar with the production processes, emissions 
sources, and permitting requirements for the plant; therefore, the 
staff person can provide permitting assistance as needed. Consequently, 
we have no evidence that obtaining a title V permit would impose a 
significant burden on this particular area source or that the burden 
would be aggravated by any difficulty in obtaining assistance from 
permitting authorities. However, we do not know what circumstances 
would exist for new sources in this category.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is 
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be 
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance 
likely to occur for such sources. While we concluded that the one 
existing area source could sustain the cost of title V permit 
requirements without a significant economic impact on the company as a 
whole, we do not think the costs for the one existing area source are 
justified because we do not think title V permitting would lead to 
gains in compliance by the source. As discussed above for factor one, 
we determined that the compliance requirements of this NESHAP are 
substantially equivalent to the requirements of title V. Furthermore, 
as discussed below for factor four, there are adequate implementation 
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure 
compliance with the NESHAP. We conclude, therefore, that the costs of 
title V are not justified for the one existing area source in this 
category, even though we concluded the costs would not be burdensome on 
the existing area source in this category. Furthermore, for new 
sources, the requirements of title V may be a significant burden and, 
since we have determined consistent with the first factor that there 
would not be significant improvements in compliance under title V, we 
likewise conclude that the cost would not be justified.
    The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation 
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure 
compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the 
proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to 
enforce these area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the 
State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP. 
We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP 
anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that title V 
permitting is ``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these NESHAP 
because the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement 
of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to 
assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V 
permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs required 
by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been 
exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct 
voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs 
(compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We 
determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance 
the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded 
that in light of all of the above, that there are implementation and 
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance 
with these NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had 
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had 
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only 
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, 
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure 
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the 
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. We do not have similar data for this 
rule because we are issuing this final NESHAP today. In the Exemption 
Rule, EPA exempted the categories from the requirements of title V 
after the NESHAP was issued. Although we do not have the type of 
enforcement data we had in the Exemption Rule, we have no reason to 
think that States will be less diligent in enforcing this NESHAP. See 
70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have adequate programs to enforce 
section 112 regulations and provide assurances that it will enforce all 
NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program. See 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E. There are State programs in place to enforce this area 
source NESHAP and assure compliance with the NESHAP. In light of the 
above, we conclude that there are implementation and enforcement 
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the 
final rule without relying on title V permitting.
    Considering the factors in combination supports the finding in the 
proposal that title V is unnecessarily burdensome on this area source 
category. We found in the proposal and again here that title V would 
not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements 
applicable to this area source category and that there are adequate 
implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance 
with the NESHAP. Although we concluded that the cost of title V 
permitting would not be burdensome on the one known existing area 
source, we cannot conclude that title V would not be a significant 
burden on new sources in the category. We also found that the cost is 
not justified because we could not identify any potential gains in 
compliance within the category if title V were required for this 
category. Thus, we conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area 
source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V 
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also

[[Page 38874]]

considered, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative 
history of section 502(a), whether exempting these area source 
categories from title V requirements would adversely affect public 
health, welfare, or the environment. We stated at proposal that 
exemption of this area source category from title V requirements would 
not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because 
the level of control would remain the same even if a title V permit 
were required. We continue to believe that there would be no adverse 
effects for all of the reasons supporting the exemptions as discussed 
above.
    Importantly, the title V permit program does not impose new 
substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead 
requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly 
with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As 
stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V 
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance 
requirements applicable to existing or new area sources. We conclude, 
therefore, that exempting this area source category from title V 
permitting requirements in the final rule would not adversely affect 
public health, welfare, or the environment.
    Moreover, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting 
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes 
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve 
understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve 
compliance with the requirements. In this case, placing all 
requirements for the one existing area source in a title V permit would 
do little to clarify the requirements applicable to that source or 
assist it in compliance with those requirements because of the 
simplicity of the source and the NESHAP, and the fact that this source 
is not subject to other NESHAP or to other requirements under the CAA. 
Given that the emissions profile for new sources should be similar to 
the existing source, we believe that new sources would be subject to 
similar CAA requirements.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Acrylic and 
Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category from title V 
permitting requirements.

B. Flexible Polyurethane Foam and Fabrication

    As discussed in the proposal, to determine whether title V permits 
would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements 
in the final NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam production and 
fabrication area source categories (factor one in determining whether 
title V permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome''), we compared the 
title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to those 
requirements in the final NESHAP for these source categories.
    This final NESHAP does not contain monitoring or periodic reporting 
requirements for molded foam production, rebond foam production, and 
foam fabrication facilities that must eliminate the use of methylene 
chloride, or for slabstock foam production facilities that elect to 
totally eliminate the use of methylene chloride. Since these facilities 
have discontinued the use of methylene chloride entirely, Urban HAP 
emissions would be reduced without the need for continuous or periodic 
monitoring of equipment or operations.
    For slabstock foam production facilities still using methylene 
chloride as an ABA, the final NESHAP requires the same periodic 
monitoring in the form of quantifying methylene chloride usage that 
must be performed by major sources. Therefore, title V would not add 
any monitoring to the final NESHAP. See the Interpretive Rule (71 FR 
75422, December 15, 2006).
    We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance 
compliance for area sources through recordkeeping or reporting 
requirements, including title V requirements for a 6-month monitoring 
report, deviation reports, and an annual compliance certification in 40 
CFR 70.6 and 71.6. The final NESHAP requires area source foam plants 
that have discontinued the use of methylene chloride to certify 
compliance with the prohibition on methylene chloride in their 
Notification of Compliance Status reports. For slabstock foam plants 
still using methylene chloride, the final NESHAP requires the same 
recordkeeping or reporting that must be performed by major sources. The 
information required in the final reports and records is similar to the 
information that must be provided in the deviation reports and required 
for title V permitting under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
    The final NESHAP requires a report if a deviation occurs, but does 
not require periodic compliance reports. The addition of periodic 
reports for sources that are subject to monitoring requirements would 
not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements 
in the final NESHAP for these area source categories. The final NESHAP 
does not require an annual compliance certification report for 
slabstock facilities that continue to use methylene chloride, as would 
be required under a title V permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(c)(9)(iii) and 40 
CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA believes that the annual certification reporting 
requirement is not necessary because the deviation reports are adequate 
to ensure compliance for new and existing sources. Furthermore, even 
absent the requirement to submit annual compliance certifications, 
sources must comply with all emission standards in the NESHAP. In 
conclusion, we do not believe that title V would lead to significant 
improvements in the compliance requirements for these categories.
    The second factor considered in determining whether title V is 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is whether title V permitting would impose 
significant burdens on the flexible polyurethane foam production and 
fabrication area sources and whether these burdens would be aggravated 
by difficulty they may have in obtaining assistance from permitting 
agencies. Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain 
burdens and costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. The 
EPA estimated that the true average annual cost of obtaining and 
complying with a title V permit was $38,500 per source for a 5-year 
permit period, including fees. See Information Collection Request for 
Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA Number 1587.05.
    The EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs 
of permitting flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication 
area sources; however, there are certain source activities associated 
with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are mandatory and 
impose burdens on the source. They include reading and understanding 
permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and understanding 
permit application forms; answering follow-up questions from permitting 
authorities after the application is submitted; reviewing and 
understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing and submitting 
monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis; preparing and 
submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the State, which may 
include a combination of written, verbal, and other communications 
methods; collecting information, preparing, and submitting the annual 
compliance certification; preparing applications for permit revisions 
every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications 
for permit revisions. In

[[Page 38875]]

addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources 
obtain the contractual services of professional scientists and 
engineers (consultants) to help them understand and meet the permitting 
programs' requirements.
    The ICR for part 70 further explains the overall burdens and costs, 
as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here. Also, 
for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 
sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In the proposal, we stated that we believed the cost of a title V 
program would be a significant burden for the area sources in all the 
categories that we proposed to exempt. For flexible polyurethane foam 
production and fabrication, that conclusion was based on the types of 
smaller establishments that make up these categories. We estimate that 
over 90 percent of the firms in the NAICS code for these categories are 
small businesses, with over half the firms having less than 20 
employees. We believe that these small sources will likely lack the 
technical resources needed to comprehend and comply with the permitting 
requirements and the financial resources needed to hire the necessary 
staff or outside consultants. Accordingly, we conclude that title V 
would be a significant burden for these categories because almost all 
the sources are small businesses with limited resources, and that it 
would be difficult for them to meet the numerous requirements 
applicable to sources under part 70 or 71, whether they have a standard 
or general permit. Also, we are not sure what level of title V related 
assistance permitting authorities would be able to provide such small 
sources. Thus, for the final rule, we believe factor two supports title 
V exemption for flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication 
sources because title V compliance would impose a significant economic 
and non-economic burden on sources in these categories.
    The third factor is whether the costs of title V permitting for 
these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any 
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. We 
concluded after consideration of the first factor that title V would 
not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements 
in the final rule for flexible polyurethane foam production and 
fabrication source categories. We also concluded in our consideration 
of the second factor that title V permitting would be a significant 
burden on the facilities and that the burden was associated with both 
the financial cost of compliance as well as the time and effort that 
these small facilities would have to devote to compliance with title V. 
Furthermore, as discussed in our consideration of the fourth factor 
below, there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in 
place sufficient to ensure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the 
costs, both economic and non-economic, are burdensome on these sources, 
and title V would not lead to significant improvements in compliance 
with the NESHAP, we conclude that requiring title V permitting is not 
justified for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories.
    The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation 
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure 
compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the 
proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to 
enforce these area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the 
State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP. 
We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP 
anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that title V 
permitting is ``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these NESHAP 
because the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement 
of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to 
assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V 
permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs required 
by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been 
exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct 
voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs 
(compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We 
determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance 
the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded 
that in light of all of the above, that there are implementation and 
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance 
with this NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had 
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had 
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only 
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, 
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure 
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the 
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have 
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption 
rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent 
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have 
adequate programs to enforce the HAP regulations and provide assurances 
that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program. 
See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E.
    In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are 
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to 
assure compliance with the flexible polyurethane foam production and 
fabrication NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
    Balancing the four factors for these area source categories 
strongly supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily 
burdensome. We determined in the proposal and above that title V would 
not significantly improve the compliance requirements of the NESHAP and 
that the requirements of title V would be a significant burden on the 
facilities. We also determined that the costs of compliance with title 
V would not be justified because it would not likely lead to gains in 
compliance with the NESHAP and that there are sufficient implementation 
and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance without reliance 
on title V. All four factors weigh in favor of exemption, and we 
conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for 
the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane 
Foam Fabrication area source categories.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V 
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered, 
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section 
502(a), whether exempting the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories from 
title V requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or 
the environment. Exemption of the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production 
and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories from 
title V requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, 
or the environment because the level of control would remain the same 
if a title V permit were required.

[[Page 38876]]

    The title V permit program does not impose new substantive air 
quality control requirements on sources, but instead requires that 
certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to 
determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our 
consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead 
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable 
to existing or new area sources. Therefore, we conclude that exempting 
the flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication area sources 
from title V permitting requirements in these rules will not adversely 
affect public health, welfare, or the environment.
    Moreover, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting 
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes 
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve 
understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve 
compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, we do not 
believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the 
requirements applicable to these area sources, as the requirements are 
not complicated to understand or implement. Furthermore, the sources in 
this category are not subject to any other NESHAP or CAA requirements 
to combine into one title V permit. For these reasons, we do not find 
that title V permitting is necessary to improve understanding of and 
achieve compliance with these standards.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
area source categories from title V permitting requirements.

C. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing

    In the proposal, we discussed whether title V permitting was 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 
area source category. Factor one in determining whether title V 
permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is to determine whether 
title V permits would result in significant improvements to the 
compliance requirements in the final NESHAP. In this NESHAP, we 
proposed adopting the compliance requirements in the NSPS for lead acid 
battery manufacturing as the compliance requirements for this area 
source category. The final rule includes the same provisions and 
requires monitoring, recordkeeping and deviation reporting to ensure 
compliance with the NESHAP. Specifically, the final rule requires that 
a facility using a scrubbing system install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a monitoring device that measures and records the pressure drop 
across the scrubbing system at least once every 15 minutes. Opacity 
requirements are zero percent for five of the six emission sources and 
five percent for the sixth. In addition to these requirements, we are 
adding in the final rule monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for emissions units controlled by fabric filters. These 
requirements direct facilities to perform and keep records of 
semiannual fabric filter inspections and to either: (1) Measure and 
record the pressure drop across the fabric filter once per day or (2) 
conduct daily visible emission observations. If visible emissions are 
detected, the final rule requires that an opacity measurement be made. 
The alternative of weekly monitoring is also available for emissions 
units that utilize HEPA filters in combination with fabric filters.
    Each facility must demonstrate compliance by either conducting a 
performance test or submitting the results of a recent performance test 
conducted using the methods and procedures in the final NESHAP. Because 
both the continuous and noncontinuous monitoring methods required by 
the final NESHAP constitute periodic monitoring, title V would not 
result in significant improvements to monitoring in the final NESHAP. 
See the Interpretive Rule (71 FR 75422, December 15, 2006).
    We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance 
compliance through recordkeeping or reporting requirements, including 
title V requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation 
reports, and an annual compliance certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 
71.6. Records are required to demonstrate compliance. Plants are 
required to comply with the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A). The information required in the NESHAP is similar to 
the information that must be provided in the deviation reports and 
semiannual monitoring reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 
CFR 71.6(a)(3).
    The NESHAP for lead acid battery manufacturing requires the owner 
or operator to submit an initial certification of compliance that must 
be signed by a responsible official. The NESHAP does not require an 
annual compliance certification report, as would be required under a 
title V permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(c 9)(iii) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA 
believes that the title V annual certification reporting requirement is 
not necessary because the semiannual reports are adequate to ensure 
compliance for new and existing sources. Furthermore, even absent the 
requirement to submit annual compliance certifications, sources must 
comply with all emission standards in the NESHAP. Therefore, the 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the final 
NESHAP for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category are 
substantially equivalent to requirements under title V. We conclude 
that title V would not result in significant improvements to the 
compliance requirements for this area source category.
    The second factor considered in determining whether title V 
permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is whether title V 
permitting would impose a significant burden for the Lead Acid Battery 
Manufacturing area source category and whether that burden would be 
aggravated by any difficulty these sources may have in obtaining 
assistance from permitting agencies. Subjecting any source to title V 
permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that do not exist outside 
of the title V program. EPA previously estimated that the true average 
annual cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was 
$38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See 
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit 
Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05.
    EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs of 
permitting lead acid battery manufacturing area sources; however, there 
are certain source activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. 
These activities are mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They 
include reading and understanding permit program guidance and 
regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms; 
answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the 
application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; 
collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-
month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation 
reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of 
written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting 
information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance 
certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 
years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit 
revisions. In addition, although not required by the

[[Page 38877]]

permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual services of 
professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help them 
understand and meet the permitting programs' requirements.
    The ICR for part 70 may help to understand the overall burdens and 
costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here. 
Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 
sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In considering the second factor for lead acid battery 
manufacturing, we examined the potential economic resources of the 
plants and their parent companies and whether they would have any 
difficulty in obtaining assistance from the permitting authority. There 
are a few multi-national corporations that own several lead acid 
battery manufacturing plants that would be subject to this NESHAP, and 
those facilities would have resources adequate to absorb the economic 
and non-economic burdens associated with complying with the title V 
permitting requirements. However, there are many plants that are small 
businesses for which the title V permitting requirements would be a 
significant burden, both economic and non-economic. In addition to the 
small businesses currently subject to the NSPS, there are some small 
plants \4\ that are not subject to the NSPS that will be subject to the 
NESHAP. These small businesses will be burdened complying with the 
NESHAP, even if title V compliance is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The new source performance standard (NSPD) applied only to 
plants that produced or had the design capacity to produce in one 
day batteries containing an amount of lead equal to or greater than 
5.9 megagrams (6.5 tons).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through discussions with the industry trade organization, we have 
learned that very few lead acid battery manufacturing facilities 
currently are subject to a title V permit for either lead or other 
criteria pollutants. Some plants have synthetic minor permits to remain 
below the threshold for title V permitting for criteria pollutants. As 
such, if title V permits were required the sources would have 
difficulty obtaining assistance from the permitting authorities as they 
developed and applied for title V permits. This difficulty stems from 
the fact that there are about 60 plants in this area source category, 
and permitting authorities'' resources are limited. Thus, the 
difficulty sources would have obtaining appropriate guidance from 
permitting authorities would only increase the already significant 
economic and non-economic burdens of title V on the small facilities 
with limited resources.
    The third factor is whether the costs of title V permitting for 
these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any 
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. We 
evaluated the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting requirements of the 
proposed NESHAP when considering the first factor and concluded above 
that title V would not lead to significant improvements to the 
compliance requirements for this category. In considering the second 
factor, we concluded that some of the existing area sources could 
comply with the title V permit requirements without a significant 
economic impact on the company as a whole. But, we also concluded that 
the costs would be a significant burden for small facilities, 
particularly those not currently covered by the NSPS because they would 
have to comply with the NESHAP and title V simultaneously. In addition, 
under the fourth factor below, we find that there are adequate 
implementation and enforcement programs in place to enforce the 
provisions of the NESHAP. We believe that the costs of compliance with 
title V are, therefore, not justified for this area source category 
given the little potential for gain in compliance benefits.
    The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation 
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure 
compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the 
proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to 
enforce these area source NESHAP. While we did not state this in the 
proposal, we know that States have been enforcing the NSPS on which the 
NESHAP is based for this source category for some time and that the 
State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP.
    We noted at proposal that EPA retains authority to enforce these 
NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that 
title V permitting is ``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these 
NESHAP because the statutory requirements for implementation and 
enforcement of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are 
sufficient to assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without 
title V permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs 
required by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that 
have been exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often 
conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education 
programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by 
statute. We determined that these additional programs will supplement 
and enhance the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and 
concluded that in light of all of the above, that there are 
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to 
assure compliance with these NESHAP without relying on title V 
permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had 
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had 
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only 
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, 
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure 
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the 
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have 
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption 
Rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent 
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have 
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide 
assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the 
program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E.
    In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are 
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to 
assure compliance with these NESHAP without relying on title V 
permitting.
    Balancing the four factors for this area source category supports 
the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. In 
considering the first factor, we concluded that title V would not lead 
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements. We 
concluded after consideration of the second factor that title V would 
impose a significant burden on the small facilities, particularly those 
not subject to the NSPS, but that the burden would not be significant 
for sources owned by larger companies. We concluded that the costs 
would not be justified given the little potential gain in the 
compliance likely to occur. We also determined that there are adequate 
implementation and enforcement programs in place to enforce the NESHAP 
and, furthermore, States have in fact been enforcing the provisions of 
the NSPS. All four factors individually support exemption, and 
collectively they support the finding in the proposal. Therefore, we 
conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily

[[Page 38878]]

burdensome'' for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source 
category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V 
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered, 
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section 
502(a), whether exempting the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area 
source category from title V requirements would adversely affect public 
health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Lead Acid Battery 
Manufacturing area source category from title V requirements would not 
adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the 
level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The 
title V permit program does not impose new substantive air quality 
control requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain 
procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to 
determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our 
consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead 
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable 
to existing or new area sources. There is no evidence in the record 
that leads us to question these conclusions. Therefore, we conclude 
that exempting the lead acid battery manufacturing area sources from 
title V permitting requirements in this rule will not adversely affect 
public health, welfare, or the environment.
    Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting 
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes 
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve 
understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve 
compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, we do not 
believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the 
requirements applicable to the lead acid battery manufacturing area 
sources. These plants are straightforward in design and are not covered 
by regulations with requirements that are very complicated to 
understand or implement. The permits we have examined for the Lead Acid 
Battery Manufacturing area source category currently consist of a 
single document that applies to all sources and to lead and the other 
criteria pollutants emitted. For these reasons, we do not find that 
title V permitting is necessary to improve understanding of and achieve 
compliance with these standards.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Lead Acid Battery 
Manufacturing area source category from title V permitting 
requirements.

D. Wood Preserving

    As discussed in the proposal, we compared the title V monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (factor one) to the 
requirements in the NESHAP for the Wood Preserving area source 
category. EPA determined that the management practices currently used 
at most facilities is GACT and the rule requires recordkeeping that 
serves as monitoring and deviation reporting to ensure compliance with 
the NESHAP. The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V 
exemption because title V is unnecessary to provide adequate monitoring 
for wood preserving area sources. Because the NESHAP requires 
management practices for certain treatment processes and requires 
recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring, additional monitoring 
requirements that might be added under title V would be unnecessary to 
assure compliance. Monitoring other than recordkeeping is not practical 
or appropriate in this case because the requirements are management 
practices. Records are required to ensure that the management practices 
are followed, including records of the type of preservative treatment 
process used, the types and quantities of preservatives used, and 
charge records of retort pressure.
    As part of the first factor, we have considered the extent to which 
title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered 
by this final rule through recordkeeping or reporting requirements. For 
any affected wood preserving area source facility, the NESHAP requires 
an initial notification, a compliance status report, and deviations 
must be reported within 30 days. We considered the various title V 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including requirements for a 
6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an annual 
certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6.
    The wood preserving NESHAP also requires affected facilities to 
certify compliance with the management practices required by the rule. 
In addition, wood preserving facilities must maintain records showing 
compliance with the required management practices and report 
deviations. The information required in the deviation reports and 
records is similar to the information that must be provided in the 
deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that title V might impose additional 
compliance requirements on this category, but, as stated in the 
proposal, we conclude that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements of the NESHAP for wood preserving are sufficient to ensure 
compliance with the provisions of the NESHAP, and title V would not 
significantly improve those compliance requirements.
    Under the second factor, we determine whether title V permitting 
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category 
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. 
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and 
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. The EPA 
estimated that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title 
V permit was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including 
fees. See Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit 
Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. The EPA does not 
have specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting wood 
preserving area sources; however, there are certain source activities 
associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are 
mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They include reading and 
understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and 
understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up questions 
from permitting authorities after the application is submitted; 
reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing 
and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis; 
preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the 
State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other 
communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and 
submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications 
for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and 
submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not 
required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual 
services of professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help 
them understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR 
for part 70 provides additional information on the overall burdens and 
costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here. 
Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70

[[Page 38879]]

sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In assessing the second factor for wood preserving facilities, we 
found that over 90 percent of the 393 plants are small businesses, most 
with only a few employees. These small sources lack the technical 
resources needed to comprehend and comply with permitting requirements 
and the financial resources needed to hire the necessary staff or 
outside consultants. As discussed above, title V permitting would 
impose significant economic and non-economic costs on these area 
sources, and, accordingly, we conclude that title V is a significant 
burden for sources in this category. Most are small businesses with 
limited resources, and under title V they would be subject to numerous 
mandatory activities with which they would have difficulty complying, 
whether they were issued a standard or a general permit. Furthermore, 
given the large number of sources in the category and the relatively 
small size, it would likely be difficult for them to obtain assistance 
from the permitting authority. Thus, we find that factor two strongly 
supports title V exemption for wood preserving facilities.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is 
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be 
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance 
likely to occur for such sources. We explained above under the second 
factor that the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with 
title V would impose a significant burden on most of the 393 wood 
preserving facilities. We also concluded in considering the first 
factor that, while title V might impose additional requirements, the 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP 
assure compliance with the management practices imposed in the NESHAP. 
In addition, below in our consideration of the fourth factor we find 
that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in 
place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both 
economic and non-economic, of compliance with title V are so high, and 
the potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not 
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor 
supports title V exemptions for wood preserving area sources.
    The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and 
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance 
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the proposal, we 
considered whether there are State programs in place to enforce these 
area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the State programs 
are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP. We also noted 
that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP anytime under CAA 
sections 112, 113, and 114. We concluded that title V permitting is 
``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these NESHAP because the 
statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of these 
NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to assure 
compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V permits. We 
also noted that small business assistance programs required by CAA 
section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been exempted 
from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary 
compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance 
assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We determined 
that these additional programs will supplement and enhance the success 
of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded that in light 
of all of the above, there are implementation and enforcement programs 
in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP 
without relying on title V permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had 
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had 
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only 
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, 
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure 
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the 
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have 
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption 
rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent 
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have 
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide 
assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the 
program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E.
    In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are 
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to 
assure compliance with the Wood Preserving NESHAP without relying on 
title V permitting.
    Balancing the four factors for this area source category strongly 
supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. 
While title V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed, 
we concluded that there would not be significant improvements to the 
compliance requirements in the NESHAP because the requirements in this 
final rule are specifically designed to assure compliance with the 
standards and management practices imposed on this area source 
category. We also concluded that the economic and non-economic costs of 
compliance with title V, in conjunction with the likely difficulty this 
large number of small sources would have obtaining assistance from the 
permitting authority, would impose a significant burden on the sources. 
We determined that the high relative costs would not be justified given 
that there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if 
title V were required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation 
and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. 
Thus, we conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' for the Wood Preserving area source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V 
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered at 
proposal, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history 
of section 502(a), whether exempting the Wood Preserving area source 
category from title V requirements would adversely affect public 
health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Wood Preserving 
area source category from title V requirements would not adversely 
affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of 
control would remain the same if a permit were required. The title V 
permit program does not impose new substantive air quality control 
requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural 
measures be followed, particularly with respect to determining 
compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our consideration 
of factor one for this category, title V would not lead to significant 
improvements in the compliance requirements applicable to existing or 
new area sources.
    Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting 
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes 
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve 
understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve

[[Page 38880]]

compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, placing all 
requirements for the sources in a title V permit would do little to 
clarify the requirements applicable to the sources or assist them in 
compliance with those requirements because of the simplicity of the 
sources and the NESHAP, and the fact that these sources are not subject 
to other NESHAP or to other requirements under the CAA. We have no 
reason to think that new sources would be substantially different from 
the existing sources. In addition, we explained in the Exemption Rule 
that requiring permits for the large number of area sources could, at 
least in the first few years of implementation, potentially adversely 
affect public health, welfare, or the environment by shifting State 
agency resources away from assuring compliance for major sources with 
existing permits to issuing new permits for these area sources, 
potentially reducing overall air program effectiveness. For the final 
rule, we conclude that title V exemptions for the wood preserving area 
sources will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the 
environment for all of the reasons explained above.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Wood Preserving 
area source category from title V permitting requirements.

V. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We received a total of 18 comments on the proposed NESHAP from 
seven industry trade associations, representatives of eight affected 
facilities, one environmental group, and two State agencies during the 
public comment period. Sections V.A through V.J of this preamble 
provide responses to the significant public comments received on the 
proposed NESHAP.

A. Basis for Area Source Standards

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's decision to issue GACT 
standards pursuant to section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards 
pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), for six of the seven area 
source categories at issue in the proposed rule is arbitrary and 
capricious because EPA provided no rationale for its decision to issue 
GACT standards. The commenter makes this argument for the following six 
source categories: Acrylic and modacrylic fibers production, carbon 
black production, chemical manufacturing: Chromium compounds, flexible 
polyurethane foam production/flexible polyurethane foam fabrication, 
and lead acid battery manufacturing.
    Response: As the commenter itself recognizes, in section 112(d)(5), 
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission 
standards for area sources. Specifically, section 112(d)(5), which is 
entitled ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:

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

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

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

    The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for issuing 
GACT standards under section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards. The 
commenter is incorrect, however. Had Congress intended that EPA first 
conduct a MACT analysis for each area source category and only if cost 
or some other reason made applying the MACT standard inappropriate for 
the category would EPA be able to issue a standard under section 
112(d)(5), Congress would have stated so expressly in section 
112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to conduct any MACT analysis, 
floor analysis or beyond-the-floor analysis, before the Agency could 
issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress authorized EPA to 
issue GACT standards for area source categories listed under section 
112(c)(3), and that is precisely what EPA has done in this rulemaking.
    Although EPA has no obligation to justify why it is issuing a GACT 
standard for an area source category as opposed to a MACT standard, EPA 
must set a GACT standard that is consistent with the requirements of 
section 112(d)(5) and have a reasoned basis for its GACT determination. 
As explained in the proposed rule and below, in determining what 
constitutes GACT for a particular area source category, EPA evaluates 
the control technologies and management practices that reduce HAP 
emissions that are generally available for the area source category. 
See 72 FR 116638. The legislative history supporting section 112(d)(5) 
provides that EPA may consider costs in determining what constitutes 
generally available control technologies or management practices for 
the area source category (GACT).\7\ EPA cannot consider cost in setting 
MACT floors,

[[Page 38881]]

pursuant to section 112(d)(3). Congress plainly recognized that area 
sources differ from major sources, which is why Congress permitted EPA 
to consider costs in setting GACT standards for area sources under 
section 112(d)(5), but did not permit that consideration in setting 
MACT floors for major sources. This important dichotomy between section 
112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress 
sought to do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) states--
provide EPA the authority to issue ``[a]lternative standards for area 
sources.'' EPA properly issued standards for the area source categories 
at issue here under section 112(d)(5), and as demonstrated below, EPA 
has a reasoned basis for each of its GACT determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additional information on the definition of ``generally 
available control technology or management practices'' (GACT) is 
found in the Senate report on the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air 
Act (S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st session. 171-172). That 
report states that GACT is to encompass: . . . methods, practices 
and techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for 
application by the sources in the category considering economic 
impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and 
maintain the emissions control systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, even accepting, for arguments sake, the commenter's 
assertion that EPA must provide a rationale basis for setting a GACT 
standard as opposed to a MACT standard, we did so in the proposed rule. 
In the proposal, we explained that we can and do consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT. We also explained that the 
facilities in the source categories at issue here are already well 
controlled for the Urban HAP for which the source category was listed 
pursuant to section 112(c)(3). See 72 FR 16638. We believe the 
consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially important for 
the well-controlled area sources at issue in this final action because, 
given current well-controlled levels, a MACT floor determination, where 
costs cannot be considered, could result in only marginal reductions in 
emissions at very high costs for modest incremental improvement in 
control for the area source category.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's alternative proposal (72 
FR 16647) that GACT is no further emissions reduction for existing area 
sources in three source categories (chromium compounds manufacturing, 
carbon black production, and acrylic and modacrylic fibers production) 
is unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter stated that the Agency 
provided no basis whatsoever for concluding that GACT is no further 
emission reduction. In particular, the commenter claimed that EPA 
provided no basis for concluding that: (1) Chromium compounds 
manufacturers cannot reduce their emissions of such pollutants through 
the use of generally available control measures, (2) carbon black 
manufacturers cannot reduce all their emissions of HAP at least to the 
98 weight percent reduction or 20 ppmv standards, and (3) acrylic and 
modacrylic fibers manufacturers cannot reduce their emissions of HAP at 
least to the levels EPA has identified as GACT.
    Response: In the preamble to the proposed rule for the Acrylic and 
Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category, we solicited 
comments as follows:

    We are alternatively proposing that GACT for this existing area 
source is no further emission reduction. We request comment on the 
basis, consistent with section 112(d)(5), for asserting that GACT is 
no further control for the existing source. We request comment on 
this issue because the standard proposed above will not result in 
any emission reductions beyond what is already required by the State 
permit to which the existing facility is already subject.

    We included the same request for comments in the preamble for the 
Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds area source category and the 
Carbon Black Production area source category. We are not finalizing 
this approach in the final rule. Rather, we are finalizing the proposed 
emissions standards with minor changes.

B. Proposed NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area 
Sources

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's decision to reject steam 
stripping of wastewater streams as GACT for the one existing area 
source plant on cost effectiveness grounds is unlawful and arbitrary. 
The commenter asserted that in the proposed rule, EPA did not dispute 
that steam stripping was commercially available and appropriate and did 
not claim that the economic impact was too great. The commenter further 
asserted that EPA presented only its own subjective views on cost 
effectiveness, which are not relevant under section 112(d)(5).\8\ 
According to the commenter, EPA's decision to reject steam stripping is 
arbitrary because the Agency did not consider the relevant factors 
(availability, appropriateness, and cost) in determining what 
constitutes GACT. The commenter further stated that EPA failed to 
explain why it based its rejection of steam stripping on its claims 
about cost effectiveness or to explain why it did not consider the 
reductions cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The commenter cites legislative history, noting that GACT 
must reflect the ``methods, practices and techniques that are 
commercially available and appropriate for application by the 
sources in the category considering economic impacts'' (72 FR 16638, 
quoting S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171-172).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (72 FR 
16638, April 4, 2007):

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

    Prior to proposal, we reviewed the generally available control 
technologies and management practices that have been applied to 
wastewater at the one existing acrylic and modacrylic fibers area 
source plant. This plant has a wastewater stream with a low 
concentration of AN, and the wastewater is processed in a wastewater 
treatment system to remove organic compounds and degrade the AN. We 
also considered the control technologies and management practices 
employed at major sources in this category for treating wastewater 
streams and determined that the major sources were treating similar 
low-HAP concentration wastewater streams in the same manner as the area 
sources in this category. We also evaluated the feasibility of steam 
stripping to remove the AN even though it was not employed in the 
category for low-HAP concentration wastewater streams. We stated at 
proposal that steam stripping the wastewater stream would require a 
capital expenditure of $700,000 with a recurring total annualized cost 
of $630,000 per year. We stated that, assuming a 90 percent removal 
rate, the emissions reduction from steam stripping for the existing 
area source facility would be 7 tpy. The cost effectiveness would be 
$90,000 per ton of AN.\9\ We determined that steam stripping of the 
wastewater stream at the only known existing area source was not 
appropriate for application for the source because it was not cost 
effective. See e.g., Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 349 U.S. App. DC 118, 254 
F.3d 195, 201 (DC Cir. 2001) (Finding EPA's decision to consider costs 
on a per ton of emissions removed basis reasonable because CAA section 
213 did not mandate a specific method of cost analysis). Consequently,

[[Page 38882]]

we concluded that GACT was the plant's current management practice of 
processing the water in a wastewater treatment system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We recognize that in other contexts the effectiveness of 
steam stripping is 96 percent, which results in a cost effectiveness 
of $85,000 per ton of AN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments, we evaluated plants in similar industrial 
categories (e.g., the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry 
subject to subpart G in 40 CFR part 63) and found that the general 
management practice for low-HAP concentration wastewater streams is to 
process the water in a wastewater treatment system similar to that 
employed by the existing acrylic and modacrylic area source. We 
conclude here that the current practice employed at the existing 
facility is GACT and, consistent with our finding at proposal, stream 
stripping is not GACT for this area source category.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule for existing 
sources was very specific to the one area source plant that EPA 
identified and stated that it should more appropriately be based on 
efficiencies or concentrations to allow some operating flexibility. 
While the commenter acknowledged that this facility is the only acrylic 
fiber manufacturer currently known to be an area source, the commenter 
believed that future facilities may struggle to comply with such site-
specific requirements. Specifically, the commenter suggested that the 
proposed emissions limit for polymerization process equipment, which is 
expressed in terms of pounds per hour (lb/hr), should be written more 
generally for different types of processes and control equipment that 
might be used and should require a control efficiency or outlet 
concentration. According to the commenter, this would more closely 
match the approach provided for new sources which used efficiency and 
concentration limits.
    The commenter also noted that the control device parameter 
operating limit for existing sources specifies the water flow rate of 
the scrubbers. The commenter stated that the standard should require 
the operating parameters to be established based on performance 
testing. The commenter asserted if past testing is used and parameters 
were previously set, this should still be acceptable. According to the 
commenter, this approach would allow the existing facility flexibility 
to change these parameters based on performance testing should it 
become necessary.
    Response: We agree that the proposed emission limit for process 
vents is very site-specific to the one known area source plant. We are 
providing existing sources with the option of complying with the 
standards for new sources. Although the standards for new and existing 
sources are expressed in different formats, both standards require the 
same level of emission control, and both ensure that the technology 
identified as GACT is in place. Thus, the compliance alternative we are 
adopting in the final rule provides an equivalent level of control and 
additional flexibility for existing sources to demonstrate compliance 
with the NESHAP.
    We also agree with the commenter's suggestion about establishing 
operating limits for the scrubbers during a performance test and have 
revised the rule accordingly. The scrubber water flow must be monitored 
during the performance test, and the test must demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limit. The operating limit for scrubber water flow is 
determined from the lowest average flow rate during any test run that 
shows compliance with the emissions limit.

C. Proposed NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources

    Comment: Two commenters stated that there are no area sources in 
the source category producing carbon black by the furnace or thermal 
processes. The commenters believed that the 2002 National Emissions 
Inventory (NEI) incorrectly designated the Degussa Engineered Carbon 
facility in Belpre, Ohio, as an area source. Both commenters claimed 
that the emissions reported in the NEI and the 2005 Toxics Release 
Inventory (TRI) from this facility, which are below the major source 
thresholds, represent levels after control but that the uncontrolled 
``potential to emit'' emissions are considerably above the major source 
thresholds.
    The commenters asserted that this facility was identified as the 
only existing area source in the category and was used to form the 
basis for GACT. The commenters stated that EPA determined GACT based on 
this mistaken identification of the Belpre, Ohio facility as an area 
source. The commenters requested that EPA reconsider its GACT 
determination in light of the fact that the source considered in making 
such a determination is a major source and that GACT determinations 
require considerations of economics and a technical feasibility for the 
smaller sources outside of the major source category. The commenters 
stated that GACT for area sources should be less stringent than MACT 
for major sources due to the financial and technical considerations 
that would apply to a smaller area source.
    Response: The identification of the Degussa plant in Belpre, OH as 
an area source was due in part to the information in the NEI and TRI as 
suggested by the commenters. We also reviewed the plant's title V 
permit, which expires in December 2007. The permit indicated that the 
plant was a major source of criteria pollutants and not a major source 
of HAP emissions. The permit also did not indicate that the plant was 
subject to the MACT standard in subpart YY (40 CFR part 63). While we 
were aware of the plant's recent permit renewal application that 
incorporated the provisions of subpart YY, it was still unclear whether 
the plant was a major source of HAP. However, since one of the 
commenters is the plant itself, we accept that we made an error in 
considering this facility to be an area source.
    In light of this new information, we reevaluated our GACT 
determination for existing carbon black area sources. As stated in the 
proposal preamble (72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007):

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

    Given that there are no current area sources, we examined all 
existing carbon black plants, which happen to be all major sources. 
Those sources have applied technologies to reduce organic HAP emissions 
from main unit process vent streams with concentrations of 260 ppmv or 
greater. The control technologies typically used for this source 
category are flares and incinerators. These control technologies have 
also been widely applied to many emission sources in other similar 
industrial source categories, such as process vents at petroleum 
refineries and chemical plants. These control technologies are 
therefore generally available.
    Even if by some mechanism an existing major source becomes an 
existing area source, that facility would already have the necessary 
controls in

[[Page 38883]]

place and the facility would incur no additional costs in response to 
this final NESHAP. The facility would not be able to remove or 
discontinue use of any of the controls because they would likely exceed 
the major source thresholds (i.e., the commenters pointed out that 
their potential to emit based on emissions before control exceeds major 
source thresholds). Further, the controls were installed to meet permit 
limits for criteria pollutants, and these requirements would not change 
just because a source became an area source of HAP emissions.
    Accordingly, after considering the availability of the above-
identified control technologies, which provide the most effective 
control of HAP emissions from these processes, their demonstrated 
applicability to carbon black facilities and similar emission sources, 
and their reasonable costs for vent streams with concentrations above 
260 ppmv, we are finalizing the standard for carbon black area sources 
set forth in the proposal.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's decision to provide a 260 
ppmv applicability cutoff in the proposed rule for carbon black 
producers is based on factors that are irrelevant to the establishment 
of GACT standards under section 112(d)(5) and devoid of any rational 
explanation. According to the commenter, EPA determined that GACT for 
carbon black manufacturing is either a 98 weight-percent reduction in 
HAP emissions or a 20 ppmv concentration standard. The commenter 
claimed that EPA proposed to allow sources to meet an alternative 260 
ppmv standard. According to the commenter, EPA's only explanation for 
allowing sources to emit 13 times as much HAP as its own GACT standard 
would allow is that ``this cutoff represents the lowest control device 
inlet concentration reported at one of the best-controlled facilities'' 
and ``we do not have available information to indicate that the single 
existing area source controls process vent emissions with 
concentrations below this level.'' The commenter asserted that EPA did 
not explain the relevance of either of those claims to its 
determination of GACT. According to the commenter, the control device 
inlet concentration at any given source is in no way indicative of the 
emissions level that can be achieved by the technology that EPA itself 
has recognized as GACT and therefore, it is irrelevant to the GACT 
determination. The commenter also claimed that because control device 
inlet information is irrelevant under section 112(d)(5), EPA's decision 
to base an alternative GACT decision on such information is arbitrary 
and that EPA's complete failure to explain why it would base its GACT 
decision on such information or why it believed that such information 
is even relevant to the determination of GACT is also arbitrary.
    The commenter stated that to the extent EPA based its decision on 
the fact that the single source currently in the area source carbon 
black category does not currently control vent emissions streams below 
the 260 ppmv level, its decision is unlawful. The commenter asserted 
that EPA's obligation under section 112(d)(5) is to base standards on 
control measures that are commercially available and appropriate for 
the category. According to the commenter, the fact that a source has 
not already voluntarily controlled its emission streams below a given 
level does not mean that control technology is not commercially 
available for use on such streams or that the use of such technology is 
not appropriate. The commenter stated that EPA did not even suggest 
that using a flare or incinerator to control emissions from vent 
streams with concentrations below 260 ppmv is either technically or 
economically infeasible.
    Response: As noted above, other commenters reported that the 
facility originally identified as the only existing area source in this 
category (upon which the proposed GACT requirements were based) is in 
fact a major source. Therefore, as we stated in the previous response, 
we reevaluated GACT for this category and determined that for sources 
with process vent stream emissions of 260 ppmv or greater, the 
technology that applies at major sources (i.e., flares or incinerators) 
is transferable to area sources. We have no emissions data for process 
vent streams below 260 ppmv, as the major sources are not required to 
control below this level.
    As an initial matter, we reject the commenter's statement that 
control device inlet concentration is not relevant. The inlet 
concentration and other stream characteristics (i.e., the 
characteristics of the uncontrolled emission stream) are directly 
related to both the effectiveness and the cost of a control device. For 
example, the heating value of components of the inlet stream is a key 
component in the effectiveness and cost of a flare. Therefore, the 
concentration affects flame stability, emissions, and flame structure. 
A lower concentration (and thus lower heating value) produces a cooler 
flame that does not favor combustion kinetics and is also more easily 
extinguished. While these limitations can sometimes be overcome through 
the use of auxiliary fuels, this increases the costs. Therefore, we 
believe that the use of concentration is an appropriate consideration 
in determining GACT for this source category.
    Flares and incinerators are established control technologies that 
are generally available for this source category for POM, which is the 
Urban HAP for which this source category was listed. Therefore, we 
analyzed the potential impacts associated with a requirement to control 
process vent streams with organic HAP concentrations of 260 ppmv or 
less. We estimate that the cost effectiveness of controlling a 260 ppmv 
stream with a flare would be around $19 million per ton of POM emission 
reduction (carbon black production was listed as an area source 
category based on emissions of POM). The cost effectiveness of an 
incinerator was estimated to be almost $25 million per ton of POM 
reduction. We believe that the costs of requiring the control of 
process vent streams with organic HAP concentrations less than 260 ppmv 
are cost prohibitive and therefore do not represent methods, practices, 
and techniques which are generally available for application by the 
sources in this category. Therefore, the final rule retains the 260 
ppmv applicability threshold.

