

[Federal Register: July 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 135)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 40315-40342]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy06-15]                         


[[Page 40315]]

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

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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


[[Page 40316]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121; FRL-8190-5]
RIN 2060-AM43

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On November 10, 2003, EPA promulgated national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants for miscellaneous organic 
chemical manufacturing. Several petitions for judicial review of the 
final rule were filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit. Petitioners expressed concern with 
various requirements in the final rule, including applicability of 
specific operations and processes, the leak detection and repair 
requirements for connectors, criteria to define affected wastewater 
streams requiring control, control requirements for wastewater streams 
that contain only soluble hazardous air pollutants, the definition of 
``process condensers,'' and recordkeeping requirements for Group 2 
batch process vents. In this action, EPA amends the final rule to 
address these issues and to correct inconsistencies that have been 
discovered during the review process.

DATES: Effective Date: July 14, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air 

and Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121, EPA/DC, EPA 
West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5402, fax number: (919) 
541-0246; e-mail address: mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
          Category               NAICS code \1\      regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................  3251, 3252, 3253,      Producers of
                              3254, 3255, 3256,      specialty organic
                              and 3259, with         chemicals,
                              several exceptions.    explosives, certain
                                                     polymers and
                                                     resins, and certain
                                                     pesticide
                                                     intermediates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.2435 of 
subpart FFFF (national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP) for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing). If you have 
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the 
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of 
subpart A (General Provisions).
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the final action will also available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of the final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.
 The TTN provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), judicial review of the final amendments is available only by 
filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit by September 12, 2006. Under section 
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the final amendments that 
was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public 
comment may be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the final 
amendments may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within 
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection 
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time 
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a 
copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the 
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    Organization of This Document. The information presented in this 
preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
    A. Applicability
    B. Emission Limits, Compliance Options, and Initial Compliance 
Requirements
    C. Monitoring Requirements
    D. Recordkeeping and Reporting
III. Response to Comments
    A. Applicability

[[Page 40317]]

    B. Requirements for Process Vents
    C. Requirements for Wastewater
    D. Requirements for Equipment Leaks
    E. Initial Compliance Requirements
    F. Monitoring Requirements
    G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    H. Overlap With Other Rules
    I. Definitions
    J. Miscellaneous Technical Corrections
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    On November 10, 2003, we promulgated NESHAP for miscellaneous 
organic chemical (MON) manufacturing as subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63. 
Petitions for review of the MON were filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by American Chemistry 
Council, Eastman Chemical Company, Clariant LSM (America), Inc., Rohm 
and Haas Company, General Electric Company, Coke Oven Environmental 
Task Force, and Lyondell Chemical Company (collectively 
``Petitioners'').\1\ These matters were consolidated into American 
Chemical Council, et al. v. EPA, No. 04-1004, 04-1005, 04-1008, 04-
1009, 04-1010, 04-1012, 04-1013 (District of Columbia Circuit). Issues 
raised by the petitioners included applicability of the final rule; 
leak detection and repair requirements for connectors; definitions of 
process condenser, continuous process vent, and Group 1 wastewater; 
treatment requirements for wastewater that is Group 1 only for soluble 
hazardous air pollutants (SHAP); recordkeeping for Group 2 batch 
process vents; and notification requirements for Group 2 emission 
points that become Group 1 emission points. In early October 2005, the 
parties signed a settlement agreement. Pursuant to section 113(g) of 
the CAA, notice of the settlement was published in the Federal Register 
on October 26, 2005 (70 FR 61814).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Fertilizer Institute and Arteva Specialties S. `ar.l 
also filed petitions for review but voluntarily withdrew their 
petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 8, 2005, we proposed amendments to subpart FFFF to 
address the issues raised by Petitioners and made other corrections and 
clarifications to ensure that the final rule is implemented as 
intended. We received a total of 20 comment letters from 18 
stakeholders. Most of the letters were from companies that will have 
affected sources under subpart FFFF, three were from industry trade 
associations, three were from environmental consulting firms, and one 
was from a law firm on behalf of some of the petitioners. The final 
amendments reflect full consideration of the petition, and all of the 
public comments we received on the proposed amendments.

