2970
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0043;
FRL
 
7416
 
8]

RIN
2060
 
AH03
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Primary
Magnesium
Refining
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
action
proposes
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
primary
magnesium
refining
facilities.
The
EPA
has
identified
primary
magnesium
refining
facilities
as
a
major
source
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
emissions.
These
proposed
standards
will
implement
section
112(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
by
requiring
all
major
sources
to
meet
HAP
emission
standards
reflecting
application
of
the
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT).
The
HAP
emitted
by
facilities
in
the
primary
magnesium
refining
source
category
include
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
dioxin/
furan,
and
trace
amounts
of
several
HAP
metals.
Exposure
to
these
substances
has
been
demonstrated
to
cause
adverse
health
effects,
including
chronic
and
acute
disorders
of
the
blood,
heart,
kidneys,
reproductive
system,
and
central
nervous
system.
Some
of
these
pollutants
are
considered
to
be
carcinogens,
and
all
can
cause
toxic
effects
in
humans
following
sufficient
exposure.
DATES:
Comments.
Submit
comments
on
or
before
February
21,
2003.
Public
Hearing.
If
anyone
contacts
the
EPA
requesting
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing
by
February
3,
2003,
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
February
6,
2003.

ADDRESSES:
Comments.
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.
Public
Hearing.
If
a
public
hearing
is
held,
it
will
be
held
at
the
new
EPA
facility
complex
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC,
or
at
an
alternate
site
nearby.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Lula
Melton,
Metals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C439
 
02),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
2910,
electronic
mail
address:
melton.
lula@
epa.
gov.

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

Category
NAICS*
Examples
of
regulated
entities
Primary
Magnesium
Refining
...............................................
331419
Primary
refiners
of
nonferrous
metals
by
electrolytic
methods.

*
North
American
Information
Classification
System.

This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
your
facility
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
63.9881
of
the
proposed
rule.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
Docket.
The
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0043.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
in
the
Primary
Magnesium
Refining
NESHAP
Docket
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),
EPA
West,
Room
B108,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
1742.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying
docket
materials.
Electronic
Access.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
review
public
comments,
access
the
index
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
dockets.
Information
claimed
as
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statue,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
this
document.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statue.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.
Comments.
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
submitted
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
The
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2971
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
The
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search''
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0043.
The
system
is
an
anonymous
access
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
air­
and­
rdocket
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0043.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
email
system
is
not
an
anonymous
access
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
this
document.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
Wordperfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
By
Mail.
Send
your
comments
(
in
duplicate,
if
possible)
to:
Primary
Magnesium
Refining
NESHAP
Docket,
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),
U.
S.
EPA
West,
Mail
Code
6102T,
Room
B108,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0043.
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier.
Deliver
your
comments
(
in
duplicate,
if
possible)
to:
EPA
Docket
Center,
U.
S.
EPA
West,
Mail
Code
6102T,
Room
B108,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20004,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0043.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket
Center's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
this
document.
By
Facsimile.
Fax
your
comments
to:
(
202)
566
 
1741,
Attention
Primary
Magnesium
Refining
NESHAP
Docket,
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0043.
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
Ms.
Lula
Melton,
c/
o
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer
(
C404
 
02),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0043.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
Public
Hearing.
Persons
interested
in
presenting
oral
testimony
or
inquiring
as
to
whether
a
hearing
is
to
be
held
should
contact
Ms.
Cassie
Posey,
Metals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C439
 
02),
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
0069,
in
advance
of
the
public
hearing.
Persons
interested
in
attending
the
public
hearing
must
also
call
Ms.
Cassie
Posey
to
verify
the
time,
date,
and
location
of
the
hearing.
The
public
hearing
will
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
these
proposed
emission
standards.
Worldwide
Web
(
WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
proposal
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature,
a
copy
of
this
action
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)
541
 
5384.
Outline.
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
Background
A.
What
Is
the
Source
of
Authority
for
Development
of
NESHAP?
B.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
Of
NESHAP?
C.
What
Source
Category
Is
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule?
D.
What
Are
the
Health
Effects
Associated
With
Emissions
From
Primary
Magnesium
Refineries?
II.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
Are
the
Affected
Sources
and
Emission
Points?
B.
What
Are
the
Compliance
Deadlines?
C.
What
Are
the
Emission
Limitations?
D.
What
Are
the
Operation
and
Maintenance
Requirements?
E.
What
Are
the
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?
F.
What
Are
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
G.
What
Are
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
III.
Rationale
for
Selecting
the
Proposed
Standards
A.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Affected
Source?
B.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Pollutants?
C.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
Bases
and
Levels
of
the
Proposed
Standards?
D.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?
E.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
F.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impacts
V.
Solicitation
of
Comments
and
Public
Participation
VI.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
et
seq.
G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
I.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
Background
A.
What
Is
the
Source
of
Authority
for
Development
of
NESHAP?

Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
list
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
sources
and
area
sources
of
HAP
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2972
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
and
to
establish
NESHAP
for
the
listed
source
categories
and
subcategories.
The
category
of
major
sources
covered
by
today's
proposed
NESHAP,
Primary
Magnesium
Refining,
was
listed
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
Major
sources
of
HAP
are
those
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
greater
than
10
tons/
yr
of
any
one
HAP
or
25
tons/
yr
of
any
combination
of
HAP.

B.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
that
we
establish
NESHAP
for
the
control
of
HAP
from
both
new
and
existing
major
sources.
The
CAA
requires
the
NESHAP
to
reflect
the
maximum
degree
of
reduction
in
emissions
of
HAP
that
is
achievable.
This
level
of
control
is
commonly
referred
to
as
the
MACT.
The
MACT
floor
is
the
minimum
level
allowed
for
NESHAP
and
is
defined
under
section
112
(
d)(
3)
of
the
CAA.
In
essence,
the
MACT
floor
ensures
that
the
standard
is
set
at
a
level
that
assures
that
all
major
sources
achieve
the
level
of
control
at
least
as
stringent
as
that
already
achieved
by
the
bettercontrolled
and
lower­
emitting
sources
in
each
source
category
or
subcategory.
For
new
sources,
the
MACT
floor
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
emissions
control
that
is
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best­
controlled
similar
source.
The
MACT
standards
for
existing
sources
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
best­
performing
12
percent
of
existing
sources
(
for
which
we
have
emissions
information)
in
the
category
or
subcategory
or
by
the
best­
performing
five
sources
(
for
which
we
have
or
could
reasonably
obtain
emissions
information)
for
categories
or
subcategories
with
fewer
than
30
sources.
In
developing
MACT,
we
also
consider
control
options
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
floor.
We
may
establish
standards
more
stringent
than
the
floor
based
on
the
consideration
of
cost
of
achieving
the
emissions
reductions,
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
impacts.

C.
What
Source
Category
Is
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule?
Section
112(
c)
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
list
all
categories
of
major
and
area
sources
of
HAP
for
which
we
will
develop
national
emission
standards.
We
published
the
initial
list
of
source
categories
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
``
Primary
Magnesium
Refining''
is
one
of
the
source
categories
on
the
initial
list.
The
listing
was
based
on
our
determination
that
primary
magnesium
refining
facilities
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
emit
a
variety
of
HAP
listed
in
section
112(
b)
in
quantities
sufficient
to
be
major
sources.
The
source
category
is
comprised
of
one
plant,
US
Magnesium
Corporation
located
in
Rowley,
Utah.
The
plant
produces
magnesium
from
brine
(
salt
water)
taken
from
the
Great
Salt
Lake.
The
production
process
concentrates
the
magnesium
salts
in
the
brine,
then
processes
the
brine
to
remove
impurities
that
would
affect
metal
quality.
After
the
brine
solution
is
converted
to
a
powder
mixture
of
magnesium
chloride
(
MgCl2)
and
magnesium
oxide
in
the
spray
dryers,
the
powder
is
conveyed
to
the
melt/
reactors.
The
melt/
reactors
melt
the
powder
mixture
and
convert
the
remaining
magnesium
oxide
to
magnesium
chloride
by
injecting
chlorine
into
the
molten
salt.
The
purified
molten
salt
is
then
transferred
to
the
electrolytic
cells
where
the
molten
magnesium
chloride
salt
is
separated
into
magnesium
metal
and
chlorine
by
electrolysis.
The
electrolysis
process
passes
a
direct
electric
current
through
the
molten
magnesium
chloride,
causing
the
dissociation
of
the
salt
and
results
in
the
generation
of
chlorine
gas
and
magnesium
metal.
The
magnesium
metal
is
then
transferred
to
the
foundry
for
casting
into
ingots
for
sale.
The
chlorine
produced
is
piped
to
a
chlorine
plant
where
it
is
liquefied
for
reuse
or
sale.
The
HAP
emitted
from
the
primary
magnesium
refining
process
are
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
dioxin/
furan,
and
trace
amounts
of
HAP
metals.
Emission
controls
include
various
combinations
of
wet
scrubbers
(
venturi
and
packed­
bed)
for
acid
gas
and
particulate
matter
(
PM)
control.
Chlorine
is
emitted
from
the
melting
and
purification
of
reactor
cell
product
and
is
controlled
by
conversion
to
hydrochloric
acid
in
the
chlorine
reduction
burner
and
subsequent
absorption
of
the
hydrochloric
acid
in
venturi
and
packed­
bed
scrubber.
Using
these
control
technologies,
upwards
of
99.9
percent
control
of
chlorine
is
achieved.
The
electrowinning
of
the
melted
magnesium
chloride
to
magnesium
metal
produces
as
a
byproduct
chlorine
gas
which
is
recovered
at
the
chlorine
plant.
When
the
chlorine
plant
is
inoperable,
the
chlorine
produced
at
the
electrolytic
cells
is
routed
to
a
series
of
packed­
bed
scrubbers
which
use
ferrous
chloride
as
the
adsorbing
medium.
Hydrochloric
acid
is
emitted
from
the
spray
drying
and
storage
of
magnesium
chloride
powder
and
the
melting
and
purification
of
reactor
cell
product
prior
to
the
electrowinning
process.
Hydrochloric
acid
emissions
are
controlled
by
venturi
and
packed­
bed
scrubbers.
Dioxin/
furan
are
generated
in
the
melt
reactor
and
are
subject
to
incidental
control
by
the
chlorine
reduction
burner
and
wet
scrubbers
used
to
control
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid
(
HCl),
and
PM.

D.
What
Are
the
Health
Effects
Associated
With
Emissions
From
Primary
Magnesium
Refiners?
Acute
(
short­
term)
exposure
to
high
levels
of
chlorine
in
humans
can
result
in
chest
pain,
vomiting,
toxic
pneumonitis,
and
pulmonary
edema.
At
lower
levels,
chlorine
is
a
potent
irritant
to
the
eyes,
the
upper
respiratory
tract,
and
lungs.
Chronic
long­
term
exposure
to
chlorine
gas
in
workers
has
resulted
in
respiratory
effects
including
eye
and
throat
irritation
and
airflow
obstruction.
Animal
studies
have
reported
decreased
body
weight
gain,
eye
and
nose
irritation,
non­
neoplastic
nasal
lesions,
and
respiratory
epithelial
hyperplasia
from
chronic
inhalation
exposure
to
chlorine.
No
information
is
available
on
the
carcinogenic
effects
of
chlorine
in
humans
from
inhalation
exposure.
We
have
not
classified
chlorine
for
potential
carcinogenicity.
Hydrochloric
acid
is
corrosive
to
the
eyes,
skin,
and
mucous
membranes.
Acute
inhalation
exposure
may
cause
eye,
nose
and
respiratory
tract
irritation
and
inflammation
and
pulmonary
edema
in
humans.
Chronic
occupational
exposure
to
HCl
has
been
reported
to
cause
gastritis,
bronchitis,
and
dermatitis
in
workers.
Prolonged
exposure
to
low
concentrations
may
cause
dental
discoloration
and
erosion.
No
information
is
available
on
the
reproductive
or
developmental
effects
of
hydrochloric
acid
to
humans.
In
rats
exposed
to
hydrochloric
acid
by
inhalation,
altered
estrus
cycles
have
been
reported
in
females
and
increased
fetal
mortality
and
decreased
fetal
weight
have
been
reported
in
offspring.
We
have
not
classified
hydrochloric
acid
for
carcinogenicity.
There
are
a
variety
of
metal
HAP
contained
in
the
PM
emitted
from
the
primary
magnesium
refining
process.
The
principal
HAP
metals
emitted
include
trace
quantities
of
phosphorous
and
manganese.
Health
effects
in
humans
have
been
associated
with
both
deficiencies
and
excess
intakes
of
manganese.
Chronic
exposure
to
low
levels
of
manganese
in
the
diet
is
considered
to
be
nutritionally
essential
in
humans,
with
a
recommended
daily
allowance
of
2
to
5
milligrams
per
day.
Chronic
exposure
to
high
levels
of
manganese
by
inhalation
in
humans
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2973
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
results
primarily
in
central
nervous
system
effects.
Visual
reaction
time,
hand
steadiness,
and
eye­
hand
coordination
were
affected
in
chronically­
exposed
workers.
Manganism,
characterized
by
feelings
of
weakness
and
lethargy,
tremors,
a
masklike
face,
and
psychological
disturbances,
may
result
from
chronic
exposure
to
higher
levels.
Impotence
and
loss
of
libido
have
been
noted
in
male
workers
afflicted
with
manganism
attributed
to
inhalation
exposures.
We
have
classified
manganese
in
Group
D,
not
classifiable
as
to
carcinogenicity
in
humans.
Organic
HAP
such
as
chlorinated
dibenzodioxins
and
furans
(
CDD/
F)
have
been
detected
in
the
melt/
reactor
exhaust.
One
CDD/
F
compound,
2,3,7,8­
tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
(
2,3,7,8­
TCDD),
commonly
called
dioxin)
is
listed
singly
as
a
HAP.
Other
CDD/
F
compounds,
many
of
which
cause
adverse
health
effects
in
the
same
way
as
dioxin,
are
HAP
under
the
definition
of
polycyclic
organic
matter.
Exposure
to
CDD/
F
mixtures
causes
chloracne,
a
severe
acne­
like
condition
and
has
been
shown
to
be
extremely
toxic
in
animal
studies.
Dioxin
is
known
to
be
a
developmental
toxicant
in
animals
causing
skeletal
deformities,
kidney
defects,
and
weakened
immune
responses
in
the
offspring
of
animals
exposed
during
pregnancy.
Human
studies
have
shown
an
association
between
dioxin
and
soft­
tissue
sarcomas,
lymphomas,
and
stomach
carcinomas.
We
have
classified
dioxin
as
a
probable
human
carcinogen
(
Group
B2).
In
addition
to
HAP,
the
proposed
rule
would
also
reduce
particulate
matter
emissions
which
are
controlled
under
national
ambient
air
quality
standards.
Brief
exposure
to
particulate
matter
has
caused
aggravation
of
existing
respiratory
and
cardiovascular
disease
and
increased
risk
of
premature
death.
We
recognize
that
the
degree
of
adverse
effects
to
health
experienced
by
exposed
individuals
can
range
from
mild
to
severe.
The
extent
and
degree
to
which
the
health
effects
may
be
experienced
depends
on:
 