D. Proposed NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium 
Compounds

    Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed standard requiring 
plants to operate a capture system that collects gases and fumes from 
each emissions source and conveys the gases to a PM control device 
because, according to the commenter, EPA did not say how efficient 
either the capture system or the PM control device must be. The 
commenter also stated that EPA appears to indicate that any capture 
system and control device will do, but the commenter acknowledged that 
EPA did provide equations that appear to establish numerical limits on 
PM emissions on a pounds per hour basis. The commenter stated that 
EPA's apparent assumption that all PM control is the same and equally 
sufficient for controlling emissions from this source is at odds with 
the record evidence and is arbitrary.
    According to the commenter, not all PM controls are equally 
effective. The commenter stated that ``it is plain from the discussion 
of PM controls provided by both EPA itself and ICAC that PM controls 
vary widely in effectiveness, and is plain that chromium compound 
manufacturers could reduce their emissions of hexavalent chromium and

[[Page 38884]]

other HAP by using more effective PM controls.'' Examples given by the 
commenter include more effective fabric filters such as filters with 
better fabric or better baghouse design and more effective scrubbers.
    According to the commenter, EPA did not consider the possibility of 
requiring any controls other than those that are currently in use and 
did not discuss which technologies are currently available, their 
effectiveness, or how much they cost. The commenter asserted that EPA's 
rejection of more effective controls without even considering them is 
arbitrary and capricious.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's statement that EPA 
concluded that any capture system or any control device is, as the 
commenter implies, sufficient in the abstract to comply with the 
NESHAP. EPA established numerical emissions limits for chromium, using 
PM as a surrogate, and the emissions limits are established by 
equations set forth in the rule. The commenter stated that the 
equations ``appear'' to establish numerical emission limits, and, in 
fact, the equations do establish such limits on a pounds per hour 
basis, and the commenter's implication that they do not is unsupported.
    Further, we disagree with the commenter that we assumed that all PM 
control devices are equally effective. We proposed an emissions 
standard for the metal HAP at issue using PM as a surrogate. The PM 
emissions standard identified as GACT was based on control technologies 
that are generally available, considering cost, and represent a level 
of control that has been achieved at the two existing chromium compound 
manufacturing facilities.
    As we discussed earlier, in determining GACT for area sources, we 
examine the demonstrated and generally available controls at area 
sources in the source category. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. We also 
consider the standards applicable to major sources in the category and 
determine if those controls are generally available and transferable to 
area sources. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. In addition, in 
appropriate circumstances, we may consider technologies employed at 
similar industrial source categories. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. 
We also consider cost and economic impacts of generally available 
control technologies or management practices on a source category in 
determining GACT. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007.
    In this case, at proposal, we evaluated the control technologies 
that are used by the existing chromium compound manufacturing area 
source facilities. The two processes with the greatest emissions 
potential are the high temperature operations of the rotary kilns used 
for roasting the chromite ore and the processes used for quenching the 
hot kiln roast. Both plants use a combination of wet scrubbers and 
electrostatic precipitators in series for one or both of these 
processes. This combination of wet scrubbers and electrostatic 
precipitators has been demonstrated as effective for this source 
category and is generally available.\10\ Thus, we established GACT 
based on the current controls employed at the two area sources in this 
category. We did not find that the costs and economic impacts of 
compliance would be significant because the controls that we determined 
were generally available in the category were being employed at the 
existing facilities, and nothing in the record indicated that the costs 
would be prohibitive for new sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The effectiveness of these controls is shown by the TRI 
reporting for the North Carolina plant with a 95 percent reduction 
in chromium emissions since the control technology identified as 
GACT was installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are no major sources in this category, and we did not 
consider similar source categories at proposal. In response to 
comments, however, we have evaluated similar primary metal industries. 
We have found that electrostatic precipitators, often in combination 
with scrubbers, the same controls employed by the emissions sources in 
this category, are the commonly used control devices for the smelting 
or roasting operations in other primary metal industries, including 
primary steel, primary copper, and primary zinc production. We affirm 
our conclusion that the proposed controls are GACT for this area source 
category. The proposed standard, with minor changes discussed 
elsewhere, is finalized in this rulemaking.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the performance 
test requirements. The commenter pointed out that for an existing 
facility, the proposed rule allows certification of compliance with the 
emission limits based on a previous performance test conducted within 
the past 5 years; otherwise, a facility must conduct tests to 
demonstrate initial compliance. The commenter noted that the proposed 
rule conflicted with the General Provisions table which indicates that 
performance test requirements apply to an existing source only if the 
permitting authority requests the tests. The commenter stated that he 
initially understood that EPA would require initial performance tests 
only if requested by the permitting authority. According to the 
commenter, the two affected plants that produce chromium compounds from 
chromite ore are currently performing adequate monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting to demonstrate compliance with the 
proposed emissions limits, and any decision to require performance 
tests should be at the discretion of the permitting agency.
    Response: We acknowledge that the current title V permits for the 
affected plants require performance testing only at the request of the 
permitting authority. However, the final rule requires performance 
testing if a valid performance test has not been conducted within the 5 
years prior to the effective date of the final rule. We found that 
performance tests have not been conducted within the past 5 years at 
the two existing plants, and a few minor emissions sources have never 
been tested. An initial performance test or a recent performance test 
is very important to ensure that the control devices are operating as 
designed and can be shown to meet the applicable emissions limit. 
Although the plants have performed the monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping required by their permits, we cannot correlate the 
monitoring results to the performance of the control devices to ensure 
the emissions limits are met unless a performance test has been 
conducted to demonstrate this. Once a performance test has demonstrated 
compliance, we will have assurance that subsequent monitoring will 
ensure that the emissions sources continue to operate as designed and 
as demonstrated by the performance test.
    The commenter is correct in that there were conflicting entries in 
the General Provisions table of the proposed rule for performance test 
requirements. We have corrected the table in the final rule to clarify 
the performance test requirements as discussed above.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify the definition of 
a ``new'' affected source. The commenter asked if a new affected source 
includes new or reconstructed equipment at an existing site, or is a 
new affected source a new or reconstructed chromium chemical 
manufacturing facility. The commenter suggested that EPA add a 
definition of ``chromium compounds manufacturing facility.''
    Response: The proposed rule stated that the ``affected source'' is 
``each chromium compounds manufacturing facility.'' We have added a 
definition of ``chromium compounds manufacturing facility'' to further 
clarify what the affected source is. A new affected source is one for 
which construction or

[[Page 38885]]

reconstruction commenced after April 4, 2007. The definitions of 
``construction'' and ``reconstruction'' are given in the General 
Provisions (40 CFR 63.2).
    Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed requirements for 
initial control device inspections for plants that are already 
implementing the inspection requirements according to an established 
schedule in an approved title V permit. The commenter claimed that the 
proposed requirement for initial inspections will result in increased 
costs and result in shutdown of key emissions sources and control 
devices that are not due for inspection until 2008 and 2009. The 
commenter provided an example of kilns that must be shutdown and cooled 
before the internal components of the electrostatic precipitators can 
be inspected. According to the commenter, the shutdown and cooling 
period for the kilns takes several days and results in significant cost 
in terms of lost production and other expenses. As an alternative, the 
commenter suggested that EPA require an initial inspection prior to 
startup for installed control devices which have not operated within 60 
days of the compliance date.
    Response: Our intent at proposal was to codify the control device 
inspection requirements currently in the permit of the North Carolina 
plant because we determined that these requirements represent what is 
generally available, and this plant had inspection requirements that 
were more comprehensive than those at the other area source plant. The 
proposed inspection requirements included daily, monthly, annual, and 
biennial inspections for various control devices and their components. 
To perform the internal inspection, it is necessary to shut down the 
process (the high temperature kilns) and allow the system to cool down. 
We agree that the 24-month period as stated in the permit is reasonable 
for this particular type of inspection. It provides flexibility to the 
facility to perform the inspection during periods of regularly 
scheduled kiln maintenance, which minimizes the disruption to 
production and the large expense that would result from a mandatory 
initial inspection and subsequent annual inspections. The operating 
processes also have to be shut down for the annual internal inspections 
of baghouses and wet scrubbers. Consequently, we have revised the rule 
to state that an initial inspection of the internal components of 
electrostatic precipitators does not have to be performed if an 
inspection has been performed within the past 24 months. The next 
inspection must be performed within 24 months of the last inspection, 
and subsequent inspections of the internal components must be performed 
for each following 24-month period. Similarly, an initial inspection of 
the internal components of baghouses and wet scrubbers does not have to 
be performed if an inspection has been performed within the past 12 
months. The next inspection must be performed within 12 months of the 
last inspection, and subsequent inspections of the internal components 
must be performed for each following 12-month period. However, we 
continue to require initial inspections that do not require shutting 
down the process and control device, such as inspecting baghouses and 
ductwork for leaks, verifying the proper operation of electrostatic 
precipitator parameters, and water flow to wet scrubbers.
    We agree with the commenter's suggestion that we require an initial 
inspection prior to startup for installed control devices which have 
not operated within 60 days of the compliance date. This inspection can 
be performed before process operations resume and thus would not 
require a disruptive shutdown.
    Comment: One commenter asked if annual inspection requirements for 
wet scrubbers apply to cyclonic scrubbers prior to wet electrostatic 
precipitators. According to the commenter, this is not a requirement in 
the current title V permit and would not be consistent with EPA's 
approach of codifying the monitoring requirements currently applicable 
to the North Carolina plant.
    Response: Our intent at proposal was to be consistent with the 
established inspection requirements in the title V permit of the North 
Carolina plant. The permit requires internal inspections of 
electrostatic precipitators, wet scrubbers, and baghouses that are used 
as primary control devices. Internal inspections of cyclonic scrubbers 
that are installed upstream of the electrostatic precipitators are not 
required by the permit, nor do we believe they are needed. Unlike 
electrostatic precipitators, cyclonic scrubbers do not have complex 
internal components subject to failure that would affect emissions 
control performance. Consequently, we are clarifying that annual 
internal inspections of cyclonic scrubbers installed upstream of 
electrostatic precipitators are not required. However, we continue to 
require monitoring for the cyclonic scrubbers, including the presence 
of water flow and visual inspections of the system ductwork and 
scrubber unit for leaks.
    Comment: One commenter requested changes to the process description 
in the preamble to the proposed rule and corresponding revisions and 
clarifications to Table 1 of the proposed rule which identifies the 
regulated process equipment. The commenter stated that the table should 
be titled ``Emissions Sources'' instead of ``Emissions Points''; the 
``filter for sodium chromate slurry'' should be changed to ``residue 
dryer system''; the ``reactor used to produce chromic acid'' should be 
changed to the ``melter used to produce chromic acid''; and the 
``sodium dichromate evaporation unit'' should be removed from the table 
because there are no chromium emissions from this unit at either plant.
    Response: We agree that the table is a listing of emission 
``sources'', and we will clarify that the production of chromic acid 
occurs in a ``melter.'' We also agree that we inadvertently included 
the filter for sodium chromate slurry, which is not an emissions 
source, and should have included instead the residue dryer system, 
which is an emissions source. We identified the sodium dichromate 
evaporation unit as a process at the chromium compound manufacturing 
plants. However, this process operates under a vacuum to reduce the 
water content at temperatures far below the temperatures that would be 
needed to volatilize chromium compounds in the wet slurry into PM. This 
process is not an emissions source for PM and was therefore not 
identified in the title V permit as an emission source. Consequently, 
we are deleting the sodium dichromate evaporation unit from the table 
of emissions sources.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the General Provisions table in 
the NESHAP should be revised to eliminate duplication of entries for 
Sec.  63.10(e)(1) and (e)(2).
    Response: We agree and have corrected the table to eliminate the 
duplication.

E. Proposed NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Fabrication Area Sources

    Comment: One commenter stated that one HAP emitted by flexible 
polyurethane foam production and fabrication facilities is methylene 
chloride. According to the commenter, EPA indicated in the preamble 
that methylene chloride is used by stabstock foam plants as an ABA and 
an equipment cleaner, and that molded and rebond foam plants use 
methylene chloride as a mold release agent and an equipment cleaner. 
The commenter noted that for slabstock foam plants EPA

[[Page 38886]]

proposed either to prohibit the use of methylene chloride or to 
establish certain requirements for its use.
    The commenter asserted that EPA must prohibit the use of methylene 
chloride at slabstock facilities based on the following statement from 
the proposal preamble: ``[b]ased on recent contacts with the industry, 
we have verified that every known slabstock facility has converted 
their process to use a non-HAP technology (72 FR 16649).'' The 
commenter stated that EPA's failure to require the use of non-HAP 
technology it acknowledges to be GACT is unlawful and arbitrary. Also 
arbitrary, according to the commenter, is the Agency's failure to 
explain its decision to allow facilities to continue to use methylene 
chloride with various control requirements, given its own conclusion 
that a ban on the use of methylene chloride is GACT.
    Response: The proposed regulation addressed eight different types 
of situations where methylene chloride could potentially be used at 
flexible polyurethane foam production and flexible polyurethane foam 
fabrication facilities. For seven of these potential use situations, 
the proposed rule prohibited the use of methylene chloride. The lone 
situation where the proposed rule did not prohibit the use of methylene 
chloride was as an ABA in the production of slabstock flexible 
polyurethane foam.
    By only selecting a portion of the language from the preamble 
related to the determination of GACT for methylene chloride usage as an 
ABA at slabstock facilities and presenting it out of context, the 
commenter has misrepresented EPA's rationale in the proposal preamble. 
The entire discussion, from which the commenter quoted selectively, is 
as follows:

    The NESHAP requirements, along with the revisions to the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible 
exposure and short-term exposure limits for methylene chloride (63 
FR 50711, September 22, 1998), caused slabstock foam facilities to 
investigate, evaluate, and install technologies to reduce or 
eliminate the use of methylene chloride as an ABA at their 
facilities. These technologies include alternative formulations to 
reduce the amount of methylene chloride ABA needed, alternative non-
HAP ABAs (acetone, liquid carbon dioxide), controlled or variable 
pressure foaming, and forced cooling. Based on recent contacts with 
the industry, we have verified that every known slabstock facility 
has converted their process to utilize one of these technologies * * 
*. Consequently, we propose to conclude that emissions limitations 
based on the application of these technologies are generally 
available (GACT) for new and existing sources.

See 72 FR 16649, April 4, 2007.
    As explained in the proposal, we determined that some of the 
technologies listed could result in the complete elimination of the use 
of methylene chloride as an ABA. However, we also discussed alternative 
formulations that reduce, but do not eliminate, the amount of methylene 
chloride ABA needed in the list of generally available control 
measures. Alternative formulations can include, among other things, 
chemical additives and alternative polyols. These measures ``reduce'' 
the use of methylene chloride as an ABA without eliminating it. In 
fact, a specific relevant example of these technologies was provided by 
a slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production facility that 
commented on the proposal. This commenter reports that their facility 
has reduced methylene chloride emissions by 77 percent through the 
reformulation of foam grades and marketing to encourage customers to 
switch to foam grades that the commenter's company can produce without 
methylene chloride. This is a clear example of the ``alternative 
formulations'' referred to in the proposal preamble as one of the 
technologies we determined to be GACT. Therefore, we reject the 
commenter's assertion that we concluded that GACT was a ban on the use 
of methylene chloride as an ABA and did not make any revisions in the 
final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One commenter opposed the proposal to prohibit all use of 
methylene chloride-based adhesives. The commenter stated that there may 
be certain applications where adhesives based on methylene chloride 
provide superior performance and can be used in compliance with 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) worker exposure 
limits. The commenter only mentions loop slitter operations.
    Response: In our proposal, we specifically requested comments on 
``whether and under what circumstances methylene-chloride based 
adhesives (e.g., in small specialty applications) are being used or 
might be used by the foam fabrication industry, and what quantities are 
or might be involved in such applications'' (72 FR 16649) (emphasis 
added). The commenter's general assertion that there may be 
applications where methylene chloride-based adhesives provide superior 
performance is not responsive to our request for comments. As for loop 
slitters, we found at proposal that the industry has discontinued the 
use of methylene chloride-based adhesives, and we concluded at proposal 
that GACT was the prohibition of the use of such adhesives for loop 
slitter operations. At this time, we are not aware of any specific 
applications where methylene chloride adhesives provide performance 
that cannot be achieved by alternative adhesives and where they can be 
used in compliance with OSHA worker exposure limits. Consequently, the 
final rule retains the prohibition of the use of methylene chloride 
adhesives in flexible polyurethane foam fabrication operations.
    Comment: One commenter indicated that a less burdensome program 
should be provided for flexible polyurethane foam producers that 
utilize methylene chloride as an ABA. This commenter's company is a 
small business that employs less than 100 people. They operate one 
facility that produces and fabricates flexible polyurethane foam. The 
commenter pointed out that their facility produces thousands of pounds 
of flexible polyurethane foam per month, while typical facilities 
throughout the country produce millions of pounds per month.
    The commenter provided information on the numerous improvements 
that have been made at this facility to reduce methylene chloride usage 
and emissions. They have eliminated all uses of methylene chloride 
except as an ABA, and have made significant reductions (over 75 
percent) in its usage as an ABA.
    The commenter indicated that this facility has a federally 
enforceable synthetic minor permit which caps methylene chloride 
emissions on a monthly and 12-month rolling basis. The permit also 
incorporates many of the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements of 
the foam production MACT rule.
    The commenter suggested that, for this facility, the proposed rule 
is unnecessarily complicated in view of the environmental benefits 
realized by the programs already in place. The commenter suggested 
several amendments to the rule to reduce the burden. In general, the 
commenter requested that the methylene chloride ABA emissions caps and 
the monitoring and reporting provisions in their permit be provided as 
an acceptable option for meeting the requirements of the area source 
rule for slabstock foam production.
    The commenter cited numerous areas where capital expenditures would 
be necessary to comply with the proposed rule including the purchase of 
control equipment (storage tank vapor balance line), computer software, 
IFD and density testing equipment, and meter calibration equipment. The 
commenter

[[Page 38887]]

noted that the initial investment would also include costs for computer 
program development and operator training. The commenter estimated that 
the total initial capital costs would range from $25,000 to $35,000. 
The commenter also stated that the proposed rule would result in 
increased annual costs of between $28,000 and $45,000 for testing, 
training, calibrations, maintenance, tracking, recordkeeping and data 
entry, and reporting.
    Response: The proposed rule included an emissions limitation format 
for the use of methylene chloride as an ABA, along with associated 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions, that allows 
flexibility in how sources choose to comply (for example, individual 
emissions point requirements versus a source-wide overall limit, 
monthly compliance versus 12-month rolling average). We believe that 
this flexibility outweighs any perceived complexity of the format of 
the emissions limitation and the monitoring and recordkeeping 
requirements, and we do not believe that the costs of these 
requirements are inappropriate for this category. Therefore, we did not 
make any changes to the proposed rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: This same commenter stated that the compliance date of the 
proposed rule for slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production 
sources (the date of publication of the final rule) is not reasonable 
since the final rule will result in the need for equipment, operating, 
monitoring, and administrative changes.
    Response: The commenter cited numerous areas where capital 
expenditures would be necessary to comply with the proposed rule 
including the purchase of control equipment (storage tank vapor balance 
line), computer software, IFD and density testing equipment, and meter 
calibration equipment. The commenter also indicated that computer 
program development will be necessary and operators will need to be 
trained. Given the changes that will be necessary to comply with the 
final rule, we agree that it is reasonable to extend the compliance 
date for existing sources. Therefore, the final rule has a compliance 
date for slabstock foam affected sources electing to continue to 
utilize methylene chloride as an ABA to 1 year from the date of 
publication of the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter did not understand how facilities that do 
not release a HAP, specifically methylene chloride, could be subject to 
the NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication. 
In support, the commenter recited the definition of an area source as 
``any stationary source of hazardous air pollutants that is not a major 
source * * *.'' The commenter believed the proposed rule conflicts with 
the definition of an area source because the proposed NESHAP has 
specific requirements for facilities that do not release any HAP. The 
commenter asked how this is possible.
    Response: The first paragraph of the proposed rule, Sec.  
63.11414(a), states ``You are subject to this subpart if you own or 
operate an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions that 
meets the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.'' 
Facilities that are not sources of any hazardous air pollutants, 
including methylene chloride, are not subject to the rule. Therefore, 
the comment that ``the proposed NESHAP has specific requirements for 
facilities that do not release any HAP'' is incorrect.

F. Proposed NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's proposed GACT 
determination for battery manufacturers does not satisfy section 
112(d)(5). The commenter claimed that rather than evaluating the 
potential reduction measures that are commercially available and 
appropriate for application by battery manufacturers, EPA considered 
only one option: requiring all sources to comply with the 1982 NSPS for 
PM, with which 53 out of 58 sources are already in compliance anyway. 
The commenter stated that section 112(d)(5) requires the use of 
``methods, practices and techniques'' which are commercially available 
and appropriate for application by the sources in the category 
considering economic impacts.'' The commenter said that there are 
``methods, practices, and techniques'' that are commercially available 
and appropriate for application by battery manufacturers. The commenter 
specifically cited a 1998 EPA report that specifies a 2:1 air to cloth 
ratio as the ``[g]enerally safe design level'' for lead oxide in 
ordinary baghouses. With respect to processes currently controlled with 
fabric filters, the commenter stated that there are more effective 
fabric filters, and with respect to processes currently controlled by 
impingement scrubbers, there are fabric filters or more effective 
scrubbers (e.g. venturi scrubbers). According to the commenter, EPA has 
not required GACT standards that reflect the use of these technologies, 
nor even considered doing so. The commenter concluded that EPA's rule 
contravenes section 112(d)(5).
    The commenter also stated that EPA's rule is arbitrary and that EPA 
provided no rationale for failing to consider methods, practices and 
techniques that are commercially available and would reduce battery 
manufacturers' emissions significantly. The commenter stated that EPA 
does not claim that more efficient control measures are not 
commercially available for any of the relevant processes, nor does the 
Agency claim that they are too costly. In particular, according to the 
commenter, EPA does not even say what the cost for more efficient 
technologies would be or why it thinks they might be too costly. The 
commenter stated that EPA failed to consider any approach other than 
using the 1982 NSPS without providing any explanation for its choice. 
The commenter stated that it appears EPA's only consideration was 
whether the 1982 NSPS might be too stringent to be GACT, and EPA did 
not entertain the possibility that more protective standards might be 
achievable through the use of generally available measures. According 
to the commenter, EPA's rule is not only arbitrary but unlawful in that 
it reflects a complete abrogation of the EPA's statutory duty to 
evaluate currently available control measures and set standards that 
reflect them.
    Response: Section 112(d)(5) authorizes the Administrator to ``elect 
to promulgate standards or requirements applicable to sources in such 
[area source] categories or subcategories which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices [GACT] 
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As 
we discussed earlier, in determining GACT for area sources, we examine 
the demonstrated and generally available controls at area sources in 
the source category. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. We also consider 
the standards applicable to major sources in the category and determine 
if those controls are generally available and transferable to area 
sources. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. In addition, in appropriate 
circumstances, we may consider technologies employed by sources in 
similar industrial categories. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. We also 
consider cost and economic impacts of generally available control 
technologies or management practices on a source category in 
determining GACT. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007.
    For the lead acid battery area sources, at proposal, we considered 
the controls and technologies employed by the area sources in the 
category. We found that

[[Page 38888]]

the smallest sources in this category were not subject to the lead acid 
battery NSPS. We also found that there are approximately 60 known area 
sources in this category and no known major sources. We concluded that 
the requirements of the NSPS represented generally available control 
technologies or management practices for this source category. 
Moreover, although not stated in the proposal, because of the large 
number of area sources in this category, we concluded that we did not 
need to look at sources in similar industrial categories for 
determining what is generally available to the lead acid battery 
manufacturing category.
    At proposal, we found that the NSPS addressed lead (not PM) 
emissions from six types of processes at lead acid battery 
manufacturing plants: (1) Grid casting, (2) paste mixing, (3) three-
process operations, (4) lead oxide manufacturing, (5) lead reclamation, 
and (6) other lead emitting processes. The commenter stated that more 
effective ``methods, practices, and techniques'' including fabric 
filters with air to cloth ratios between 2:1 and 3.5:1 (and 
specifically 2:1 for lead oxide) are available, and cited this as 
evidence that significant advancements in technology have occurred 
since the NSPS was promulgated in 1982. The 1998 EPA report that the 
commenter cited indicates that the generally safe design level for lead 
oxide in ordinary baghouses is, in fact, the same 2:1 air to cloth 
ratio required in the NSPS standard for lead oxide manufacturing, which 
is incorporated into this rule. Thus, contrary to the commenter's 
assertion, the emission limitations in the NSPS were in this case based 
on the specific technology addressed by the commenter and that 
technology is considered state-of-the-art today.
    The commenter assumed that the category's current lead emissions 
reflect a 98 percent reduction from uncontrolled emissions, and 
suggested that substantial emissions reductions would be obtained 
through setting new standards that reflect a 99.9 percent reduction. We 
are unsure on what the commenter based this assertion. For fabric 
filters with a 6:1 air to cloth ratio in the NSPS, which is the control 
basis for the standards for paste mixing, three-process operations, and 
other lead emitting processes in this rule, we attributed 99 percent 
lead emissions reduction. We attributed a 90 percent lead removal 
efficiency for impingement scrubbers, the control basis for the 
standards for the grid casting and lead reclamation processes. 
Therefore, while there would be an incremental reduction in emissions 
if technologies that achieve 99.9 percent lead emission reduction were 
required by this area source NESHAP, the reductions would not be as 
substantial as predicted by the commenter.
    We did not discuss the costs of imposing additional control 
requirements on this category at proposal, but we do so here in 
response to this comment. We estimate that the total capital investment 
for a typical plant to upgrade to 99.9 percent controls could range 
from more than $600,000 to almost $1.7 million, depending on the 
technologies selected. We estimate annual costs of this additional 
control for a typical plant would be around $1.2 million per year due 
to increased operator labor costs, maintenance labor and material 
costs, electricity and other utility costs, taxes and insurance, and 
capital recovery costs. This cost represents almost 5 percent of the 
total shipments for an average lead acid battery establishment. We do 
not believe that these costs and potential economic impacts are 
appropriate for application by the area sources in this category. The 
costs incurred per ton of lead emissions reduced would be around 
$450,000 to $500,000 based on replacing existing control devices or 
installing additional devices to increase control efficiency up to 99.9 
percent.
    In conclusion, we believe that the technologies upon which the 
proposed standards were based are generally available to this industry. 
Moreover, we believe that the costs of requiring every area source lead 
acid battery facility to install technologies that achieve additional 
incremental emission reductions, beyond those established in these 
NESHAP, would be prohibitive. Thus, we have not revised the emission 
standards in the rule in response to this comment.
    Comment: One commenter stated that in addition to emitting more 
than 26 tpy of lead, lead acid battery manufacturers emit more than 47 
tpy of other HAP; among these are HAP that are not metals, do not 
behave like PM in the stack gas, and therefore cannot be captured or 
reduced through the use of PM control devices. According to the 
commenter, section 112(d) requires emission standards for each HAP 
listed in section 112(b). Assuming that the Agency does not have to set 
separate standards for each HAP when issuing standards under section 
112(d)(5), the commenter stated that EPA still has an obligation to 
address all of the HAP that a category emits when setting GACT 
standards. The commenter claimed that EPA has an obligation to address 
the HAP emitted by battery manufacturing plants that are not captured 
by PM control devices, and the failure to do so was unlawful. The 
commenter also stated that the failure to consider the HAP that are not 
emitted as PM and to explain why they were not addressed is arbitrary 
and capricious.
    Response: Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify 
at least 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose the greatest threat 
to public health in the largest number of urban areas (the ``Urban 
HAP'') and identify the area source categories that will be listed 
pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Section 112(c)(3), in relevant part, 
provides:

    The Administrator shall, * * * , and pursuant to subsection 
(k)(3)(B) of this section, list, based on actual or estimated 
aggregate emissions of a listed pollutant or pollutants, sufficient 
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area 
sources representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the 
30 hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest threat to 
public health in the largest number of urban areas are subject to 
regulation under this section.

