[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40103-40118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17514]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133, FRL-9966-26-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS79


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 8, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
finalized amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins 
(APR). Subsequently, the EPA received three petitions for 
reconsideration of the final rule. The EPA is reconsidering and 
requesting public comment on issues related to the maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT) standards for continuous process vents (CPVs) 
at existing affected sources. The EPA is proposing to revise the MACT 
standard for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources based on 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions test data for back-end CPVs at 
existing sources for this source category submitted by petitioners. The 
EPA is also soliciting comments regarding the need to revise the 
standard for front-end CPVs at existing sources, and to extend the 
compliance date for the proposed revised emission limit for back-end 
CPVs at existing sources. Additionally, the EPA is proposing 
requirements for storage vessels at new and existing sources during 
periods when an emission control system used to control vents on fixed 
roof tanks is undergoing planned routine maintenance. The EPA is 
seeking comments only on the four issues specifically addressed in this 
notice: proposed revised back-end CPV MACT standards for existing 
sources, whether the EPA should modify the front-end CPV MACT standards 
for existing sources, whether the EPA should extend the compliance date 
for the proposed revised back-end CPV MACT standards for existing 
sources, and the proposed work practice standards for storage vessels 
during planned routine maintenance of emission control systems. In this 
rulemaking, the EPA is not reopening or requesting comment on any other 
aspects of the 2014 final amendments to the NESHAP for the Manufacture 
of APR, including other issues raised in petitions for reconsideration 
of the 2014 rule. The EPA estimates this proposal, if

[[Page 40104]]

finalized as proposed, would reduce compliance costs to this industry 
by $2.1 million per year, compared to a revised cost estimate of the 
MACT standard as amended in 2014.

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by September 7, 
2017, then we will hold a public hearing on September 25, 2017 at EPA 
Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton East Building, 1201 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. If a public hearing is 
requested, then we will provide details about the public hearing on our 
Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/manufacture-aminophenolic-resins-national-emission-standards. The EPA 
does not intend to publish another notice in the Federal Register 
announcing any updates on the request for a public hearing. Please 
contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 or by email at 
[email protected] to request a public hearing, to register to speak 
at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing 
will be held. The last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the 
public hearing will be September 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from http://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish 
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment 
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission 
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or 
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective 
comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, please contact Mr. Art Diem, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1185; fax number: (919) 541-0246; 
email address: [email protected]. For information about the 
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Maria 
Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building, Mail Code 
2227A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20460; telephone 
number: (202) 564-7027; fax number: (202) 564-0050; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI 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. Publicly available 
docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 
3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue 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 
EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0133. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and will be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send 
or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0133. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 
claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail 
to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then 
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 
information you claim as CBI. In addition to one complete version of 
the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a 
copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as 
CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not 
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 2.
    The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other 
contact information in the body of your comment and with any electronic 
storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 
avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. Multiple acronyms and terms 
are used in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to 
ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

APR Amino/phenolic resin
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPV Continuous process vent
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
HAP Hazardous air pollutants
HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP
ICR Information collection request
lb Pound
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP National emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants

[[Page 40105]]

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRD Pressure relief device
ppmv Parts per million by volume
RTO Regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR Residual risk and technology review
UFC Urea formaldehyde concentrate
UPL Upper predictive limit

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration 
action?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed reconsideration action?
    B. What are the issues raised by petitioners about the standards 
for CPVs at existing affected sources?
III. Proposed Emissions Standards for Back-End CPVs at Existing 
Sources
    A. What data were collected for back-end CPVs on resin spray 
dryers?
    B. What analyses were conducted for back-end CPVs?
    C. Should the EPA provide facilities more time to comply with 
the proposed revised back-end CPV standards?
IV. What other changes or issues does this action address?
    A. Should the EPA promulgate a separate standard for front-end 
CPVs at existing sources?
    B. Proposed work practice standards for storage vessels at new 
and existing sources during planned routine maintenance of emission 
control systems
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Solicitation of Public Comment and Participation
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    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 Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 
7607(d)(7)(B)).

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action 
include, but are not limited to, facilities having a North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325211. Facilities with 
this NAICS code are described as plastics material and resin 
manufacturing establishments, which includes facilities engaged in 
manufacturing amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other 
plastic and resin types.
    To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine 
the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1400 of subpart OOO. If you 
have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of the 
NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the Internet. A redline version of the 
regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this 
action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2012-0133). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the 
EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/manufacture-aminophenolic-resins-national-emission-standards. Following publication in the Federal 
Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of this 
proposal at this same Web site. Other key technical documents related 
to this proposal will be available in the docket when the Federal 
Register version of the proposal is posted to the docket. Only the 
version as published in the Federal Register will represent the 
official EPA proposal.

II. Background

A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed reconsideration action?

    On October 8, 2014, the EPA completed the residual risk and 
technology review (RTR) of the January 20, 2000, APR MACT standards (65 
FR 3276), and published its final rule amending the NESHAP for the APR 
Production source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO. That action 
also amended the NESHAP for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 
Production source category and the Polycarbonate Production source 
category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (79 FR 60898). The 2014 final 
rule established MACT standards for the first time for CPVs at existing 
affected sources in the APR Production source category. The 2014 final 
rule also removed exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction; clarified provisions pertaining to open-ended valves and 
lines; added monitoring requirements for pressure relief devices 
(PRDs); and added requirements for electronic reporting of performance 
test results.
    The October 2014 amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO, 
promulgated emissions limits for previously unregulated HAP emissions 
from CPVs at existing affected sources, without distinguishing between 
back-end and front-end CPVs. The standard of 0.95 kilograms of organic 
HAP per megagram (1.9 pounds (lb) of total organic HAP per ton) of 
resin produced is codified at 40 CFR 63.1405(a)(3) and currently 
applies to existing affected source back-end and front-end CPVs.
    Following promulgation of the October 8, 2014, final rule, the EPA 
received three petitions for reconsideration pursuant to section 
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The petitions were submitted by the Sierra 
Club, Tembec BTLSR (``Tembec''), and Georgia-Pacific LLC (``Georgia-
Pacific''). The petitions are available for review in the rulemaking 
docket (see Docket Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0077, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0133-0076, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0072, respectively). On 
March 27, 2015, the EPA issued letters to the petitioners granting 
reconsideration of the final rule to address at least the following 
petitioners' claims: that the public was not afforded a reasonable 
opportunity to comment on the MACT floor analysis, supporting data and 
resulting emission standards for CPVs at existing sources; and that the 
requirements associated with emissions from PRDs should be 
reconsidered.\1\

[[Page 40106]]

These letters are also available in the rulemaking docket (see Docket 
Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0075, EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0073, 
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0074, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A petitioner requested another change in the rule language 
regarding planned routine maintenance of emission control systems 
used to reduce HAP emissions from storage vessels. Although this 
issue was not addressed in the March 2015 letters granting 
reconsideration, the EPA has reconsidered the storage vessel 
requirements and is addressing these requirements in this proposal. 
See section IV of this preamble for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency is now proposing revised emissions standards for back-
end CPVs at existing affected sources and is proposing alternative work 
practice standards for storage vessels during periods of planned 
routine maintenance of emission control systems on fixed roof tanks at 
new and existing affected APR production sources. The EPA is requesting 
public comments on these proposed standards. The EPA is also asking for 
comments on whether it is necessary to establish a new compliance date 
for the proposed revised back-end CPV limits at existing sources (if 
they are promulgated), and on whether revisions are needed to the 
existing source CPV limits as they apply to front-end CPVs. At this 
time, the EPA is not proposing any actions pertaining to its grant of 
reconsideration on the PRD issues raised in the petitions for 
reconsideration. The EPA intends to address those issues separately in 
a future action and is not requesting or accepting comment on issues 
related to PRDs.