Pollutant­
specific
characteristics
(
e.
g.,
toxicity,
half­
life
in
the
environment,
bioaccumulation,
and
persistence);
 
The
ambient
concentrations
observed
in
the
area
(
e.
g.,
as
influenced
by
emission
rates,
meteorological
conditions,
and
terrain);
 
The
frequency
and
duration
of
exposures;
and
 
Characteristics
of
exposed
individuals
(
e.
g.,
genetics,
age,
preexisting
health
conditions,
and
lifestyle),
which
vary
significantly
with
the
population.

II.
Summary
of
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
Are
the
Affected
Sources
and
Emission
Points?
The
affected
source
is
each
new
or
existing
primary
magnesium
refinery.
A
new
affected
source
is
one
constructed
or
reconstructed
after
January
22,
2003.
An
existing
affected
source
is
one
constructed
or
reconstructed
on
or
before
January
22,
2003.
The
proposed
rule
covers
emissions
from
spray
dryers,
the
melt
reactor
system,
the
launder
off
gas
system,
and
magnesium
chloride
storage
bins.

B.
What
Are
the
Compliance
Deadlines?

The
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
affected
source
would
have
to
comply
by
[
DATE
12
MONTHS
AFTER
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
Federal
Register].
New
or
reconstructed
sources
that
startup
on
or
before
[
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
Federal
Register]
must
comply
by
[
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
Federal
Register].
New
or
reconstructed
sources
that
startup
after
[
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
Federal
Register]
must
comply
upon
initial
startup.

C.
What
Are
the
Emission
Limitations?

The
proposed
rule
includes
mass
rate
emission
limits
in
pounds
per
hour
(
lbs/
hr)
for
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
PM,
and
PM10.
The
emission
limits
are
shown
in
Table
1
of
this
preamble.

TABLE
1.
 
PROPOSED
MASS
RATE
EMISSION
LIMITS
Emission
point
Chlorine
(
lbs/
hr)
HCL
(
lbs/
hr)
PM
(
lbs/
hr)
PM
 
10
(
lbs/
hr)

Spray
Dryers
..............................................................................................................................
..................
200
100
................
Magnesium
Chloride
Storage
Bins
............................................................................................
..................
47.5
..................
2.7
Melt/
Reactor
System
.................................................................................................................
100
7.2
..................
13.1
Launder
Off­
Gas
System
...........................................................................................................
26.0
46.0
37.5
................

The
proposed
rule
also
includes
emission
limits
for
dioxin/
furan
expressed
in
nanograms
of
toxicity
equivalents
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
(
ng
TEQ/
dscm)
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
Dioxins/
furans
include
a
group
of
17
chemicals
or
congeners
that
share
certain
similar
chemical
structures
and
biological
characteristics.
The
2,
3,
7,
8­
tetrachlorodibenzo­
pdioxin
congener
is
the
most
well
studied
and
the
most
toxic
of
these
compounds.
Scientists
believe
that
dioxins
cause
effects
in
similar
ways.
Because
of
this
and
because
exposure
is
typically
to
variable
mixtures
of
dioxinlike
compounds,
we
use
toxicity
equivalency
factors
(
TEF)
that
compare
the
potential
toxicity
of
each
of
the
individual
dioxin­
like
compounds
to
the
relative
toxicity
of
2,
3,
7,
8­
tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin.
With
such
factors,
the
toxicity
for
a
mixture
can
be
expressed
in
terms
of
its
Toxicity
Equivalents
(
TEQ),
which
is
the
amount
of
TCDD
it
would
take
to
equal
the
combined
toxic
effect
of
all
the
dioxinlike
compounds
found
in
the
mixture.
To
calculate
the
TEQ,
the
concentration
of
each
dioxin­
like
compound
is
multiplied
by
its
respective
TEF.

D.
What
Are
the
Operation
and
Maintenance
Requirements?

All
plants
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
would
be
required
to
prepare
and
implement
a
written
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.6(
e)
of
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions.
All
plants
must
establish
and
meet
operating
limits
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate.
A
written
operation
and
maintenance
plan
is
also
required
for
control
devices
subject
to
an
operating
limit.
The
plan
must
describe
procedures
for
monthly
inspections
and
preventative
maintenance
requirements
for
control
devices.

E.
What
Are
the
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?

The
proposed
rule
requires
a
performance
test
for
each
control
device
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2974
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limits
of
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
PM,
PM10,
and
dioxin/
furan.
The
EPA
Method
26
or
26A
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A
is
the
reference
method
for
chlorine
and
hydrochloric
acid.
The
reference
method
for
PM
is
EPA
Method
5
or
5D
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
The
reference
method
for
PM10
is
EPA
Method
201
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
The
EPA
Method
23
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A
is
the
reference
method
for
dioxin/
furan.
The
proposed
rule
would
also
require
owners/
operators
to
establish
operating
limits
for
scrubber
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
concurrent
with
the
performance
of
the
initial
compliance
tests.

F.
What
Are
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
The
proposed
rule
would
require
primary
magnesium
refineries
to
conduct
performance
tests
at
least
twice
during
each
title
V
operating
permit
term
(
at
midterm
and
renewal)
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits.
Plants
would
also
be
required
to
monitor
operating
parameters
for
control
devices
subject
to
operating
limits
and
carry
out
the
procedures
in
their
operation
and
maintenance
plan.
For
wet
scrubbers,
plants
would
be
required
to
use
continuous
parameter
monitoring
systems
(
CPMS)
to
measure
and
record
the
hourly
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance,
plants
would
keep
records
documenting
conformance
with
the
monitoring
requirements
and
the
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements
for
CPMS.

G.
What
Are
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
We
selected
the
proposed
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
to
be
consistent
with
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A).
One­
time
notifications
are
required
by
EPA
to
know
what
facilities
are
subject
to
the
standards,
if
a
facility
has
complied
with
the
proposed
rule
requirements,
and
when
certain
events
such
as
performance
tests
and
performance
evaluations
are
scheduled.
Semiannual
compliance
reports
containing
information
on
any
deviation
from
the
proposed
rule
requirements
are
also
required.
These
reports
would
include
information
on
any
deviation
that
occurred
during
the
reporting
period;
if
no
deviation
occurred,
only
summary
information
would
be
required.
Consistent
with
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A),
we
also
require
an
immediate
report
of
any
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
where
the
actions
taken
in
response
were
not
consistent
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
This
information
is
needed
to
determine
if
changes
need
to
be
made
to
the
plan.
Records
would
be
required
of
information
needed
to
document
compliance
with
the
rule
requirements.
These
notifications,
reports,
and
records
are
the
minimum
needed
to
ensure
initial
and
continuous
compliance.

III.
Rationale
for
Selecting
the
Proposed
Standards
A.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Affected
Source?

Affected
source
means
the
collection
of
equipment,
activities,
or
both
within
a
single
contiguous
area
and
under
common
control
that
is
included
in
a
CAA
section
112(
c)
source
category
or
subcategory
for
which
a
CAA
section
112(
d)
standard
or
other
relevant
standard
is
established
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112.
The
affected
source
may
be
the
same
collection
of
equipment
and
processes
as
the
source
category
or
it
may
be
a
subset
of
the
source
category.
For
each
rule,
we
decide
which
individual
pieces
of
equipment
and
processes
warrant
separate
standards
in
the
context
of
the
CAA
section
112
requirements
and
the
industry
operating
practices.
We
considered
three
different
approaches
for
designating
the
affected
source:
the
entire
primary
magnesium
refinery,
groups
of
emission
points,
and
individual
emission
points.
In
selecting
the
affected
sources
for
the
proposed
rule,
we
identified
the
HAP­
emitting
operations,
the
HAP
emitted,
and
the
quantity
of
HAP
emissions
from
the
individual
or
groups
of
emission
points.
We
concluded
that
designating
the
entire
primary
magnesium
refinery
as
the
affected
source
is
the
most
appropriate
approach.
This
conclusion
is
consistent
with
the
requirements
for
defining
affected
source
provided
in
§
63.2
of
the
General
Provisions.
The
major
emission
points
include
each
spray
dryer,
magnesium
chloride
storage
bin,
melt/
reactor,
and
launder
off­
gas
system.
Therefore,
the
proposed
rule
includes
requirements
for
the
control
of
emissions
from
each
spray
dryer,
magnesium
chloride
storage
bin,
melt/
reactor,
and
launder
off­
gas
system.

B.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Pollutants?

The
proposed
standards
would
establish
emission
limits
for
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
PM,
PM10,
and
dioxin/
furan.
Particulate
matter
was
selected
as
a
surrogate
for
HAP
metal
emissions
which
account
for
less
than
one­
tenth
of
one
percent
of
total
PM
emissions.
The
principal
HAP
metals
emitted
include
trace
quantities
of
phosphorous,
manganese,
and
chromium,
with
lesser
quantities
of
arsenic,
antimony,
and
mercury.
With
the
exception
of
elemental
mercury,
metal
HAP
emissions,
when
released,
are
a
constituent
of
total
PM.
As
a
result,
control
technologies
applied
for
PM
control
will
coincidentally
achieve
comparable
levels
of
control
of
these
pollutants.
Standards
requiring
good
control
of
PM
emissions
will
also
achieve
good
control
of
metal
HAP
emissions.
Establishing
separate
standards
for
these
individual
HAP
would
result
in
no
additional
reductions
beyond
that
achieved
using
PM
as
a
surrogate
pollutant.
Given
that
the
US
Magnesium
refinery
generates
about
three
pounds
of
chlorine
to
each
pound
of
magnesium
produced,
chlorine
and
hydrochloric
acid
are
by
far
the
most
significant
HAP
pollutants
potentially
emitted
from
primary
magnesium
refining.
As
such,
both
chlorine
and
hydrochloric
acid
were
selected
for
the
proposed
rule.
Lastly,
the
proposed
rule
would
establish
a
separate
emission
limit
for
dioxin/
furan
discharged
from
the
melt/
reactor
stack
because
of
the
high
toxicity
associated
with
very
low
exposures
to
these
compounds
and
their
persistence
and
bioaccumulative
effects
in
the
environment.