    Thus, section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories 
or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources 
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are 
subject to regulation.
    Section 112(d)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate 
regulations establishing emissions standards for each area source of 
HAP listed for regulation pursuant to section 112(c). EPA identified 
the 30 Urban HAP that pose the greatest threat to public health in the 
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. In that same document, EPA listed 
the source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP 
emissions.
    We have interpreted the above provisions of section 112 to require 
EPA to regulate only those Urban HAP emissions for which an area source 
category is listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). As stated elsewhere 
in this preamble, Congress chose to treat areas sources differently 
from major sources under section 112 and other sections of the CAA, 
such as title V. Under section 112, Congress determined that the Agency 
should identify 30 HAP emitted from area sources that posed the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
The statute then directs the Agency to list sufficient area source 
categories to account for 90 percent of the emissions of each Urban HAP 
and to subject those listed source categories to regulation. Section 
112(d)(1) requires emissions standards for area sources of HAP ``listed 
pursuant to subsection (c)''. Area sources listed pursuant to 
subsection (c)(3) are listed

[[Page 38889]]

only because they emit one of the 30 listed Urban HAP and the Agency 
has identified the category as one that will ensure that we satisfy the 
requirement to subject area sources representing 90 percent of the area 
source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP to regulation.
    Moreover, section 112(c)(3) explicitly refers to section 
112(k)(3)(B). Section 112(k)(3)(B) addresses the national strategy to 
control HAP from area sources in urban areas. The focus of the strategy 
is on the 30 HAP that pose the greatest threat to public health in the 
largest number of urban areas. As noted above, in 1999, EPA issued the 
Integrated Air Toxics Strategy in response to section 112(k)(3)(B). In 
that strategy, we identified the 30 Urban HAP, which are the HAP that 
pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of 
urban areas, and we identified, consistent with section 112(c)(3), the 
area source categories that account for 90 percent of those Urban HAP.
    Pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), the Lead Acid 
Battery Manufacturing area source category was listed due to emissions 
of two specific pollutants: lead and cadmium. We recognize that other 
HAP, including Urban HAP which did not form the basis of the section 
112(c)(3) listing decision, may be emitted from lead acid battery 
manufacturing facilities. To the extent that the other HAP are Urban 
HAP, we identified other area source categories that emit those Urban 
HAP in higher amounts and have determined that subjecting other area 
source categories to regulation for these HAP will achieve the 90 
percent requirement in the CAA. In conclusion, consistent with section 
112, we are not obligated to address HAP other than Urban HAP for which 
this area source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), 
which, as noted above, are lead and cadmium.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the dates for 
compliance compared to the key NESHAP General Provisions for existing 
sources. The commenter explained that in Sec.  63.9(b) of the General 
Provisions and based on communications with EPA, initial notification 
by existing facilities is due 120 calendar days after final rule 
publication. According to the commenter, the proposed compliance date 
provision in Sec.  63.11422 could be read to suggest notification is 
not due for a year. The commenter found similar confusion between Sec.  
63.9(h) and Sec.  63.11422 pertaining to notices of compliance from 
existing sources. The commenter suggested the following clarification 
language:

    Note: Initial notification by existing facilities, required by 
Sec.  63.9(b), is due within 120 calendar days after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Notices of 
compliance by existing facilities, required by Sec.  63.9(h), is due 
on the 60th day following the 1 year deadline for compliance with 
the new standard.

    Response: We agree that the timing for notifications should be 
clarified, and we have made the suggested clarifications in the final 
rule.

G. Proposed NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources

    Comment: Eight commenters questioned the need for the standards and 
stated there is no need to regulate wood preserving area sources. The 
commenters further stated that the wood preserving industry is an 
insignificant source of the four HAP to be regulated by this proposed 
standard. According to the commenters, the industry has not used 
methylene chloride in the wood treating process since 1992, and 
emissions of the three other HAP covered in this rule are negligible 
according to the commenters. Moreover, the commenters claimed that EPA 
was unable to identify ``any other management practices or control 
technologies that would provide additional emissions reductions in a 
cost effective manner.''
    Response: The emission levels used for the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy were based on the section 112(k) 1990 inventory. 
Following issuance of the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy in 1999, 
EPA revised the area source category listing in the Strategy to also 
include the wood preserving area source category (67 FR 70428, November 
22, 2002). We also recognize that the wood preserving industry has 
changed over the past 15 years and Urban HAP emissions have been 
reduced. The regulations being finalized today will ensure that future 
emissions from wood preserving operations will be limited to the same 
level that is being generally achieved today and was determined to be 
GACT. Without such regulations, there is nothing that would limit 
future Urban HAP emissions from a new process or wood preservative.
    Comment: Eight commenters requested clarification regarding non-
applicable preservative chemistries. The commenters asserted that as 
currently worded, the provision in Sec.  63.11428(a) would seem to 
encompass any wood preserving operation, including those that treat 
household commodities with ammoniacal copper quat (ACQ) or copper azole 
(CA)--waterborne, copper-based preservatives that do not contain 
chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride. The commenters 
understood that EPA did not intend to regulate wood preservatives that 
do not contain the Urban HAPs for which the wood preserving category 
was listed. Accordingly, the commenters requested that EPA revise Sec.  
63.11428(a) to clarify, as it does in Sec.  63.11430 and in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, that the wood preserving area source 
standard applies only to facilities ``using a treatment process with 
any wood preservatives containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or 
methylene chloride.''
    Response: The applicability of the wood preserving area source rule 
(as described in Sec.  63.11428(a)) includes any wood preserving 
operation located at an area source. However, only those facilities 
that are using a wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, 
dioxins, or methylene chloride are subject to the management practice 
requirements in Sec.  63.11430 and the other requirements in Sec.  
63.11432. Additional language was added to Sec.  63.11430(c) and Sec.  
63.11432 to clarify that only those area source facilities using any 
wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene 
chloride have to prepare and operate according to a management practice 
plan to minimize air emissions, and comply with the initial 
notification and reporting requirements. If your area source wood 
preserving facility is only using preservatives such as ACQ or CA, then 
you are not subject to the requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.11430 and 
63.11432.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA provide flexibility 
in the interpretation of the term ``fully drain'' as that term is used 
in Sec.  63.11430(c)(6): ``For the pressure treatment process, fully 
drain the retort prior to opening the retort door.'' The commenters 
stated that as a practical matter, it is not possible to ``fully 
drain'' 100 percent of all residual preservative before a retort door 
is opened and that the quantity of material involved is small. The 
commenters requested confirmation that the trace amount of residual 
preservative which may remain in the cylinder when the retort door is 
opened does not violate the Sec.  63.11430(c)(6) requirement to ``fully 
drain'' the retort before opening the door, and that the language in 
Sec.  63.11430(c)(6) be amended to read ``For the pressure treatment 
process, fully drain the retort to the extent practical, prior to 
opening the retort door.''
    Response: We agree with the commenters and have made the

[[Page 38890]]

following change to Sec.  63.11430(c)(6) in the final standards: ``For 
the pressure treatment process, fully drain the retort to the extent 
practicable, prior to opening the retort door.'' An example of what is 
practicable for fully draining the retort would be a retort operation 
where any residual preservative drips into the door pit sump.

H. Proposed Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title V 
Permitting Requirements

    Comment: One commenter believed that EPA's proposal to exempt four 
of the five area source categories addressed in its proposal (acrylic 
and modacrylic fibers production, flexible polyurethane foam production 
and fabrication, lead acid battery manufacturing, and wood preserving) 
from title V permitting requirements is unlawful and arbitrary. In 
support of this assertion, the commenter cited CAA section 502(a), 
which provides that EPA may exempt area source categories from title V 
permitting requirements if compliance with such requirements is 
``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily burdensome.'' See 42 
U.S.C. 7661a(a). The commenter stated that EPA does not claim that such 
requirements are impracticable or infeasible for any of the four area 
source categories it proposes to exempt, but rather relies entirely on 
its claim that they would be ``unnecessarily burdensome.''
    Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that:

    * * * [t]he Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion 
and consistent with the applicable provisions of this chapter, 
promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories (in 
whole or in part) from the requirements of this subsection if the 
Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such 
categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any major 
source from such regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a).

    The statute plainly vests the Administrator with discretion to 
determine when it is appropriate to exempt non-major (i.e. area) 
sources of air pollution from the requirements of title V. The 
commenter correctly notes that EPA based the proposed exemptions solely 
on a determination that title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' and 
did not rely on whether the requirements of title V are 
``impracticable'' or ``infeasible'', which are alternative bases for 
exempting area sources from title V.
    To the extent the commenter is asserting that EPA must determine 
that all three criteria in CAA section 502 are met before an area 
source category can be exempted from title V, the commenter misreads 
the statute. The statute expressly provides that EPA may exempt an area 
source category from title V requirements if EPA determines that the 
requirements are ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily 
burdensome.'' See CAA section 502 (emphasis added). If Congress had 
wanted to require that all three criteria be met before a category 
could be exempted from title V, it would have stated so by using the 
word ``and,'' in place of ``or''.
    Comment: One commenter stated that in order to demonstrate that 
compliance with title V would be ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA must 
show, among other things, that the ``burden'' of compliance is 
unnecessary. According to the commenter, by promulgating title V, 
Congress indicated that it viewed the burden imposed by its 
requirements as necessary as a general rule. The commenter maintained 
that the title V requirements provide many benefits that Congress 
viewed as necessary. Thus, in the commenter's view, EPA must show why 
for any given category, special circumstances make compliance 
unnecessary. The commenter believed that EPA has not made that showing 
for any of the categories it proposes to exempt.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's characterization 
of the demonstration required for determining that title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for an area source category. As stated above, 
the CAA provides the Administrator discretion to exempt an area source 
category from title V if he determines that compliance with title V 
requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily 
burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 502(a). In 
December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a four-
factor balancing test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily 
burdensome for a particular area source category, such that an 
exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 
2005 (``Exemption Rule''). In addition to interpreting the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and developing the four-factor balancing 
test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to certain area source 
categories.
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular 
area source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in 
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area 
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would 
impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the 
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in 
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) 
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category 
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in 
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) 
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that 
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source 
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).
    In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained 
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or 
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given 
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those 
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be 
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section 
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, we concluded that not all 
of the four factors must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to 
determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular 
area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in 
combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together, 
support an exemption from title V for a particular source category.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA must show * * * that the 
``burden'' of compliance is unnecessary.'' This is not, however, one of 
the four factors that we developed in the Exemption Rule in 
interpreting the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502, 
but rather a new test that the commenter maintains EPA ``must'' meet in 
determining what is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502. 
EPA did not re-open its interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' in CAA section 502 in the April 6, 2007 proposed rule for 
the categories at issue in this rule. Rather, we applied the four-
factor balancing test articulated in the Exemption Rule to the source 
categories for which we proposed title V exemptions. Had we sought to 
re-open our interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in 
CAA section 502 and modify it from what was articulated in the 
Exemption Rule,

[[Page 38891]]

we would have stated so in the April 6, 2007 proposed rule and 
solicited comments on a revised interpretation, which we did not do. 
Accordingly, we reject the commenter's attempt to create a new test for 
determining what constitutes ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA 
section 502, as that issue falls outside the purview of this 
rulemaking.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Moreover, even were the comment framed as a request to re-open our 
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 
502, which it is not, we would deny such request because we have a 
court-ordered deadline to complete this rulemaking by June 15, 2007, 
and we are not in a position to expand the scope of the rulemaking at 
this juncture. In any event, we believe that the commenter's position 
that ``EPA must show * * * that the ``burden'' of compliance is 
unnecessary'' is unreasonable and contrary to Congressional intent 
concerning the applicability of title V to area sources. Congress 
intended to treat area sources differently under title V as it 
expressly authorized the EPA Administrator to exempt such sources from 
the requirements of title V at his discretion. There are several 
instances throughout the CAA where Congress chose to treat major 
sources differently than non-major sources, as it did in section 
502.\12\ In addition, it is worth noting that although the commenter 
espouses a new interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
in CAA section 502 and attempts to create a new test for determining 
whether the requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
for an area source category, the commenter does not explain why EPA's 
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is arbitrary, 
capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. We maintain that 
our interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in section 
502, as set forth in the Exemption Rule, is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., section 112(d)(5) (authorizing generally 
available control technologies or management practices in lieu of 
maximum achievable control technology standards for area sources); 
section 112(f)(5) (exempting area sources regulated under section 
112(d)(5) from the 8-year residual risk review requirement); 
Compare, section 110(a)(2)(c) (requiring minor source permitting 
program without a detailed statutory structure) with section 165 
(providing detailed permitting requirements for major sources 
locating in prevention of significant deterioration areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in this rule, we appropriately applied the four-factor 
balancing test set forth in the Exemption Rule to the particular area 
source categories at issue in this rule. In response to comments, we 
provide above a more detailed discussion of our consideration of the 
four factors for the source categories at issue. Based on our 
consideration of the four factors, we are taking final action to 
finalize the exemptions from title V for the acrylic and modacrylic 
fibers production, flexible polyurethane foam production and 
fabrication, lead acid battery manufacturing, and wood preserving 
categories.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether 
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily 
burdensome on an area source category, we considered, consistent 
with the guidance provided by the legislative history of section 
502(a), whether exempting the area source category would adversely 
affect public health, welfare or the environment. See 72 FR 15254-
15255, March 25, 2005. As shown above, after conducting the four-
factor balancing test and determining that title V requirements 
would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area source categories at 
issue here, we examined whether the exemption from title V would 
adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment, and 
found that it would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter stated that exempting a source category from 
title V permitting requirements deprives both the public generally and 
individual members of the public who would obtain and use permitting 
information from the benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that 
Congress plainly viewed as necessary. According to the commenter, the 
text and legislative history of the CAA provide that Congress intended 
ordinary citizens to be able to get emissions and compliance 
information about air toxics sources and to be able to use that 
information in enforcement actions and in public policy decisions on a 
State and local level. The commenter stated that Congress did not think 
that enforcement by States or other government entities was enough; if 
it had, Congress would not have enacted the citizen suit provisions, 
and the legislative history of the CAA would not show that Congress 
viewed citizens' access to information and ability to enforce CAA 
requirements as highly important both as an individual right and as a 
crucial means to ensuring compliance. According to the commenter, if a 
source does not have a title V permit, it is difficult or impossible--
depending on the laws, regulations and practices of the State in which 
the source operates--for a member of the public to obtain relevant 
information about its emissions and compliance status. The commenter 
stated that likewise, it is difficult or impossible for citizens to 
bring enforcement actions. The commenter continued that EPA does not 
claim--far less demonstrate with substantial evidence, as would be 
required--that citizens would have the same ability to obtain 
compliance and emissions information about sources in the categories it 
proposes to exempt without title V permits. The commenter also said 
that likewise, EPA does not claim--far less demonstrate with 
substantial evidence--that citizens would have the same enforcement 
ability. Thus, according to the commenter, the exemptions EPA proposes 
plainly eliminate benefits that Congress thought necessary. The 
commenter claimed that to justify its exemptions, EPA would have to 
show that the informational and enforcement benefits that Congress 
intended title V to confer--benefits which the commenter argues are 
eliminated by the exemptions--are for some reason unnecessary with 
respect to the categories it proposes to exempt. The commenter 
concluded that EPA does not acknowledge these benefits or explain why 
they are unnecessary, and that for this reason alone, EPA's proposed 
exemptions are unlawful and arbitrary.
    Response: Once again, the commenter attempts to create a new test 
for determining whether the requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' on an area source category. Specifically, the commenter 
argues that EPA does not claim or demonstrate with substantial evidence 
that citizens would have the same access to information and the same 
ability to enforce under these NESHAP, absent title V. The commenter's 
position represents a significant revision of the fourth factor that 
EPA developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. For all of the reasons 
explained above, the commenter's attempt to create a new test for EPA 
to meet in determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
on an area source category cannot be sustained. This rulemaking did not 
re-open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
in CAA section 502. Because the commenter's statements do not 
demonstrate a flaw in EPA's application of the four-factor balancing 
test to the specific facts of the source categories at issue here, 
which is the sole title V issue in this rulemaking, the comments 
provide no basis for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to exempt 
the area source categories from title V. Today, we finalize the

[[Page 38892]]

exemptions proposed in the April 6, 2007 rule.
    Moreover, as explained in the proposal and above, we considered 
implementation and enforcement issues in the fourth factor of the four-
factor balancing test. Specifically, the fourth factor of EPA's 
unnecessarily burdensome analysis provides that EPA will consider 
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that 
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP without relying on 
title V permits. See 70 FR 75326. In applying the fourth factor in the 
Exemption Rule, where EPA had deferred action on the title V exemption 
for several years, we had enforcement data available to demonstrate 
that States were not only enforcing the provisions of the area source 
NESHAP that we exempted, but that the States were also providing 
compliance assistance to ensure that the area sources were in the best 
position to comply with the NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. Nowhere in 
the Exemption Rule did the Agency state that we had to demonstrate that 
citizen enforcement would be identical absent title V before an area 
source category could be exempted from title V.
    In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined that there are 
adequate enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the 
CAA. We do not have enforcement data available because we are only 
today finalizing the NESHAP at issue here. As stated in the proposal, 
however, States with delegated programs have enforcement and compliance 
assistance and implementation programs in place to enforce the 
provisions of these NESHAP. See 72 FR 16656. In fact, a State must have 
adequate programs to enforce the HAP regulations and provide assurances 
that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program. 
See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. The commenter does not challenge the 
conclusion that there are adequate State and Federal programs in place 
to enforce the NESHAP. Instead, the commenter provides an 
unsubstantiated assertion that information about compliance by the area 
sources with these NESHAP will not be as accessible to the public as 
information provided to a State pursuant to title V. In fact, the 
commenter does not provide any information that States will treat 
information submitted under these NESHAP differently than information 
submitted pursuant to a title V permit.
    Even accepting the commenter's assertions that it is more difficult 
for citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent a title V permit, in 
evaluating the fourth factor in EPA's balancing test, EPA concluded 
that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in 
place to enforce the NESHAP. The commenter has provided no information 
to the contrary or explained how the absence of title V actually 
impairs the ability of citizens to enforce the provisions of these 
NESHAP. Furthermore, the fourth factor is one factor that we evaluated. 
As explained above, we considered that factor together with the other 
factors and determined that it was appropriate to finalize the proposed 
exemptions for the area source categories at issue in this rule.
    Comment: One commenter explained that title V provides important 
monitoring benefits and stated that EPA admits that ``[o]ne way that 
title V may improve compliance is by requiring monitoring (including 
recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring) to assure compliance 
with emission limitations and control technology requirements imposed 
in the standard'' (72 FR 16654). According to the commenter, EPA 
assumes that title V monitoring would not add any monitoring 
requirements beyond those required by the regulations for each 
category. The commenter said that with respect to acrylic and 
modacrylic fibers production, EPA states ``[b]ecause both the 
continuous and noncontinuous monitoring methods required by the 
proposed NESHAP would provide periodic monitoring, title V would not 
add any monitoring to the proposed NESHAP.'' Id. The commenter stated 
that EPA makes a similar claim with respect to lead acid battery 
manufacturing (72 FR 16655), and that such claims miss the point. As 
EPA admits, according to the commenter, title V does not merely require 
periodic monitoring; it requires monitoring to ``assure compliance.'' 
The commenter continued by stating that if additional monitoring is 
necessary to assure compliance, it must be required to satisfy title V, 
regardless of whether the underlying NESHAP provides for periodic 
monitoring. The commenter concludes that the ``burden'' imposed on a 
category by title V is not unnecessary unless EPA shows that, in all 
instances, the periodic monitoring requirements established in the 
underlying NESHAP for that category ``assure'' compliance. According to 
the commenter, EPA does not even claim--far less demonstrate with 
substantial evidence--that the monitoring requirements in the NESHAP 
for any of the categories it proposes to exempt ``assure'' compliance. 
The commenter stated that for this reason as well, its claim that title 
V requirements are ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is arbitrary and 
capricious, and its exemption is unlawful and arbitrary and capricious.
    Response: The commenter asserts that ``EPA admits [that] title V 
does not merely require periodic monitoring; it requires monitoring to 
``assure compliance.'' The commenter does not accurately characterize 
the Agency's statements in the proposal. We stated:

    One way that title V may improve compliance is by requiring 
monitoring (including recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring) 
to assure compliance with the emissions limitations and control 
technology requirements imposed in the standard. The authority for 
adding new monitoring in the permit is in the ``periodic 
monitoring'' provisions of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), which allow new monitoring to be added to the 
permit when the underlying standard does not already require 
``periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring 
(which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as 
monitoring).''