II. Summary of the Final Amendments

    The final amendments clarify applicability of subpart FFFF, provide 
additional compliance options, modify initial and continuous compliance 
requirements, and simplify recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 
Significant changes are summarized in the sections below. Additional 
clarifications and corrections are highlighted in Table 1 to this 
preamble and in the preamble to the proposed amendments (70 FR 73098, 
December 8, 2005). Collectively, these provisions will reduce the 
burden associated with demonstrating compliance without affecting 
emissions control or the ability of enforcement agencies to ensure 
compliance.

A. Applicability

    The final amendments exempt carbon monoxide production and 
additional polymer finishing operations from subpart FFFF. In the 
definition of the term ``miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 
process,'' the final amendments clarify the end point of processes that 
produce solid products.

B. Emission Limits, Compliance Options, and Initial Compliance 
Requirements

    Many of the changes in the final amendments involve requirements 
for process vents. For example, Table 2 in the amended rule allows 
floating roof technology to control batch process vent emissions from 
process tanks. The final amendments also change the definition of the 
term ``continuous process vent'' to include all continuous operations, 
not just reactors, air oxidation reactors, and distillation units. A 
corresponding change has been made in the definition of the term 
``surge control vessel.'' Another change to the definition of the term 
``continuous process vent'' requires determinations of continuous 
process vents prior to combination with emissions from another 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit (MCPU).
    Table 3 in the final rule currently requires control of 
``particulate matter (PM) hazardous air pollutant (HAP)'' emissions 
from process vents at new sources. The amendments replace requirements 
for ``PM HAP'' with requirements for ``HAP metals.'' One of the related 
changes is that the emissions threshold above which control is required 
has been changed from 400 pounds per year (lb/yr) of PM HAP to 150 lb/
yr of HAP metals. Another change in the amended rule is that Method 29 
of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 is allowed as an alternative to Method 
5 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
    We have amended the definition of the term ``process condenser'' to 
clarify what it means for a condenser to be ``integral to the MCPU.'' 
Under the current definition, condensers that receive vapor streams 
from batch operations in an MCPU at temperatures below the boiling or 
bubble point of the HAP are not process condensers. The amended 
definition includes most of these condensers, provided they are capable 
of and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel 
value, use, or reuse, or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. 
Exceptions are provided for condensers that are considered to be part 
of recovery devices.
    The final amendments specify corrected procedures for using 
specified equations to calculate uncontrolled emissions from process 
condensers. The revised procedures require consideration of the 
condenser exit gas temperature and composition of the condensate. 
Alternatively, uncontrolled emissions from process condensers may be 
estimated based on engineering assessments under the same conditions as 
the final rule currently allows for estimating emissions directly from 
the process vessels. The final amendments also specify initial 
compliance requirements for process condensers. You must either measure 
the exhaust gas temperature and show it is less than the boiling or 
bubble point of the substance in the process vessel or perform a 
material balance around the vessel and condenser to show that at least 
99 percent of the material vaporized while boiling is condensed.
    The final amendments specify that biofilters are an option for 
complying with the 95 percent reduction emission limit for batch 
process vents (see Table

[[Page 40318]]