C.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
Bases
and
Levels
of
the
Proposed
Standards?
Since
there
is
only
one
primary
magnesium
refinery
in
the
source
category,
the
MACT
floor
for
both
existing
and
new
sources
is
established
by
the
performance
of
each
emissions
control
system
operating
at
that
source.
We
do
not
anticipate
the
construction
of
any
new
sources
in
this
source
category.
The
State
of
Utah,
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(
UDEQ)
issued
a
title
V
operating
permit
dated
October
11,
2001
for
US
Magnesium
Corporation.
The
permit
contains
emission
limitations
for
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
PM,
and
PM10
established
by
the
UDEQ.
The
permit
does
not
contain
limits
for
dioxin/
furan.
We
conducted
our
own
independent
assessment
of
the
emissions
test
data
and
concluded
that
the
emission
limitations
established
in
the
source's
title
V
operating
permit
are
appropriate
and
achievable.
Although
the
limited
test
results
indicate
the
permit
limits
are
achievable,
the
data
also
show
that
the
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2975
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
plant
is
not
significantly
overachieving
the
limits.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
the
permit
limits
reasonably
approximate
actual
emissions
and
performance
and
present
an
accurate
picture
of
the
level
of
control
achieved
by
the
best
performing
source.
An
underlying
presumption
when
setting
MACT
standards
is
that
all
emission
limitations
must
be
complied
with
at
all
times.
Consequently,
when
establishing
MACT
floors
and
ultimately
a
MACT
standard,
we
must
consider
the
long­
term
variability
in
performance
expected
to
occur
under
reasonable
worst­
case
conditions.
We
must
assure
that
an
ensuing
standard
reflects
the
level
of
emission
control
determined
to
be
MACT.
We
must
also
assure
that
the
standard
is
achievable
under
normal
and
recurring
worst­
case
circumstances.
As
part
of
our
development
of
the
proposed
MACT
standard,
we
assessed
the
viability
of
requiring
additional
or
different
control
equipment
to
obtain
beyond­
the­
floor
emissions
reductions.
Each
control
system
on
the
four
emission
points
(
i.
e.,
spray
dryer
stack,
magnesium
chloride
storage
bin
stack,
melt/
reactor
system
stack,
and
launder
off­
gas
system
stack)
was
evaluated
to
see
if
it
was
the
best
control
equipment
to
achieve
the
maximum
amount
of
reduction
of
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
PM,
PM10,
and
dioxin/
furan.
For
all
four
emission
points,
US
Magnesium
uses
wet
scrubbers
(
packed­
bed
and
venturi
scrubbers)
to
achieve
the
emission
limits.
We
concluded
that
wet
scrubbing
systems
are
the
most
appropriate
and
practical
control
systems
for
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
PM,
PM10,
and
dioxin/
furan
and
that
there
is
no
other
control
equipment
or
methods
of
control
that
would
be
more
effective
for
reducing
their
emissions
taking
into
consideration
cost
and
feasibility.
Therefore,
we
determined
that
the
emission
limitations
at
the
MACT
floors
also
represent
MACT.
We
also
propose
that
the
source
prepare
and
operate
according
to
a
fugitive
dust
emission
control
plan
that
describes
in
detail
the
measures
that
will
be
put
in
place
to
control
fugitive
dust
emissions
from
all
unpaved
roads
and
other
unpaved
operational
areas.
The
existing
fugitive
dust
emission
control
plan
that
has
been
approved
as
part
of
the
source's
title
V
permit
would
be
acceptable.

Spray
Dryers
There
are
three
spray
dryers
in
the
source
category.
The
exhaust
gas
from
each
is
controlled
by
two
venturi
scrubbers
followed
by
a
packed­
bed
scrubber.
All
three
dryers
are
subject
to
Utah's
PM
emission
limit
of
100
lbs/
hr.
Each
test
was
conducted
according
to
EPA
Method
5,
and,
as
far
as
we
know,
under
normal
and
representative
operating
conditions.
We
have
seven
PM
emission
tests
for
the
three
dryers.
Dryers
01
and
03
were
tested
in
May
1997;
dryers
01
and
02
were
tested
in
December
1997;
and
all
three
dryers
were
tested
in
June
2002.
The
May
1997
test
includes
seven
runs,
and
the
other
two
tests
include
three
runs
each.
The
test
results
of
all
seven
tests
range
from
25
to
53
lbs/
hr.
The
average
and
median
values
are
37
lbs/
hr
and
36
lbs/
hr,
respectively.
We
evaluated
the
existing
State
PM
emission
limit
as
an
option
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
The
test
results
recorded
range
from
about
onefourth
to
one­
half
of
the
standard
and
average
a
little
more
than
one­
third
of
the
standard.
Considering
that
a
reasonable
margin
of
safety
is
necessary
to
assure
continuous
compliance,
the
existing
State
limit
of
100
lbs/
hr
appears
to
be
a
reasonable
proxy
of
actual
performance,
and
as
such,
is
appropriate
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
We
have,
therefore,
determined
the
MACT
floor
for
spray
dryers
to
be
the
level
of
control
indicated
by
the
existing
State
limit
of
100
lbs/
hr
of
PM.
All
three
dryers
are
subject
to
Utah's
hydrochloric
acid
emission
limit
of
200
lbs/
hr.
We
have
seven
hydrochloric
acid
emission
tests
conducted
according
to
EPA
Method
26A
for
the
three
dryers.
Dryers
01
and
03
were
tested
in
May
1997;
dryers
01
and
02
were
tested
in
December
1997;
and
all
three
dryers
were
tested
in
June
2002.
The
May
1997
test
included
seven
runs,
and
the
other
two
tests
included
three
runs
each.
Again,
as
far
as
we
can
determine,
each
test
was
performed
under
normal
and
representative
conditions.
The
test
results
of
all
seven
tests
range
from
51
to
82
lbs/
hr
and
average
68
lbs/
hr.
The
median
value
is
also
68
lbs/
hr.
We
evaluated
the
existing
State
hydrochloric
acid
emission
limit
as
an
option
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
The
test
results
recorded
range
from
about
one­
fourth
to
almost
one­
half
of
the
standard
and
average
about
onethird
of
the
standard.
Considering
that
a
reasonable
margin
of
safety
is
necessary
to
assure
continuous
compliance,
the
existing
State
limit
of
200
lbs/
hr
appears
to
be
a
reasonable
proxy
of
actual
performance,
and
as
such,
is
appropriate
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
We
have,
therefore,
determined
the
MACT
floor
for
spray
dryers
to
be
the
level
of
control
indicated
by
the
existing
State
limit
of
200
lbs/
hr
of
hydrochloric
acid.
We
next
examined
possibilities
for
beyond­
the­
floor
options.
We
concluded
that
the
current
multi­
stage
wet
scrubbing
system
is
the
best
available
control
technology
for
the
removal
of
hydrochloric
acid
and
particulate
matter
contained
in
the
spray
dryer
discharge.
Therefore,
we
have
selected
the
mass
rate
emission
limits
established
in
the
source's
title
V
operating
permit
as
MACT
for
both
new
and
existing
spray
dryers.

Magnesium
Chloride
Storage
Bins
Magnesium
chloride
powder
from
the
spray
dryers
is
pneumatically
conveyed
to
storage
bins.
The
exhaust
air
from
the
conveyor
contains
particle
matter
and
low
levels
of
hydrochloric
acid.
The
exhaust
gases
are
directed
to
vertical
packed­
bed
scrubbers
where
hydrochloric
acid
and
particulate
matter
are
removed.
The
source's
title
V
operating
permit
limits
hydrochloric
acid
to
47.5
lbs/
hr
and
PM10
to
2.7
lbs/
hr.
Packed
bed
scrubbers
are
used
to
achieve
these
emission
limits.
We
do
not
have
any
emissions
test
data
for
this
emission
point.
As
such,
we
decided
to
adopt
the
source's
title
V
operating
permit
limits
for
PM10
and
hydrochloric
acid.
Emissions
testing
was
recently
conducted
on
the
magnesium
chloride
storage
bins,
and
we
expect
test
results
within
a
few
weeks
of
publishing
the
proposed
rule.
This
data
will
be
added
to
the
public
docket
as
soon
as
we
receive
it,
and
we
will
consider
the
data
and
public
comments
prior
to
publication
of
the
final
rule.
We
evaluated
this
wet
scrubbing
system
for
any
potential
beyond­
thefloor
control
technology
and
concluded
that
the
packed­
bed
scrubber
system
is
the
best
available
control
technology
for
the
removal
of
hydrochloric
acid
and
particulate
matter.
Thus,
we
adopted
the
emission
limits
established
in
the
source's
title
V
operating
permit
as
MACT.

Melt/
Reactor
The
melt/
reactor
system
melts
and
chlorinates
dehydrated
brine
powder
to
produce
high
purity
molten
magnesium
chloride
feed
for
electrolysis.
The
melt/
reactor
off­
gases
are
cooled
in
a
quench
tower
and
then
enter
a
venturi
scrubber
where
PM
is
removed.
The
off­
gases
are
then
directed
to
the
chlorine
reduction
burner
where
they
are
combined
with
tail
gases
from
the
chlorine
plant
and
burned
with
natural
gas
to
form
hydrochloric
acid.
The
gases
exit
the
chlorine
reduction
burner
and
enter
a
scrubber
train
where
hydrochloric
acid
is
recovered.
The
train
consists
of
three
packed
bed
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2976
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
1
Method
23
 
Determination
of
Polychlorinated
Dibenzo­
P­
Dioxins
and
Polychlorinated
Dibenzofurans
from
Stationary
Sources.
scrubbers
in
series
followed
by
a
venturi
scrubber.
We
have
two
PM10
emission
tests
for
the
melt/
reactor
which
were
conducted
in
May
1995
and
May
2000.
Both
tests
were
conducted
in
accordance
with
EPA
Method
201,
and
as
far
as
we
can
determine,
each
test
was
performed
under
normal
and
representative
operating
conditions.
The
test
results
range
from
2.1
to
5.7
lbs/
hr
and
average
3.9
lbs/
hr.
We
evaluated
the
existing
State
limit
as
an
option
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
The
test
results
average
about
onethird
of
the
standard.
Considering
that
a
reasonable
margin
of
safety
is
necessary
to
assure
continuous
compliance,
the
existing
State
limit
of
13.1
lbs/
hr
appears
to
be
a
reasonable
proxy
of
actual
performance,
and
as
such,
is
appropriate
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
We
have,
therefore,
determined
the
MACT
floor
for
the
melt/
reactor
to
be
the
level
of
control
indicated
by
the
existing
State
limit
of
13.1
lbs/
hr
of
PM10.
We
have
two
hydrochloric
acid
emission
tests
for
the
melt/
reactor.
The
tests
were
conducted
in
May
1995
and
May
2000
in
accordance
with
Method
26A.
We
believe
that
each
test
was
performed
under
normal
and
representative
operating
conditions.
The
May
1995
test
results
average
3.2
lbs/
hr,
and
the
May
2000
test
results
average
2.8
lbs/
hr.
We
evaluated
the
existing
State
limit
as
an
option
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
A
comparison
of
the
State
limit
of
7.2
lbs/
hr
to
the
actual
hydrochloric
acid
emissions
data
indicates
that
the
State
limit
is
a
reasonable
proxy
of
actual
performance,
and
as
such,
is
appropriate
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
Consequently,
we
determined
the
MACT
floor
for
the
melt/
reactor
to
be
the
level
of
control
indicated
by
the
existing
State
limit
of
7.2
lbs/
hr
of
hydrochloric
acid.
We
have
two
chlorine
emission
tests
for
the
melt/
reactor.
The
test
were
conducted
in
May
1995
and
May
2000
in
accordance
with
EPA
Method
26.
The
May
1995
test
results
average
21
lbs/
hr,
and
the
May
2000
test
results
average
50
lbs/
hr.
Again,
we
believe
that
each
test
was
performed
under
normal
and
representative
operating
conditions.
We
evaluated
the
existing
State
limit
as
an
option
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
A
comparison
of
the
State
limit
of
100
lbs/
hr
to
the
actual
chlorine
emissions
data
indicates
that
the
State
limit
is
a
reasonable
proxy
of
actual
performance,
and
as
such,
is
appropriate
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
Therefore,
we
determined
the
MACT
floor
for
the
melt/
reactor
to
be
the
level
of
control
indicated
by
the
existing
State
limit
of
100
lbs/
hr
of
chlorine.
We
have
source
test
data
on
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
the
melt/
reactor
stack
which
indicates
total
dioxin/
furan
emissions
on
the
order
of
80
grams
per
year
(
g/
year)
and
emissions
expressed
in
terms
of
TEQ
of
less
than
3
g/
year.
The
current
title
V
operating
permit
includes
no
limitations
on
the
emissions
of
dioxin/
furan
or
any
surrogate
pollutant.
As
previously
stated,
emission
controls
applied
to
the
melt/
reactor
discharge
include
three
packed
bed
scrubbers
in
series
followed
by
a
venturi
scrubber
for
the
control
of
hydrochloric
acid
and
PM.
Although
not
installed
specifically
for
dioxin/
furan
control,
we
believe
that
some
incidental
control
of
dioxin/
furan
is
in
fact
achieved
by
these
scrubbers
and
that
the
floor
level
of
control
is
represented
by
the
available
information
on
actual
emissions.
Specifically,
we
have
data
on
two
tests
conducted
in
March
of
1998
and
May
of
2000.
Each
test
is
comprised
of
three
test
runs
conducted
in
accordance
with
EPA
Method
23.1
The
1998
TEQ
test
results
range
from
12.0
to
25.2
ng/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
and
average
19
ng/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
The
2000
TEQ
results
range
from
10.4
to
35.9
ng/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
and
average
24
ng/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen.
The
precision
evidenced
in
the
two
tests,
suggests
that
the
variability
due
to
process
variations
and
control
device
performance
is
narrow,
with
the
average
results
of
both
tests
within
±
20
percent.
We
chose
the
highest
of
the
individual
runs,
i.
e.,
36
ng
TEQ/
dscm
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen
as
a
representative
value
of
the
performance
level
that
can
be
achieved.
Thus,
we
have
chosen
36
ng
TEQ/
dscm
as
the
MACT
floor.
The
source
plans
to
conduct
additional
emissions
testing
in
the
near­
term.
We
expect
the
testing
to
occur
between
proposal
and
promulgation.
In
determining
the
final
standard
for
dioxin/
furan,
we
will
consider
the
results
of
the
new
test
in
addition
to
public
comments
that
we
receive.
We
evaluated
this
multi­
stage
scrubbing
system
for
any
potential
improvement
to
go
beyond­
the­
floor.
We
concluded
that
the
current
scrubbing
system
is
the
best
control
option
for
removal
of
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
and
PM10.
For
dioxin/
furan,
we
examined
a
beyond­
the­
floor
alternative,
and
determined
that
the
next
increment
of
control
beyond­
the­
floor
is
the
installation
of
a
baghouse
equipped
with
a
catalytic
filter
that
destroys
gaseous
dioxins
and
furans.
We
estimate
the
additional
capital
cost
of
adding
baghouses
to
be
$
650,000
and
the
total
annualized
cost
to
be
$
390,000
per
year.
We
estimate
the
emissions
reductions
to
be
2.4
grams
per
year
resulting
in
a
cost
per
gram
of
total
dioxin/
furan
reduction
of
$
163,865.
We
believe
that
the
high
cost,
coupled
with
the
small
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions,
does
not
justify
the
beyond­
the­
floor
alternative
at
this
time.
Consequently,
we
chose
the
floor
level
of
control
of
36
ng
TEQ/
dscm
as
MACT.