See 72 FR 16654 (emphasis added).
    We nowhere state or imply that periodic monitoring is not 
sufficient to assure compliance. Moreover, the commenter's position 
that the Agency must make a specific finding that the monitoring in the 
proposed NESHAP assures compliance with the NESHAP is inconsistent with 
EPA's Final Rule Interpreting the Scope of Certain Monitoring 
Requirements for State and Federal Operating Permits Programs (71 FR 
75422, December 15, 2006) (``Interpretive Rule''). That rule interprets 
title V of the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 
70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) and the Clean Air Act requirements which they 
implement. Under the Interpretive Rule, if an applicable requirement, 
such as a NESHAP, contains periodic testing or instrumental or 
noninstrumental monitoring (i.e., periodic monitoring), permitting 
authorities are not authorized to assess the sufficiency of or impose 
new monitoring requirements on a case-by-case basis. Federal standards 
promulgated pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are presumed 
to obtain monitoring sufficient to assure compliance. Thus, consistent 
with this interpretation and as demonstrated in the proposed rule and 
above, title V would not add any monitoring requirements to the NESHAP 
because the NESHAP contains periodic monitoring.
    The commenter also attempts to create a new test for consideration 
in determining what is ``unnecessarily

[[Page 38893]]

burdensome'' under CAA section 502. Specifically, the commenter argues 
that EPA must demonstrate with substantial evidence that, in all 
instances, the periodic monitoring requirements assure compliance. As 
explained above, this rulemaking did not re-open EPA's interpretation 
of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. For all 
the reasons explained above, we reject the commenter's attempt to 
create a new test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily 
burdensome on an area source category. Moreover, EPA considered 
monitoring in the first factor of the four-factor balancing test that 
it developed in the Exemption Rule. EPA appropriately applied that 
factor to the area source categories at issue in this rule.
    As noted above, under the first factor, EPA considers whether title 
V would result in significant improvements to the compliance 
requirements that are proposed for the area source categories. See 70 
FR 75323. It is in the context of this first factor that EPA evaluates 
the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the 
proposed NESHAP to determine the extent to which those requirements are 
consistent with the requirements of title V. See 70 FR 75323. As noted 
above, and in the proposed rule, we considered whether title V 
monitoring requirements would lead to significant improvements in the 
monitoring requirements in the proposed NESHAP and determined that they 
would not.
    Specifically, EPA included in the NESHAP periodic monitoring it 
determined to be necessary to assure compliance. See 72 FR 16654-16655. 
In addition, for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area 
source category, the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source 
category, the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production area source 
category, and the Flexible Polyurethane Fabrication area source 
category, EPA found that title V would not add additional monitoring, 
and that determination is consistent with the title V Interpretive 
rule. See 72 FR 16654-16655. The commenter does not provide any 
evidence to support a claim that title V would add monitoring, 
consistent with our interpretation of title V in the Interpretive Rule, 
for any of these area source categories. For the Wood Preserving area 
source category, we imposed recordkeeping to serve as monitoring that 
was designed to document compliance with the management practices 
imposed on the industry. See 72 FR 16655. We concluded that title V 
would not add additional monitoring for this category because 
continuous monitoring is not necessary to ensure a reduction in HAP 
emissions for this category. We also concluded that the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements in the rule are sufficient to assure 
compliance and that additional monitoring is not practical or 
necessary. The commenter did not take issue in its comment with the 
adequacy of the recordkeeping that serves as monitoring or the 
reporting requirements for the Wood Preserving area source category.
    For the reasons described above, the first factor supports an 
exemption, and even if it did not, the four-factor balancing test 
requires EPA to examine the factors, in combination, and determine 
whether the factors, viewed together, weigh in favor of exemption. See 
70 FR 75326. As explained above, we determined that the factors, 
weighed together, supported exemption of the area source categories 
from title V.
    Comment: One commenter argued that title V provides important 
reporting certification benefits and that, specifically, plants must 
report deviations from emission standards and must certify at least 
annually whether they are in compliance with ``any applicable 
requirements.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7661b(b)(2). The commenter stated that 
EPA fails to point to any requirement in the NESHAP for any of the 
categories it proposes to exempt that requires plants to report each 
deviation from requirements, as title V does. The commenter disagrees 
with EPA that reporting requirements for certain operating 
requirements, such as the daily average water flow to a wet scrubber, 
are sufficient and states that none of the NESHAP contain certification 
requirements. The commenter also stated that the compliance 
certification requirement obliges plant operators to certify--subject 
to criminal penalties--whether their sources were in or out of 
compliance with emission standards. According to the commenter, 
Congress determined that this requirement was necessary in addition to 
reporting requirements, and that is why it enacted the compliance 
certification requirement. The commenter stated that it is not up to 
EPA to declare that it disagrees with Congress and find that compliance 
certification requirements are not necessary. The commenter 
acknowledged that it might be possible for EPA to show that compliance 
certification requirements are not necessary for some specific area 
source category based on that specific category's characteristics. The 
commenter said that EPA has not done that here, however, and instead 
offers the generic claim that it thinks quarterly reports are enough. 
Thus, the commenter believes that EPA has essentially taken the 
position that compliance certification is never necessary. The 
commenter also stated that EPA contravenes the CAA by excusing sources 
from a compliance obligation without meeting the requirement of showing 
that requirement to be unnecessary. Further, according to the 
commenter, EPA acts arbitrarily by finding the compliance certification 
is unnecessary without providing a rational basis for that claim. The 
commenter concluded that the recording requirements that exist under 
the individual NESHAP are no replacement for the recording requirements 
under title V, which require prompt reporting of all ``deviations'' 
from any applicable requirements, not just reporting of exceedances of 
EPA-selected operating requirements. According to the commenter, 
because EPA has not shown that reporting of selected operating 
requirements renders reporting of all deviations from any applicable 
requirements unnecessary, the EPA's exemptions are unlawful and 
arbitrary.
    Response: In this comment, the commenter again argues that EPA must 
specifically demonstrate that all title V requirements, deviation 
reporting and annual compliance certifications in this instance, are 
unnecessary in isolation before EPA can lawfully exempt an area source 
category from title V. We do not agree. As explained above, we 
interpreted the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 
and developed the four-factor balancing test in the Exemption Rule, and 
that balancing test does not require a determination that every title V 
requirement is unnecessary. Instead, in the first factor we consider 
``whether title V would result in significant improvements to the 
compliance requirement, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting.'' As explained in the proposal preamble and noted above, we 
have determined that for these source categories title V would not 
result in significant improvements in compliance requirements.
    The commenter argued that these NESHAP do not contain adequate 
deviation reporting requirements because the deviation reporting is 
limited to reporting on exceedances or variances of the operating 
requirements set forth in the standards. We are not clear what aspects 
of the deviation reporting contained in the NESHAP the commenter 
considers insufficient or what additional deviation reporting the 
commenter believes would be included

[[Page 38894]]

if title V applied. The proposed NESHAP contain deviation reporting 
requirements for each of the source categories that we are exempting 
from title V. In response to this comment, the Agency has re-evaluated 
the deviation requirements for these NESHAP and determined that any 
additional, unspecified, deviation reporting that title V might add 
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance 
requirements finalized in this rulemaking.
    The commenter also takes issue with EPA's conclusion that annual 
compliance certifications are not necessary for certain categories 
because of quarterly reporting requirements. The commenter implies that 
enforcement of the NESHAP is undermined without an annual compliance 
certification and states that EPA admitted that there are no 
certification requirements in the NESHAP. First, even absent the 
requirement to submit annual compliance certifications under the 
NESHAP, sources must nevertheless comply with all emission standards 
and requirements in the NESHAP. In addition, the Agency did not 
conclude that annual compliance certification is never necessary, but 
only that the annual compliance certification would not lead to 
significant improvements in the compliance requirements in the NESHAP 
because some of the NESHAP require quarterly reports. Furthermore, 
contrary to what the commenter states, and as discussed above in 
section IV of this preamble, there are certification requirements 
contained in the NESHAP (e.g., initial certification of compliance 
status).
    Moreover, we determined in our consideration of the fourth factor 
that there are adequate enforcement and implementation programs in 
place to assure compliance with the NESHAP and the commenter has 
provided no evidence that the lack of annual compliance certifications 
will undermine enforcement and implementation of the NESHAP.
    Comment: One commenter believed EPA argued that its own belief that 
title V is a ``significant burden'' on area sources further justifies 
its exemption (72 FR 16655-16656). According to the commenter, 
regardless of whether EPA regards the burden as ``significant,'' the 
Agency may not exempt a category from compliance with title V 
requirements unless compliance is ``unnecessarily burdensome.'' The 
commenter stated that in any event, EPA's claims about the alleged 
significance of the burden of compliance is entirely conclusory and 
could be applied equally to any major or area source category. The 
commenter also stated that the Agency does not show that the compliance 
burden is especially great for any of the sources it proposes to 
exempt, and thus does not demonstrate that the alleged burden 
necessitates treating them differently from other categories by 
exempting them from compliance with title V requirements.
    Response: The commenter appears to take issue with the formulation 
of the second factor of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically, 
the commenter states that EPA must determine that title V compliance is 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and not a ``significant burden'' as 
expressed in the second factor of the four factor balancing test. We 
note that the commenter in other parts of its comments on the title V 
exemptions argues that EPA must demonstrate that every title V 
requirement is ``unnecessary'' for a particular source category before 
an exemption can be granted but makes no mention of the ``burden'' of 
those requirements on area sources, but here the commenter argues that 
``significant burden'' is not appropriate for the second factor. 
Notwithstanding the commenter's inconsistency, as explained above, the 
four-factor balancing test was established in the Exemption Rule and we 
did not re-open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' in this rule.
    Contrary to the commenter's assertions, we properly analyzed the 
second factor of the four-factor balancing test. See 70 FR 75320. Under 
that factor, EPA considers whether title V permitting would impose a 
significant burden on the area source categories and whether the burden 
would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in obtaining 
assistance from permitting agencies. See 70 FR 75324. The commenter 
appears to assert that the second factor must be satisfied for EPA to 
exempt an area source category from title V, but, as explained above, 
the four factors are considered in combination. We have concluded that 
the second factor, in combination with the other factors, supports an 
exemption for the area source categories at issue.
    Comment: According to one commenter, EPA argued that compliance 
with title V would not yield any gains in compliance with underlying 
requirements in the relevant NESHAP (72 FR 16656). The commenter stated 
that EPA's conclusory claim could be made equally with respect to any 
major or area source category. According to the commenter, the Agency 
provides no specific reasons to believe--with respect to any of the 
categories it proposes to exempt--that the additional informational, 
monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements that 
exist in title V but not in these NESHAP would not provide additional 
compliance benefits. The commenter also stated that the only basis for 
EPA's claim is, apparently, its beliefs that those additional 
requirements never confer additional compliance benefits. According to 
the commenter, by advancing such argument, EPA merely seeks to elevate 
its own policy judgment over Congress' decisions reflected in the CAA's 
text and legislative history.
    Response: The commenter mischaracterizes the first and third 
factors of the four-factor balancing test and takes out of context 
certain statements in the proposed rule concerning those factors.
    First, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our statements in 
the proposed rule in applying the third factor. Under the third factor, 
EPA evaluates ``whether the costs of title V permitting for the area 
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any 
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources.'' 
Contrary to what the commenter alleges, EPA did not state in the 
proposed rule that compliance with title V would not yield any gains in 
compliance with the underlying requirements in the relevant NESHAP, nor 
does factor three require such a determination.
    Instead, consistent with the third factor, we considered whether 
the costs of title V are justified in light of any potential gains in 
compliance. In considering the third factor, we stated that, ``[b]ased 
on our consideration of factor 1 (described above) and factor 4 
(described below), we did not identify potential gains in compliance 
from title V permitting. Therefore, we conclude that the costs of title 
V permitting for these area source categories are not justified.'' (72 
FR 16656) (emphasis added).
    Second, the commenter mischaracterizes the first factor by 
asserting that EPA must demonstrate that title V will provide no 
additional compliance benefits. But the first factor calls for a 
consideration of ``whether title V would result in significant 
improvements to the compliance requirements, including monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source 
category.'' Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the inquiry 
under the first factor is not whether title V will provide any 
compliance benefit, but rather whether it will provide significant

[[Page 38895]]

improvements in compliance requirements.
    EPA applied the four-factor balancing test in determining whether 
title V was unnecessarily burdensome on the area source categories we 
are exempting from title V in this rule. This rulemaking did not re-
open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in 
CAA section 502. Because the commenter's statements do not demonstrate 
a flaw in EPA's application of the four-factor balancing test to the 
specific facts of the source categories at issue here, which is the 
sole title V issue in this rulemaking, the comments provide no basis 
for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to exempt the area source 
categories from title V. Furthermore, EPA nowhere states, nor does it 
believe, that title V never confers additional compliance benefits as 
the commenter asserts.
    Comment: According to one commenter, EPA argued that alternative 
State implementation and enforcement programs assure compliance with 
the underlying NESHAP without relying on title V permits (72 FR 16656). 
The commenter stated that again, however, EPA's claim is entirely 
conclusory and generic. The commenter also stated that the Agency does 
not identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that 
with respect to these specific NESHAPs--unlike all the other major and 
area source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V 
compliance is unnecessary. Instead, according to the commenter, EPA 
merely pointed to existing State requirements and the potential for 
actions by States and EPA that are generally applicable to all 
categories (along with some small business and voluntary programs). The 
commenter said that absent a showing by EPA that distinguishes the 
sources it proposes to exempt from other sources, however, the Agency's 
argument boils down to the claim that it generally views title V 
requirements as unnecessary. The commenter stated that may be EPA's 
view, but it was not Congress's view when Congress enacted title V and 
it does not suffice to show that title V compliance is unnecessarily 
burdensome.
    Response: The commenter again takes issue with the Agency's test 
for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome, as 
developed in the Exemption Rule. Our interpretation of the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is not the subject of this rulemaking. To 
the extent the commenter asserts that our application of the fourth 
factor is flawed, we disagree. As explained in the proposal preamble 
and above, we considered the fourth factor and determined that there 
are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure 
compliance with the CAA, consistent with the fourth factor. As stated 
above, we do not have data available on the enforcement of these 
NESHAPs as in the Exemption Rule because, unlike in that rule, we are 
exempting the categories at the same time we are promulgating these 
NESHAPs. In the proposed rule, we did, however, explain that States 
with delegated programs have enforcement and compliance assistance 
programs in place to enforce the provisions of these NESHAPs (72 FR 
16656). In addition, States must have adequate programs to enforce the 
HAP regulations and provide assurances that it will enforce all NESHAPs 
before EPA will delegate a program to the States. See 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E. The commenter argues that the exemptions must fail because 
``[t]he agency does not identify any aspect of any of the underlying 
NESHAP showing that with respect to these specific NESHAP--unlike all 
the other major and area source NESHAP it has issued without title V 
exemptions--title V compliance is unnecessary'' (emphasis added). The 
standard that the commenter proposes is not consistent with the 
standard the Agency established in the Exemption Rule and applied in 
the proposed rule in determining if title V is unnecessarily burdensome 
for the source categories at issue. Furthermore, the standard the 
commenter suggests is an impossible standard to meet.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, as EPA concedes, the 
legislative history the CAA shows that Congress did not intend EPA to 
exempt source categories from compliance with title V unless doing so 
would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. 
See 72 FR 16654; 16656. Nonetheless, according to the commenter, EPA 
does not make any showing that its exemptions would not have adverse 
impacts on health, welfare and the environment. The commenter stated 
that instead, EPA offered only the conclusory assertion that ``the 
level of control would remain the same'' whether title V permits are 
required are not (72 FR 16656). The commenter continued by stating that 
EPA relied entirely on the conclusory arguments advanced elsewhere in 
its proposal that compliance with title V would not yield additional 
compliance with the underlying NESHAP. The commenter stated that those 
arguments are wrong for the reasons given above, and therefore EPA's 
claims about public health, welfare and the environment are wrong too. 
The commenter also stated that Congress enacted title V for a reason: 
to assure compliance with all applicable requirements and to empower 
citizens to get information and enforce the CAA. The commenter said 
that those benefits--of which EPA's proposed rule deprives the public--
would improve compliance with the underlying standards and thus have 
benefits for public health, welfare and the environment. According to 
the commenter, EPA has not demonstrated that these benefits are 
unnecessary with respect to any specific source category, but again 
simply rests on its own apparent belief that they are never necessary. 
The commenter concluded that for the reasons given above, that attempt 
to substitute EPA's judgment for Congress' is unlawful and arbitrary.
    Response: Congress gave the Administrator the authority to exempt 
area sources from compliance with title V if, in his discretion, the 
Administrator ``finds that compliance with [title v] is impracticable, 
infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.'' See CAA section 502(a). EPA 
has interpreted one of the three justifications for exempting area 
sources, ``unnecessarily burdensome'', as requiring consideration of 
the four factors discussed above. EPA applied these four factors to the 
Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category, the Lead 
Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category, the Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication area source categories, 
and the Wood Preserving area source category and concluded that 
requiring title V for these area source categories would be 
unnecessarily burdensome.
    In addition to determining that title V would be unnecessarily 
burdensome on the area source categories for which we proposed 
exemptions, as in the Exemption Rule, EPA also considered, consistent 
with our interpretation of the legislative history, whether exempting 
the area source categories would adversely affect public health, 
welfare or the environment. As explained in the proposal preamble and 
above, we concluded that exempting the area source categories at issue 
in this rule would not adversely affect public health, welfare or the 
environment because the level of control would be the same even if 
title V applied. The commenter has not provided any information that 
exemption of these area source categories from title V will adversely 
affect public health, welfare or the environment.

[[Page 38896]]

I. Compliance with Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Comment: One commenter disagreed with EPA's conclusion that this 
Executive Order does not apply to this action because it is not 
economically significant and does not present a disproportionate risk 
to children. According to the commenter, nothing in the language of the 
Executive Order limits EPA's obligation to consider risks to instances 
when it thinks the underlying regulatory action is economically 
significant. The commenter also claimed that the toxic emissions from 
the source categories included in the proposal have a disproportionate 
risk on children, who are especially at risk to all toxins and inhaled 
pollution. The commenter alleged that EPA has ample reason to believe 
that failing to require the degree of reduction required by the CAA and 
its exemption of source categories from title V requirements will have 
a disproportionate effect on children.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter. Section 2-202 of 
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) defines 
the actions subject to its terms. As we stated at proposal, this 
Executive Order applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be 
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has 
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. If a 
regulatory action meets both criteria, the Executive Order directs EPA 
to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned 
rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable 
to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those 
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis called for by section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. These final rules are not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not economically 
significant and, because the rules are based solely on technology 
performance, an analysis under section 5-501 of the Executive Order 
would not have had the potential to influence this regulation.

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

    Comment: One commenter alleged that minority and low income 
populations are located disproportionately near the source categories 
covered by the proposal. According to the commenter, these minority and 
low income populations will be adversely affected by any standard that 
is less protective than required by the CAA and also by any exemption 
from title V permitting requirements. The commenter claimed that EPA 
failed to consider these effects of its proposal.
    Response: As we stated at proposal, we have determined that these 
final rules will not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 
because they increase the level of environmental protection for all 
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority or low-income population. The commenter provided 
no information to support the commenter's conclusion.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information requirements in these rules have been submitted for 
approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until 
OMB approves them.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the final rules are 
based on the existing permit requirements as well as the information 
collection requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 
General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the 
information collection requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) 
and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The information collection requirements for acrylic and modacrylic 
fibers production are the same as the requirements that are in the 
current State operating permit for the one existing source. The only 
new information collection requirements that apply to this area source 
consist of initial notifications, records of process and maintenance 
wastewater treated in a wastewater treatment systems, and an SSM plan. 
Any new acrylic and modacrylic fibers production area source is subject 
to all information collection requirements in the part 63 General 
Provisions.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 9 labor hours per year 
at a cost of $780 for the one existing acrylic and modacrylic fibers 
area source. No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance 
costs are associated with the final requirements. No costs or burden 
hours are estimated for new acrylic and modacrylic fibers production 
area sources because no new area sources are estimated during the next 
3 years.
    As a result of public comments, we learned there are no existing 
carbon black production facilities that are area sources. Consequently, 
there are no costs or burden hours associated with the monitoring, 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for existing area sources. No 
costs or burden hours are estimated for new carbon black production 
area sources because no new sources are estimated during the next 3 
years.
    The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 
for existing chromium compounds manufacturing area sources are the same 
as the requirements that are in the current title V operating permit 
for the two existing facilities. The only new information collection 
requirements that apply to these area sources consist of initial 
notifications, SSM plans, and control device inspections at one plant. 
Any new chromium compounds manufacturing area source is subject to all 
information collection requirements in the part 63 General Provisions.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 194 labor hours per 
year at a cost

[[Page 38897]]

of $16,409 for the two existing chromium compounds manufacturing area 
sources. No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs 
are associated with the requirements. No costs or burden hours are 
estimated for new chromium compounds manufacturing area sources because 
no new area sources are estimated during the next 3 years.
    The final NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam production and 
fabrication operations area sources require a one-time notification by 
slab stock foam facilities certifying that they do not use methylene 
chloride and records documenting that they do not use methylene 
chloride. One plant that uses methylene chloride is subject to 
additional reporting requirements.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 925 labor hours per 
year at a cost of $78,337 for the 500 or more existing flexible foam 
fabrication and production area sources. No capital/startup costs or 
operation and maintenance costs are associated with the requirements. 
No costs or burden hours are estimated for new flexible foam production 
or fabrication area sources because no new sources are estimated during 
the next 3 years.
    The testing and monitoring requirements for emissions sources 
equipped with a scrubbing system at new and existing lead acid battery 
manufacturing area sources are the same as the requirements that are in 
the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK). Monitoring requirements for 
emissions sources equipped with fabric filter are also included in the 
final rule. New information collection requirements that apply to these 
area sources consist of notifications, records, and reports required by 
the part 63 General Provisions.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 2,302 labor hours per 
year at a cost of $172,477 for the approximately 60 existing lead acid 
battery manufacturing area sources, with capital/startup costs of 
$4,840 and no operation and maintenance costs. No costs or burden hours 
are estimated for new lead acid battery manufacturing area sources 
because no new sources are estimated during the next 3 years.
    The final NESHAP for wood preserving area sources does not include 
testing or monitoring requirements because they are subject to 
management practices. The only new information collection requirements 
that apply to these existing area sources consist of initial 
notifications, records demonstrating compliance with the management 
practice requirements, and deviation reporting requirements.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 1,055 labor hours per 
year at a cost of $89,324 for approximately 400 existing wood 
preserving area sources. No capital/startup costs or operation and 
maintenance costs are associated with the requirements. No costs or 
burden hours are estimated for new wood preserving area sources because 
no new sources are estimated during the next 3 years.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this 
ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment 
to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 
number for the approved information collection requirements contained 
in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the area source NESHAP 
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small 
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 1,000 employees for 
acrylic and modacrylic fibers production and chromium compounds 
manufacturing and less than 500 employees for carbon black production, 
flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication, lead-acid 
battery manufacturing, and wood preserving); (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; 
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise 
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field.
    After considering the economic impacts of the proposed rules on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There will 
not be adverse impacts on existing area sources in any of the seven 
source categories because the final rules do not create any new 
requirements or burdens for existing sources other than minimal 
notification requirements.
    Although the final NESHAP contain emissions control requirements 
for new area sources in all seven source categories, we are not 
specifically aware of any new sources being constructed now or planned 
in the next 3 years, and consequently, we did not estimate any impacts 
for new sources.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. These final 
rules are designed to harmonize with existing State or local 
requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and

[[Page 38898]]

adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that the final rules do not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. Thus, the final rules are not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the 
final rules do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 
The final rules contain no requirements that apply to such governments, 
impose no obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by 
them of $100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate 
impacts on them. Therefore, the final rules are not subject to section 
203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    These final rules do not have federalism implications. They will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final rules impose 
requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources and not 
State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to these final rules.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' These final rules do not have tribal 
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
These final rules impose requirements on owners and operators of 
specified area sources and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to these final rules.

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

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

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

    These final rules are not a ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because 
they are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that these 
final rules are not likely to have any adverse energy effects because 
energy requirements would remain at existing levels. No additional 
pollution controls or other equipment that would consume energy are 
required by these final rules.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    The final rules involve technical standards. The EPA cites the 
following standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 
3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9 and 22 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The method ASME 
PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) is cited in one of these final rules for 
its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon 
monoxide content of the exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 
is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B. This ASTM method is a 
VCS.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS 
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for 
EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, 9 or 22. The search and review 
results are in the docket for these final rules.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 12 other 
VCS. The EPA determined that these 12 standards identified for 
measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emissions 
standards in these final rules were impractical alternatives to EPA 
test

[[Page 38899]]

methods. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for 
this purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the 12 methods are 
discussed in a memorandum included in the docket for these final rules.
    For the methods required or referenced by these final rules, a 
source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods 
or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing 
methods, performance specifications, or procedures under Sec.  63.7(f) 
and Sec.  63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that these final rules will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because they increase the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. These final rules establish national standards for 
each area source category.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General 
of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing these 
final rules and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of the final rules in the Federal Register. 
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2). These final rules will be effective on July 16, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporations by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: June 15, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 
63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3), 
63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2), 
63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) 
and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), and 
Table 5 of subpart DDDDD of this part.
* * * * *

0
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart LLLLLL to read as follows:

Subpart LLLLLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area 
Sources

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

63.11393 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11394 What are my compliance dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.11395 What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
existing sources?
63.11396 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new 
sources?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11397 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11398 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11399 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart LLLLLL of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart LLLLLL

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11393  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an 
acrylic or modacrylic fibers production plant that is an area source of 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.
    (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. 
The affected source is each acrylic or modacrylic fibers plant.
    (1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
    (2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to research and development 
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (d) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required 
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). 
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with 
the provisions of this subpart.