2 to subpart FFFF of part 63). Related amendments in 40 CFR 
63.2460(c)(9) specify initial and continuous compliance requirements 
for biofilters. A performance test must be conducted to demonstrate 
initial compliance. Either temperature or organic monitoring devices 
are required to demonstrate continuous compliance. Average temperatures 
must be determined if you elect to measure temperature at several 
locations in the biofilter bed. As for other types of control devices, 
the amendments related to biofilters also cross-reference the testing 
and continuous parameter monitoring system(s) (CPMS) requirements in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SS.
    The final amendments add a compliance option in Table 3 of subpart 
FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions 
from process vents. A halogen atom mass flow rate emission limit of 
0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) is allowed as an alternative to the 
current emission limits that require either a 99 percent reduction or 
control to an outlet concentration limit of 20 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv). This mass emission limit applies to each individual 
continuous process vent and to the collection of all batch process 
vents within an MCPU.
    The final amendments change several of the requirements for 
wastewater. The concentrations and mass discharge rates of partially 
soluble HAP (PSHAP), SHAP, and total HAP that define a Group 1 
wastewater stream have been changed. The definition of the term ``point 
of determination'' (POD) has been changed to specify that the point 
where effluent is discharged from a scrubber or other control device is 
a POD. Methyl ethyl ketone has been removed from the list of PSHAP in 
Table 8 to subpart FFFF of part 63.\2\ A new 40 CFR 63.2485(o) requires 
the CPMS records specified in 40 CFR 63.998(c)(1) in addition to the 
records specified in 40 CFR 63.147(d) for non-flare control devices. 
Finally, a new compliance option is included in 40 CFR 63.2485(n) that 
allows certain waste management units in a biotreatment system to be 
uncovered if the wastewater being treated is Group 1 only for SHAP. 
This option also allows lift stations with a volume larger than 10,000 
gallons to have openings sized as necessary for proper venting as an 
alternative to the currently specified vent pipe dimensions in 40 CFR 
63.136(e)(2)(ii)(A). Amendments in 40 CFR 63.2485(n) also added initial 
compliance procedures that are specific to the new compliance option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ MEK has been removed as a result of its removal from the CAA 
section 112(b)(1) list of HAP. [70 FR 75047, December 19, 2005]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For equipment leaks, the final amendments allow compliance with 40 
CFR part 63, subpart H as an alternative to compliance with either 40 
CFR part 63, subpart UU or 40 CFR part 65, subpart F. The amendments 
eliminate the option for existing sources of complying with 40 CFR part 
63, subpart TT. However, the final amendments also allow two exceptions 
to the three available options. First, for pumps at an existing 
affected source, you may elect to comply with a leak definition of 
10,000 parts per million (ppm) as an alternative to the leak 
definitions specified in the cross-referenced rules. Second, for 
connectors in gas service or light liquid service at any affected 
source, you may elect to comply with the requirements for connectors in 
heavy liquid service. The final amendments also specify that bench-
scale processes are exempt from the equipment leak requirements.
    The final amendments eliminate reporting requirements for offsite 
cleaning and reloading facilities that control emissions from rail cars 
and tank trucks that are used in vapor balancing for storage tanks at 
the affected source. For an offsite cleaning or reloading facility that 
is subject to any other NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63, the final 
amendments specify that compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements in the other rule demonstrates compliance 
with the requirements in subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63.
    Final amendments to 40 CFR 63.2445 clarify that an initial 
compliance demonstration must be conducted within 150 days after any of 
the following process changes: A Group 2 emission point becomes a Group 
1 emission point, hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions from the 
sum of all process vents in a process increase to more than 1,000 lb/
yr, or a small control device for process vent or transfer rack 
emissions becomes a large control device.

C. Monitoring Requirements

    The final amendments include several changes to the parameter 
monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2450(k). For halogen 
scrubbers, monitoring caustic strength of the effluent is allowed as an 
alternative to measuring pH. If the halogen scrubber controls emissions 
only from batch process vents, the caustic strength or pH may be 
measured daily instead of continuously. For absorbers that control 
organic compounds and use water as the scrubbing fluid, liquid and gas 
flow rates may be monitored instead of the parameters in the current 
rule. The periodic verification option for control devices that control 
less than 1 ton per year of HAP is now allowed for all control devices, 
not just those that control only batch process vents.

D. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    The final amendments reduce or eliminate recordkeeping requirements 
in 40 CFR 63.2525(e) for Group 2 batch process vents. Recordkeeping is 
eliminated for Group 2 batch process vents that are always controlled 
with either a flare that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 63.987 or any 
other control device that meets the requirements for Group 1 batch 
process vents, provided the worst-case conditions for the control 
device includes the contribution of all Group 2 batch process vents. 
Reduced recordkeeping is allowed if non-reactive organic HAP is the 
only HAP in the process and usage is less than 10,000 lb/yr or if 
emissions are less than 1,000 lb/yr. Estimating uncontrolled organic 
HAP emissions is not required if you demonstrate that non-reactive 
organic HAP usage is less than 10,000 lb/yr. Data and supporting 
rationale explaining why non-reactive organic HAP usage will be less 
than 10,000 lb/yr must be included in your notification of compliance 
status report.
    The final amendments also reduce or clarify reporting requirements. 
As clarification for process changes in 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(10), it 
should be noted that a new MCPU is created when a new product is made 
which is not part of an existing family of materials. Process changes 
to an existing MCPU such as the addition of new or different equipment, 
use of different feedstock, or addition of a parallel process may be a 
change in the operating scenario, but do not constitute a new MCPU. The 
definition of the term ``batch process vent'' has been amended to 
eliminate reporting requirements associated with determinations that 
emissions from batch operations have HAP emissions below the thresholds 
for batch process vents. The final amendments eliminate the requirement 
in 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(10)(ii)(C) of the final rule to provide a 60-day 
advance notification before batch process vents change from Group 2 to 
Group 1. Under the amended rule, you must document such a change in 
status in your notification of compliance status report in accordance 
with 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(10)(i). We changed 40 CFR 63.2465(b) to specify