B. What are the issues raised by petitioners about the standards for 
CPVs at existing affected sources?

1. Opportunity To Comment on Final Production-Based Standards for CPVs 
at Existing Affected Sources
    During the review of the APR NESHAP, the EPA determined that there 
were no applicable MACT standards for CPVs located at existing affected 
sources, and, therefore, in the January 9, 2014 (79 FR 1676), RTR 
proposal for the category, the EPA proposed first-time MACT standards, 
based on the MACT floor, for those CPVs as follows:
     Reduce organic HAP by 85 percent or more; or
     Limit the concentration of organic HAP to 20 parts per 
million by volume (ppmv) when using a combustion control device; or
     Limit the concentration of organic HAP to 50 ppmv when 
using a non-combustion control device.
    During the comment period on the proposal, commenters provided the 
EPA with information showing that, rather than the two existing 
affected sources in the category with CPVs (specifically, CPVs on resin 
spray dryers) that the EPA had identified at proposal, there are four 
existing affected sources with a total of six CPVs (all on resin spray 
dryers). In addition, commenters stated that the EPA should calculate 
uncontrolled production-based emission rates based on 5 years of 
production, taking variability in emissions between resin types into 
account. Commenters provided the EPA with HAP emissions data and resin 
production data for the previous 5 years during the comment period.
    The EPA considered the additional data submitted during the comment 
period in calculating the MACT floor, and determined that it was 
appropriate to finalize a production-based limit of 1.9 lb of HAP per 
ton of resin produced for CPVs at existing affected sources (see 40 CFR 
63.1405(a)(3)). The EPA discussed the determination of the MACT floor 
in a memorandum available in the rulemaking docket (Docket Document ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0053). The final rule was promulgated on 
October 8, 2014 (79 FR 60898).
    Petitioners Tembec and Georgia-Pacific each own resin spray dryers 
(back-end CPVs) regulated by the NESHAP for existing affected sources. 
The back-end CPVs are currently subject to the finalized limit of 1.9 
lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. Tembec's and Georgia-Pacific's 
petitions claim they did not have an opportunity to comment on the MACT 
floor analysis and emissions standard in the final rule. While they 
stated in the petitions that they believe a production-based limit is 
appropriate, they claimed they did not get an opportunity to comment on 
how the EPA would use the data they provided in analyses conducted to 
determine the MACT floor level of control.
2. MACT Floor Determination for Back-End CPVs at Existing Affected 
Sources
    The Tembec and Georgia-Pacific petitions stated that the 
production-based emissions limit in the 2014 final rule of 1.9 lb of 
HAP per ton of resin produced was not achievable for back-end CPVs, and 
they expressed concern over the data and calculation methodology used 
to set the HAP emissions standard for CPVs at existing affected 
sources. Specifically, Tembec stated that even though its back-end CPVs 
are identified as the best-performing units, these units do not meet 
the 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced standard for existing 
source CPVs.
    Tembec and Georgia-Pacific further stated that the emissions data 
the EPA used to represent Tembec's back-end CPVs were incomplete. 
According to Tembec and Georgia-Pacific, Tembec's back-end CPV HAP 
emissions data used in the final rule MACT floor analysis do not 
account for all HAP emitted, including methanol and formaldehyde. 
Therefore, petitioners stated that the EPA underestimated the total HAP 
emissions from these back-end CPVs, resulting in an unreasonably 
stringent production-based total HAP emissions standard for existing 
affected sources.
    Georgia-Pacific stated in its petition that the EPA made three 
errors in calculating the production-based HAP limits for CPVs at 
existing affected sources. First, the petitioner claimed that the 
promulgated emissions standard does not adequately account for 
variability in emissions from back-end CPVs. The commenter noted that 
the EPA calculated the emission rate for each CPV by dividing the 5-
year total emissions by the 5-year total amount of resin produced by 
the corresponding resin unit. The petitioner stated that to account for 
short-term variability, the EPA should have based the standard on the 
maximum 1-year production-based HAP emissions rate for each CPV. 
Georgia-Pacific also stated that another approach the EPA could have 
used to account for variability in the data when calculating the 
production-based HAP emissions limit is the application of a 99-percent 
upper prediction limit (UPL). Second, Georgia-Pacific disagreed with 
the EPA's interpretation of ``average'' as the median rather than the 
arithmetic mean of the production-based HAP emissions, although it 
acknowledged the EPA's long-standing interpretation that ``average'' 
could mean arithmetic mean, median, or mode. The petitioner stated that 
using the arithmetic mean would better reflect the performance of 
Georgia-Pacific's back-end CPVs, whereas the median produced an 
emissions limit that is not representative of two of the five best-
performing back-end CPVs (with the noted two being Georgia-Pacific 
CPVs). Third, Georgia-Pacific stated that the EPA's emissions 
calculations do not account for a change in particulate control 
technology for one of Tembec's back-end CPVs that occurred prior to the 
2014 final rule. Georgia-Pacific asserted that HAP emissions from this 
CPV are now higher with the change in particulate control technology, 
and the EPA should not have used data from a period with the previous 
control technology in place when determining production-based HAP 
emissions from the five best-performing CPVs at existing affected 
sources.
    Georgia-Pacific also suggested in its petition for reconsideration 
that the EPA should explore subcategorizing the existing source CPVs 
between those at Tembec and those at Georgia-Pacific to account for 
fundamental differences in

[[Page 40107]]

equipment and processes, including dryer size and/or type of resin 
produced. Georgia-Pacific's resin spray dryers are substantially larger 
than Tembec's resin spray dryers. Also, Tembec produces urea-
formaldehyde resins, whereas Georgia-Pacific produces phenolic resins.
    Tembec stated in its petition that the EPA did not consider 
information Tembec submitted to the EPA in the development of the MACT 
standard for back-end CPVs at existing sources. Specifically, Tembec 
stated that 2006 engineering test data for one of its CPVs were 
submitted to the EPA and could have been used to better estimate the 
HAP emissions from its three CPVs. Tembec also stated that it supports 
the Georgia-Pacific petition.
    In a comment letter from Georgia-Pacific dated March 10, 2014 
(Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0046), on the January 9, 
2014, proposal, Georgia Pacific identified an additional CPV at its 
Crossett, Arkansas, facility. This newly identified CPV is not on the 
resin spray dryers. Whereas the resin spray dryers are on the back-end 
of the resin manufacturing process, this additional CPV is associated 
with a reactor used to produce urea-formaldehyde concentrate (UFC), 
which is located in the front-end of the resin manufacturing process, 
ahead of the resin spray dryers. Due to a lack of reliable emissions 
data for this CPV at the time of the 2014 final rule, the EPA did not 
include emissions from this CPV when it set the MACT floor for CPVs. 
The Sierra Club raised concerns in its petition for reconsideration 
regarding the exclusion of HAP emissions data from that front-end CPV, 
stating that the EPA did not adequately explain why the UFC CPV HAP 
emissions data were not included in the analysis to calculate the MACT 
floor for CPVs and asserting that the EPA must include all existing 
sources in the MACT floor analysis. Sierra Club argued that if the EPA 
had included Georgia-Pacific's UFC front-end CPV, the HAP emissions 
standard for CPVs would have been more stringent.
    Sierra Club asserted in its petition that all the CPVs are in the 
same source category and that the EPA cannot subcategorize based on the 
controls that are in place. Sierra Club further noted that although the 
EPA stated that the HAP emissions data from this front-end CPV were not 
reliable, such a statement is insufficient to explain ignoring the HAP 
emissions from this CPV when setting the MACT standard for CPVs. 
Lastly, Sierra Club stated that excluding the UFC front-end CPV in the 
MACT floor analysis because its HAP emissions are not responsible for 
driving risks is not a relevant reason for such an exclusion.
    Following the EPA's issuance of the March 27, 2015, letters 
granting reconsideration on petitioners' issues pertaining to CPVs, 
petitioners Tembec and Georgia-Pacific conducted HAP emissions testing 
on the back-end CPVs located on their resin dryers at their four 
existing affected sources. The data from that testing are discussed in 
section III.A of this preamble.

III. Proposed Emissions Standards for Back-End CPVs at Existing Sources

A. What data were collected for back-end CPVs on resin spray dryers?

    Georgia-Pacific and Tembec conducted HAP emissions testing in April 
2015 and June 2015 on all six back-end CPVs located on their resin 
spray dryers, and they submitted the results of that testing to the 
EPA. Georgia-Pacific separately tested emissions during production of 
three types of resins at its Conway, North Carolina, facility; two 
types of resins at the Taylorsville, Mississippi, facility; and one 
type of resin at the Crossett, Arkansas, facility. Tembec tested 
emissions from one spray dryer CPV while producing one type of resin 
and tested emissions during production of two types of resins from the 
other two resin spray dryer CPVs. The companies followed a testing 
protocol approved in advance by the EPA, and both companies conducted 
six 1-hour runs of the back-end CPVs on each resin spray dryer, where 
possible, yielding a total of 64 runs. The test data indicate that the 
major HAP present were methanol and formaldehyde. Complete information 
on the spray dryer back-end CPV exhaust emission testing, including 
process and operation information, testing protocol and methodology, 
quality assurance/quality control, and detailed test results are 
available in the rulemaking docket.