Sec.  63.11394  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no 
later than January 16, 2008.
    (b) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of 
this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
    (c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you 
must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon 
startup of your affected source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.11395  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
existing sources?

    (a) You must operate and maintain capture or enclosure systems that 
collect

[[Page 38900]]

the gases and fumes containing acrylonitrile (AN) released from 
polymerization process equipment and monomer recovery process equipment 
and convey the collected gas stream through a closed vent system to a 
control device.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, you 
must not discharge to the atmosphere through any combination of stacks 
or other vents captured gases containing AN in excess of the emissions 
limits in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) 0.2 pounds of AN per hour (lb/hr) from the control device for 
polymerization process equipment.
    (2) 0.05 lb/hr of AN from the control device for monomer recovery 
process equipment.
    (3) If you do not comply with the emissions limits in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section, you must comply with the new source 
standards for process vents in Sec.  63.11396(a).
    (c) If you use a wet scrubber control device, you must comply with 
the control device parameter operating limits in paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) You must maintain the daily average water flow rate to a wet 
scrubber used to control polymerization process equipment at a minimum 
of 50 liters per minute (l/min). If the water flow to the wet scrubber 
ceases, the polymerization reactor(s) must be shut down.
    (2) You must maintain the daily average water flow rate to a wet 
scrubber used to control monomer recovery process equipment at a 
minimum of 30 l/min.
    (d) You must comply with the requirements of the New Source 
Performance Standard for Volatile Organic Liquids (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Kb) for vessels that store acrylonitrile. The provisions in 40 
CFR 60.114b do not apply to this subpart.
    (e) You must operate continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) 
to measure and record the water flow rate to a wet scrubber control 
device for the polymerization process equipment and the monomer 
recovery process equipment. The CPMS must record the water flow rate at 
least every 15 minutes and determine and record the daily average water 
flow rate.
    (f) You must determine compliance with the daily average control 
device parameter operating limits for water flow rate in paragraph (c) 
of this section on a monthly basis and submit a summary report to EPA 
or the delegated authority on a quarterly basis. Should the daily 
average water flow rate to a wet scrubber control device for the 
polymerization process equipment fall below 50 l/min or the daily 
average water flow rate to a wet scrubber control device for the 
monomer recovery process equipment fall below 30 l/min, you must notify 
EPA or the delegated authority in writing within 10 days of the 
identification of the exceedance.
    (g) You must keep records of each monthly compliance determination 
for the water flow rate operating parameter limits in a permanent form 
suitable for inspection and retain the records for at least 2 years 
following the date of each compliance determination.
    (h) You must conduct a performance test for each control device for 
polymerization process equipment and monomer recovery process equipment 
subject to an emissions limit in paragraph (b) of this section within 
180 days of your compliance date and report the results in your 
notification of compliance status. You must conduct each test according 
to the requirements in Sec.  63.7 of subpart A and Sec.  63.1104 of 
subpart YY. You are not required to conduct a performance test if a 
prior performance test was conducted using the methods specified in 
Sec.  63.1104 of subpart YY and either no process changes have been 
made since the test, or you can demonstrate that the results of the 
performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate 
compliance despite process changes.
    (i) If you do not use a wet scrubber control device for the 
polymerization process equipment or the monomer recovery process 
equipment, you must submit a monitoring plan to EPA or the delegated 
authority for approval. Each plan must contain the information in 
paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) A description of the device;
    (2) Test results collected in accordance with Sec.  63.1104 of 
subpart YY verifying the performance of the device for reducing AN to 
the levels required by this subpart;
    (3) Operation and maintenance plan for the control device 
(including a preventative maintenance schedule consistent with the 
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance) and 
continuous monitoring system.
    (4) A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to 
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits; 
and
    (5) Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected 
during the performance test.
    (j) If you do not operate a monomer recovery process that removes 
AN prior to spinning, you must comply with the requirements in 
paragraph (j)(1), (2), or (3) of this section for each fiber spinning 
line that uses a spin dope produced from either a suspension 
polymerization process or solution polymerization process.
    (1) You must reduce the AN concentration of the spin dope to less 
than 100 parts per million by weight (ppmw); or
    (2) You must design and operate a fiber spinning line enclosure 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.1103(b)(4) of subpart YY and 
reduce AN emissions by 85 weight-percent or more by venting emissions 
from the enclosure through a closed vent system to any combination of 
control devices meeting the requirements in Sec.  63.982(a)(2) of 
subpart SS; or
    (3) You must reduce AN emissions from the spinning line to less 
than or equal to 0.5 pounds of AN per ton (lb/ton) of acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber produced.
    (k) You may change the operating limits for a wet scrubber if you 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator to conduct a 
new performance test to revise the operating limit.
    (2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emissions limit for a control device in paragraph (b) of 
this section.
    (3) Establish revised operating limits according to the procedures 
in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Using the CPMS required in paragraph (e) of this section, 
measure and record the water flow rate to the wet scrubber in intervals 
of no less than 15 minutes during each AN test run.
    (ii) Determine and record the average water flow rate for each test 
run. Your operating limit is the lowest average flow rate during any 
test run that complies with the applicable emissions limit.
    (l) You must treat process and maintenance wastewater containing AN 
in a wastewater treatment system. You must keep records that list each 
process and maintenance wastewater stream that contains AN and a 
process flow diagram of the wastewater treatment system that identifies 
each wastewater stream.


Sec.  63.11396  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
new sources?

    (a) You must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or 
(2) of this section for each process vent where the AN concentration of 
the vent stream is equal to or greater than 50 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv) and

[[Page 38901]]

the average flow rate is equal to or greater than 0.005 cubic meters 
per minute, as determined by the applicability and assessment 
procedures in Sec.  63.1104 of subpart YY.
    (1) You must reduce emissions of AN by 98 weight-percent or limit 
the concentration of AN in the emissions to no more than 20 ppmv, 
whichever is less stringent, by venting emissions through a closed vent 
system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements 
for process vents in Sec.  63.982(a)(2) of subpart SS; or
    (2) You must reduce emissions of AN by using a flare that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  63.987 of subpart SS.
    (b) You must comply with the requirements in paragraph (b)(1), (2), 
or (3) of this section for each fiber spinning line that uses a spin 
dope produced from either a suspension polymerization process or 
solution polymerization process.
    (1) You must reduce the AN concentration of the spin dope to less 
than 100 ppmw; or
    (2) You must design and operate a fiber spinning line enclosure 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.1103(b)(4) of subpart YY and 
reduce AN emissions by 85 weight-percent or more by venting emissions 
from the enclosure through a closed vent system to any combination of 
control devices meeting the requirements in Sec.  63.982(a)(2) of 
subpart SS; or
    (3) You must reduce AN emissions from the spinning line to less 
than or equal to 0.5 pounds of AN per ton (lb/ton) of acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber produced.
    (c) You must comply with the requirements for storage vessels 
holding acrylonitrile as shown in Table 2 to Sec.  63.1103(b)(3)(i) of 
subpart YY.
    (d) You must comply with the requirements for equipment that 
contains or contacts 10 percent by weight or more of AN and operates 
300 hours per year as shown in Table 2 to Sec.  63.1103(b)(3)(i) of 
subpart YY.
    (e) You must comply with the requirements for process wastewater 
and maintenance wastewater from an acrylic and modacrylic fibers 
production process as shown in Table 2 to Sec.  63.1103(b)(3)(i) of 
subpart YY. Process wastewater and maintenance wastewater that contains 
AN and is not subject to the requirements in Table 2 to Sec.  
63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY must be treated in a wastewater 
treatment system.
    (f) You must comply with all testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements in subpart SS (for process vents); subpart 
SS or WW (for AN tanks); subpart TT or UU (for equipment leaks); and 
subpart G (for process wastewater and maintenance wastewater). Only the 
provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.132 through 63.148 and Sec. Sec.  63.151 
through 63.153 of subpart G apply to this subpart.
    (g) If you use a control device other than a wet scrubber, flare, 
incinerator, boiler, process heater, absorber, condenser, or carbon 
adsorber, you must prepare and submit a monitoring plan to the 
Administrator for approval. Each plan must contain the information in 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) A description of the device;
    (2) Test results collected in accordance with paragraph (f) of this 
section verifying the performance of the device for reducing AN to the 
levels required by this subpart;
    (3) Operation and maintenance plan for the control device 
(including a preventative maintenance schedule consistent with the 
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance) and 
continuous monitoring system.
    (4) A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to 
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits; 
and
    (5) Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected 
during the performance test.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.11397  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

    (a) You must meet the requirements of the General Provisions in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart A, as shown in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (b) If you own or operate an existing affected source, your 
notification of compliance status required by Sec.  63.9(h) must 
include the following information:
    (1) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the standards in Sec.  63.11395(a): ``This facility 
complies with the management practices required in Sec.  63.11395(a) 
for operation of capture systems for polymerization process equipment 
and monomer recovery process equipment.''
    (2) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the emissions limits in Sec.  63.11395(b): ``This 
facility complies with the emissions limits in Sec.  63.11395(b)(1) and 
(2) for control devices serving the polymerization process equipment 
and monomer recovery process equipment based on previous performance 
tests in accordance with Sec.  63.11395(h)'' or ``This facility 
complies with the alternative standards for process vents in Sec.  
63.11395(b)(3) based on previous performance tests and assessments in 
accordance with Sec.  63.11396(f)''. If you conduct a performance test 
or assessment to demonstrate compliance, you must include the results 
of the performance test and/or assessment.
    (3) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the standards for storage tanks in Sec.  63.11396(d): 
``This facility complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Kb for each tank that stores acrylonitrile.''
    (4) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the requirement in Table 1 to subpart LLLLLL for 
preparation of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan: ``This 
facility has prepared a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan in 
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).''
    (c) If you own or operate a new affected source, your notification 
of compliance status required by Sec.  63.9(h) must include:
    (1) The results of the initial performance test or compliance 
demonstration for each process vent (including closed vent system and 
control device, flare, or recovery device), fiber spinning line, AN 
storage tank, equipment, and wastewater stream subject to this subpart.
    (2) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the applicable emissions limit in Sec.  63.11396(a) for 
process vents: ``This facility complies with the emissions limits in 
Sec.  63.11396(a) for each process vent subject to control.''
    (3) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the applicable emissions limit in Sec.  63.11396(b) for 
each fiber spinning line: ``This facility complies with the emissions 
limit and/or management practice requirements in Sec.  63.11396(b)(1), 
(2), or (3) for each fiber spinning line.''
    (4) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the storage tank requirements in Sec.  63.11396(c): 
``This facility complies with the requirements for storage vessels 
holding acrylonitrile as shown in Table 2 to Sec.  63.1103(b)(3)(i) of 
subpart YY.''
    (5) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the equipment leak requirements in Sec.  63.11396(d): 
``This facility complies with the requirements for all equipment that 
contains or contacts 10 percent by weight or more of AN and operates 
300 hours per year or more as shown in Table 2 to Sec.  
63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY.''

[[Page 38902]]

    (6) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the process wastewater and maintenance wastewater 
requirements in Sec.  63.11396(e): ``This facility complies with the 
requirements in Table 2 to Sec.  63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY for 
each process wastewater stream and each maintenance wastewater 
stream.''
    (d) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must report 
any deviation from the requirements of this subpart in the semiannual 
report required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3).


Sec.  63.11398  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Acrylic fiber means a manufactured synthetic fiber in which the 
fiber-forming substance is any long-chain synthetic polymer composed of 
at least 85 percent by weight of acrylonitrile units.
    Acrylic and modacrylic fibers production means the production of 
either of the following synthetic fibers composed of acrylonitrile 
units: acrylic fiber or modacrylic fiber.
    Acrylonitrile solution polymerization means a process where 
acrylonitrile and comonomers are dissolved in a solvent to form a 
polymer solution (typically polyacrylonitrile). The polyacrylonitrile 
is soluble in the solvent. In contrast to suspension polymerization, 
the resulting reactor polymer solution (spin dope) is filtered and 
pumped directly to the fiber spinning process.
    Acrylonitrile suspension polymerization means a polymerization 
process where small drops of acrylonitrile and comonomers are suspended 
in water in the presence of a catalyst where they polymerize under 
agitation. Solid beads of polymer are formed in this suspension 
reaction which are subsequently filtered, washed, refiltered, and 
dried. The beads must be subsequently redissolved in a solvent to 
create a spin dope prior to introduction to the fiber spinning process.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation or 
management practice;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation or management practice 
in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of 
whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Equipment means each of the following that is subject to this 
subpart: pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling 
collection system, open-ended valve or line, valve connector, 
instrumentation system in organic HAP service which contains or 
contacts greater than 10 percent by weight of acrylonitrile and 
operates more than 300 hours per year.
    Fiber spinning line means the group of equipment and process vents 
associated with acrylic or modacrylic fiber spinning operations. The 
fiber spinning line includes (as applicable to the type of spinning 
process used) the blending and dissolving tanks, spinning solution 
filters, wet spinning units, spin bath tanks, and the equipment used 
downstream of the spin bath to wash, dry, or draw the spun fiber.
    Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining 
of process fluid from components in the process unit, whose primary 
product is a product produced by a source category subject to this 
subpart, into an individual drain system prior to or during maintenance 
activities. Maintenance wastewater can be generated during planned and 
unplanned shutdowns and during periods not associated with a shutdown. 
Examples of activities that can generate maintenance wastewaters 
include descaling of heat exchanger tubing bundles, cleaning of 
distillation column traps, draining of low legs and high point bleeds, 
draining of pumps into an individual drain system, and draining of 
portions of the process unit, whose primary product is a product 
produced by a source category subject to this subpart, for repair.
    Modacrylic fiber means a manufactured synthetic fiber in which the 
fiber-forming substance is any long-chain synthetic polymer composed of 
at least 35 percent by weight of acrylonitrile units but less than 85 
percent by weight of acrylonitrile units.
    Monomer recovery process equipment means the collection of process 
units and associated process equipment used to reclaim the monomer for 
subsequent reuse, including but not limited to polymer holding tanks, 
polymer buffer tanks, monomer vacuum pump flush drum, and drum filter 
vacuum pump flush drum.
    Polymerization process equipment means the collection of process 
units and associated process equipment used in the acrylonitrile 
polymerization process prior to the fiber spinning line, including but 
not limited to acrylonitrile storage tanks, recovered monomer tanks, 
monomer measuring tanks, monomer preparation tanks, monomer feed tanks, 
slurry receiver tanks, polymerization reactors, and drum filters.
    Process vent means the point of discharge to the atmosphere (or 
point of entry into a control device, if any) of a gas stream from the 
acrylic and modacrylic fibers production process.
    Process wastewater means wastewater, which during manufacturing or 
processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the 
production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished 
product, by-product, or waste product.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined at 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Spin dope means the liquid mixture of polymer and solvent that is 
fed to the spinneret to form the acrylic and modacrylic fibers.


Sec.  63.11399  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or 
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the 
U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or 
tribal agency pursuant to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency has the 
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact 
your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated 
to a State, local, or tribal agency within your State.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the 
U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of a major change to a test method under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/ reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is 
defined in Sec.  63.90.
    As required in Sec.  63.11397(a), you must comply with the 
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40

[[Page 38903]]

CFR part 63, subpart A) as shown in the following table.

          Table 1.--To Subpart LLLLLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                       Subject          Applies to subpart LLLLLL?        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4),  Applicability.........  Yes........................
 (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12) (b)(1),
 (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5),
 (e).
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2),   Reserved..............  No.........................
 (c)(3), (c)(4), (d).
63.2...............................  Definitions...........  Yes........................
63.3...............................  Units and               Yes........................
                                      Abbreviations.
63.4...............................  Prohibited Activities   Yes........................
                                      and Circumvention.
63.5...............................  Preconstruction Review  No.........................
                                      and Notification
                                      Requirements.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7),      Compliance with         Yes........................  Subpart LLLLLL
 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1),      Standards and                                        requires new and
 (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-(e)(3)(ix),   Maintenance                                          existing sources to
 (f) (g), (i), (j).                   Requirements.                                        comply with
                                                                                           requirements for
                                                                                           startups, shutdowns,
                                                                                           and malfunctions in
                                                                                           Sec.   63.6(e)(3).
63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d),     Reserved..............  No.........................
 (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3),
 (h)(5)(iv).
63.6(h)(1)-(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)-        ......................  No.........................  Subpart LLLLLL does
 (h)(5)(iii), (h)(6)-(h)(9).                                                               not include opacity
                                                                                           or visible emissions
                                                                                           standards or require
                                                                                           a continuous opacity
                                                                                           monitoring system.
63.7(a), (e), (f), (g), (h)........  Performance Testing     Yes/No.....................  Subpart LLLLLL
                                      Requirements.                                        requires performance
                                                                                           tests for new and
                                                                                           existing sources; a
                                                                                           test for an existing
                                                                                           source is not
                                                                                           required if a prior
                                                                                           test meets the
                                                                                           conditions in Sec.
                                                                                           63.11395(h).
63.7(b), (c).......................  ......................  Yes/No.....................  Requirements for
                                                                                           notification of
                                                                                           performance test and
                                                                                           for quality assurance
                                                                                           program apply to new
                                                                                           sources but not
                                                                                           existing sources.
63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1)-     Monitoring              Yes........................
 (c)(3), (f)(1)-(5).                  Requirements.
63.8(a)(3).........................  Reserved..............  No.........................
63.8(a)(4).........................  ......................  Yes........................  Requirements apply to
                                                                                           new sources if flares
                                                                                           are the selected
                                                                                           control option.
63.8(c)(4)-(c)(8), (d), (e),         ......................  Yes........................  Requirements apply to
 (f)(6), (g).                                                                              new sources but not
                                                                                           to existing sources.
63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(5), (c), (d),   Notification            Yes........................
 (i), (j).                            Requirements.
63.9(e)............................  ......................  Yes/No.....................  Notification of
                                                                                           performance test is
                                                                                           required for new area
                                                                                           sources.
63.9(b)(2).........................  ......................  Yes........................  Initial notification
                                                                                           of applicability is
                                                                                           required for new and
                                                                                           existing area
                                                                                           sources.
63.9(b)(3), (h)(4).................  Reserved..............  No.........................
63.9(b)(4), (h)(5).................  ......................  No.........................
63.9(f), (g).......................  ......................  No.........................  Subpart LLLLLL does
                                                                                           not require a
                                                                                           continuous opacity
                                                                                           monitoring system or
                                                                                           continuous emissions
                                                                                           monitoring system.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(6)..........  ......................  Yes........................  Notification of
                                                                                           compliance status is
                                                                                           required for new and
                                                                                           existing area
                                                                                           sources.
63.10(a)...........................  Recordkeeping           Yes........................
                                      Requirements.
63.10(b)(1)........................  ......................  Yes/No.....................  Record retention
                                                                                           requirement applies
                                                                                           to new area sources
                                                                                           but not existing area
                                                                                           sources. Subpart
                                                                                           LLLLLL establishes 2-
                                                                                           year retention period
                                                                                           for existing area
                                                                                           sources.
63.10(b)(2)........................  ......................  Yes........................  Recordkeeping
                                                                                           requirements for
                                                                                           startups, shutdowns,
                                                                                           and malfunctions
                                                                                           apply to new and
                                                                                           existing area
                                                                                           sources.
63.10(b)(3)........................  ......................  Yes........................  Recordkeeping
                                                                                           requirements for
                                                                                           applicability
                                                                                           determinations apply
                                                                                           to new area sources.
63.10(c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(14)........  ......................  Yes/No.....................  Recordkeeping
                                                                                           requirements for
                                                                                           continuous parameter
                                                                                           monitoring systems
                                                                                           apply to new sources
                                                                                           but not existing
                                                                                           sources.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9).........  Reserved..............  No.........................
63.10(d)(1), (d)(4), (e)(1),         Reporting Requirements  Yes........................
 (e)(2), (f).
63.10(d)(2)........................  ......................  Yes........................  Report of performance
                                                                                           test results applies
                                                                                           to each area source
                                                                                           required to conduct a
                                                                                           performance test.
63.10(d)(3)........................  ......................  No.........................  Subpart LLLLLL does
                                                                                           not include opacity
                                                                                           or visible emissions
                                                                                           limits.

[[Page 38904]]

 
63.10(d)(5)........................  ......................  Yes........................  Requirements for
                                                                                           startup, shutdown,
                                                                                           and malfunction
                                                                                           reports apply to new
                                                                                           and existing area
                                                                                           sources.
(e)(1)-(e)(2), (e)(4)..............  ......................  No.........................  Subpart LLLLLL does
                                                                                           not require a
                                                                                           continuous emissions
                                                                                           monitoring system or
                                                                                           continuous opacity
                                                                                           monitoring system.
63.10(e)(3)........................  ......................  Yes/No.....................  Semiannual reporting
                                                                                           requirements for
                                                                                           excess emissions and
                                                                                           parameter monitoring
                                                                                           exceedances apply to
                                                                                           new area sources but
                                                                                           not existing area
                                                                                           sources.
63.11..............................  Control Device          Yes........................  Requirements apply to
                                      Requirements.                                        new sources if flares
                                                                                           are the selected
                                                                                           control option.
63.12..............................  State Authorities and   Yes........................
                                      Delegations.
63.13..............................  Addresses.............  Yes........................
63.14..............................  Incorporations by       Yes........................
                                      Reference.
63.15..............................  Availability of         Yes........................
                                      Information and
                                      Confidentiality.
63.16..............................  Performance Track       Yes........................
                                      Provisions..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
4. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart MMMMMM to read as follows:

Subpart MMMMMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Carbon Black Production Area Sources

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

63.11400 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11401 What are my compliance dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.11402 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new 
and existing sources?
63.11403 [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information

63.11404 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11405 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11406 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11400  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a carbon 
black production facility that is an area source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions.
    (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. 
The affected source is each carbon black production process unit. The 
affected source includes all waste management units, maintenance 
wastewater, and equipment components that contain or contact HAP that 
are associated with the carbon black production process unit.
    (1) An affected source is an existing source if you commenced 
construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or before 
April 4, 2007.
    (2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to research and development 
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (d) If you own or operate an area source subject to this subpart, 
you must obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71.


Sec.  63.11401  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by 
July 16, 2007.
    (b) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of 
this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
    (c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you 
must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart 
upon startup of your affected source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.11402  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
new and existing sources?

    You must meet all the requirements in Sec.  63.1103(f) of subpart 
YY.


Sec.  63.11403  [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.11404  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

    The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, applicable to this 
subpart are Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.5 and Sec. Sec.  63.11 through 
63.16.


Sec.  63.11405  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    The terms used in this subpart are defined in Sec. Sec.  63.1101 
and 63.1103(f)(2).


Sec.  63.11406  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or 
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the 
U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or 
tribal agency pursuant to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency has the 
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact 
your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated 
to a State, local, or tribal agency within your State.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the 
U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.992(b)(1).
    (2) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
Sec.  63.90.

[[Page 38905]]

    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is 
defined in Sec.  63.90.
0
5. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NNNNNN to read as follows:

Subpart NNNNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

63.11407 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11408 What are my compliance dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.11409 What are the standards?
63.11410 What are the compliance requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11411 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11412 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11413 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63--HAP Emissions Units
Table 2 to Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart NNNNNN

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11407  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 
chromium compounds manufacturing facility that is an area source of 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.
    (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. 
The affected source is each chromium compounds manufacturing facility.
    (1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
    (2) An affected source is new if you commence construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to research and development 
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.
    (d) If you own or operate an area source subject to this subpart, 
you must obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71.