Launder
Off­
Gas
System
The
launder
off­
gas
system
(
LOG)
collects
fugitive
emissions
from
the
melt
reactor
area
(
i.
e.
hoods
and
launders).
The
collected
fugitive
gases
enter
a
horizontally
aligned
packed
scrubber
where
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
and
particulate
matter
are
removed
by
scrubbing
with
water.
The
LOG
scrubbed
gases
are
exhausted
to
the
atmosphere,
and
the
scrubber
water
is
returned
to
the
waste
water
collection
system.
We
have
three
PM
emission
tests
for
the
launder
off­
gas
system.
The
launder
off­
gas
system
was
tested
in
August
1993,
July
1998,
and
January
1999
using
EPA
Method
5,
and
as
far
as
we
know,
under
normal
and
representative
operating
conditions.
The
test
results
of
the
three
tests
range
from
2.6
to
19.1
lbs/
hr
and
average
7.0
lbs/
hr.
We
evaluated
the
existing
State
PM
emission
limit
as
an
option
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
We
compared
the
State
limit
of
37.5
lbs/
hr
to
the
actual
PM
emissions
data.
Considering
that
a
reasonable
margin
of
safety
is
necessary
to
assure
continuous
compliance,
the
existing
State
limit
of
37.5
lbs/
hr
appears
to
be
a
reasonable
proxy
of
actual
performance,
and
as
such,
is
appropriate
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
Therefore,
we
determined
the
MACT
floor
for
the
launder
off­
gas
system
to
be
the
level
of
control
indicated
by
the
existing
State
limit
of
37.5
lbs/
hr
of
PM.
We
have
three
hydrochloric
acid
emission
tests
for
the
launder
off­
gas
system.
The
launder
off­
gas
system
was
tested
in
August
1993,
July
1998,
and
January
1999
using
EPA
Method
26A.
We
believe
that
the
tests
were
performed
under
normal
and
representative
operating
conditions.
The
test
results
of
the
three
tests
range
from
6.84
to
32.6
lbs/
hr
and
average
15.6
lbs/
hr.
We
evaluated
the
existing
State
hydrochloric
acid
emission
limit
as
an
option
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00054
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2977
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
Considering
that
a
reasonable
margin
of
safety
is
necessary
to
assure
continuous
compliance,
the
existing
State
limit
of
46.0
lbs/
hr
appears
to
be
a
reasonable
proxy
of
actual
performance,
and
as
such,
is
appropriate
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
Consequently,
we
determined
the
MACT
floor
for
the
launder
off­
gas
system
to
be
the
level
of
control
indicated
by
the
existing
State
limit
of
46.0
lbs/
hr
of
hydrochloric
acid.
We
have
three
chlorine
emission
tests
for
the
launder
off­
gas
system.
The
launder
off­
gas
system
was
tested
in
August
1993
and
January
1999
using
EPA
Method
26.
We
believe
the
tests
were
performed
under
normal
and
representative
operating
conditions.
The
test
results
of
the
three
tests
range
from
16.6
to
25.9
lbs/
hr
and
average
19.9
lbs/
hr.
We
evaluated
the
existing
State
chlorine
emission
limit
as
an
option
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
Considering
that
a
reasonable
margin
of
safety
is
necessary
to
assure
continuous
compliance,
the
existing
State
limit
of
26.0
lbs/
hr
appears
to
be
a
reasonable
proxy
of
actual
performance,
and
as
such,
is
appropriate
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
Consequently,
we
determined
the
MACT
floor
for
the
launder
off­
gas
system
to
be
the
level
of
control
indicated
by
the
existing
State
limit
of
26.0
lbs/
hr
of
chlorine.
We
evaluated
potential
beyond­
thefloor
options
and
concluded
that
the
existing
scrubber
is
the
best
available
control
technology
for
the
removal
of
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
and
PM
contained
in
the
launder
off­
gas
system
discharge.
Therefore,
we
selected
the
emission
limits
established
in
the
source's
title
V
operating
permit
as
MACT.

D.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?
The
proposed
rule
requires
a
performance
test
for
each
control
device
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
applicable
PM,
PM10,
chlorine
and
hydrochloric
acid
limits
using
the
specified
testing
methods
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
We
have
also
specified
procedures
to
ensure
that
control
equipment
is
operating
properly
for
initial
compliance.
Venturi
scrubbers
and
packed­
bed
scrubbers
must
be
monitored
for
scrubber
water
flow
rate
and
pressure
drop.
If
a
facility
uses
controls
other
than
wet
scrubbers
or
packed­
bed
scrubbers
to
control
emissions
from
an
affected
source,
the
owner
or
operator
would
be
required
to
send
us
a
monitoring
plan
containing
information
on
the
type
of
device,
performance
test
results,
appropriate
operating
parameters
to
be
monitored,
operating
limits,
and
operation
and
maintenance.

E.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
For
continuous
compliance,
we
chose
periodic
performance
testing
for
PM,
PM10,
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
and
dioxin/
furan
which
is
consistent
with
current
permit
requirements.
In
general,
performance
tests
are
repeated
every
2.5
to
5
years,
depending
on
the
magnitude
of
the
source.
Consequently,
we
decided
that
performance
tests
should
be
repeated
no
less
frequently
than
twice
per
permit
term
of
a
source's
title
V
operating
permit
(
at
mid­
term
and
renewal).
We
also
specified
procedures
to
ensure
that
control
equipment
is
operated
properly
on
a
continuous
basis.
Venturi
scrubbers
and
packed­
bed
scrubbers
must
be
monitored
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate.
If
a
facility
uses
controls
other
than
wet
scrubbers
to
control
emissions
from
an
affected
source,
the
owner
or
operator
would
be
required
to
send
us
a
monitoring
plan
containing
information
on
the
type
of
device,
performance
test
results,
appropriate
operating
parameters
to
be
monitored,
operating
limits,
and
operation
and
maintenance.

F.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
We
selected
the
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
to
be
consistent
with
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A).
One­
time
notifications
are
required
by
EPA
to
know
what
facilities
are
subject
to
the
standard,
if
a
facility
has
complied
with
the
rule
requirements,
and
when
certain
events
such
as
performance
tests
and
performance
evaluations
are
scheduled.
Semiannual
compliance
reports
containing
information
on
any
deviation
from
the
proposed
rule
requirements
are
also
required.
These
reports
would
include
information
on
any
deviation
that
occurred
during
the
reporting
period;
if
no
deviation
occurred,
only
summary
information
would
be
required.
Consistent
with
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A),
we
also
require
an
immediate
report
of
any
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
where
the
actions
taken
in
response
were
not
consistent
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
This
information
is
needed
to
determine
if
changes
to
the
plan
need
to
be
made.
Records
would
be
required
of
information
needed
to
document
compliance
with
the
proposed
rule
requirements.
These
notifications,
reports,
and
records
are
the
minimum
needed
to
ensure
initial
and
continuous
compliance.

IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy
and
Economic
Impacts
Generally,
we
do
not
expect
the
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
to
be
very
significant.
Currently,
the
one
operating
refinery
has
all
of
the
required
air
pollution
control
equipment
in
place
and
operating.
The
only
impacts
will
be
the
estimated
cost
of
$
48,000
for
the
additional
monitoring,
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
required
by
the
proposed
rule.

V.
Solicitation
of
Comments
and
Public
Participation
We
seek
full
public
participation
in
arriving
at
final
decisions
and
encourage
comments
on
all
aspects
of
the
proposed
rule
from
all
interested
parties.
You
need
to
submit
full
supporting
data
and
detailed
analysis
with
your
comments
to
allow
us
to
make
the
best
use
of
them.
Be
sure
to
direct
your
comments
to
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center,
Docket
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0043
(
see
ADDRESSES).

VI.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
EPA
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and,
therefore,
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlement,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
is
not
a
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00055
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2978
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
``
significant
regulatory
action''
because
none
of
the
listed
criteria
apply
to
this
action.
Consequently,
the
proposed
rule
was
not
submitted
to
OMB
for
review
under
Executive
Order
12866.

B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
Under
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
The
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law
unless
the
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
If
EPA
complies
by
consulting,
Executive
Order
13132
requires
EPA
to
provide
to
OMB,
in
a
separately
identified
section
of
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
a
federalism
summary
impact
statement
(
FSIS).
The
FSIS
must
include
a
description
of
the
extent
of
EPA's
prior
consultation
with
State
and
local
officials,
a
summary
of
the
nature
of
their
concerns
and
the
agency's
position
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation,
and
a
statement
of
the
extent
to
which
the
concerns
of
State
and
local
officials
have
been
met.
Also,
when
EPA
transmits
a
draft
final
rule
with
federalism
implications
to
OMB
for
review
pursuant
to
Executive
Order
12866,
EPA
must
include
a
certification
from
the
Agency's
Federalism
Official
stating
that
EPA
met
the
requirements
of
Executive
Order
13132
in
a
meaningful
and
timely
manner.
The
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
None
of
the
affected
facilities
are
owned
or
operated
by
State
governments,
and
the
proposed
rule
would
not
preempt
any
State
laws
that
are
more
stringent.
Therefore,
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,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
In
addition,
the
proposed
rule
is
required
by
statute
and,
if
implemented,
will
not
impose
any
substantial
direct
compliance
costs.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.

C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
the
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes.''
The
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Thus
Executive
order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule.
In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13175
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
tribal
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
additional
comment
on
the
proposed
rule
from
tribal
officials.

D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant,''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
EPA
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
The
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5
 
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
technology
based
and
not
based
on
health
or
safety
risks.
No
children's
risk
analysis
was
performed
because
no
alternative
technologies
exist
that
would
provide
greater
stringency
at
a
reasonable
cost.
Further,
the
proposed
rule
has
been
determined
not
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866.