B. What analyses were conducted for back-end CPVs?

1. MACT Floor Analysis for Back-End CPVs
    We performed a MACT floor analysis for back-end CPVs using the 2015 
test data provided by Georgia-Pacific and Tembec. In determining the 
MACT floor for existing sources, CAA section 112(d)(3) specifies that 
the emissions limits cannot be less stringent than the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing 
sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five 
sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). 
Since we have identified six existing source dryers in the APR source 
category, we determined the MACT floor-level of control based on the 
best-performing five sources. The MACT floor analysis involved 
determining the UPL emission rate for each dryer CPV, based on the 
emissions test results for the resin type generating the highest HAP 
emissions (where multiple resin types were tested). This UPL value 
takes into account production variability and estimates the upper bound 
of future values, based on present or past samples. The resulting UPL 
emission rate values for the six dryers were ranked, and the five 
lowest values were averaged to produce the MACT floor value.
    The EPA considered the petitioner's claim that the arithmetic 
average rather than the median value should be used in determining the 
MACT floor. Given the distribution of the data from these sources, the 
EPA interprets the arithmetic mean to be the better interpretation of 
``average'' for this set of data. If the distribution of the emission 
rates from each of the dryers had extreme variation or extreme 
skewness, then the median might be a better indicator of the central 
tendency or average of the data set. However, given that the data set 
consists of only five values (i.e., the UPL of the performance testing 
results for each of the five best-performing dryers \2\) and given that 
there is only a slight positive skew of this dataset, there is not 
enough skewness or variation in this dataset to conclude the median 
would be a better description of the average over the arithmetic mean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Table 3 of the memorandum titled ``Proposed Revised MACT 
Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End Continuous Process 
Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins 
Production Source Category'' in this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also considered how to best account for variability in 
emissions rates in the MACT floor determination. As each of these 
sources may produce multiple types (or recipes) of APR (without 
restriction and without needing any physical modification to the 
sources), to establish a standard that represents the emissions limit 
achieved in practice by the best-performing sources, our calculations 
of the MACT floor are based on the resin resulting in the highest HAP 
emissions at each of the best-performing sources and the calculated UPL 
emission rate for production of that highest-HAP emission generating 
resin at each dryer. In determining the MACT floor for existing 
sources, the EPA may exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of 
the relevant factors and available data,

[[Page 40108]]

to determine the level of performance that has been achieved by the 
average of the best-performing sources (in this case, five sources) 
under variable conditions. The Court has recognized that the EPA may 
consider variability in estimating the degree of emissions reduction 
achieved by the best-performing sources and in setting MACT floors, 
holding the EPA may consider emission variability in estimating 
performance achieved by best-performing sources and may set the floor 
at a level that best-performing sources can expect to meet ``every day 
and under all operating conditions.'' \3\ As a result of its analysis, 
the EPA has determined that an appropriate MACT floor for back-end CPVs 
s 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. See the memorandum titled 
``Proposed Revised MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-
End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and 
Phenolic Resins Production Source Category'' for more details on this 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 
(D.C. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA explored Georgia-Pacific's request in its petition 
regarding subcategorizing the dryer standards based on dryer size and/
or type of resin produced. However, we found no compelling dryer size 
threshold nor resin type attribution that would provide a suitable 
rationale for subcategorization of a MACT floor for a back-end CPV 
standard.
2. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End CPVs
    When establishing an emission standard pursuant to section 112(d) 
of the CAA, the EPA also determines whether to control emissions to a 
more stringent level ``beyond-the-floor,'' after considering the costs, 
non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy 
requirements of such more stringent control. As part of the beyond-the-
floor analysis for existing source back-end CPVs, control options that 
are more stringent than the MACT floor were considered. We identified 
one such option for back-end CPVs at existing sources, a 98-percent 
emissions reduction requirement. For this option, we assumed that 
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) would need to be used to achieve 
this control level at all existing APR sources with back-end CPVs. 
While we project that two facilities would already need to install RTOs 
on their back-end CPVs to meet the proposed revised MACT floor 
emissions limit, for this beyond-the-floor analysis, we evaluated the 
potential additional installation of RTOs at the other two facilities--
one facility would install an RTO to control the back-end CPV on one 
resin spray dryer and the other facility would install an RTO to 
control the back-end CPVs on three resin spray dryers.
    Table 1 presents the impacts for the MACT floor and the beyond-the-
floor options evaluated. Since we are not aware that any of the four 
facilities have installed controls to comply with the CPV requirements 
in the 2014 final rule, and since we are aware that at least three of 
the facilities have obtained an additional year to comply from their 
permitting authorities pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6(i), we believe it is 
appropriate to compare the impacts of the MACT floor and the beyond-
the-floor option identified to the 2000 rule compliance baseline. In 
addition, as explained previously, because the data used to set the 
production-based HAP emissions limit in the 2014 final rule did not 
account for all HAP, the cost and emissions impacts determined at the 
time the EPA issued the 2014 final rule would not be an appropriate 
basis of comparison. However, we note that using the more complete HAP 
emissions data now available, the cost and emissions impacts of the 
2014 final rule for back-end CPVs would be approximately the same as 
the cost and emissions impacts of the beyond-the-floor option for back-
end CPVs presented in Table 1 because we now project that all four 
facilities would need to install RTOs to comply with the 2014 final 
rule for back-end CPVs. More information on how the capital and 
annualized costs and costs per ton were calculated is available in the 
memorandum titled ``National Impacts Associated with Proposed Existing 
Source Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic 
Resins Production Source Category,'' available in the rulemaking 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Beyond-the-floor would be essentially the same level of 
control as the 2014 final rule, with revised estimates of the costs 
and HAP emissions reduction based on the 2015 test data of back-end 
CPVs at existing sources.

                Table 1--Nationwide Emissions Reduction and Cost Impacts of Control Options for Back-End CPVs at Existing APR Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             HAP emissions
                                                               reduction                                                   Cost         Incremental cost
                    Regulatory options                      compared to 2000     Capital cost     Annualized cost   effectiveness ($/  effectiveness ($/
                                                             rule (tons per      (million $)           ($/yr)        ton HAP removed)   ton HAP removed)
                                                                 year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT floor...............................................                207                4.8                2.1             10,400  .................
Beyond-the-floor \4\.....................................                271                9.6                4.2             15,500             33,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Essentially, the beyond-the-floor option reflects a doubling of 
capital and annualized costs compared to the MACT floor option, while 
obtaining an additional HAP reduction of only 31-percent beyond the 
MACT floor option. Based on this analysis, we do not consider the 
beyond-the-floor option to be cost effective. Therefore, we are not 
proposing any beyond-the-floor standards. Instead, we are proposing to 
establish production-based HAP emission limits for back-end CPVs at 
existing APR production sources, at the level we have now determined is 
the correct MACT floor (i.e., 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced).
3. Proposed Amendments to Compliance Demonstration Procedures
    Facilities in the APR Production source category produce a wide 
variety of resin recipes as needed to meet the specifications of 
various products in which these resins are used. As a result, the 
characteristics of the resins passing through the dryers where the 
back-end CPVs are located can vary at a facility. In order to ensure 
that APR sources monitor operating parameters at a level that ensures 
continuous compliance with the proposed MACT standards for back-end 
CPVs under any and all operating conditions, we are also proposing to 
amend 40 CFR 63.1413 to require sources to conduct the performance 
testing using the resin

[[Page 40109]]

recipes anticipated to have the highest HAP content in the liquid 
resin.
4. Consideration of Risk Review
    In the risk assessment for the 2014 final rule, we determined that 
the APR MACT standards promulgated in January 2000 provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health (including the then-
uncontrolled emissions from CPVs at existing sources). See Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Amino/Phenolic Resins Production Source 
Category, Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0065. Although 
the data set used to establish the MACT production-based emission 
limits for CPVs at existing sources in the 2014 final rule did not 
include data on all HAP, the risk assessment modeling input files for 
the 2014 final rule show that emissions of all HAP, including methanol 
and formaldehyde, from the CPVs at the existing sources were accounted 
for, except for the non-reactor front-end CPV at the INEOS Melamines 
facility. At the INEOS Melamines facility, the 2014 risk modeling 
estimates a maximum individual risk of 0.4-in-1 million attributable to 
the APR source at the INEOS facility, with the risk driver identified 
as formaldehyde, and the risk modeling input files include 0.375 tons 
per year of formaldehyde emissions. The information collected from 
INEOS regarding its non-reactor front-end CPV indicates annual 
emissions of formaldehyde at less than 0.03 tons per year. Given the 
low risk estimate for the facility, we consider this small increase in 
emissions to be insignificant, and the estimated facility risk would be 
about the same (less than 1-in-1 million). Thus, we would not 
anticipate the inclusion of a revised emissions estimate for the INEOS 
facility would change the 2014 risk assessment results for the facility 
or the APR Production source category, and we have determined that 
additional quantitative risk analyses are not necessary.