Sec.  63.11408  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart not 
later than January 16, 2008.
    (b) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of 
this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
    (c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you 
must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart 
upon startup of your affected source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.11409  What are the standards?

    (a) You must operate a capture system that collects the gases and 
fumes released during the operation of each emissions source listed in 
Table 1 of this subpart and conveys the collected gas stream to a 
particulate matter (PM) control device.
    (b) You must not discharge to the atmosphere through any 
combination of stacks or other vents process gases from an emissions 
source listed in Table 1 of this subpart that contain PM in excess of 
the allowable process rate determined according to Equation 1 of this 
section (for an emissions source with a process rate of less than 30 
tons per hour) or Equation 2 of this section (for an emissions source 
with a process rate of 30 tons per hour or greater). If more than one 
process vents to a common stack, the applicable emissions limit for the 
stack is the sum of allowable emissions calculated for each process 
using Equation 1 or 2 of this section, as applicable.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY07.000


Where:

E = Emissions limit in pounds per hour (lb/hr); and
P = Process rate of emissions source in tons per hour (ton/hr).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY07.001

Sec.  63.11410  What are the compliance requirements?

    (a) Existing sources. If you own or operate an existing area 
source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (b) through 
(e) of this section.
    (b) Initial control device inspection. You must conduct an initial 
inspection of each PM control device according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. You must conduct each 
inspection no later than 60 days after your applicable compliance date 
for each installed control device which has been operated within 60 
days of the compliance date. For an installed control device which has 
not been operated within 60 days of the compliance date, you must 
conduct an initial inspection prior to startup of the control device.
    (1) For each baghouse, you must visually inspect the system 
ductwork and baghouse unit for leaks. You must also inspect the inside 
of each baghouse for structural integrity and fabric filter condition. 
You must record the results of the inspection and any maintenance 
action in the logbook required in paragraph (d) of this section. An 
initial inspection of the internal components of a baghouse is not 
required if an inspection has been performed within the past 12 months.
    (2) For each dry electrostatic precipitator, you must verify the 
proper functioning of the electronic controls for corona power and 
rapper operation, that the corona wires are energized, and that 
adequate air pressure is present on the rapper manifold. You must also 
visually inspect the system ductwork and electrostatic precipitator 
housing unit and hopper for leaks and inspect the interior of the 
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of 
corona wires, collection plates, hopper, and air diffuser plates. An 
initial inspection of the internal components of a dry electrostatic 
precipitator is not required if an inspection has been performed within 
the past 24 months.
    (3) For each wet electrostatic precipitator, you must verify the 
proper functioning of the electronic controls for corona power, that 
the corona wires are energized, and that water flow is present. You 
must also visually inspect the system ductwork and electrostatic 
precipitator housing unit and hopper for leaks and inspect the interior 
of the electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and 
integrity of corona wires, collection plates, plate wash spray heads, 
hopper, and air diffuser plates. An initial inspection of the internal 
components of a wet electrostatic precipitator is not required if an 
inspection has been performed within the past 24 months.
    (4) For each wet scrubber, you must verify the presence of water 
flow to the scrubber. You must also visually inspect the system 
ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks and inspect the interior of the 
scrubber for structural integrity and the condition of the demister and 
spray nozzle.
    (i) An initial inspection of the internal components of a wet 
scrubber is not required if an inspection has been performed within the 
past 12 months.

[[Page 38906]]

    (ii) The requirement in paragraph (b)(4) of this section for 
initial inspection of the internal components of a wet scrubber does 
not apply to a cyclonic scrubber installed upstream of a wet or dry 
electrostatic precipitator.
    (c) Periodic inspections/maintenance. Following the initial 
inspections, you must perform periodic inspections and maintenance of 
each PM control device according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must inspect and maintain each baghouse according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system 
ductwork for leaks.
    (ii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the baghouse 
for structural integrity and to determine the condition of the fabric 
filter every 12 months. If an initial inspection is not required by 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the first inspection must not be more 
than 12 months from the last inspection.
    (2) You must inspect and maintain each dry electrostatic 
precipitator according to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper 
functioning of the electronic controls for corona power and rapper 
operation, that the corona wires are energized, and that adequate air 
pressure is present on the rapper manifold.
    (ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system 
ductwork, housing unit, and hopper for leaks.
    (iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the 
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of 
corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air 
diffuser plates every 24 months.
    (3) You must inspect and maintain each wet electrostatic 
precipitator according to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper 
functioning of the electronic controls for corona power, that the 
corona wires are energized, and that water flow is present.
    (ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system 
ductwork, electrostatic precipitator housing unit, and hopper for 
leaks.
    (iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the 
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of 
corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air 
diffuser plates every 24 months. If an initial inspection is not 
required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the first inspection must 
not be more than 24 months from the last inspection.
    (4) You must inspect and maintain each wet scrubber according to 
the requirements in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the presence of 
water flow to the scrubber.
    (ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system 
ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks.
    (iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the scrubber 
to determine the structural integrity and condition of the demister and 
spray nozzle every 12 months. Internal inspections of cyclonic 
scrubbers installed upstream of wet or dry electrostatic precipitators 
are not required.
    (d) Recordkeeping requirements. You must record the results of each 
inspection and maintenance action in a logbook (written or electronic 
format). You must keep the logbook onsite and make the logbook 
available to the permitting authority upon request. You must keep 
records of the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) 
of this section for 5 years following the date of each recorded action.
    (1) The date and time of each recorded action for a fabric filter, 
the results of each inspection, and the results of any maintenance 
performed on the bag filters.
    (2) The date and time of each recorded action for a wet or dry 
electrostatic precipitator (including ductwork), the results of each 
inspection, and the results of any maintenance performed on the 
electrostatic precipitator.
    (3) The date and time of each recorded action for a wet scrubber 
(including ductwork), the results of each inspection, and the results 
of any maintenance performed on the wet scrubber.
    (4) Records of all required monitoring data and supporting 
information including all calibration and maintenance records, original 
strip-chart recordings for continuous monitoring information, and 
copies of all reports required by this subpart. You must maintain 
records of required monitoring data in a form suitable and readily 
available for expeditious review. All records must be kept onsite and 
made available to EPA or the delegated authority for inspection upon 
request. You must maintain records of all required monitoring data and 
supporting information for at least 5 years from the date of the 
monitoring sample, measurement, report, or application.
    (e) Reports. (1) You must report each deviation (an action or 
condition not in accordance with the requirements of this subpart, 
including upset conditions but excluding excess emissions) to the 
permitting agency on the next business day after becoming aware of the 
deviation. You must submit a written report within 2 business days 
which identifies the probable cause of the deviation and any corrective 
actions or preventative actions taken. All reports of deviations must 
be certified by a responsible official.
    (2) You must submit semiannual reports of monitoring and 
recordkeeping activities to your permitting authority.
    (3) You must submit the results of any maintenance performed on 
each PM control device within 30 days of a written request by the 
permitting authority.
    (f) New sources. If you own or operate a new affected source, you 
must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this 
section.
    (g) Bag leak detection systems. You must install, operate, and 
maintain a bag leak detection system on all baghouses used to comply 
with the PM emissions limit in Sec.  63.11409 according to paragraph 
(g)(1) of this section; prepare and operate by a site-specific 
monitoring plan according to paragraph (g)(2) of this section; take 
corrective action according to paragraph (g)(3) of this section; and 
record information according to paragraph (g)(4) of this section.
    (1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and 
requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record 
the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other 
means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative 
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to 
paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located 
such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.

[[Page 38907]]

    (iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system, 
you must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm 
set points, and the alarm delay time.
    (v) Following initial adjustment, you shall not adjust the 
averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval 
from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided in 
paragraph (g)(1)(vi) of this section.
    (vi) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag 
leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including 
temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the 
site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (g)(2) of this 
section.
    (vii) You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of 
the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (2) You must develop and submit to the Administrator or delegated 
authority for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag 
leak detection system. You must operate and maintain the bag leak 
detection system according to an approved site-specific monitoring plan 
at all times. Each monitoring plan must describe the items in 
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality 
assurance procedures;
    (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, 
including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory 
list;
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored; and
    (vi) Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (g)(3) 
of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the 
Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators 
more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an 
alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this 
specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately 
explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 
hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested 
time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as 
practicable.
    (3) For each bag leak detection system, you must initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the 
alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2)(vi) of this section, you 
must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by 
taking whatever corrective action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions 
may include, but are not limited to the following:
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
particulate emissions;
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device;
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment;
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (4) You must maintain records of the information specified in 
paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section for each bag leak 
detection system.
    (i) Records of the bag leak detection system output;
    (ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including 
the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection 
system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and
    (iii) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, 
the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were 
initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken, 
the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and whether 
the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.
    (h) Other control devices. If you use a control device other than a 
baghouse, you must prepare and submit a monitoring plan to EPA or the 
delegated authority for approval. You must operate and maintain the 
control device according to an approved site-specific monitoring plan 
at all times. Each plan must contain the information in paragraphs 
(h)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) A description of the device;
    (2) Test results collected in accordance with paragraph (i) of this 
section verifying the performance of the device for reducing PM to the 
levels required by this subpart;
    (3) Operation and maintenance plan for the control device 
(including a preventative maintenance schedule consistent with the 
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance) and 
continuous monitoring system.
    (4) A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to 
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits; 
and
    (5) Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected 
during the performance test.
    (i) Performance tests. If you own or operate a new affected source, 
you must conduct a performance test for each emissions source subject 
to an emissions limit in Sec.  63.11409(b) within 180 days of your 
compliance date and report the results in your notification of 
compliance status. If you own or operate an existing affected source, 
you are not required to conduct a performance test if a prior 
performance test was conducted within the past 5 years of the effective 
date using the same methods specified in paragraph (j) of this section 
and either no process changes have been made since the test, or if you 
can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or 
without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process 
changes.
    (j) Test methods. You must conduct each performance test according 
to the requirements in Sec.  63.7 and paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of PM according to the following 
test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A:
    (i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number 
of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be 
located at the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases 
to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric 
flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas. You may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust 
Gas Analyses (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14) as an 
alternative to EPA Method 3B.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5 or 5D to determine the concentration of particulate 
matter (front half filterable catch only). Three valid test runs are 
needed to comprise a performance test.
    (2) During the test, you must operate each emissions source within 
10 percent of the normal process rate specified in your 
notification of compliance status. You must monitor

[[Page 38908]]

and record the process rate during the test.
    (3) Compute the mass emissions (E) in pounds per hour (lb/hr) for 
each test run using Equation 1 of this section and the process rate 
measured during the test. The PM emissions in lb/hr must be less than 
the allowable PM emissions rate for the emissions source.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY07.002


Where:

E = Mass emissions of PM, pounds per hour (lb/hr);
C = Concentration of PM, grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dry standard cubic foot per 
hour (dscf/hr); and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound (gr/lb).

    (k) Startups, shutdown, and malfunctions. The requirements in 
paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section apply to the owner or 
operator of a new or existing affected source.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, you 
must report emissions in excess of a PM emissions limit established by 
this subpart lasting for more than 4 hours that result from a 
malfunction, a breakdown of process or control equipment, or any other 
abnormal condition by 9 a.m. of the next business day of becoming aware 
of the occurrence. You must provide the name and location of the 
facility, the nature and cause of the malfunction or breakdown, the 
time when the malfunction or breakdown is first observed, the expected 
duration, and the estimated rate of emissions. You must also notify EPA 
or the delegated authority immediately when corrected measures have 
been accomplished and, if requested, submit a written report within 15 
days after the request.
    (2) As an alternative to the requirements in paragraph (k)(1) of 
this section, you must comply with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction requirements in Sec.  63.6(e)(3).

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.11411  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

    (a) You must comply with the requirements of the General Provisions 
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A as specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
    (b) Your notification of compliance status required by Sec.  
63.9(h) must include the following information for a new or existing 
affected source:
    (1) This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible 
official, for the standards in Sec.  63.11409(a): ``This facility 
complies with the management practice requirements in Sec.  63.11409(a) 
for installation and operation of capture systems for each emissions 
source subject to an emissions limit in Sec.  63.11409(b).''
    (2) This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of an 
existing source (if applicable), signed by a responsible official, for 
the emissions limits in Sec.  63.11409(b): ``This facility complies 
with the emissions limits in Sec.  63.11409(b) based on a previous 
performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.11410(i).''
    (3) The process rate for each emissions source subject to an 
emissions limit in Sec.  63.11409(b) that represents normal and 
representative production operations.
    (4) The procedures used to measure and record the process rate for 
each emissions source subject to an emissions limit in Sec.  
63.11409(b).
    (5) This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of an 
existing affected source, signed by a responsible official, for the 
control device inspection and maintenance requirements in Sec.  
63.11410(b) through (d): ``This facility has conducted an initial 
inspection of each control device according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.11410(b), will conduct periodic inspections and maintenance of 
control devices in accordance with Sec.  63.11410(c), and will maintain 
records of each inspection and maintenance action in the logbook 
required by Sec.  63.11410(d).''
    (6) This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of a 
new affected source, signed by a responsible official, for the bag leak 
detection system monitoring plan requirement in Sec.  63.11410(g)(2): 
``This facility has an approved bag leak detection system monitoring 
plan in accordance with Sec.  63.11410(g)(2).''
    (7) Performance test results for each emissions unit at a new 
affected source (or each emissions source at an existing affected 
source if a test is required) in accordance with Sec.  63.11410(j). The 
performance test results for a new affected source must identify the 
daily average parameter operating limit for each PM control device.
    (8) If applicable, this certification of compliance by the owner or 
operator of a new or existing source, signed by a responsible official, 
for the requirement in paragraph (k)(2) of this section to comply with 
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3): 
``This facility has prepared a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 
in accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)''.


Sec.  63.11412  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in 40 CFR 63.2, 
and in this section as follows:
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust loadings) in 
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset 
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited 
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, 
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative 
particulate matter loadings.
    Chromic acid means chromium trioxide (CrO3). It is 
produced by the electrolytic reaction or acidification of sodium 
dichromate.
    Chromium compounds manufacturing means any process that uses 
chromite ore as the basic feedstock to manufacture chromium compounds, 
primarily sodium dichromate, chromic acid, and chromic oxide.
    Chromium compounds manufacturing facility means the collection of 
processes and equipment at a plant engaged in chromium compounds 
manufacturing.
    Chromite ore means an oxide of chromium and iron 
(FeCr2O4) that is the primary feedstock for 
chromium compounds manufacturing.
    Chromic oxide means Cr2O3. In the production 
of chromic oxide, ammonium sulfate and sodium dichromate that have been 
concentrated by evaporation are mixed and fed to a rotary roasting kiln 
to produce chromic oxide, sodium sulfate and nitrogen gas.
    Roasting means a heating (oxidizing) process where ground chromite 
ore is mixed with alkaline material (such as soda ash, sodium 
bicarbonate, and sodium hydroxide) and fed to a rotary kiln where it is 
heated to about 2,000 [ordm]F, converting the majority of the chromium 
in the ore from trivalent to hexavalent chromium.
    Sodium chromate means Na2CrO4. It is produced 
by roasting chromite ore in a rotary kiln.
    Sodium dichromate means sodium bichromate or sodium bichromate 
dihydrate and is known technically as sodium dichromate dihydrate 
(Na2Cr2O7  2H2O). 
It is produced by the electrolytic reaction or acidification of sodium 
chromate.


Sec.  63.11413  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA, 
or a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If 
the U.S. EPA

[[Page 38909]]

Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal 
agency pursuant to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency has the authority 
to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA 
Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, 
local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) 
of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and 
are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is 
defined in Sec.  63.90.
    As required in Sec.  63.11409, you must install and operate capture 
systems and comply with the applicable emissions limit for each 
emissions source shown in the following table.

      Table 1 To Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63.--HAP Emissions Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Process                         Emissions sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sodium chromate production..........  a. Ball mill used to grind
                                          chromite ore.
                                         b. Dryer used to dry chromite
                                          ore.
                                         c. Rotary kiln used to roast
                                          chromite ore to produce sodium
                                          chromate.
                                         d. Secondary rotary kiln used
                                          to recycle and refine residues
                                          containing chromium compounds.
                                         e. Residue dryer system.
                                         f. Quench tanks.
2. Sodium dichromate production........  a. Stack on the electrolytic
                                          cell system used to produce
                                          sodium dichromate.
                                         b. Sodium dichromate
                                          crystallization unit.
                                         c. Sodium dichromate drying
                                          unit.
3. Chromic acid production.............  a. Electrolytic cell system
                                          used to produce chromic acid.
                                         b. Melter used to produce
                                          chromic acid.
                                         c. Chromic acid crystallization
                                          unit.
                                         d. Chromic acid dryer.
4. Chromic oxide production............  a. Primary rotary roasting kiln
                                          used to produce chromic oxide.
                                         b. Chromic oxide filter.
                                         c. Chromic oxide dryer.
                                         d. Chromic oxide grinding unit.
                                         e. Chromic oxide storage
                                          vessel.
                                         f. Secondary rotary roasting
                                          kiln.
                                         g. Quench tanks.
5. Chromium hydrate production.........  a. Furnace used to produce
                                          chromium hydrate.
                                         b. Chromium hydrate grinding
                                          unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.11411(a), you must comply with the 
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as 
shown in the following table.

          Table 2 To Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNNNN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                       Subject                   Applies                  Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4),  Applicability.........  Yes.                         ......................
 (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12), (b)(1),
 (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5),
 (e).
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2),   Reserved..............  No.                          ......................
 (c)(3), (c)(4), (d).
63.2...............................  Definitions...........  Yes.                         ......................
63.3...............................  Units and               Yes.                         ......................
                                      Abbreviations.
63.4...............................  Prohibited Activities   Yes.                         ......................
                                      and Circumvention.
63.5...............................  Preconstruction Review  No.                          ......................
                                      and Notification
                                      Requirements.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7),      Compliance with         Yes........................  The startup, shutdown,
 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1),      Standards and                                        and malfunction
 (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-(e)(3)(ix),   Maintenance                                          requirements in Sec.
 (f), (g), (i), (j).                  Requirements.                                         63.6(e)(3) apply at
                                                                                           new and existing area
                                                                                           sources that choose
                                                                                           to comply with Sec.
                                                                                           63.11410(k)(2)
                                                                                           instead of the
                                                                                           requirements in Sec.
                                                                                            63.11410(k)(1).
63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d),     Reserved..............  No.                          ......................
 (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3),
 (h)(5)(iv).
63.6(h)(1)-(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)-        ......................  No.........................  Subpart NNNNNN does
 (h)(5)(iii), (h)(6)-(h)(9).                                                               not include opacity
                                                                                           or visible emissions
                                                                                           standards or require
                                                                                           a continuous opacity
                                                                                           monitoring system.
63.7(a), (e), (f), (g), (h)........  Performance Testing     Yes........................  Subpart NNNNNN
                                      Requirements.                                        requires a
                                                                                           performance test for
                                                                                           a new source; a test
                                                                                           for an existing
                                                                                           source is not
                                                                                           required under the
                                                                                           conditions specified
                                                                                           in Sec.
                                                                                           63.11410(i).
63.7(b), (c).......................  ......................  Yes/No.....................  Requirements for
                                                                                           notification of
                                                                                           performance test and
                                                                                           for quality assurance
                                                                                           program apply to new
                                                                                           area sources but not
                                                                                           existing area
                                                                                           sources.
63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1)-     Monitoring              Yes.                         ......................
 (c)(3), (f)(1)-(5).                  Requirements.
63.8(a)(3).........................  Reserved..............  No.                          ......................
63.8(a)(4).........................  ......................  No.........................  Subpart NNNNNN does
                                                                                           not require flares.
63.8(c)(4)-(c)(8), (d), (e),         ......................  No.........................  Subpart NNNNNN
 (f)(6), (g).                                                                              establishes
                                                                                           requirements for
                                                                                           continuous parameter
                                                                                           monitoring systems.

[[Page 38910]]

 
63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(5), (c), (d),   Notification            Yes.                         ......................
 (i), (j).                            Requirements.
63.9(e)............................  ......................  Yes/No.....................  Notification of
                                                                                           performance test is
                                                                                           required only for new
                                                                                           area sources.
63.9(b)(2).........................  ......................  Yes.                         ......................
63.9(b)(3), (h)(4).................  Reserved..............  No.                          ......................
63.9(b)(4), (h)(5).................  ......................  No.                          ......................
63.9(f), (g).......................  ......................  No.........................  Subpart NNNNNN does
                                                                                           not include opacity
                                                                                           or visible emissions
                                                                                           standards or require
                                                                                           a continuous opacity
                                                                                           monitoring system or
                                                                                           continuous emissions
                                                                                           monitoring system.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(6)..........  ......................  Yes.                         ......................
63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(xii),       Recordkeeping           Yes.                         ......................
 (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3).                 Requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(v)...........  ......................  Yes........................  Recordkeeping
                                                                                           requirements for
                                                                                           startups, shutdowns,
                                                                                           and malfunctions
                                                                                           apply to new and
                                                                                           existing area sources
                                                                                           that choose to comply
                                                                                           with Sec.
                                                                                           63.11410(k)(2).
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(ix), (c)(1),  ......................  Yes/No.....................  Requirements apply to
 (c)(5)-(c)(14).                                                                           continuous parameter
                                                                                           monitoring systems at
                                                                                           new area sources but
                                                                                           not existing area
                                                                                           sources.
63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A)-(B), (b)(2)(x),  ......................  No.                          ......................
 (b)(2)(xiii).
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9).........  Reserved..............  No.                          ......................
63.10(d)(1), (d)(4), (f)...........  Reporting Requirements  Yes.                         ......................
63.10(d)(2)........................  ......................  Yes........................  Report of performance
                                                                                           test results applies
                                                                                           to new area sources;
                                                                                           the results of a
                                                                                           previous test may be
                                                                                           submitted for an
                                                                                           existing area source
                                                                                           under the conditions
                                                                                           specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.11410(i).
63.10(d)(3)........................  ......................  No.........................  Subpart NNNNNN does
                                                                                           not include opacity
                                                                                           or visible emissions
                                                                                           limits.
63.10(d)(5)........................  ......................  Yes........................  Requirements for
                                                                                           startup, shutdown,
                                                                                           and malfunction
                                                                                           reports apply to new
                                                                                           and existing area
                                                                                           sources that choose
                                                                                           to comply with Sec.
                                                                                           63.11410(k)(2).
63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2), (e)(4).........  ......................  No.........................  Subpart NNNNNN does
                                                                                           not require a
                                                                                           continuous emissions
                                                                                           monitoring system or
                                                                                           continuous opacity
                                                                                           monitoring system.
63.10(e)(3)........................  ......................  Yes/No.....................  Semiannual reporting
                                                                                           requirements apply to
                                                                                           new area sources but
                                                                                           not existing area
                                                                                           sources.
63.11..............................  Control Device          No.........................  Subpart NNNNNN does
                                      Requirements.                                        not require flares.
63.12..............................  State Authorities and   Yes.                         ......................
                                      Delegations.
63.13..............................  Addresses.............  Yes.                         ......................
63.14..............................  Incorporations by       Yes.                         ......................
                                      Reference.
63.15..............................  Availability of         Yes.                         ......................
                                      Information and
                                      Confidentiality.
63.16..............................  Performance Track       Yes.                         ......................
                                      Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
6. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart OOOOOO to read as follows:

Subpart OOOOOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Fabrication Area Sources

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

63.11414 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11415 What are my compliance dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.11416 What are the standards for new and existing sources?
63.11417 What are the compliance requirements for new and existing 
sources?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11418 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11419 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11420 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart OOOOOO of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart OOOOOO

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11414  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an area 
source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions that meets the 
criteria in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) You own or operate a plant that produces flexible polyurethane 
foam or rebond foam as defined in Sec.  63.1292 of subpart III.
    (2) You own or operate a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication 
facility, as defined in Sec.  63.11419.
    (b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing 
affected source that meets the criteria listed in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) A slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production affected 
source is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to 
produce slabstock flexible polyurethane foam.