[[Page 40319]]

that the results of engineering assessments used to estimate 
uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions are to be 
documented in your notification of compliance status report, not your 
precompliance report. Finally, the amended rule requires operating logs 
(and copies of the applicable logs in compliance reports) only for 
processes with batch process vents from batch operations, not all 
processes.

III. Response to Comments

A. Applicability

    Comment: Although not directly related to the proposed amendments, 
one commenter expressed concern that, despite previous attempts at 
clarification, a potential for overlap and conflict between the 
applicability provisions in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) and the 
miscellaneous coating manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
HHHHH) still exists. Based on the rules as currently written and 
additional guidance from EPA (70 FR 25678, May 11, 2005), the commenter 
understands that any process that produces a material that is used as a 
coating is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. The commenter has 
two concerns with this requirement. First, it is not clear which rule 
applies to the production of materials that have both coating and non-
coating uses. Second, some coating manufacturing processes involve 
traditional chemical manufacturing operations, including reactions, 
which differ significantly from the processes consisting of mixing and 
blending operations that were used to develop the maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT) floor and regulatory requirements in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHHH. On the other hand, these processes are similar 
to processes that were used to develop the MACT floor and regulatory 
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.
    To resolve the conflicts, the commenter requested that we issue a 
separate rulemaking to revise definitions in the Miscellaneous Coating 
Manufacturing NESHAP. The commenter, in conjunction with other 
companies, suggested changes to definitions in earlier communications 
with EPA. If changes are made before the compliance dates of both 
rules, needless effort to prepare and review precompliance reports for 
these situations can be avoided.
    Response: We share the commenter's concern about the potential for 
conflict in applicability determinations. To clarify the applicability 
and eliminate the conflict, we have proposed changes to the definition 
of the term ``coating'' in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 
NESHAP (71 FR 28639, May 17, 2006). One of the proposed changes would 
clarify that only material produced by blending, mixing, dilution, or 
other formulation operations would be a coating. Thus, a process that 
involves only formulation operations would be subject to 40 CFR part 
63, subpart HHHHH if the product is a coating. A second proposed change 
would clarify applicability for processes that involve chemical 
synthesis or separation of formulation components prior to the 
formulation operations. If the synthesized or separated material is 
stored as an isolated intermediate or final product prior to use in the 
formulation operation, the synthesis or separation process is subject 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. Thus, applicability of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF would end with the storage vessel fed from the synthesis 
or separation operation, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH would apply 
following storage through final production of the coating. When the 
synthesized or separated component is not stored before use in a 
formulation step, the second proposed change to the definition of the 
term ``coating'' would specify that a coating does not include 
materials made in processes where a formulation component is 
synthesized by chemical reaction or separation activity and then 
transferred to another vessel (without storage) where it is formulated 
to produce a material used as a coating. The preamble to these proposed 
amendments to the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing NESHAP states 
that comments must be received on or before July 3, 2006.
    Comment: One commenter described how they think several tanks in a 
specific miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process would be 
classified under the amended rule. According to the commenter, a molten 
material from batch reactors is collected in tank A. Typically, the 
material from tank A is sent to a continuous centrifuge to remove a 
catalyst. The catalyst-free material is then transferred to either tank 
B or tank C. Still molten, material in tanks B and C is either 
transferred to rail cars for shipment or used onsite as feed material 
for a flaker or pastille maker. The flaker and pastille maker operates 
continuously, except when it is necessary to switch from one feed tank 
to the other. The commenter believes tank A is a surge control vessel, 
and tanks B and C are either storage tanks or surge control vessels.
    Response: Although this is not the proper forum for a site-specific 
applicability determination, we will provide a general assessment based 
on the limited available information. Because it is managing the flow 
of material into a continuous operation, tank A is a surge control 
vessel. Since the material in tanks B and C is sometimes sold, these 
tanks mark the end of the process, and the tanks are storage tanks. In 
this case, the flaker and pastille maker is a separate process.
    The determination would be more difficult if all of the material in 
tanks B and C was used onsite. If material were sometimes added to and 
withdrawn from these tanks simultaneously, then they would be managing 
flow to a continuous operation, and they would be surge control 
vessels. On the other hand, if it could be demonstrated that the tanks 
are being used solely for storage, then the molten material would be an 
isolated intermediate, and tanks B and C would be storage tanks. Note 
that in table 1 to this preamble we describe a change in the final 
amendments to the definition of ``isolated intermediates.'' This change 
clarifies that storage equipment for isolated intermediates is part of 
the MCPU that produces the isolated intermediate.
    Comment: One commenter thinks polymer products should not be 
regulated as ``volatile organic liquids'' under either subpart FFFF or 
other regulatory programs because they have very high molecular weights 
and negligible vapor pressure.
    Response: Processes that produce certain polymer products are 
regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF if HAP are used in the 
process. However, only the HAP are subject to emission limits. The non-
HAP polymer products themselves are not subject to emission limits 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The requirements in other 
regulatory programs are not addressed in this response: Because today's 
action deals only with amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.