C. Should the EPA provide facilities more time to comply with the 
proposed revised back-end CPV standards?

    We are soliciting comments on whether existing facilities would 
need additional time to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV 
standards, if the revisions to those standards are promulgated. The 
current compliance date in the 2014 final rule is October 9, 2017. The 
APR NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1401(d) provides the opportunity for existing 
facilities, on a case-by-case basis, to request an extension from their 
permitting authorities for up to 1 additional year to comply, if 
necessary, to install controls to meet a standard. We anticipate that 
two existing facilities would need to install control devices to comply 
with the proposed revised back-end CPV emissions standards. Industry 
has indicated that at least 18 months would be needed to install 
controls, once the proposed rule is finalized, and a 1-year extension 
of the October 9, 2017, compliance date, if granted, would require 
compliance in less than 18 months from any promulgation date of the 
revised back-end CPV standards (given the date of this proposal). We 
are soliciting comments on whether to maintain the current compliance 
date, anticipating that case-by-case extension requests may be made, or 
if the compliance date should be established for another date. If it is 
appropriate to establish a different compliance date, we are soliciting 
comments on an appropriate date, such as a date 18 months after 
promulgation of the revised standards, the date 18 months beyond the 
original October 9, 2017, compliance date, or some other date.

IV. What other changes or issues does this action address?

A. Should the EPA promulgate a separate standard for front-end CPVs at 
existing sources?

    In the APR Production source category, CPVs are found in both the 
back-end and front-end of the resins production process. Back-end CPVs 
are associated with APR production operations related to processing 
liquid resins into a dry form. Back-end process operations include, but 
are not limited to, flaking, grinding, blending, mixing, drying, 
pelletizing, and other finishing operations, as well as latex and crumb 
storage. Front-end CPVs are associated with the part of an APR process 
unit related to producing liquid resins, including any product 
recovery, stripping, and filtering operations. Front-end CPVs can be 
further distinguished as being reactor CPVs or non-reactor CPVs. A 
reactor front-end CPV receives air streams originating from a reactor, 
whereas a non-reactor front-end CPV receives air streams originating 
from a unit operation other than a reactor. Examples of non-reactor 
front-end CPV unit operations include filter presses, surge control 
vessels, bottoms receivers, weigh tanks, holding tanks, and 
distillation systems.
    The EPA has identified two APR Production existing sources that 
have front-end CPVs. One is Georgia-Pacific's facility in Crossett, 
Arkansas, and the other is an INEOS Melamines facility in Springfield, 
Massachusetts. Georgia-Pacific has a front-end reactor CPV that handles 
air streams originating from the reactor associated with the 
manufacture of UFC. This front-end CPV is controlled with an RTO that 
achieves a HAP control efficiency of 95 percent or more and also 
controls HAP emissions from other processes at the facility. The EPA 
became aware of this front-end CPV through comments on the 2014 
proposed rulemaking, but had limited information about this front-end 
CPV at the time of the final rule. INEOS Melamines has a front-end non-
reactor CPV that handles air streams from the formaldehyde recovery 
process associated with their amino resins production process. This 
front-end CPV is routed to a scrubber, which was installed primarily 
for control of particulate matter emissions. The EPA was not aware of 
this front-end CPV unit during the 2014 rulemaking, but learned of it 
in 2015 from communications with the Massachusetts Department of 
Environmental Protection. We are not aware of any other front-end CPVs 
at any of the other existing sources in the APR Production source 
category.
    Since the air emission streams from these two front-end CPVs have 
different characteristics, such as different flow rates and HAP 
concentrations, and are vents for dissimilar types of equipment and 
would likely require different control approaches, we are soliciting 
comments on, but not yet proposing, whether standards for these front-
end CPVs should be revised from the currently applicable CPV standard 
of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced and subcategorized into two 
types--reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs. Separate standards for 
the two types of front-end CPVs would be consistent with how reactor 
and non-reactor vents have been regulated by the EPA for batch 
processes for the APR Production source category--see 40 CFR 63.1406 
Reactor Batch Process Vent Provisions and 40 CFR 63.1407 Non-reactor 
Batch Process Vent Provisions. We are not proposing separate standards 
for front-end CPVs on reactors and non-reactors at this time because we 
are uncertain as to whether we have identified the only two front-end 
CPVs in the source category or whether the data for these two CPVs 
would be appropriate to revise the currently applicable CPV standards 
and establish front-end CPV standards for the source category if there 
are other front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. Therefore, we 
are seeking comment on whether there are other reactor or non-reactor 
front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. For

[[Page 40110]]

any such front-end CPVs, we are further seeking information regarding 
current HAP emissions, emissions controls, and control costs. If there 
are no other reactor or non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected 
sources or if no additional data are provided for any such CPVs, it is 
possible that the EPA would consider, in lieu of leaving front-end CPVs 
at existing sources subject to the currently applicable CPV standards, 
adopting final revised standards that could apply to front-end CPVs at 
existing sources, as discussed below.
    Based on the analyses presented below, we could establish separate 
existing APR Production source standards for front-end CPVs on reactors 
and for front-end CPVs on non-reactors, based on the MACT floor. We are 
soliciting comments on whether the EPA should maintain the 2014 final 
rule CPV emissions standards that currently apply to front-end CPVs 
(1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced), whether the EPA should 
replace these standards for front-end CPVs with standards specific to 
front-end CPVs as discussed in this section, or whether the EPA should 
set different revised front-end CPV standards based on additional 
information about additional front-end CPVs that the EPA has not yet 
obtained.
1. Data Collected for Front-End CPVs
    On November 30, 2015, the EPA requested process information and 
emissions data for front-end CPVs at Georgia-Pacific's Crossett and 
INEOS Melamines' resin production facilities via a CAA section 114 
survey. Georgia-Pacific has another formaldehyde and resin 
manufacturing facility located in Columbus, Ohio, for which Georgia-
Pacific also provided information in their survey submittal. Although 
the Columbus facility is an area source not subject to the APR MACT 
standards, Georgia-Pacific provided the data to help clarify emissions 
that would be expected from the front-end CPV due to APR production at 
the Georgia-Pacific facility in Crossett, Arkansas, where the front-end 
CPV at this facility handles streams from both APR and non-APR 
production sources, since the Columbus and Crossett resin manufacturing 
operations are similar. The EPA received responses from Georgia-Pacific 
on February 9, 2016, and responses from INEOS Melamines on January 11, 
2016, with additional information on May 23, 2016. The CAA section 114 
survey and the survey responses received from Georgia-Pacific and INEOS 
Melamines can be found in the rulemaking docket.
2. MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Front-End CPVs
    We performed separate MACT floor analyses for reactor and non-
reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources using the 2016 CAA section 
114 survey data provided by Georgia-Pacific and INEOS Melamines.
    For front-end reactor CPVs at existing sources, we are aware of one 
major source facility with a front-end reactor CPV subject to the APR 
NESHAP, which is a Georgia Pacific facility in Crossett, Arkansas. 
Georgia-Pacific also submitted data for a facility in Columbus, Ohio, 
which is a synthetic area source and is not subject to the APR NESHAP. 
Consistent with the EPA's longstanding policy and with prior 
rulemakings where the EPA has included data from synthetic area sources 
in MACT floor calculations,\5\ data for the front-end CPVs at both the 
synthetic area source and the major source were included in the MACT 
floor calculations for reactor front-end CPVs. Based on our analysis of 
the data provided by Georgia Pacific for these facilities, we have 
determined that the MACT floor for front-end reactor CPVs at existing 
sources would be 0.61 lb of HAP per hour.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 68 FR 
2227, 2232 (January 16, 2003); NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay 
Products Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, 
68 FR 26690, 26697 (May 16, 2003); NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and 
Copolymers Production, 77 FR 22848, 22876 (April 17, 2012).
    \6\ The EPA did not select a production-based format for the 
MACT floor because front-end equipment may not produce finished 
resin products and relating the output of front-end equipment to 
tons of finished resin produced may be difficult for compliance 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources, we are aware of 
one major source facility with a front-end non-reactor CPV subject to 
the APR NESHAP, which is INEOS Melamines in Springfield, Massachusetts. 
As there is only one front-end CPV in this subcategory, the emissions 
level currently being achieved by this CPV represents the MACT floor 
for the subcategory. Based on our analysis of the data provided by 
INEOS Melamines for this front-end CPV, we have determined that the 
MACT floor for front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources would be 
0.022 lb of HAP per hour.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See footnote 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis for reactor and non-
reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources using the 2016 CAA section 
114 survey data. For front-end reactor CPVs, HAP emissions from the 
CPVs at both facilities are controlled with RTOs, and we have not 
identified any other technology that would perform better. Therefore, 
there is no beyond-the-floor option to evaluate.
    For front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources, the CPV at the 
INEOS Melamines facility is currently controlled with a scrubber, and 
we assumed carbon adsorption would be a technically feasible control 
technology that would reduce HAP emissions. We estimated the total 
annualized costs of adding carbon adsorption to be approximately $9,000 
per year and the control would achieve an additional reduction of 0.04 
tons of HAP per year, resulting in a cost of approximately $225,000 per 
ton of HAP removed beyond the MACT floor level of control. Based on the 
high costs and low additional emissions reduction possible with this 
control, we have determined that this beyond-the-floor option is not 
reasonable. More information on these MACT floor and beyond-the-floor 
analyses are available in the memorandum titled ``MACT Floor and 
Beyond-the-Floor Analyses for Front-End Continuous Process Vents at 
Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source 
Category'' in the rulemaking docket.