E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Pub.
L.
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
the
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
costbenefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
the
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least­
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
the
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
leastcostly
most
cost­
effective,
or
leastburdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
the
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00056
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2979
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
The
EPA
has
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
estimated
costs
of
$
100
million
or
more
to
either
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
The
maximum
total
annual
cost
of
the
proposed
rule
for
any
year
has
been
estimated
to
be
less
than
$
48,000.
Thus,
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
In
addition,
the
EPA
has
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments
because
it
contains
no
requirements
that
apply
to
such
governments
or
impose
obligations
upon
them.
Therefore,
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
et
seq.
The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
according
to
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
size
standards
for
NAICS
code
331419
(
i.
e.,
Primary
Magnesium
Refining)
of
1,000
or
fewer
employees;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
Based
on
the
above
definition
of
small
entities,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
there
are
no
small
businesses
within
this
source
category
that
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule.
Therefore,
because
the
proposed
rule
will
not
impose
any
requirements
on
small
entities,
EPA
certifies
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
the
proposed
rule
will
be
submitted
for
approval
to
OMB
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
An
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
document
has
been
prepared
by
EPA
(
ICR
No.
2098.01),
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
e­
mail
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1672.
A
copy
also
may
be
downloaded
off
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
The
information
requirements
are
not
effective
until
OMB
approves
them.
The
information
requirements
are
based
on
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A),
which
are
mandatory
for
all
operators
subject
to
NESHAP.
These
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
specifically
authorized
by
section
112
of
the
CAA
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7414).
All
information
submitted
to
the
EPA
pursuant
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
which
a
claim
of
confidentiality
is
made
is
safeguarded
according
to
Agency
policies
in
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
B.
The
proposed
rule
would
require
applicable
one­
time
notifications
required
by
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A)
for
each
affected
source.
As
required
by
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A),
all
plants
would
be
required
to
prepare
and
operate
by
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
Plants
also
would
be
required
to
prepare
an
operation
and
maintenance
plan
for
capture
systems
and
control
devices
subject
to
operating
limits.
Records
would
be
required
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
monitoring,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements
for
capture
systems,
control
devices,
and
monitoring
systems.
Semiannual
compliance
reports
also
are
required.
These
reports
would
describe
any
deviation
from
the
standards,
any
period
a
continuous
monitoring
system
was
out­
of­
control,
or
any
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
event
where
actions
taken
to
respond
were
inconsistent
with
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
If
no
deviation
or
other
event
occurred,
only
a
summary
report
would
be
required.
Consistent
with
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A),
if
actions
taken
in
response
to
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
event
are
not
consistent
with
the
plan,
an
immediate
report
must
be
submitted
within
2
days
of
the
event
with
a
letter
report
7
days
later.
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
averaged
over
the
first
3
years
after
[
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
Federal
Register]
is
estimated
to
total
731
labor
hours
per
year
at
a
total
annual
cost
of
$
43,289,
including
labor,
capital,
and
operation
and
maintenance.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purpose
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
existing
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
number
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
Comments
are
requested
on
the
EPA's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.
Send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2136),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20503,
marked
``
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.''
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.
Because
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
January
22,
2003,
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
February
21,
2003.
The
final
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00057
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2980
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
proposal.

H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
of
1995
(
Pub.
L.
104
 
113;
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note),
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
their
regulatory
and
procurement
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impracticable.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
such
as
material
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
business
practices)
developed
or
adopted
by
one
or
more
voluntary
consensus
standard
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
annual
reports
to
OMB,
with
explanations
when
an
agency
does
not
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
The
proposed
rule
involves
technical
standards.
The
EPA
proposes
to
use
EPA
Methods
1,
2,
2F,
2G,
3,
3A,
3B,
4,
5,
5D,
26,
26A,
and
210
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
We
conducted
searches
to
identify
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
addition
to
these
EPA
methods.
No
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards
were
identified
for
EPA
Methods
2F,
2G,
5D,
26,
26A
and
201.
The
search
and
review
results
have
been
documented
and
placed
in
Docket
OAR
 
2002
 
0043.
The
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
compliance
demonstration
requirements
in
the
proposed
rule
and
specifically
invites
the
public
to
identify
potentially­
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
Commenters
should
also
explain
why
the
proposed
rule
should
adopt
these
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
lieu
of
or
in
addition
to
EPA's
standards.
Emission
test
methods
and
performance
specifications
submitted
for
evaluation
should
be
accompanied
with
a
basis
for
the
recommendation,
including
method
validation
data.

I.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
The
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
November
26,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.
For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,
part
63,
of
the
Code
of
the
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
63
 
[
AMENDED]

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

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

2.
Part
63
is
amended
by
adding
subpart
TTTTT
to
read
as
follows:

Subpart
TTTTT
 
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Primary
Magnesium
Refining
Sec.

What
This
Subpart
Covers
63.9880
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?
63.9881
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?
63.9882
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?
63.9883
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

Emission
Limitations
63.9890
What
emission
limitations
must
I
meet?
63.9891
What
work
practice
standards
must
I
meet
for
my
fugitive
dust
sources?

Operation
and
Maintenance
Requirements
63.9900
What
are
my
operation
and
maintenance
requirements?

General
Compliance
Requirements
63.9910
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?

Initial
Compliance
Requirements
63.9911
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?
63.9912
When
must
I
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests?
63.9913
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
for
particulate
matter
and
PM10?
63.9914
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
chlorine
and
hydrochloric
acid
emission
limits?
63.9915
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
dioxin/
furan
limits?
63.9916
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
establish
and
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
operating
limits?
63.9917
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
that
apply
to
me?
63.9918
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
that
apply
to
me?
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements
63.9920
What
are
my
continuous
monitoring
requirements?
63.9921
What
are
the
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements
for
my
monitors?
63.9922
How
do
I
monitor
and
collect
data
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?
63.9923
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
that
apply
to
me?
63.9924
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
that
apply
to
me?
63.9925
What
other
requirements
must
I
meet
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?

Notifications,
Reports,
and
Records
63.9930
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?
63.9931
What
reports
must
I
submit
and
when?
63.9932
What
records
must
I
keep?
63.9933
In
what
form
and
how
long
must
I
keep
my
records?

Other
Requirements
and
Information
63.9940
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?
63.9941
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?
63.9942
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Tables
to
Subpart
TTTTT
of
Part
63
Table
1
to
Subpart
TTTTT
of
Part
63
 
Emission
Limitations
Table
2
to
Subpart
TTTTT
of
Part
63
 
Toxic
Equivalency
Factors
Table
3
to
Subpart
TTTTT
of
Part
63
 
Initial
Compliance
with
Emission
Limits
Table
4
to
Subpart
TTTTT
of
Part
63
 
Continuous
Compliance
with
Emission
Limits
Table
5
to
Subpart
TTTTT
of
Part
63
 
Applicability
of
General
Provisions
to
Subpart
TTTTT
of
Part
63
Subpart
TTTTT
 
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Primary
Magnesium
Refining
What
This
Subpart
Covers
§
63.9880
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?

This
subpart
establishes
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
emitted
from
primary
magnesium
refineries.
This
subpart
also
establishes
requirements
to
demonstrate
initial
and
continuous
compliance
with
all
applicable
emission
limitations
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements.

§
63.9881
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?

You
are
subject
to
this
subpart
if
you
own
or
operate
a
primary
magnesium
refinery
that
is
(
or
is
part
of)
a
major
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
11
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00058
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2981
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
source
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
emissions
on
the
first
compliance
date
that
applies
to
you.
Your
primary
magnesium
refinery
is
a
major
source
of
HAP
if
it
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
any
single
HAP
at
a
rate
of
10
tons
or
more
per
year
or
any
combination
of
HAP
at
a
rate
of
25
tons
or
more
per
year.

§
63.9882
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?

(
a)
This
subpart
applies
to
each
new
and
existing
affected
source
at
your
primary
magnesium
refining
facility.
(
b)
The
affected
sources
are
each
new
and
existing
primary
magnesium
refining
facility.
(
c)
This
subpart
covers
emissions
from
each
spray
dryer
stack,
magnesium
chloride
storage
bins
scrubber
stack,
melt/
reactor
system
stack,
and
launder
off­
gas
system
stack
at
your
primary
magnesium
refining
facility.
(
d)
Each
spray
dryer,
magnesium
chloride
storage
bins
scrubber,
launder
off­
gas
system,
and
melt/
reactor
system
at
your
primary
magnesium
refining
facility
is
existing
if
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
of
the
affected
source
before
January
22,
2003.
(
e)
Each
spray
dryer,
magnesium
chloride
storage
bins
scrubber,
melt/
reactor
system,
and
launder
off­
gas
system
at
your
primary
magnesium
refining
facility
is
new
if
you
commence
construction
or
reconstruction
of
the
affected
source
on
or
after
January
22,
2003.
An
affected
source
is
reconstructed
if
it
meets
the
definition
of
reconstruction
in
§
63.2.

§
63.9883
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

(
a)
If
you
have
an
existing
source,
you
must
comply
with
each
emission
limitation
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
no
later
than
[
DATE
1
YEAR
AFTER
THE
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register].
(
b)
If
you
have
a
new
affected
source
and
its
initial
startup
date
is
on
or
before
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register],
you
must
comply
with
each
emissions
limitation
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
by
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register].
(
c)
If
you
have
a
new
affected
source
and
its
initial
startup
date
is
after
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register],
you
must
comply
with
each
emission
limitation
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
upon
initial
startup.
(
d)
If
your
primary
magnesium
refinery
is
an
area
source
that
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP,
the
following
compliance
dates
apply
to
you:
(
1)
Any
portion
of
the
existing
primary
magnesium
refinery
that
is
a
new
affected
source
or
a
new
reconstructed
source
must
be
in
compliance
with
this
subpart
upon
startup.
(
2)
All
other
parts
of
the
primary
magnesium
refinery
must
be
in
compliance
with
this
subpart
no
later
than
2
years
after
it
becomes
a
major
source.
(
e)
You
must
meet
the
notification
and
schedule
requirements
in
§
63.9930.
Several
of
these
notifications
must
be
submitted
before
the
compliance
date
for
your
affected
source.

Emission
Limitations
§
63.9890
What
emission
limitations
must
I
meet?

(
a)
You
must
meet
each
emission
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
(
b)
For
each
wet
scrubber
applied
to
meet
any
particulate
matter,
particulate
matter
10
(
PM10),
chlorine,
hydrochloric
acid,
or
dioxins/
furans
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
you
must
maintain
the
hourly
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
liquid
flow
rate
at
or
above
the
minimum
level
established
during
the
initial
or
subsequent
performance
test.

§
63.9891
What
work
practice
standards
must
I
meet
for
my
fugitive
dust
sources?

(
a)
You
must
prepare,
and
at
all
times
operate
according
to,
a
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
that
describes
in
detail
the
measures
that
will
be
put
in
place
to
control
fugitive
dust
emissions
from
all
unpaved
roads
and
other
unpaved
operational
areas.
(
b)
A
copy
of
your
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
must
be
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority
on
or
before
the
applicable
compliance
date
for
the
affected
sources
as
specified
in
§
63.9881.
The
requirement
to
operate
according
to
the
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
must
be
incorporated
by
reference
in
the
source's
operating
permit
issued
by
the
permitting
authority
under
part
70
or
71
of
this
chapter.
(
c)
You
can
use
an
existing
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
provided
it
meets
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
plan
satisfies
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section.
(
2)
The
plan
describes
the
current
measures
to
control
fugitive
dust
emission
sources.
(
3)
The
plan
has
been
approved
as
part
of
a
State
Implementation
Plan
or
title
V
permit.
(
d)
You
must
maintain
a
current
copy
of
the
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
on­
site
and
available
for
inspection
upon
request.
You
must
keep
the
plan
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
affected
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.

Operation
and
Maintenance
Requirements
§
63.9900
What
are
my
operation
and
maintenance
requirements?

(
a)
As
required
by
§
63.6(
e)(
1)(
i),
you
must
always
operate
and
maintain
your
affected
source,
including
air
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment,
in
a
manner
consistent
with
good
air
pollution
control
practices
for
minimizing
emissions
at
least
to
the
levels
required
by
this
subpart.
(
b)
You
must
prepare
and
operate
at
all
times
according
to
a
written
operation
and
maintenance
plan
for
each
control
device
subject
to
an
operating
limit
in
§
63.9890(
b).
Each
plan
must
address
preventative
maintenance
for
each
control
device,
including
a
preventative
maintenance
schedule
that
is
consistent
with
the
manufacturer's
instructions
for
routine
and
long­
term
maintenance.

General
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.9910
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?

(
a)
You
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
this
subpart
at
all
times,
except
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
as
defined
in
§
63.2.
(
b)
You
must
develop
and
implement
a
written
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
plan
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3).

Initial
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.9911
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?

(
a)
As
required
in
§
63.7(
a)(
2),
you
must
conduct
a
performance
test
within
180
calendar
days
of
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.9883
for
your
affected
source
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
each
emission
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
(
b)
For
each
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
that
applies
to
you
where
initial
compliance
is
not
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00059
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2982
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
demonstrated
using
a
performance
test,
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
within
30
calendar
days
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.9883.
(
c)
If
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
between
January
22,
2003
and
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register],
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
either
the
proposed
emission
limitation
or
the
promulgated
emission
limitation
no
later
than
[
DATE
180
CALENDAR
DAYS
AFTER
THE
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register]
or
no
later
than
180
calendar
days
after
startup
of
the
source,
whichever
is
later,
according
to
§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
ix).
(
d)
If
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
between
January
22,
2003
and
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register],
and
you
chose
to
comply
with
the
proposed
emission
limit
when
demonstrating
initial
compliance,
you
must
conduct
a
second
performance
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
promulgated
emission
limit
by
[
DATE
1
YEAR
AND
180
DAYS
FROM
THE
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register],
or
after
startup
of
the
source,
whichever
is
later,
according
to
§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
ix).