[[Page 38911]]

    (2) A molded flexible polyurethane foam production affected source 
is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to produce 
molded foam.
    (3) A rebond foam production affected source is the collection of 
all equipment and activities necessary to produce rebond foam.
    (4) A flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source is the 
collection of all equipment and activities at a flexible polyurethane 
foam fabrication facility where adhesives are used to bond foam to foam 
or other substrates. Equipment and activities at flexible polyurethane 
foam fabrication facilities which do not use adhesives to bond foam to 
foam or other substrates are not flexible polyurethane foam fabrication 
affected sources.
    (c) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
    (d) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
    (e) This subpart does not apply to research and development 
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (f) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required 
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). 
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with 
the provisions of this subpart.


Sec.  63.11415  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing slabstock flexible 
polyurethane foam production affected source, you must achieve 
compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart by July 16, 
2008.
    (b) If you own or operate an existing molded flexible polyurethane 
foam affected source, an existing rebond foam production affected 
sources, or an existing flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected 
source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in 
this subpart by July 16, 2007.
    (c) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in 
this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
    (d) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you 
must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon 
startup of your affected source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.11416  What are the standards for new and existing sources?

    (a) If you own or operate a slabstock flexible polyurethane foam 
production affected source, you must meet the requirements in paragraph 
(b) of this section. If you own or operate a molded foam affected 
source, you must meet the requirements in paragraph (c) of this 
section. If you own or operate a rebond foam affected source, you must 
meet the requirements in paragraph (d) of this section. If you own or 
operate a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source, you 
must meet the requirements in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (b) If you own or operate a new or existing slabstock polyurethane 
foam production affected source, you must comply with the requirements 
in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) Comply with Sec.  63.1293(a) or (b) of subpart III, except that 
you must use Equation 1 of this section to determine the HAP auxiliary 
blowing agent (ABA) formulation limit for each foam grade instead of 
Equation 3 of Sec.  63.1297 of subpart III.
    You must use zero as the formulation limitation for any grade of 
foam where the result of the formulation equation (using Equation 1 of 
this section) is negative (i.e., less than zero):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY07.003


where:

ABA limit = HAP ABA formulation limitation, parts 
methylene chloride ABA allowed per hundred parts polyol (pph).
IFD = Indentation force deflection, pounds.
DEN = Density, pounds per cubic foot.

    (2) Use no material containing methylene chloride for any purpose 
in any slabstock flexible foam production process.
    (c) If you own or operate a new or existing molded foam affected 
source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) You must not use a material containing methylene chloride as an 
equipment cleaner to flush the mixhead or use a material containing 
methylene chloride elsewhere as an equipment cleaner in a molded 
flexible polyurethane foam process.
    (2) You must not use a mold release agent containing methylene 
chloride in a molded flexible polyurethane foam process.
    (d) If you own or operate a new or existing rebond foam affected 
source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) You must not use a material containing methylene chloride as an 
equipment cleaner in a rebond foam process.
    (2) You must not use a mold release agent containing methylene 
chloride in a rebond foam process.
    (e) If you own or operate a new or existing flexible polyurethane 
foam fabrication affected source, you must not use any adhesive 
containing methylene chloride in a flexible polyurethane foam 
fabrication process.
    (f) You may demonstrate compliance with the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) through (e) of this section using adhesive 
usage records, Material Safety Data Sheets, and engineering 
calculations.


Sec.  63.11417  What are the compliance requirements for new and 
existing sources?

    (a) If you own or operate a slabstock flexible polyurethane foam 
production affected source, you must comply with the requirements in 
paragraph (b) of this section. If you own or operate a molded foam 
affected source, rebond foam affected source, or a loop slitter at a 
flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source you must comply 
with the requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (b) Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock flexible 
polyurethane foam production affected source who chooses to comply with 
Sec.  63.11416(b)(1) must comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 
Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock flexible 
polyurethane foam production affected source who chooses to comply with 
Sec.  63.11416(b)(2) must comply with paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this 
section.

[[Page 38912]]

    (1) You must comply with paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this 
section.
    (i) The monitoring requirements in Sec.  63.1303 of subpart III.
    (ii) The testing requirements in Sec.  63.1304 or Sec.  63.1305 of 
subpart III.
    (iii) The reporting requirements in Sec.  63.1306 of subpart III, 
with the exception of the reporting requirements in Sec.  
63.1306(d)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of subpart III.
    (iv) The recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  63.1307 of subpart 
III, with the exception of the recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  
63.1307(a)(1), (b)(1)(i), and (b)(2).
    (v) The compliance demonstration requirements in Sec.  63.1308(a), 
(c), and (d) of subpart III.
    (2) You must submit a notification of compliance status report no 
later than 180 days after your compliance date. The report must contain 
the information detailed in Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(i) paragraphs (A) and (G), 
and must contain this certification of compliance, signed by a 
responsible official, for the standards in Sec.  63.11416(b)(2): ``This 
facility uses no material containing methylene chloride for any purpose 
on any slabstock flexible foam process.''
    (3) You must maintain records of the information used to 
demonstrate compliance, as required in Sec.  63.11416(f). You must 
maintain the records for 5 years, with the last 2 years of data 
retained on site. The remaining 3 years of data may be maintained off 
site.
    (c) You must have a compliance certification on file by the 
compliance date. This certification must contain the statements in 
paragraph (c)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as applicable, and must 
be signed by a responsible official.
    (1) For a molded foam affected source:
    (i) ``This facility does not use any equipment cleaner to flush the 
mixhead which contains methylene chloride, or any other equipment 
cleaner containing methylene chloride in a molded flexible polyurethane 
foam process in accordance with Sec.  63.11416(c)(1).''
    (ii) ``This facility does not use any mold release agent containing 
methylene chloride in a molded flexible polyurethane foam process in 
accordance with Sec.  63.11416(c)(2).''
    (2) For a rebond foam affected source:
    (i) ``This facility does not use any equipment cleaner which 
contains methylene chloride in a rebond flexible polyurethane foam 
process in accordance with Sec.  63.11416(d)(1).''
    (ii) ``This facility does not use any mold release agent containing 
methylene chloride in a rebond flexible polyurethane foam process in 
accordance with Sec.  63.11416(d)(2).''
    (3) For a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source 
containing a loop slitter: ``This facility does not use any adhesive 
containing methylene chloride on a loop slitter process in accordance 
with Sec.  63.11416(e).''
    (d) For molded foam affected sources, rebond foam affected sources, 
and flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected sources containing 
a loop slitter, you must maintain records of the information used to 
demonstrate compliance, as required in Sec.  63.11416(f). You must 
maintain the records for 5 years, with the last 2 years of data 
retained on site. The remaining 3 years of data may be maintained off 
site.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.11418  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

    The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, applicable to sources 
subject to Sec.  63.11416(b)(1) are specified in Table 1 of this 
subpart.


Sec.  63.11419  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    The terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA; Sec.  
63.1292 of subpart III; Sec.  63.8830 of subpart MMMMM; Sec.  63.2 of 
subpart A; and in this section as follows:
    Flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facility means a facility 
where pieces of flexible polyurethane foam are cut, bonded, and/or 
laminated together or to other substrates.


Sec.  63.11420  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or 
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the 
U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or 
tribal agency pursuant to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency has the 
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact 
your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated 
to a State, local, or tribal agency within your State.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the 
U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is 
defined in Sec.  63.90.
    As required in Sec.  63.11418, you must comply with the 
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A) as shown in the following table.

     Table 1 To Subpart OOOOOO of Part 63.--Applicability of General
                      Provisions to Subpart OOOOOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
      Subpart A reference        Subpart OOOOOO?          Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1...................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.2...................  Yes..............  Definitions are
                                                    modified and
                                                    supplemented by Sec.
                                                      63.11419.
Sec.   63.3...................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.4...................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.5...................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(a)-(d)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  No...............  Owners and operators
                                                    of subpart OOOOOO
                                                    affected sources are
                                                    not required to
                                                    develop and
                                                    implement a startup,
                                                    shutdown, and
                                                    malfunction plan.
Sec.   63.6 (f)-(g)...........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(h)................  No...............  Subpart OOOOOO does
                                                    not require opacity
                                                    and visible
                                                    emissions standards.
Sec.   63.6 (i)-(j)...........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.7...................  No...............  Performance tests not
                                                    required by subpart
                                                    OOOOOO.

[[Page 38913]]

 
Sec.   63.8...................  No...............  Continuous
                                                    monitoring, as
                                                    defined in subpart
                                                    A, is not required
                                                    by subpart OOOOOO.
Sec.   63.9(a)-(d)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.9(e)-(g)............  No...............
Sec.   63.9(h)................  No...............  Subpart OOOOOO
                                                    specifies
                                                    Notification of
                                                    Compliance Status
                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.9 (i)-(j)...........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(a)-(b)...........  Yes..............  Except that the
                                                    records specified in
                                                    Sec.   63.10(b)(2)
                                                    are not required.
Sec.   63.10(c)...............  No...............
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)-(3)........  No...............
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)............  No...............
Sec.   63.10(e)...............  No...............
Sec.   63.10(f)...............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.11..................  No...............
Sec.   63.12..................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.13..................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.14..................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.15..................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.16..................  Yes..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
7. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart PPPPPP to read as follows:

Subpart PPPPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

63.11421 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11422 What are my compliance dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.11423 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new 
and existing sources?
63.11424 [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information

63.11425 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11426 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11427 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart PPPPPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart PPPPPP

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11421  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a lead 
acid battery manufacturing plant that is an area source of hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP) emissions.
    (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. 
The affected source is each lead acid battery manufacturing plant. The 
affected source includes all grid casting facilities, paste mixing 
facilities, three-process operation facilities, lead oxide 
manufacturing facilities, lead reclamation facilities, and any other 
lead-emitting operation that is associated with the lead acid battery 
manufacturing plant.
    (1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
    (2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to research and development 
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (d) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required 
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). 
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with 
the provisions of this subpart.


Sec.  63.11422  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart by no 
later than July 16, 2008.
    (b) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in 
this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
    (c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you 
must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon 
startup of your affected source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.11423  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
new and existing sources?

    (a) You must meet all the standards for lead in 40 CFR 60.372.
    (b) You must meet the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (1) For any emissions point controlled by a scrubbing system, you 
must meet the requirements in 40 CFR 60.373.
    (2) For any emissions point controlled by a fabric filter, you must 
meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section and either 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section. Fabric filters equipped 
with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter or other secondary 
filter are allowed to monitor less frequently, as specified in 
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
    (i) You must perform semiannual inspections and maintenance to 
ensure proper performance of each fabric filter. This includes 
inspection of structural and filter integrity. You must record the 
results of these inspections.
    (ii) You must install, maintain, and operate a pressure drop 
monitoring device to measure the differential pressure drop across the 
fabric filter during all times when the process is operating. The 
pressure drop shall be recorded at least once per day. If a pressure 
drop is observed outside of the normal operational ranges, you must 
record the incident and take immediate

[[Page 38914]]

corrective actions. You must also record the corrective actions taken. 
You must submit a monitoring system performance report in accordance 
with Sec.  63.10(e)(3).
    (iii) You must conduct a visible emissions observation at least 
once per day to verify that no visible emissions are occurring at the 
discharge point to the atmosphere from any emissions source subject to 
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If visible emissions 
are detected, you must record the incident and conduct an opacity 
measurement in accordance with 40 CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must record the 
results of each opacity measurement. If the measurement exceeds the 
applicable opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) or (8), you must 
submit this information in an excess emissions report required under 
Sec.  63.10(e)(3).
    (iv) Fabric filters equipped with a HEPA filter or other secondary 
filter are allowed to monitor less frequently, as specified in 
paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) If you are using a pressure drop monitoring device to measure 
the differential pressure drop across the fabric filter in accordance 
with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, you must record the pressure 
drop at least once per week. If a pressure drop is observed outside of 
the normal operational ranges, you must record the incident and take 
immediate corrective actions. You must also record the corrective 
actions taken. You must submit a monitoring system performance report 
in accordance with Sec.  63.10(e)(3).
    (B) If you are conducting visible emissions observations in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, you must conduct 
such observations at least once per week and record the results in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section. If visible 
emissions are detected, you must record the incident and conduct an 
opacity measurement in accordance with 40 CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must 
record the results of each opacity measurement. If the measurement 
exceeds the applicable opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) or (8), 
you must submit this information in an excess emissions report required 
under Sec.  63.10(e)(3).
    (c) You must meet the testing requirements in 40 CFR 60.374.
    (1) Existing sources are not required to conduct a performance test 
if a prior performance test was conducted using the same methods 
specified in 40 CFR 60.374 and either no process changes have been made 
since the test, or you can demonstrate that the results of the 
performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate 
compliance despite process changes.
    (2) Sources without a prior performance test, as described in 
paragraph (b) of this section, must conduct a performance test using 
the methods specified in 40 CFR 60.374 by 180 days after the compliance 
date.


Sec.  63.11424  [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.11425  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

    (a) The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, that are 
applicable to this subpart are specified in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (b) For existing sources, the initial notification required by 
Sec.  63.9(b) must be submitted not later than November 13, 2007.
    (c) For existing sources, the notification of compliance required 
by Sec.  63.9(h) must be submitted not later than September 15, 2008.


Sec.  63.11426  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    The terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA; 40 CFR 
60.371; 40 CFR 60.2 for terms used in the applicable provisions of part 
60, subpart A, as specified in Sec.  63.11425(a); and Sec.  63.2 for 
terms used in the applicable provisions of part 63, subpart A, as 
specified in Sec.  63.11425(b).


Sec.  63.11427  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or 
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the 
U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or 
tribal agency pursuant to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency has the 
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact 
your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated 
to a State, local, or tribal agency within your State.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the 
U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of a major change to test methods under 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under 40 CFR 63.8(f). 
A ``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 40 
CFR 63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is defined 
in Sec.  63.90.
    As required in Sec.  63.11425, you must comply with the 
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A) as shown in the following table.

          Table 1 To Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPPPP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Applies to Subpart
               Citation                        Subject                  PPPPPP?                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1.................................  Applicability..........  Yes....................
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes....................
63.3.................................  Units and Abbreviations
63.4.................................  Prohibited Activities    Yes....................
                                        and Circumvention.
63.5.................................  Preconstruction Review   No.....................
                                        and Notification
                                        Requirements.
63.6(a)-(d), (e)(1), (f)-(j).........  Compliance with          Yes....................
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance
                                        Requirements.
63.6(e)(3)...........................                           No.....................  Subpart PPPPPP does not
                                                                                          require a startup,
                                                                                          shutdown, and
                                                                                          malfunction plan.
63.7.................................  Performance Testing      Yes....................
                                        Requirements.
63.8.................................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................

[[Page 38915]]

 
63.9.................................  .......................  Yes....................
63.10(a)-(c), (d)(1)-(4), (e), (f)...  Recordkeeping and        Yes....................
                                        Reporting Requirements.
63.10(d)(5)..........................                           No.....................  Subpart PPPPPP does not
                                                                                          require a startup,
                                                                                          shutdown, and
                                                                                          malfunction plan.
63.11................................  Control Device           No.....................  Subpart PPPPPP does not
                                        Requirements.                                     require flares.
63.12................................  State Authorities and    Yes.                     .......................
                                        Delegations.
63.13................................  Addresses..............  Yes....................
63.14................................  Incorporations by        Yes....................
                                        Reference.
63.15................................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        Information and
                                        Confidentiality.
63.16................................  Performance Track        Yes....................
                                        Provisions.
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(9), (b)(2),        Reserved...............  No.....................
 (c)(3), (d), 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3),
 (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii),
 (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv), 63.8(a)(3),
 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4), 63.10(c)(2)-
 (c)(4), (c)(9).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
8. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart QQQQQQ to read as follows:

Subpart QQQQQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Wood Preserving Area Sources

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

63.11428 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11429 What are my compliance dates?

Standards

63.11430 What are the standards?
63.11431 [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information

63.11432 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11433 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11434 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQQ of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions of Subpart QQQQQQ

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11428  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a wood 
preserving operation that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) emissions.
    (b) The affected source is each new or existing wood preserving 
operation.
    (1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
    (2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.
    (c) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required 
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). 
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with 
the provisions of this subpart.


Sec.  63.11429  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, you must achieve 
compliance with applicable provisions in this subpart by July 16, 2007.
    (b) If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 
2007, you must achieve compliance with applicable provisions in this 
subpart not later than July 16, 2007.
    (c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you 
must achieve compliance with applicable provisions in this subpart upon 
initial startup.

Standards


Sec.  63.11430  What are the standards?

    (a) If you use a pressure treatment process with any wood 
preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene 
chloride at a new or existing area source, the preservative must be 
applied to the wood product inside a retort or similarly enclosed 
vessel.
    (b) If you use a thermal treatment process with any wood 
preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene 
chloride at a new or existing area source, the preservative must be 
applied using process treatment tanks equipped with an air scavenging 
system to control emissions.
    (c) If you use any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, 
dioxins, or methylene chloride at a new or existing area source, you 
must prepare and operate according to a management practice plan to 
minimize air emissions from the preservative treatment of wood at a new 
or existing area source. You may use your standard operating procedures 
to meet the requirements for a management practice plan if it includes 
the minimum activities required for a management practice plan. The 
management practice plan must include, but is not limited to, the 
following activities:
    (1) Minimize preservative usage;
    (2) Maintain records on the type of treatment process and types and 
amounts of wood preservatives used at the facility;
    (3) For the pressure treatment process, maintain charge records 
identifying pressure reading(s) inside the retorts (or similarly 
enclosed vessel);
    (4) For the thermal treatment process, maintain records that the 
air scavenging system is in place and operated properly during the 
treatment process;
    (5) Store treated wood product on drip pads or in a primary 
containment area to convey preservative drippage to a collection system 
until drippage has ceased;
    (6) For the pressure treatment process, fully drain the retort to 
the extent practicable, prior to opening the retort door;
    (7) Promptly collect any spills; and
    (8) Perform relevant corrective actions or preventative measures in 
the event of a malfunction before resuming operations.

[[Page 38916]]

Sec.  63.11431  [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.11432  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

    (a) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that 
uses any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or 
methylene chloride, you must comply with the requirements of the 
General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, according to Table 1 
to this subpart.
    (b) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that 
uses any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or 
methylene chloride, you must submit an initial notification of 
applicability required by Sec.  63.9(a)(2) no later than 90 days after 
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.11429. The initial 
notification may be combined with the notification of compliance status 
required in paragraph (c) of this section. The notification of 
applicability must include the following information:
    (1) The name and address of the owner or operator;
    (2) The address (i.e., physical location) of the affected source; 
and
    (3) An identification of the relevant standard, or other 
requirement, that is the basis of the notification and the source's 
compliance date.
    (c) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that 
uses any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or 
methylene chloride, you must submit a notification of compliance status 
required by Sec.  63.9(h) no later than 90 days after the applicable 
compliance date specified in Sec.  63.11429. Your notification of 
compliance status must include this certification of compliance, signed 
by a responsible official, for the standards in Sec.  63.11430: ``This 
facility complies with the management practices to minimize air 
emissions from the preservative treatment of wood in accordance with 
Sec.  63.11430.''
    (d) You must report any deviation from the requirements of this 
subpart within 30 days of the deviation.


Sec.  63.11433  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, Sec.  
63.2, and in this section as follows:
    Air scavenging system means an air collection and control system 
that collects and removes vapors from a thermal treatment process 
vessel and vents the emissions to a vapor recovery tank that collects 
condensate from the vapors.
    Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) means a chemical wood preservative 
consisting of mixtures of water-soluble chemicals containing metal 
oxides of chromium, copper, and arsenic. CCA is used in pressure 
treated wood to protect wood from rotting due to insects and microbial 
agents.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation or 
management practice;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation or management practice 
in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of 
whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Pressure treatment process means a wood treatment process involving 
an enclosed vessel, usually a retort, and the application of pneumatic 
or hydrostatic pressure to expedite the movement of preservative liquid 
into the wood.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Retort means an airtight pressure vessel, typically a long 
horizontal cylinder, used for the pressure impregnation of wood 
products with a liquid wood preservative.
    Thermal treatment process means a non-pressurized wood treatment 
process where the wood is exposed to a heated preservative.
    Wood preserving means the pressure or thermal impregnation of 
chemicals into wood to provide effective long-term resistance to attack 
by fungi, bacteria, insects, and marine borers.


Sec.  63.11434  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or 
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the 
U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or 
tribal agency pursuant to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency has the 
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact 
your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated 
to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) 
of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and 
are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
Sec.  63.90
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is 
defined in Sec.  63.90.
    As required in Sec.  63.11432, you must comply with the 
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A) as shown in the following table.

          Table 1 To Subpart QQQQQQ of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQQQQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Applies to subpart
               Citation                        Subject                  QQQQQQ?                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4),    Applicability..........  Yes....................
 (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12)(b)(1),
 (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e).
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2),     Reserved...............  No.....................
 (c)(3), (c)(4), (d).
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes....................
63.3.................................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................

[[Page 38917]]

 
63.4.................................  Prohibited Activities    Yes....................
                                        and Circumvention.
63.5.................................  Preconstruction Review   No.....................
                                        and Notification
                                        Requirements.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7),        Compliance with          Yes....................
 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (i),   Standards and
 (j).                                   Maintenance
                                        Requirements.
63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-            No.....................  Subpart QQQQQQ does not
 (e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (h)(1),                                   require startup,
 (h)(2), (h)(4), (h)(5)(i)-                                      shutdown, and
 (h)(5)(iii), (h)(v)(v), (h)(6)-                                 malfunction plan or
 (h)(9).                                                         contain emission or
                                                                 opacity limits.
63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d),       Reserved...............  No.....................
 (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3),
 (h)(5)(iv).
63.7.................................  Performance Testing      No.....................  Subpart QQQQQQ does not
                                        Requirements.                                     require performance
                                                                                          tests.
63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (b), (c),  Monitoring Requirements  No.....................  Subpart QQQQQQ does not
 (d), (e), (f), (g).                                                                      require monitoring of
                                                                                          emissions.
63.8(a)(3)...........................  Reserved...............  No.....................
63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4),       Notification             Yes....................
 (b)(5), (c), (d), (h)(1), (h)(6),      Requirements.
 (i), (j).
63.9(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(v), (h)(2)(i)-                             Yes....................
 (h)(2)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5).
63.9(e), (f), (g)....................                           No.....................
63.9(b)(3), (h)(4)...................  Reserved...............  No.....................
63.10(a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(8),  Recordkeeping and        No.....................  Subpart QQQQQQ
 (c)(10)-(c)(14), (d), (e), (f).        Reporting Requirements.                           establishes
                                                                                          requirements for a
                                                                                          report of deviations
                                                                                          within 30 days.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9)...........  Reserved...............  No.....................
63.11................................  Control Device           No.....................  Subpart QQQQQQ does not
                                        Requirements.                                     require flares.
63.12................................  State Authorities and    Yes....................
                                        Delegations.
63.13................................  Addresses..............  Yes....................
63.14................................  Incorporations by        Yes....................
                                        Reference.
63.15................................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        Information and
                                        Confidentiality.
63.16................................  Performance Track        Yes....................
                                        Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-12018 Filed 7-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P