B. Proposed Work Practice Standards for Storage Vessels at New and 
Existing Sources During Planned Routine Maintenance of Emission Control 
Systems

    In the 2014 final rule, we removed the exemption from emissions 
standards for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction in 
accordance with a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 
(D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). This 
decision stated that the EPA must have standards in place at all times, 
even during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. As a result, 
the storage vessel provisions in the APR NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1404 apply 
at all times. In their petition for reconsideration, Georgia-Pacific 
requested that the EPA reconsider the applicability of the storage 
vessel HAP emissions standards when the emission control system for the 
vent on a fixed roof storage vessel is shut down for planned routine 
maintenance.
    In the 2014 final rule, we established storage vessel capacity and 
vapor pressure applicability thresholds for storage vessels at new and 
existing sources, consistent with the thresholds established for the 
chemical industry regulated by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP for 
Synthetic Organic

[[Page 40111]]

Chemical Manufacturing Industry (HON). Georgia Pacific stated in its 
petition for reconsideration of the 2014 final rule that to meet the 
goal of being wholly consistent with the HON storage vessel standards, 
the EPA also should include the HON storage vessel allowance for 
routine maintenance of an emission control system in the rule. The HON 
includes provisions at 40 CFR 63.119(e)(3) and (f)(3) that allow an 
affected source to bypass the storage vessel emission control system 
for up to 240 hours per year to perform planned routine maintenance of 
the emission control system. The emission control system could be an 
emission control device, fuel gas system, or process. The petitioner 
stated that these provisions would ensure consistency and are needed 
because the effort to empty and degas a tank to perform this 
maintenance could result in greater HAP emissions than would occur if a 
limited allowance or exception were provided.
    To determine whether separate MACT standards should be established 
for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control 
system for the vent on a fixed roof tank at a new or existing source, 
we reviewed the title V permits for each facility subject to the APR 
NESHAP. In this review, we searched for facilities that had storage 
vessels subject to the emissions standards of the APR NESHAP and for 
any permit requirements pertaining to periods of routine maintenance of 
a control device for a storage vessel. From the review, several 
facilities were found to have storage vessels subject to the APR NESHAP 
emission standards, and two facilities had permit conditions for 
periods of time when the storage vessel control device was not 
operating. One facility had requirements that emissions be routed to a 
different control device, which normally operates at the facility for 
other processes, during planned outages of the primary control device 
for the storage vessel. At this facility, when both control devices are 
not operating, there are requirements that the storage vessels not be 
filled during these times, eliminating working loss emissions. The 
other facility had requirements for one storage vessel that specify it 
could not be filled when its emission control system was not operating. 
The reviewed title V permits also indicate that some APR facilities are 
co-located with storage vessels subject to the HON (or have storage 
vessels that serve both APR and HON operations, but are subject to the 
HON due to predominant use).
    We also reviewed other chemical production NESHAP to determine 
requirements that apply to similar storage vessels. From the review of 
these NESHAP, we found that the HON and several other NESHAP, 
including, but not limited to, those for Group I Polymers and Resins, 
Group IV Polymers and Resins, Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations, 
Pharmaceuticals Production, and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 
with similar vapor pressure and threshold capacities had provisions 
that minimized HAP emissions during periods of planned routine 
maintenance. Provisions minimized HAP emissions by limiting the 
duration of the planned routine maintenance to 240 hours per year. The 
Pharmaceuticals Production and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 
NESHAP allow a facility to request an extension of up to an additional 
120 hours per year on the condition that no material is added to the 
tank during such requested extension period. Based on our review of 
these permits and NESHAP, we have determined that a separate work 
practice standard that allows owners/operators up to 240 hours per year 
during planned routine maintenance of the emission control system, 
provided that there are no working losses from the vessel, represents 
the MACT floor level of control for fixed roof tank vents at new and 
existing APR sources.
    We evaluated the 2014 final rule's requirement that the storage 
vessel work practice standard at new and existing APR sources apply at 
all times (with no separate work practice standards for periods of 
planned routine maintenance of the emission control system) as a 
beyond-the-floor control option. To comply with this option (i.e., the 
current rule's storage tank requirements), we anticipate that backup 
controls would likely be installed to ensure compliance with the 
storage vessel requirements during periods of planned routine 
maintenance of the primary emission control system. We estimate that 
there are one to 15 sources in the category that would need to control 
one or more storage vessels during periods when the primary emission 
control system is undergoing planned routine maintenance. We estimate 
that carbon canisters would be the emission control devices used for 
two storage vessels at each facility. We estimate these control devices 
would have an annualized cost of $830 per year per facility and would 
reduce 240 hours of breathing losses of 0.013 tons of HAP per year per 
facility, at a cost of $62,400 per ton of HAP emissions reduced. We 
view the costs of this beyond-the-floor option as not being cost 
effective.
    Based on this analysis, we are proposing amendments to the 
currently applicable storage vessel work practice standard provisions 
for new and existing affected sources that would establish separate 
work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of 
an emission control system that is used to comply with HAP emissions 
standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. The proposed amendments would 
permit owners and operators of fixed roof tanks at new and existing 
affected APR sources to bypass the emission control system for up to 
240 hours per year during planned routine maintenance of the emission 
control system, provided that there are no working losses from the 
fixed roof tank. To prevent HAP emissions from working losses, owners/
operators would not be permitted to add material to the tank during 
these planned routine maintenance periods. Under this provision, the 
storage vessel would emit HAP to the atmosphere for a limited amount of 
time due to breathing losses only, which we expect to be a much lower 
HAP emission rate than if there were also working losses resulting from 
filling the vessel. The proposed separate work practice standards for 
periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system 
would result in slightly higher HAP emissions (approximately 0.013 tons 
per year per facility) than would occur under the current work practice 
standards for storage vessels in the 2014 final rule and would reduce 
annualized costs of approximately $830 per year per facility.
    We are soliciting comments on these proposed work practice 
standards for storage vessels at new and existing APR sources and 
whether they represent practices by the best-performing sources in the 
APR Production source category. We are soliciting comments on whether 
there are other practices that should be considered in establishing the 
work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of 
the emission control system for storage vessels at existing and new APR 
sources. We are also soliciting comments on whether we have accurately 
estimated the HAP emissions and costs compared to the work practice 
standards for storage vessels at new and existing sources in the 2014 
final rule.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    We estimate that four to 15 existing sources would be affected by 
one or more of the revised requirements being

[[Page 40112]]

proposed in this action. We expect four existing sources to be affected 
by the proposed revised back-end CPV requirements. We expect one to 15 
existing affected sources to be affected by the proposed work practice 
standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission 
control system that is used to comply with emissions standards for 
vents on fixed roof tanks. We anticipate that some of these existing 
affected sources could be affected by more than one of the proposed 
requirements.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We are proposing a revised standard of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of 
resin produced for back-end CPVs at existing sources. We project that 
the proposed standard would result in an estimated reduction of 207 
tons of HAP per year beyond the January 2000, APR MACT standards. As 
discussed previously in section III.B.2 of this preamble, the 
production-based emissions limit for existing source CPVs in the 2014 
final rule was established based on incomplete HAP emissions data. 
However, if facilities were to comply with that 2014 final rule, we 
estimate a reduction of 271 tons per year of HAP emissions using the 
revised HAP emissions estimates based upon the 2015 test data.
    In the 2014 final rule, we removed the exemptions from standards 
that applied during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. In 
the absence of separate work practice standards that would apply during 
these times, affected sources are now required to meet the storage 
vessel work practice standards during periods when the emission control 
system for the vent on a fixed roof storage tank is shut down for 
planned routine maintenance by routing storage vessel vents to a back-
up control device, resulting in an estimated decrease of 0.013 tons of 
HAP per year per facility beyond the January 2000 APR MACT standards. 
The proposed work practice standards we are proposing in this action 
would preclude the need to install back-up controls for these vessels. 
We anticipate that the proposed revised work practice standards would 
reduce HAP emissions from those allowed under the January 2000 APR MACT 
standards as a result of preventing working losses by not filling the 
tank during planned routine maintenance of the control device and as a 
result of limiting the annual duration of the maintenance period; 
however, the HAP emissions reduction may be slightly less than the 0.08 
tons of HAP per year projected under the 2014 final rule.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    For back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, we are proposing a 
revised standard of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. We project 
that back-end CPVs at two existing affected sources would require 
emissions controls to meet the proposed revised standard. For cost 
purposes, we assumed that each facility would install an RTO. Based on 
discussions with Georgia-Pacific and Tembec, we understand that the 
facilities are exploring other options, such as process changes, that 
may be more cost effective. However, the technical feasibility and 
potential costs of these options are currently unknown, and our 
estimate of compliance costs, assuming the use of RTOs, is based on the 
best information available. We estimate the nationwide capital costs to 
be $4.8 million and annualized costs to be $2.1 million per year. These 
costs are additional to the 2000 rule, which did not regulate CPVs at 
existing sources. Compared to our revised estimate of the 2014 final 
rule costs of $9.6 million in capital costs and annualized costs of 
$4.2 million,\8\ the proposed revised standard represents an 
approximate 50-percent reduction in industry-wide costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See memorandum ``National Impacts Associated with Proposed 
Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic 
Resins Production Source Category,'' which is available in the 
rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimated the nationwide annualized cost reductions associated 
with the proposed work practice standard for periods of planned routine 
maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with 
emissions standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. Compared to our 
revised estimate of the 2014 final rule costs,\9\ the proposed storage 
vessel work practice standards result in an annualized cost reduction 
for each facility of $830 per year, which includes capital cost 
reduction of $1,600. We estimate the nationwide annualized cost 
reduction to be up to $12,450 per year based on an estimated 15 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Same as footnote 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What are the economic impacts?