§
63.9912
When
must
I
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests?

You
must
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
all
applicable
emission
limits
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart
no
less
frequently
than
twice
(
at
mid­
term
and
renewal)
during
each
term
of
your
title
V
operating
permit.

§
63.9913
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
for
particulate
matter
and
PM10?
(
a)
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
that
applies
to
your
affected
source
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
and
the
specific
conditions
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
b)
To
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limits
for
particulate
matter
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
you
must
follow
the
test
methods
and
procedures
in
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Determine
the
concentration
of
particulate
matter
according
to
the
following
test
methods
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter:
(
i)
Method
1
to
select
sampling
port
locations
and
the
number
of
traverse
points.
Sampling
ports
must
be
located
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device
and
prior
to
any
releases
to
the
atmosphere.
(
ii)
Method
2,
2F
or
2G
to
determine
the
volumetric
flow
rate
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iii)
Method
3,
3A,
or
3B
to
determine
the
dry
molecular
weight
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iv)
Method
4
to
determine
the
moisture
content
of
the
stack
gas.
(
v)
Method
5
or
5D,
as
applicable
to
determine
the
concentration
of
particulate
matter.
(
vi)
Method
201
or
201A,
as
applicable
to
determine
the
concentration
of
PM
10.
(
2)
Collect
a
minimum
sample
volume
of
60
dry
standard
cubic
feet
of
gas
during
each
particulate
matter
or
PM10
test
run.
Three
valid
test
runs
are
needed
to
comprise
a
performance
test.
(
c)
Compute
the
mass
emissions
rate
for
each
test
run
using
Equation
1
of
this
section
as
follows:

E
C
Q
(
Eq.
1)
lb/
hr
s
std
=
×
×
60
7000
Where:
Elb/
hr
=
Mass
emissions
rate
of
particulate
matter
or
PM10
(
lb/
hr);
Cs
=
Concentration
of
particulate
matter
or
PM10
in
the
gas
stream
(
gr/
dscf);
Qstd
=
Volumetric
flow
rate
of
stack
gas(
dscfm);
60
=
Conversion
factor
(
min/
hr);
and
7000
=
Conversion
factor
(
gr/
lb).

§
63.9914
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
chlorine
and
hydrochloric
acid
emission
limits?

(
a)
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
that
applies
to
your
affected
source
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
and
the
conditions
detailed
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
b)
To
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limits
for
chlorine
and
hydrochloric
acid
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
you
must
follow
the
test
methods
and
procedures
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Determine
the
concentration
of
chlorine
and
hydrochloric
acid
according
to
the
following
test
methods
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter:
(
i)
Method
1
to
select
sampling
port
locations
and
the
number
of
traverse
points.
Sampling
ports
must
be
located
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device
and
prior
to
any
releases
to
the
atmosphere.
(
ii)
Method
2,
2F
or
2G
to
determine
the
volumetric
flow
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iii)
Method
3,
3A,
or
3B
to
determine
the
dry
molecular
weight
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iv)
Method
4
to
determine
the
moisture
content
of
the
stack
gas.
(
v)
Method
26
or
26A,
as
applicable,
to
determine
the
concentration
of
hydrochloric
acid
and
chlorine.
(
2)
Collect
a
minimum
sample
of
60
dry
standard
cubic
feet
during
each
test
run
for
chlorine
and
hydrochloric
acid.
Three
valid
test
runs
are
needed
to
comprise
a
performance
test.
(
c)
Compute
the
mass
emissions
rate
for
each
test
run
using
Equation
1
of
this
section.

E
C
Q
(
Eq.
1)
lb/
hr
s
std
=
×
×
×
60
35
31
454
000
.
,

Where:
Elb/
hr
=
Mass
emissions
rate
of
chlorine
or
hydrochloric
acid
(
lb/
hr);
Cs
=
Concentration
of
chlorine
or
hydrochloric
acid
in
the
gas
stream
(
mg/
dscm);
Qstd
=
Volumetric
flow
rate
of
stack
gas
(
dscfm);
60
=
Conversion
factor
(
min/
hr);
35.31
=
Conversion
factor
(
dscf/
dscm);
and
454,000
=
Conversion
factor
(
mg/
lb).

§
63.9915
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
dioxin/
furan
limits?

(
a)
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
that
applies
to
your
affected
source
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
and
the
conditions
detailed
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
b)
To
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limits
for
dioxins/
furans
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
you
must
follow
the
test
methods
and
procedures
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Determine
the
concentration
of
dioxin
and
furan
according
to
the
following
test
methods
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
(
i)
Method
1
to
select
sampling
port
locations
and
the
number
of
traverse
points.
Sampling
ports
must
be
located
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device
and
prior
to
any
releases
to
the
atmosphere.
(
ii)
Method
2,
2F
or
2G
to
determine
the
volumetric
flow
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iii)
Method
3,
3A,
or
3B
to
determine
the
dry
molecular
weight
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iv)
Method
4
to
determine
the
moisture
content
of
the
stack
gas.
(
v)
Method
23,
as
applicable
to
determine
the
concentration
of
dioxins/
furans.
For
each
dioxin/
furan
congener
measured
in
accordance
with
this
paragraph,
multiply
the
congener
concentration
by
its
corresponding
toxic
equivalency
factor
specified
in
Table
2
to
this
subpart.
(
2)
Collect
a
minimum
sample
of
100
dry
standard
cubic
feet
during
each
test
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00060
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
EP22JA03.001</
MATH>
EP22ja03.000</
MATH>
2983
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
run.
Three
valid
test
runs
are
needed
to
comprise
a
performance
test.

§
63.9916
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
establish
and
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
operating
limits?

(
a)
For
a
wet
scrubber
subject
to
operating
limits
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
in
§
63.9890(
b,
you
must
establish
site­
specific
operating
limits
according
to
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Using
the
continuous
parameter
monitoring
system
(
CPMS)
required
in
§
63.9920,
measure
and
record
the
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
at
least
every
15
minutes
during
each
run
of
the
particulate
matter
performance
test.
(
2)
Compute
and
record
the
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
for
each
individual
test
run.
Your
operating
limits
are
the
lowest
average
individual
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
values
in
any
of
the
three
runs
that
meet
the
applicable
emission
limit.
(
b)
[
Reserved]

§
63.9917
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
that
apply
to
me?

(
a)
For
each
affected
source
subject
to
an
emission
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
you
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if:
(
1)
You
meet
the
conditions
in
Table
3
to
this
subpart;
and
(
2)
For
each
wet
scrubber
subject
to
the
operating
limits
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
in
§
63.9890(
b),
you
have
established
appropriate
site­
specific
operating
limits
and
have
a
record
of
the
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
measured
during
the
performance
test
in
accordance
with
§
63.9915(
a).
(
b)
[
Reserved]

§
63.9918
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
that
apply
to
me?

(
a)
You
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
by
certifying
in
your
notification
of
compliance
status
that
you
have
met
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
You
have
prepared
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.9910;
and
(
2)
You
will
operate
each
control
device
according
to
the
procedures
in
the
plan;
and
(
3)
You
submit
a
notification
of
compliance
status
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.9930.
(
b)
[
Reserved]

Continuous
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.9920
What
are
my
continuous
monitoring
requirements?

For
each
wet
scrubber
subject
to
the
operating
limits
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rates
in
§
63.9890(
b),
you
must
at
all
times
monitor
the
hourly
average
pressure
drop
and
liquid
flow
rate
using
a
CPMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.9921(
a).

§
63.9921
What
are
the
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements
for
my
monitors?

(
a)
For
each
wet
scrubber
subject
to
the
operating
limits
in
§
63.9890(
b)
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate,
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
CPMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
For
the
pressure
drop
CPMS,
you
must:
(
i)
Locate
the
pressure
sensor(
s)
in
or
as
close
to
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
measurement
of
the
pressure
and
that
minimizes
or
eliminates
pulsating
pressure,
vibration,
and
internal
and
external
corrosion.
(
ii)
Use
a
gauge
with
a
minimum
measurement
sensitivity
of
0.5
inch
of
water
or
a
transducer
with
a
minimum
measurement
sensitivity
of
1
percent
of
the
pressure
range.
(
iii)
Check
the
pressure
tap
for
pluggage
daily.
(
iv)
Using
a
manometer,
check
gauge
calibration
quarterly
and
transducer
calibration
monthly.
(
v)
Conduct
calibration
checks
any
time
the
sensor
exceeds
the
manufacturer's
specified
maximum
operating
pressure
range,
or
install
a
new
pressure
sensor.
(
vi)
At
least
monthly,
inspect
all
components
for
integrity,
all
electrical
connections
for
continuity,
and
all
mechanical
connections
for
leakage.
(
2)
For
the
scrubber
water
flow
rate
CPMS,
you
must:
(
i)
Locate
the
flow
sensor
and
other
necessary
equipment
in
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
flow
and
that
reduces
swirling
flow
or
abnormal
velocity
distributions
due
to
upstream
and
downstream
disturbances.
(
ii)
Use
a
flow
sensor
with
a
minimum
measurement
sensitivity
of
2
percent
of
the
flow
rate.
(
iii)
Conduct
a
flow
sensor
calibration
check
at
least
semiannually
according
to
the
manufacturer's
instructions.
(
iv)
At
least
monthly,
inspect
all
components
for
integrity,
all
electrical
connections
for
continuity,
and
all
mechanical
connections
for
leakage.
(
b)
You
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
CPMS
for
a
wet
scrubber
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Each
CPMS
must
complete
a
minimum
of
one
cycle
of
operation
for
each
successive
5­
minute
period.
(
2)
Each
CPMS
must
have
valid
data
for
at
least
95
percent
of
every
averaging
period.
(
3)
Each
CPMS
must
determine
and
record
the
average
of
all
recorded
readings.

§
63.9922
How
do
I
monitor
and
collect
data
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?

(
a)
Except
for
monitoring
malfunctions,
associated
repairs,
and
required
quality
assurance
or
control
activities
(
including
as
applicable,
calibration
checks
and
required
zero
and
span
adjustments),
you
must
monitor
continuously
(
or
collect
data
at
all
required
intervals)
at
all
times
an
affected
source
is
operating.
(
b)
You
may
not
use
data
recorded
during
monitoring
malfunctions,
associated
repairs,
and
required
quality
assurance
or
control
activities
in
data
averages
and
calculations
used
to
report
emission
or
operating
levels
or
to
fulfill
a
minimum
data
availability
requirement,
if
applicable.
You
must
use
all
the
data
collected
during
all
other
periods
in
assessing
compliance.
(
c)
A
monitoring
malfunction
is
any
sudden,
infrequent,
not
reasonably
preventable
failure
of
the
monitoring
to
provide
valid
data.
Monitoring
failures
that
are
caused
in
part
by
poor
maintenance
or
careless
operation
are
not
malfunctions.

§
63.9923
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
that
apply
to
me?

For
each
affected
source
subject
to
an
emission
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
according
to
the
requirements
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart.

§
63.9924
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
that
apply
to
me?

(
a)
For
each
emission
point
subject
to
an
emission
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
§
63.9900
by
performing
preventive
maintenance
for
each
control
device
according
to
§
63.9900(
b)
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00061
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2984
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
(
b)
You
must
maintain
a
current
copy
of
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
required
in
§
63.9900(
b)
on
site
and
available
for
inspection
upon
request.
You
must
keep
the
plans
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
affected
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.

§
63.9925
What
other
requirements
must
I
meet
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?

(
a)
Deviations.
You
must
report
each
instance
in
which
you
did
not
meet
each
emission
limitation
in
§
63.9890
that
applies
to
you.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
You
must
also
report
each
instance
in
which
you
did
not
meet
each
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
required
in
§
63.9900
that
applies
to
you.
These
instances
are
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
this
subpart.
These
deviations
must
be
reported
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.9931.
(
b)
Startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions.
During
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction,
you
must
operate
in
accordance
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
(
1)
Consistent
with
§
§
63.6(
e)
and
63.7(
e)(
1),
deviations
that
occur
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
are
not
violations
if
you
demonstrate
to
the
Administrator's
satisfaction
that
you
were
operating
in
accordance
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
(
2)
The
Administrator
will
determine
whether
deviations
that
occur
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
are
violations,
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e).

Notifications,
Reports,
and
Records
§
63.9930
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?