B. Requirements for Process Vents

    Comment: The proposed amendments included an additional compliance 
option for batch process vents that would allow the use of biofilters 
to comply with the 95 percent reduction option. One commenter requested 
that this option be made available for continuous process vents as 
well. The commenter realizes that, technically, biofilters may be used 
to comply with the 98 percent reduction option in table 1 to subpart 
FFFF, but the commenter

[[Page 40320]]

believes this is not feasible with current biofilter technology. To 
support his request, the commenter noted that biofilters have 
environmental benefits relative to the combustion devices they are 
likely to supplant. Specifically, both the consumption of fossil fuels 
and the generation of criteria pollutant emissions would be lower if 
continuous process vents are controlled using biofilters. The commenter 
also noted that there is no technological barrier to using biofilters 
to control emissions from continuous operations, and there is 
regulatory precedent for their use to control emissions from continuous 
operations (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD and subpart UUUU).
    Response: We have decided not to include the requested biofilter 
option at this time. Although we agree that biofilters have some 
environmental advantages over combustion devices, we are concerned that 
the difference between 98 percent and 95 percent reduction in HAP 
emissions is not offset by the benefits of reduced fuel use and 
criteria pollutant emissions. Analysis of the offsets was not necessary 
for batch process vents because the rule already included a 95 percent 
reduction option before the biofilter option was proposed.
    This issue is not closed. We have initiated a study to investigate 
the applicability of biofilters for continuous process vent emissions 
from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing processes. Some of 
the things we would like to determine are as follows. What level of 
control can be achieved? Does the level of control vary for different 
HAP? What effect do other emission stream characteristics such as flow 
rate and temperature have on the control efficiency? How much of the 
HAP removed from the emission stream is transferred to wastewater 
discharges? How much electricity is needed to run fans and pumps 
associated with a biofilter? How much solid waste is generated by 
biofilters, and how must it be disposed? Using the information 
collected, we will also reassess the environmental impacts of 
biofilters versus combustion devices. Depending on the results, we may 
decide to propose some type of biofilter option for continuous process 
vents in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF in the future.
    Comment: One of the proposed amendments added a compliance option 
for process vents that emit hydrogen halide and halogen HAP. This 
option, in entry 1.b. of Table 3 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63, 
would allow compliance by reducing the ``halogen atom mass emission 
rate to < =0.45 halogen HAP kg/hr by venting through a closed vent 
system to a halogen reduction device.'' Three commenters noted that it 
is unclear which vents need to be controlled when the collective 
hydrogen halide and halogen emissions from all vents in a process are 
at least 1,000 lb/yr. The commenters suggested clarifying that the 
limit applies to each individual process vent. According to two of the 
commenters, if a stream that is controlled to < 0.45 kg/hr is in 
compliance, then it seems logical that any uncontrolled stream from the 
process that contains < 0.45 kg/hr should also be in compliance.
    Response: Application of the 0.45 kg/hr limit for hydrogen halide 
and halogen HAP differs for batch and continuous process vents. It 
applies to the sum of all batch vents and to each individual continuous 
process vent. This approach is consistent with the way limits are 
applied for organic HAP emissions from batch and continuous process 
vents. The language in Table 3 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 has 
been changed to clarify the requirements.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the language in 
40 CFR 63.2450(o), which currently states that ``you may not use a 
flare to control halogenated vent streams or hydrogen halide and 
halogen HAP emissions.'' The commenter is concerned that this language 
appears to prohibit all vent streams with hydrogen halide and halogen 
HAP from flares, even if no control of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
is required for the stream. To clarify the paragraph, the commenter 
suggests changing it to read as follows: ``You may not use a flare to 
control halogenated vent streams or as a control device for hydrogen 
halide and halogen HAP emissions to comply with Table 3.''
    Response: We have changed 40 CFR 63.2450(o) as suggested by the 
commenter because the suggested language is consistent with our intent, 
and it may eliminate confusion. If hydrogen halide and halogen HAP in a 