    We performed a national economic impact analysis for APR production 
facilities affected by this proposed rule. We anticipate that two 
existing affected sources would install RTOs to comply with this 
proposed rule at a total annualized cost of $2.1 million (in 2014$) per 
year compared to the 2000 rule. These total annualized costs of 
compliance are estimated to be approximately 0.002 percent of sales. 
Accordingly, we do not project that this proposed rule would have a 
significant economic impact on the affected entities.
    The estimated total annualized cost of this proposal can also be 
compared to the estimated cost for the industry to comply with the 2014 
final rule. Based on information received since the 2014 rule was 
finalized, we developed a revised estimate of the cost to comply with 
the 2014 final rule. We estimate the revised annualized cost of 
complying with the 2014 final rule to be $4.2 million per year.\10\ 
Compared to this revised estimate of the cost of compliance with the 
2014 final rule, this proposal would provide regulatory relief by 
reducing annualized compliance costs by $2.1 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Table 3 and Table 4, Memorandum ``National Impacts 
Associated with Proposed Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the 
Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,'' which is 
available in the rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More information and details of this analysis, including the 
conclusions stated above, are provided in the technical document, 
``Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Amendments to the NESHAP 
for Amino/Phenolic Resins,'' which is available in the rulemaking 
docket.

E. What are the benefits?

    We estimate that this proposed rule would result in an annual 
reduction of 207 tons of HAP, compared to the pre-2014 baseline. These 
avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and 
reduced negative health effects associated with exposure to air 
pollution of these emissions; however, we have not quantified or 
monetized the benefits of reducing these emissions for this rulemaking. 
See section V.B of this preamble for discussion of existing source CPV 
HAP emissions under this proposed rule compared to the 2014 final rule.

VI. Solicitation of Public Comment and Participation

    The EPA seeks public comments on the issues addressed in this 
proposed rule, as described in this notice. We are soliciting comments 
on the proposed emission standards for back-end CPVs at existing 
affected sources, whether to extend the compliance date for the 
proposed revised emission standards for back-end CPVs at existing 
affected sources, whether to promulgate separate emissions standards 
for reactor front-end CPVs and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing 
affected sources in lieu of leaving them subject to the current CPV 
standards, and on the information

[[Page 40113]]

available to the EPA to establish emission standards for front-end CPVs 
at existing affected sources. We also request comments on the proposed 
work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing APR 
sources during periods when an emission control system for a fixed roof 
tank vent is undergoing planned routine maintenance. We are not 
soliciting and will not respond to comments addressing any other issues 
or other provisions of the 2014 final rule or any other rule, including 
other issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the 2014 
final rule. Those issues will be addressed, as appropriate, in a 
separate, future action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 1869.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the 
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    This proposed rule would require recordkeeping and reporting of 
occurrences when control devices used to comply with the storage tank 
provisions undergo planned routine maintenance. Reporting of such 
occurrences would be required to be disclosed in the Periodic Reports 
as specified at 40 CFR 63.1417.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents affected by the 
amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO include, but are not limited 
to, facilities having a NAICS code 325211 (United States Standard 
Industrial Classification 2821). Facilities with a NAICS code of 325211 
are described as Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 
establishments, which includes facilities engaged in manufacturing 
amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other plastic and resin 
types.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under sections 112 
and 114 of the CAA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 15.
    Frequency of response: Once or twice per year.
    Total estimated burden: 45 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,600 (per year).
    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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than September 25, 2017. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The EPA has 
identified no small entities that are subject to the requirements of 40 
CFR 63, subpart OOO.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. This action 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. The EPA's risk assessments for the 2014 final rule (Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133) demonstrate that the current regulations are 
associated with an acceptable level of risk and provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental 
effects. This proposed action would not alter those conclusions.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In the 2014 final rule, the EPA determined that the current health 
risks posed by emissions from these source categories are acceptable 
and provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and 
prevent adverse environmental effects. This proposed

[[Page 40114]]

action would not alter the conclusions made in the 2014 final rule 
regarding these analyses.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 7, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency is proposing to amend title 40, Chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart OOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutant Emissions: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins

0
2. Section 63.1400 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1400  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Equipment that does not contain organic hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) and is located within an APPU that is part of an 
affected source;
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.1402 paragraph (b) is amended by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Back-end continuous 
process vent'', ``Front-end continuous process vent'', ``Non-reactor 
process vent'', and ``Reactor process vent''; and
0
b. Removing the definitions for ``Non-reactor batch process vent'' and 
``Reactor batch process vent''
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1402  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Back-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent 
for operations related to processing liquid resins into a dry form. 
Back-end process operations include, but are not limited to, flaking, 
grinding, blending, mixing, drying, pelletizing, and other finishing 
operations, as well as latex and crumb storage. Back-end does not 
include storage and loading of finished product or emission points that 
are regulated under Sec. Sec.  63.1404 or 63.1409 through 63.1411 of 
this subpart.
* * * * *
    Front-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent 
for operations in an APPU related to producing liquid resins, including 
any product recovery, stripping and filtering operations, and prior to 
any flaking or drying operations.
* * * * *
    Non-reactor process vent means a batch or continuous process vent 
originating from a unit operation other than a reactor. Non-reactor 
process vents include, but are not limited to, process vents from 
filter presses, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, weigh tanks, 
and distillation systems.
* * * * *
    Reactor process vent means a batch or continuous process vent 
originating from a reactor.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.1404 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follow:


Sec.  63.1404  Storage vessel provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from a tank 
through a closed-vent system connected to a control device used to 
comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, 
the control device must be operating except as provided for in 
paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) The control device may be bypassed for the purpose of 
performing planned routine maintenance of the control device. When the 
control device is bypassed, the owner or operator must comply with 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The control device may only be bypassed when the planned 
routine maintenance cannot be performed during periods that tank 
emissions are vented to the control device.
    (ii) On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-vent system 
or control device is bypassed to perform routine maintenance shall not 
exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.
    (iii) The level of material in the tank shall not be increased 
during periods that the closed-vent system or control device is 
bypassed to perform planned routine maintenance.
    (2) The gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from the tank 
through a closed-vent system connected to an alternate control device 
meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or the alterative standard 
in paragraph (b) of this section.
0
5. Section 63.1405 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text, paragraph (a)(2) introductory text, paragraph (b), and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1405  Continuous process vent provisions.

    (a) Emission standards for new affected sources. For each 
continuous process vent located at a new affected source with a Total 
Resource Effectiveness (TRE) index value, as determined following the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1412(j), less than or equal to 1.2, 
the owner or operator shall comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) 
of this section. As an alternative to complying with paragraph (a) of 
this section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (2) Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 85 weight-percent. 
Control shall be achieved by venting emissions through a closed vent 
system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements 
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (national emission standards for closed 
vent systems, control devices, recovery devices). When complying with 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for 
purposes of this subpart:
* * * * *
    (b) Emission standards for existing affected sources. For each 
continuous process vent located at an existing affected source, the 
owner or operator shall comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of 
this section. As an alternative to complying with paragraph (b) of this 
section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) Vent all emissions of organic HAP to a flare.
    (2) The owner or operator of a back-end continuous process vent 
shall reduce total organic HAP emissions to less than or equal to 4.3 
kg of total organic HAP per megagram of resin produced (8.6 pounds of 
total organic HAP per ton of resin produced).
    (c) Alternative emission standards. As an alternative to complying 
with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, an owner or operator may 
comply with paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate.
    (1) For each continuous process vent located at a new affected 
source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP emissions from 
a continuous process vent meeting the TRE value specified in paragraph 
(a) of this section

[[Page 40115]]

to a non-flare combustion control device achieving an outlet organic 
HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less or to a non-combustion control 
device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or 
less. Any continuous process vents that are not vented to a control 
device meeting these conditions shall be controlled in accordance with 
the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (2) For each continuous process vent located at an existing 
affected source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP 
emissions from a continuous process vent to a non-flare combustion 
control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv 
or less or to a non-combustion control device achieving an outlet 
organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or less. Any continuous process 
vents that are not vented to a control device meeting these conditions 
shall be controlled in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 
(b)(1) or (2) of this section.
0
6. Section 63.1412 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (k)(2) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.1412  Continuous process vent applicability assessment 
procedures and methods.