(
a)
You
must
submit
all
of
the
notifications
in
§
§
63.6(
h)(
4)
and
(
5),
63.7(
b)
and
(
c),
63.8(
f)(
4),
and
63.9(
b)
that
apply
to
you
by
the
specified
dates.
(
b)
As
specified
in
§
63.9(
b)(
2),
if
you
startup
your
affected
source
before
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register],
you
must
submit
your
initial
notification
no
later
than
[
DATE
120
DAYS
AFTER
THE
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register].
(
c)
As
specified
in
§
63.9(
b)(
3),
if
you
start
your
new
affected
source
on
or
after
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register,
you
must
submit
your
initial
notification
no
later
than
120
calendar
days
after
you
become
subject
to
this
subpart.
(
d)
If
you
are
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
a
notification
of
intent
to
conduct
a
performance
test
at
least
60
calendar
days
before
the
performance
test
is
scheduled
to
begin
as
required
in
§
63.7(
b)(
1).
(
e)
If
you
are
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstration,
you
must
submit
a
notification
of
compliance
status
according
to
§
63.9(
h)(
2)(
ii).
(
1)
For
each
initial
compliance
demonstration
that
does
not
include
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
the
notification
of
compliance
status
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
30th
calendar
day
following
completion
of
the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
(
2)
For
each
initial
compliance
demonstration
that
does
include
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
the
notification
of
compliance
status,
including
the
performance
test
results,
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
60th
calendar
day
following
the
completion
of
the
performance
test
according
to
§
63.10(
d)(
2).

§
63.9931
What
reports
must
I
submit
and
when?

(
a)
Compliance
report
due
dates.
Unless
the
Administrator
has
approved
a
different
schedule,
you
must
submit
a
semiannual
compliance
report
to
your
permitting
authority
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
first
compliance
report
must
cover
the
period
beginning
on
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.9883
and
ending
on
June
30
or
December
31,
whichever
date
comes
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
source
in
§
63.9883.
(
2)
The
first
compliance
report
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
July
31
or
January
31,
whichever
date
comes
first
after
your
compliance
report
is
due.
(
3)
Each
subsequent
compliance
report
must
cover
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
January
1
through
June
20
or
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
July
1
through
December
31.
(
4)
Each
subsequent
compliance
report
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
July
31
or
January
31,
whichever
date
comes
first
after
the
end
of
the
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
5)
For
each
affected
source
that
is
subject
to
permitting
regulations
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
70
or
71,
and
if
the
permitting
authority
has
established
dates
for
submitting
semiannual
reports
pursuant
to
40
CFR
70.6(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6(
3)(
iii)(
A),
you
may
submit
the
first
and
subsequent
compliance
reports
according
to
the
dates
the
permitting
authority
has
established
instead
of
according
to
the
dates
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
b)
Compliance
report
contents.
Each
compliance
report
must
include
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section
and,
as
applicable,
paragraphs
(
b)(
4)
through
(
8)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Company
name
and
address.
(
2)
Statement
by
a
responsible
official,
with
that
official's
name,
title,
and
signature,
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
content
of
the
report.
(
3)
Date
of
report
and
beginning
and
ending
dates
of
the
reporting
period.
(
4)
If
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period
and
you
took
actions
consistent
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
the
compliance
report
must
include
the
information
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
i).
(
5)
If
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
continuous
compliance
requirements
in
§
§
63.9923
and
63.9924
that
apply
to
you,
a
statement
that
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations
or
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
during
the
reporting
period.
(
6)
If
there
were
no
periods
during
which
a
CPMS
was
out­
of­
control
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
c)(
7),
a
statement
that
there
were
no
periods
during
which
the
CPMS
was
out­
of­
control
during
the
reporting
period.
(
7)
For
each
deviation
from
an
emission
limitation
in
§
63.9890
that
occurs
at
an
affected
source
where
you
are
not
using
a
CPMS
to
comply
with
an
emission
limitation
in
this
subpart,
the
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
and
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
7)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
i)
The
total
operating
time
of
each
affected
source
during
the
reporting
period.
(
ii)
Information
on
the
number,
duration,
and
cause
of
deviations
(
including
unknown
cause,
if
applicable)
as
applicable
and
the
corrective
action
taken.
(
8)
For
each
deviation
from
an
emission
limitation
occurring
at
an
affected
source
where
you
are
using
a
CPMS
to
comply
with
the
emission
limitation
in
this
subpart,
you
must
include
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
and
the
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00062
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2985
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
information
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
8)(
i)
through
(
xi)
of
this
section.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
i)
The
date
and
time
that
each
malfunction
started
and
stopped.
(
ii)
The
date
and
time
that
each
continuous
monitoring
was
inoperative,
except
for
zero
(
low­
level)
and
highlevel
checks.
(
iii)
The
date,
time,
and
duration
that
each
continuous
monitoring
system
was
out­
of­
control,
including
the
information
in
§
63.8(
c)(
8).
(
iv)
The
date
and
time
that
each
deviation
started
and
stopped,
and
whether
each
deviation
occurred
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
or
during
another
period.
(
v)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviation
during
the
reporting
period
and
the
total
duration
as
a
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
during
that
reporting
period.
(
vi)
A
breakdown
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviations
during
the
reporting
period
including
those
that
are
due
to
startup,
shutdown,
control
equipment
problems,
process
problems,
other
known
causes,
and
other
unknown
causes.
(
vii)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
of
continuous
monitoring
system
downtime
during
the
reporting
period
and
the
total
duration
of
continuous
monitoring
system
downtime
as
a
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
during
the
reporting
period.
(
viii)
A
brief
description
of
the
process
units.
(
ix)
A
brief
description
of
the
continuous
monitoring
system.
(
x)
The
date
of
the
latest
continuous
monitoring
system
certification
or
audit.
(
xi)
A
description
of
any
changes
in
continuous
monitoring
systems,
processes,
or
controls
since
the
last
reporting
period.
(
c)
Immediate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report.
If
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
semiannual
reporting
period
that
was
not
consistent
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
you
must
submit
an
immediate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii).
(
d)
Part
70
monitoring
report.
If
you
have
obtained
a
title
V
operating
permit
for
an
affected
source
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
70
or
71,
you
must
report
all
deviations
as
defined
in
this
subpart
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A).
If
you
submit
a
compliance
report
for
an
affected
source
along
with,
or
as
part
of,
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6
(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A),
and
the
compliance
report
includes
all
the
required
information
concerning
deviations
from
any
emission
limitation
or
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart,
submission
of
the
compliance
report
satisfies
any
obligation
to
report
the
same
deviations
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report.
However,
submission
of
compliance
does
not
otherwise
affect
any
obligation
you
may
have
to
report
deviations
from
permit
requirements
for
an
affected
source
to
your
permitting
authority.

§
63.9932
What
records
must
I
keep?
(
a)
You
must
keep
the
following
records:
(
1)
A
copy
of
each
notification
and
report
that
you
submitted
to
comply
with
this
subpart,
including
all
documentation
supporting
any
initial
notification
or
notification
of
compliance
status
that
you
submitted,
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiv).
(
2)
The
records
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3)(
iii)
through
(
v)
related
to
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
3)
Records
of
performance
tests
and
performance
evaluations
as
required
in
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
viii).
(
b)
You
must
keep
the
records
required
in
§
§
63.9932
and
63.9933
to
show
continuous
compliance
with
each
emission
limitation
and
operating
and
maintenance
requirement
that
applies
to
you.

§
63.9933
In
what
form
and
how
long
must
I
keep
my
records?
(
a)
Your
records
must
be
in
a
form
suitable
and
readily
available
for
expeditious
review,
according
to
§
63.10(
b)(
1).
(
b)
As
specified
in
§
63.10(
b)(
1),
you
must
keep
each
record
for
5
years
following
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record.
(
c)
You
must
keep
each
record
on
site
for
at
least
2
years
after
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record
according
to
§
63.10(
b)(
1).
You
can
keep
the
records
off
site
for
the
remaining
3
years.

Other
Requirements
and
Information
§
63.9940
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?
Table
4
to
this
subpart
shows
which
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
in
§
§
63.1
through
63.15
apply
to
you.

§
63.9941
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?
(
a)
This
subpart
can
be
implemented
and
enforced
by
us,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
U.
S.
EPA)
or
a
delegated
authority
such
as
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
If
the
U.
S.
EPA
Administrator
has
delegated
authority
to
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency,
then
that
agency
has
the
authority
to
implement
and
enforce
this
subpart.
You
should
contact
your
U.
S.
EPA
Regional
Office
to
find
out
if
this
subpart
is
delegated
to
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
(
b)
In
delegating
implementation
and
enforcement
authority
of
this
subpart
to
a
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency
under
subpart
E
of
this
part,
the
authorities
contained
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section
are
retained
by
the
Administrator
of
the
U.
S.
EPA
and
are
not
transferred
to
the
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
(
c)
The
authorities
that
will
not
be
delegated
to
State,
local,
or
tribal
agencies
are
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
test
methods
under
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
2)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
under
§
63.8(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
3)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
under
§
63.10(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.

§
63.9942
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Terms
used
in
this
subpart
are
defined
in
the
Clean
Air
Act,
in
§
63.2,
and
in
this
section
as
follows;
Chlorine
plant
bypass
scrubber
means
the
wet
scrubber
that
captures
chlorine
gas
during
a
chlorine
plant
shut
down
or
failure.
Deviation
means
any
instance
in
which
an
affected
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
or
an
owner
or
operator
of
such
a
source:
(
1)
Fails
to
meet
any
requirement
or
obligation
established
by
this
subpart,
including
but
not
limited
to
any
emission
limitation
(
including
operating
limits)
or
operation
and
maintenance
requirement;
(
2)
Fails
to
meet
any
term
or
condition
that
is
adopted
to
implement
an
applicable
requirement
in
this
subpart
and
that
is
included
in
the
operating
permit
for
any
affected
source
required
to
obtain
such
a
permit;
or
(
3)
Fails
to
meet
any
emission
limitation
in
this
subpart
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
such
failure
is
permitted
by
this
subpart.
Emission
limitation
means
any
emission
limit,
opacity
limit,
or
operating
limit.
Launder
off­
gas
system
means
a
system
that
collects
chlorine
and
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00063
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2986
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
hydrochloric
acid
fumes
from
collection
points
within
the
melt/
reactor
system
building.
The
system
then
removes
particulate
matter
and
hydrochloric
acid
from
the
collected
gases
prior
to
discharge
to
the
atmosphere.
Magnesium
chloride
storage
bins
means
vessels
that
store
dried
magnesium
chloride
powder
produced
from
the
spray
drying
operation.
Melt/
reactor
system
means
a
system
that
melts
and
chlorinates
dehydrated
brine
to
produce
high
purity
molten
magnesium
chloride
feed
for
electrolysis.
Primary
magnesium
refining
means
the
production
of
magnesium
metal
and
magnesium
metal
alloys
from
natural
sources
of
magnesium
chloride
such
as
sea
water
or
water
from
the
Great
Salt
Lake
and
magnesium
bearing
ores.
Responsible
official
means
responsible
official
as
defined
in
§
63.2.
Spray
dryer
means
dryers
that
evaporate
brine
to
form
magnesium
powder
by
contact
with
high
temperature
gases
exhausted
from
gas
turbines.
Wet
scrubber
means
a
device
that
contacts
an
exhaust
gas
with
a
liquid
to
remove
particulate
matter
and
acid
gases
from
the
exhaust.
Examples
are
packed­
bed
wet
scrubbers
and
venturi
scrubbers.

Tables
to
Subpart
TTTTT
of
Part
63
As
required
in
§
63.9890(
a),
you
must
comply
with
each
applicable
emission
limit
in
the
following
table:

TABLE
1
TO
SUBPART
TTTTT
OF
PART
63.
 
EMISSION
LIMITATIONS
For
.
.
.
You
must
comply
with
each
of
the
following
.
.
.

1.
Each
spray
dryer
stack
...................................
a.
You
must
not
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
gases
that
contain
particulate
matter
in
excess
of
100
lbs/
hr;
and
b.
You
must
not
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
gases
that
contain
hydrochloric
acid
in
excess
of
200
lbs/
hr.
2.
Each
magnesium
chloride
storage
bins
scrubber
stack.
a.
You
must
not
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
gases
that
contain
hydrochloric
acid
in
excess
of
47.5
lbs/
hr
or
0.35
gr/
dscf;
and
b.
You
must
not
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
gases
that
contain
PM10
in
excess
of
2.7
lbs/
hr
or
0.016
gr/
dscf.
3.
Each
melt/
reactor
system
stack
......................
a.
You
must
not
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
gases
that
contain
PM10
in
excess
of
13.1
lbs/
hr;
and
b.
You
must
not
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
gases
that
contain
hydrochloric
acid
in
excess
of
7.2
lbs/
hr;
and
c.
You
must
not
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
gases
that
contain
chlorine
in
excess
of
100
lbs/
hr;
and
d.
You
must
not
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
gases
that
contain
36
ng
TEQ/
dscm
to
7%
oxygen.
4.
Each
launder
off­
gas
system
stack
.................
a.
You
must
not
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
gases
that
contain
particulate
matter
in
excess
of
37.5
lbs/
hr;
and
b.
You
must
not
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
gases
that
contain
hydrochloric
acid
in
excess
of
46.0
lbs/
hr;
and
c.
You
must
not
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
gases
that
contain
chlorine
in
excess
of
26.0
lbs/
hr.