    (a) General. The provisions of this section provide procedures and 
methods for determining the applicability of the control requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.1405(a) to continuous process vents.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (2) If the TRE index value calculated using engineering assessment 
is less than or equal to 4.0, the owner or operator is required either 
to perform the measurements specified in paragraphs (e) through (h) of 
this section for control applicability assessment or comply with the 
control requirements specified in Sec.  63.1405(a).
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.1413 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(4) introductory 
text, and paragraphs (c)(2), and (c)(4) through (6);
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(7);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (f) and (h)(1);
0
f. Redesignating paragraph (h)(2) as (h)(3);
0
g. Adding new paragraph (h)(2);
0
h. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(3) introductory text and 
paragraphs (h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii) introductory text, (h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) 
and (3), and (h)(3)(iii);
0
i. Adding paragraph (h)(4);
0
j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(iii) through (iv); and
0
k. Adding paragraph (i)(1)(v).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1413  Compliance demonstration procedures.

    (a) General. For each emission point, the owner or operator shall 
meet three stages of compliance, with exceptions specified in this 
subpart. First, the owner or operator shall conduct a performance test 
or design evaluation to demonstrate either the performance of the 
control device or control technology being used or the uncontrolled 
total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. 
Second, the owner or operator shall meet the requirements for 
demonstrating initial compliance (e.g., a demonstration that the 
required percent reduction or emissions limit is achieved). Third, the 
owner or operator shall meet the requirements for demonstrating 
continuous compliance through some form of monitoring (e.g., continuous 
monitoring of operating parameters).
* * * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Uncontrolled continuous process vents. Owners or operators 
are required to conduct either a performance test or a design 
evaluation for continuous process vents that are not controlled through 
either a large or small control device.
* * * * *
    (3) Design evaluations. As provided in paragraph (a) of this 
section, a design evaluation may be conducted to demonstrate the 
organic HAP removal efficiency for a control device or control 
technology, or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a 
continuous process vent. As applicable, a design evaluation shall 
address the organic HAP emissions rate from uncontrolled continuous 
process vents, the composition and organic HAP concentration of the 
vent stream(s) entering a control device or control technology, the 
operating parameters of the emission point and any control device or 
control technology, and other conditions or parameters that reflect the 
performance of the control device or control technology or the organic 
HAP emission rate from a continuous process vent. A design evaluation 
also shall address other vent stream characteristics and control device 
operating parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) 
through (vi) of this section, for controlled vent streams, depending on 
the type of control device that is used. If the vent stream(s) is not 
the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency demonstration also 
shall consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels, 
received by the control device.
* * * * *
    (4) Establishment of parameter monitoring levels. The owner or 
operator of a control device that has one or more parameter monitoring 
level requirements specified under this subpart, or specified under 
subparts referenced by this subpart, shall establish a maximum or 
minimum level, as denoted on Table 4 of this subpart, for each measured 
parameter using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (ii) 
of this section. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the 
owner or operator shall operate control devices such that the hourly 
average, daily average, batch cycle daily average, or block average of 
monitored parameters, established as specified in this paragraph, 
remains above the minimum level or below the maximum level, as 
appropriate.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Initial compliance with Sec.  63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) (venting 
of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the procedures 
specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Continuous compliance with Sec.  63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) 
(venting of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the 
continuous monitoring procedures specified in Sec.  63.1415.
    (5) Initial and continuous compliance with the production-based 
emission limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall be 
demonstrated following the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this 
section.
    (6) Initial and continuous compliance with the emission rate limits 
specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) shall be demonstrated 
following the procedures of either paragraphs (c)(6)(i) or (ii) or this 
section.
    (i) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit using 
a closed vent system and a control device or recovery device or by 
routing emissions to a fuel gas system or process shall follow the 
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. When complying with the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for 
purposes of this subpart:
    (A) The requirements specified in of Sec.  63.1405 (a)(2)(i) 
through (viii).

[[Page 40116]]

    (B) When 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS refers to meeting a weight-
percent emission reduction or ppmv outlet concentration requirement, 
meeting an emission rate limit in terms of kilograms of total organic 
HAP per hour shall also apply.
    (ii) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit by 
means other than those specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section 
shall follow the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this 
section.
    (7) Initial and continuous compliance with the alternative 
standards specified in Sec.  63.1405(c) shall be demonstrated following 
the procedures in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) Compliance with alternative standard. Initial and continuous 
compliance with the alternative standards in Sec. Sec.  63.1404(b), 
63.1405(c), 63.1406(b), 63.1407(b)(1), and 63.1408(b)(1) are 
demonstrated when the daily average outlet organic HAP concentration is 
20 ppmv or less when using a combustion control device or 50 ppmv or 
less when using a non-combustion control device. To demonstrate initial 
and continuous compliance, the owner or operator shall follow the test 
method specified in Sec.  63.1414(a)(6) and shall be in compliance with 
the monitoring provisions in Sec.  63.1415(e) no later than the initial 
compliance date and on each day thereafter.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Each owner or operator complying with the mass emission limit 
specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall determine initial compliance 
as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section and continuous 
compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Initial compliance. Initial compliance shall be determined by 
comparing the results of the performance test or design evaluation as 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the mass emission 
limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i).
    (ii) Continuous compliance. Continuous compliance shall be based on 
the daily average emission rate calculated for each operating day. The 
first continuous compliance average daily emission rate shall be 
calculated using the first 24-hour period or otherwise-specified 
operating day after the compliance date. Continuous compliance shall be 
determined by comparing the daily average emission rate to the mass 
emission limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i).
    (2) As required by paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section, each owner 
or operator complying with the emission rate limits specified in Sec.  
63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), as applicable, by means other than those 
specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section shall determine 
initial compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section 
and continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this 
section.
    (i) Initial compliance. Initial compliance shall be determined by 
comparing the results of the performance test or design evaluation as 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the emission rate 
limits specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), as applicable.
    (ii) Continuous compliance. Continuous compliance shall be based on 
the hourly average emission rate calculated for each operating day. The 
first continuous compliance average hourly emission rate shall be 
calculated using the first 24-hour period or otherwise-specified 
operating day after the compliance date. Continuous compliance shall be 
determined by comparing the average hourly emission rate to the 
emission rate limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), as 
applicable.
    (3) Procedures to determine continuous compliance with the mass 
emission limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i). (i) The daily 
emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per megagram of product, shall 
be determined for each operating day using Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU17.000


Where:

ER = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process vent, kg 
of HAP/Mg product.
Ei = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process 
vent i as determined using the procedures specified in paragraph 
(h)(3)(ii) of this section, kg/day.
RPm = Amount of resin produced in one month as determined 
using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this 
section, Mg/day.

    (ii) The daily emission rate of organic HAP, in kilograms per day, 
from an individual continuous process vent (Ei) shall be 
determined. Once organic HAP emissions have been estimated, as 
specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled 
continuous process vents or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 
section for continuous process vents vented to a control device or 
control technology, the owner or operator may use the estimated organic 
HAP emissions (Ei) until the estimated organic HAP emissions 
are no longer representative due to a process change or other reason 
known to the owner or operator. If organic HAP emissions 
(Ei) are determined to no longer be representative, the 
owner or operator shall redetermine organic HAP emissions for the 
continuous process vent following the procedures in paragraph 
(h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled continuous process vents 
or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section for continuous 
process vents vented to a control device or control technology.
* * * * *
    (B) * * *
    (1) Uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall be determined 
following the procedures in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Controlled organic HAP emissions shall be determined by 
applying the control device or control technology efficiency, 
determined in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, to the 
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, determined in paragraph 
(h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section.
    (iii) The rate of resin produced, RPM (Mg/day), shall be 
determined based on production records certified by the owner or 
operator to represent actual production for the day. A sample of the 
records selected by the owner or operator for this purpose shall be 
provided to the Administrator in the Precompliance Report as required 
by Sec.  63.1417(d).
    (4) Procedures to determine continuous compliance with the emission 
rate limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii).
    (i) The hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per hour, 
shall be determined for each hour during the operating day using 
Equation 6 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU17.001


Where:

EH = Hourly emission rate of organic HAP in the sample, 
kilograms per hour.
K2 = Constant, 2.494 x 10-\6\ (parts per 
million)-\1\ (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) 
(kilogram/gram) (minutes/hour), where standard temperature for 
(gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 20 [deg]C.
n = Number of components in the sample.
CJ = Organic HAP concentration on a dry basis of organic 
compound j in parts per million as determined by the methods 
specified in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section.
Mj = Molecular weight of organic compound j, gram/gram-
mole.
QS = Continuous process vent flow rate, dry standard 
cubic meter per minute, at a

[[Page 40117]]

temperature of 20 [deg]C, as determined by the methods specified in 
paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section.