TABLE
2
TO
SUBPART
TTTTT
OF
PART
63.
 
TOXIC
EQUIVALENCY
FACTORS
Dioxin/
furan
congener
Toxic
equivalency
factor
2,3,7,8­
tetrachlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxin
..........................................................................................................................................
1
1,2,3,7,8­
pentachlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxin
......................................................................................................................................
0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8­
hexachlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxin
....................................................................................................................................
0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9­
hexachlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxin
....................................................................................................................................
0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8­
hexachlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxin
....................................................................................................................................
0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
heptachlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxin
................................................................................................................................
0.01
octachlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxin
.......................................................................................................................................................
0.001
2,3,7,8­
tetrachlorinated
dibenzofuran
................................................................................................................................................
0.1
2,3,4,7,8­
pentachlorinated
dibenzofuran
...........................................................................................................................................
0.5
1,2,3,7,8­
pentachlorinated
dibenzofuran
...........................................................................................................................................
0.05
1,2,3,4,7,8­
hexachlorinated
dibenzofuran
.........................................................................................................................................
0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8­
hexachlorinated
dibenzofuran
.........................................................................................................................................
0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9­
hexachlorinated
dibenzofuran
.........................................................................................................................................
0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8­
hexachlorinated
dibenzofuran
.........................................................................................................................................
0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
heptachlorinated
dibenzofuran
.....................................................................................................................................
0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9­
heptachlorinated
dibenzofuran
.....................................................................................................................................
0.01
octachlorinated
dibenzofuran
.............................................................................................................................................................
0.001
TABLE
3
TO
SUBPART
TTTTT
OF
PART
63.
 
INITIAL
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EMISSIONS
LIMITS
As
required
in
63.9916,
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
according
to
the
following
table:

For
.
.
.
You
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
.
.
.

1.
Each
spray
dryer
stack
...............
a.
The
average
mass
flow
of
particulate
matter
from
the
control
system
applied
to
emissions
from
each
spray
dryer,
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.9913(
c),
did
not
exceed
100
lbs/
hr;
and
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00064
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2987
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
3
TO
SUBPART
TTTTT
OF
PART
63.
 
INITIAL
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EMISSIONS
LIMITS
 
Continued
As
required
in
63.9916,
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
according
to
the
following
table:

For
.
.
.
You
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
.
.
.

b.
The
average
mass
flow
of
hydrochloric
acid
from
the
control
system
applied
to
emissions
from
each
spray
dryer,
determined
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.9914(
c),
did
not
exceed
200
lbs/
hr.
2.
Each
magnesium
chloride
storage
bins
scrubber
stack.
a.
The
average
mass
flow
of
hydrochloric
acid
from
the
control
system
applied
to
the
magnesium
chloride
storage
bins
scrubber
exhaust,
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedure
in
§
63.9914,
did
not
exceed
47.5
lbs/
hr;
and
b.
The
average
mass
flow
of
PM10
from
the
control
system
applied
to
the
magnesium
chloride
storage
bins
scrubber
exhaust,
determined
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.9913,
did
not
exceed
2.7
lbs/
hr.
3.
Each
melt/
reactor
system
stack
a.
The
average
mass
flow
of
PM10
from
the
control
system
applied
to
the
melt/
reactor
system
exhaust,
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.9913,
did
not
exceed
13.1
lbs/
hr;
and
b.
The
average
mass
flow
of
hydrochloric
acid
from
the
control
system
applied
to
the
melt/
reactor
system
exhaust,
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.9914,
did
not
exceed
7.2
lbs/
hr;
and
c.
The
average
mass
flow
of
chlorine
from
the
control
system
applied
to
the
melt/
reactor
system
exhaust,
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.9914,
did
not
exceed
100
lbs/
hr.
d.
The
average
concentration
of
dioxins/
furans
from
the
control
system
applied
to
the
melt/
reactor
system
exhaust,
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.9915,
did
not
exceed
36
ng
TEQ/
dscm
to
7%
oxygen.
4.
Each
launder
off­
gas
system
stack.
a.
The
average
mass
flow
of
particulate
matter
from
the
control
system
applied
to
the
launder
off­
gas
system
collection
system
exhaust,
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.9913,
did
not
exceed
37.5
lbs/
hr;
and
b.
The
average
mass
flow
of
hydrochloric
acid
from
the
control
system
applied
to
the
launder
off­
gas
system
collection
system
exhaust,
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.9914,
did
not
exceed
46.0
lbs/
hr;
and
c.
The
average
mass
flow
of
chlorine
from
the
control
system
applied
to
the
launder
off­
gas
system
collection
system
exhaust,
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.9914,
did
not
exceed
26.0
lbs/
hr.

TABLE
4
TO
SUBPART
TTTTT
OF
PART
63.
 
CONTINUOUS
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EMISSION
LIMITS
As
required
in
§
63.9923,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
according
to
the
following
table:

For
.
.
.
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
.
.
.

1.
Each
spray
dryer
stack
...............
a.
Maintaining
emissions
of
PM10
at
or
below
100
lbs/
hr;
and
b.
Maintaining
emissions
of
hydrochloric
acid
at
or
below
200
lbs/
hr;
and
c.
Conducting
subsequent
performance
tests
at
least
twice
during
each
term
of
your
title
V
operating
permit
(
at
mid­
term
and
renewal).
2.
Magnesium
chloride
storage
bins
scrubber
stack.
a.
Maintaining
emissions
of
hydrochloric
acid
at
or
below
47.5
lbs/
hr
or
0.35
gr/
dscf;
and
b.
Maintaining
emissions
of
PM10
at
or
below
2.7
lbs/
hr
or
0.016
gr/
dscf;
and
c.
Conducting
subsequent
performance
tests
at
least
twice
during
each
term
of
your
title
V
operating
permit
(
at
mid­
term
and
renewal).
3.
Each
melt/
reactor
system
stack
a.
Maintaining
emissions
of
PM10
at
or
below
13.1
lbs/
hr;
and
b.
Maintaining
emissions
of
hydrochloric
acid
at
or
below
7.2
lbs/
hr;
and
c.
Maintaining
emissions
of
chlorine
at
or
below
100
lbs/
hr;
and
d.
Maintaining
emissions
of
dioxins/
furans
at
or
below
36
ng
TEQ/
dscm
to
7%
oxygen.
e.
Conducting
subsequent
performance
test
at
least
twice
during
each
term
of
your
title
V
operating
permit
(
at
mid­
term
and
renewal).
4.
Each
launder
off­
gas
system
stack.
a.
Maintaining
emissions
of
particulate
matter
at
or
below
37.5
lbs/
hr;
and
b.
Maintaining
emissions
of
hydrochloric
acid
at
or
below
46.0
lbs/
hr;
and
c.
Maintaining
emissions
of
chlorine
at
or
below
26.0
lbs/
hr;
and
d.
Conducting
subsequent
performance
tests
at
least
twice
during
each
term
of
your
title
V
operating
permit
(
at
mid­
term
and
renewal).

TABLE
5
TO
SUBPART
TTTTT
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
TTTTT
OF
PART
63
As
required
in
§
63.9950,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A)
shown
in
the
following
table:

Citation
Subject
Applies
to
Subpart
TTTTT
Explanation
63.1
.................................
Applicability
.............................................................
Yes.
63.2
.................................
Definitions
...............................................................
Yes.
63.3
.................................
Units
and
Abbreviations
..........................................
Yes.
63.4
.................................
Prohibited
Activities
................................................
Yes.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00065
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
2988
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
14
/
Wednesday,
January
22,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
5
TO
SUBPART
TTTTT
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
TTTTT
OF
PART
63
 
Continued
As
required
in
§
63.9950,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A)
shown
in
the
following
table:

Citation
Subject
Applies
to
Subpart
TTTTT
Explanation
63.5
.................................
Construction
and
Reconstruction
...........................
Yes.
63.6(
a)
 
(
g)
......................
Compliance
with
Standards
and
Maintenance
Requirements
Yes.

63.6(
h)
.............................
Determining
Compliance
with
Opacity
and
Visible
Emission
standards.
No.

63.6(
i)
 
(
j)
.........................
Extension
of
Compliance
and
Presidential
Compliance
Exemption.
Yes.

63.7(
a)(
1)
 
(
2)
..................
Applicability
and
Performance
Test
Dates
.............
No
............
Subpart
TTTTT
specifies
performance
test
applicability
and
dates.
63.7(
a)(
3),
(
b)
 
(
h)
...........
Performance
Testing
Requirements
.......................
Yes.
63.8
except
for
(
a)(
4),(
c)(
4),
and
(
f)(
6).
Monitoring
Requirements
........................................
Yes.

63.8(
a)(
4)
........................
Additional
Monitoring
Requirements
for
Control
Devices
in
§
63.11.
No
............
Subpart
TTTTT
does
not
require
flares.

63.8(
c)(
4)
.........................
Continuous
Monitoring
System
Requirements
.......
No
............
Subpart
TTTTT
specifies
requirements
for
operation
of
CMS.
63.8(
f)(
6)
.........................
Relative
Accuracy
Test
Alternative
(
RATA)
...........
No
............
Subpart
TTTTT
does
not
require
continuous
emission
monitoring
systems.
63.9
.................................
Notification
Requirements
.......................................
Yes
63.9(
g)(
5)
........................
Data
Reduction
.......................................................
No
............
Subpart
TTTTT
specifies
data
reduction
requirements
63.10
except
for(
b)(
2)(
xiii)
and
(
c)(
7)
 
(
8).
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Requirements
........
Yes.

63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiii)
................
Continuous
Monitoring
System
(
CMS)
Records
for
RATA
Alternative.
No
............
Subpart
TTTTT
does
not
require
continuous
emission
monitoring
systems.
63.10(
c)(
7)
 
(
8)
................
Records
of
Excess
Emissions
and
Parameter
Monitoring
Accedences
for
CMS.
No
............
Subpart
TTTTT
specifies
recordkeeping
requirements
63.11
...............................
Control
Device
Requirements
.................................
No
............
Subpart
TTTTT
does
not
require
flares.
63.12
...............................
State
Authority
and
Delegations
.............................
Yes.
63.13
 
63.15
....................
Addresses,
Incorporation
by
Reference,
Availability
of
Information.
Yes.

[
FR
Doc.
03
 
89
Filed
1
 
21
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
48
CFR
Parts
1511
and
1552
[
FRL
 
7441
 
1]

Acquisition
Regulation:
Background
Checks
for
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Contractors
Performing
Services
On­
Site
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
proposing
to
amend
the
EPA
Acquisition
Regulation
(
EPAAR)
to
add
a
clause
requiring
contractors
(
and
subcontractors)
to
perform
background
checks
and
make
suitability
determinations
for
contractor
(
and
subcontractor)
employees
performing
services
on
or
within
Federally­
owned
or
leased
space
and
facilities,
commercial
space
primarily
occupied
by
Federal
employees,
and
Superfund,
Oil
Pollution
Act,
and
Stafford
Act
sites.
The
clause
will
require
contractors
(
and
subcontractors)
to
perform
background
checks
and
make
suitability
determinations
on
their
employees
before
the
employees
can
perform
onsite
contract
services
for
the
EPA.
Contracting
Officers
will
be
allowed
to
waive
the
requirements
of
the
clause
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
The
process
contemplated
by
the
clause
will
allow
EPA
to
mitigate
any
actual
or
potential
threat
to
the
public
health,
welfare
and
the
environment.
DATES:
Comments
should
be
submitted
no
later
than
March
24,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
by
mail,
electronically,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
For
comments
submitted
by
mail,
send
three
copies
of
your
comments
to:
OEI
Docket,
Title:
Background
Checks
for
EPA
Contractors
Performing
Services
On­
Site,
EPA
Docket
Center
(
28221T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington
DC,
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OARM
 
2002
 
0001.
For
comments
submitted
electronically
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier,
please
follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Unit
I
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Thomas
Valentino,
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Acquisition
Management,
Mail
Code
(
3802R),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Telephone:
(
202)
564
 
4522.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Information
on
the
proposed
regulation
for
background
checks
for
contractors
(
and
subcontractors)
performing
on­
site
work
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
General
Information
A.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OARM
 
2002
 
0001.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
27
Jan
21,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00066
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
22JAP1.
SGM
22JAP1