    (ii) The average hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per 
hour, shall be determined for each operating day using Equation 7 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU17.002


Where:

AE = Average hourly emission rate per operating day, kilograms per 
hour.
n = Number of hours in the operating day.

    (ii) Continuous process vent flow rate and organic HAP 
concentration shall be determined using the procedures specified in 
Sec.  63.1414(a), or by using the engineering assessment procedures in 
paragraph (h)(4)(iii) of this section.
    (iii) Engineering assessment. For the purposes of determining 
continuous compliance with the emission rate limit specified in Sec.  
63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) using Equations 6 and 7, engineering 
assessments may be used to determine continuous process vent flow rate 
and organic HAP concentration. An engineering assessment includes, but 
is not limited to, the following examples:
    (A) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of 
current operating practices.
    (B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the 
process under representative operating conditions.
    (C) Maximum volumetric flow rate or organic HAP concentration 
specified or implied within a permit limit applicable to the continuous 
process vent.
    (D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering 
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws 
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not 
limited to, the following:
    (1) Estimation of maximum organic HAP concentrations based on 
process stoichiometry material balances or saturation conditions; and
    (2) Estimation of maximum volumetric flow rate based on physical 
equipment design such as pump or blower capacities.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Exceedance of the mass emission limit (i.e., having an 
average value higher than the specified limit) monitored according to 
the provisions of paragraph (e)(2) of this section for batch process 
vents and according to the provisions of paragraph (h)(1) of this 
section for continuous process vents;
    (iv) Exceedance of the organic HAP outlet concentration limit 
(i.e., having an average value higher than the specified limit) 
monitored according to the provisions of Sec.  63.1415(e); and
    (v) Exceedance of the emission rate limit (i.e., having an average 
value higher than the specified limit) determined according to the 
provisions of paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.1415 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1415  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) Monitoring for the alternative standards. For control devices 
that are used to comply with the provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.1404(b), 
63.1405(c), 63.1406(b), 63.1407(b), or 63.1408(b), the owner or 
operator shall conduct continuous monitoring of the outlet organic HAP 
concentration whenever emissions are vented to the control device. 
Continuous monitoring of outlet organic HAP concentration shall be 
accomplished using an FTIR instrument following Method PS-15 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B. The owner or operator shall calculate a daily 
average outlet organic HAP concentration.
0
9. Section 63.1416 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (f)(1), (3), (5) introductory text, and (5)(ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (f)(5)(iii);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (f)(6) as (f)(7);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (f)(6); and
0
g. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (f)(7) introductory text and 
paragraph (g)(5)(v)(E).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1416   Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * * (1) TRE index value records. Each owner or operator of a 
continuous process vent at a new affected source shall maintain records 
of measurements, engineering assessments, and calculations performed 
according to the procedures of Sec.  63.1412(j) to determine the TRE 
index value. Documentation of engineering assessments, described in 
Sec.  63.1412(k), shall include all data, assumptions, and procedures 
used for the engineering assessments.
* * * * *
    (3) Organic HAP concentration records. Each owner or operator shall 
record the organic HAP concentration as measured using the sampling 
site and organic HAP concentration determination procedures (if 
applicable) specified in Sec.  63.1412(b) and (e), or determined 
through engineering assessment as specified in Sec.  63.1412(k).
* * * * *
    (5) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate 
compliance with the mass emission limit specified in Sec.  
63.1405(b)(2)(i), keep records specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an 
operating day.
    (iii) The daily organic HAP emissions from the continuous process 
vent determined as specified in Sec.  63.1413(h)(3).
    (6) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission rate limits specified in Sec.  
63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), keep records specified in paragraphs 
(f)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The results of the initial compliance demonstration specified 
in Sec.  63.1413(h)(2)(i).
    (ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an 
operating day.
    (iii) The average hourly organic HAP emissions from the continuous 
process vent determined as specified in Sec.  63.1413(h)(4).
    (7) When using a flare to comply with Sec.  63.1405(a)(1) or 
(b)(1), keep the records specified in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through 
(f)(7)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.1417 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(8), (e)(1) 
introductory text, (f) introductory text, and (f)(1), (2), (5) 
introductory text and (12)(ii);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (f)(14) and (15); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1417  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Precompliance Report. Owners or operators of affected sources 
requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use 
alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring 
and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use 
engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch 
emissions episode as described in Sec.  63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to 
establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures 
contained in Sec.  63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing parameter monitoring 
levels based on a design evaluation as specified in

[[Page 40118]]

Sec.  63.1413(a)(3); or following the procedures in Sec.  
63.1413(e)(2); or following the procedures in Sec.  63.1413(h)(3), 
shall submit a Precompliance Report according to the schedule described 
in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The Precompliance Report shall 
contain the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through (11) of 
this section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (8) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission 
limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i), the sample of production 
records specified in Sec.  63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in the 
Precompliance Report.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) The results of any emission point applicability determinations, 
performance tests, design evaluations, inspections, continuous 
monitoring system performance evaluations, any other information used 
to demonstrate compliance, and any other information, as appropriate, 
required to be included in the Notification of Compliance Status under 
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and subpart WW, as referred to in Sec.  
63.1404 for storage vessels; under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, as 
referred to in Sec.  63.1405 for continuous process vents; under Sec.  
63.1416(f)(1) through (3), (5)(i) and (ii), and (6)(i) and (ii) for 
continuous process vents; under Sec.  63.1416(d)(1) for batch process 
vents; and under Sec.  63.1416(e)(1) for aggregate batch vent streams. 
In addition, each owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs 
(e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) Periodic Reports. Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of 
this section, a report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2) 
of this section or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3) 
through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section, as appropriate, 
shall be submitted semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of 
each 180 day period. In addition, for equipment leaks subject to Sec.  
63.1410, the owner or operator shall submit the information specified 
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, and for heat exchange systems subject to 
Sec.  63.1409, the owner or operator shall submit the information 
specified in Sec.  63.1409. Section 63.1415 shall govern the use of 
monitoring data to determine compliance for emissions points required 
to apply controls by the provisions of this subpart.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of this section, a 
report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2) of this section 
or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and 
(13) through (15) of this section, as appropriate, shall be submitted 
semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of each 180 day 
period. The first report shall be submitted no later than 240 days 
after the date the Notification of Compliance Status is due and shall 
cover the 6-month period beginning on the date the Notification of 
Compliance Status is due. Subsequent reports shall cover each preceding 
6-month period.
    (2) If none of the compliance exceptions specified in paragraphs 
(f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section occurred 
during the 6-month period, the Periodic Report required by paragraph 
(f)(1) of this section shall be a statement that the affected source 
was in compliance for the preceding 6-month period and no activities 
specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of 
this section occurred during the preceding 6-month period.
* * * * *
    (5) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified 
in Sec.  63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), Sec.  63.1407(b)(2), or 
Sec.  63.1408(b)(2), the following information, as appropriate, shall 
be included:
* * * * *
    (12) * * *
    (ii) The quarterly reports shall include all information specified 
in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section 
applicable to the emission point for which quarterly reporting is 
required under paragraph (f)(12)(i) of this section. Information 
applicable to other emission points within the affected source shall be 
submitted in the semiannual reports required under paragraph (f)(1) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (14) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified 
in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i), the report shall include the daily average 
emission rate calculated for each operating day for which a deviation 
occurred.
    (15) If there is a deviation from the emission rate limit specified 
in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), the report shall include the 
following information for each operating day for which a deviation 
occurred:
    (i) The calculated average hourly emission rate.
    (ii) The individual hourly emission rate data points making up the 
average hourly emission rate.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (7) Whenever a continuous process vent becomes subject to control 
requirements under Sec.  63.1405, as a result of a process change, the 
owner or operator shall submit a report within 60 days after the 
performance test or applicability assessment, whichever is sooner. The 
report may be submitted as part of the next Periodic Report required by 
paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-17514 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P