vent stream must be controlled to meet the emission limits in Table 3 
to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63, then that vent stream may not be 
vented to a flare. All other vent streams that contain hydrogen halide 
and halogen HAP may be vented to a flare. For example, a continuous 
process vent stream containing less than 0.45 kg/hr of hydrogen halide 
and halogen HAP could be sent to the flare.
    Comment: Two commenters noted that the language in entry 1.a of 
Table 3 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 appears to require the use of 
a single closed-vent system to convey hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
from all process vents in a process to a control device(s). According 
to the commenters, this could be a problem because it is possible that 
the process vents within a process that must be controlled may be 
separated by distances that would make collection into a single closed-
vent system impractical or uneconomical. The commenters suggested 
changing the language to allow for the use of a ``combination of 
closed-vent systems.''
    Response: We did not intend to force the use of a single control 
device (or series of control devices) for all process vents within the 
process. Therefore, we have changed entries 1.a and 1.b in Table 3 to 
subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 to allow venting through ``one or more 
closed-vent systems.'' We also amended entries 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c in 
Table 2 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 in the same manner. These 
changes provide flexibility to use as many separate control devices as 
necessary.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the language in 
40 CFR 63.2495(b)(1), which currently specifies that ``Hydrogen halides 
that are generated as a result of combustion control must be controlled 
according to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.994 and the requirements 
referenced therein.'' The commenter is concerned that this language 
appears to require the use of halogen reduction devices regardless of 
the halogen atom concentration in the emission stream that is 
combusted. This conflicts with provisions elsewhere in the rule that 
require the use of halogen reduction devices only when halogenated vent 
streams are combusted.
    Response: To eliminate the inconsistency that the commenter 
identified, we have amended 40 CFR 63.2495(b)(1) to require control of 
hydrogen halides generated by combustion control only ``if any vent 
stream routed to a combustion control is a halogenated vent stream.''
    Comment: One commenter stated that regenerative thermal oxidizers 
(RTO) should be recognized as a form of incineration that can be used 
for control as long as any combined control system meets the 98 percent 
control efficiency or outlet concentration limit.
    Response: RTO are acceptable control devices under the rule. 
Nothing in the rule prohibits their use alone or in combination with 
other devices to meet specified emission limits for organic HAP.

C. Requirements for Wastewater

    Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the POD for 
scrubbers. According to the commenter, the point where effluent is 
discharged from a

[[Page 40321]]

scrubber should be a POD, and the effluent itself should be process 
wastewater, only when the scrubber is used to comply with the emission 
limits for process vents. The commenter suggested adding language like 
that in 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(1)(iii) of the Pharmaceuticals Production 
NESHAP.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the requirements for 
scrubber effluent need to be clarified. On July 1, 2005, we published 
direct final rule amendments (70 FR 38554) and a parallel proposal (70 
FR 38562) that specified requirements for effluent from control 
devices. We later withdrew these amendments because of adverse comment 
(70 FR 51269, August 30, 2005). As a result, the rule is now silent on 
the requirements for scrubber effluent.
    We disagree with the commenter's assertion that only scrubbers that 
are used to meet emission limits for process vents should have a POD. 
If a process operates a few hours per year, it may have Group 2 batch 
process vent emissions with high HAP concentrations. If such emission 
streams are controlled with a scrubber, we believe that the effluent 
discharges should be considered for possible compliance with wastewater 
requirements.
    After consideration of the comment and evaluation of requirements 
in other rules, we have decided to resolve the existing ambiguity by 
modifying the definition of ``point of determination'' in the final 
amendments. In general, 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF references the 
wastewater requirements in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON), 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart G, including the POD definition in 40 CFR 63.111. 
According to this definition, a POD is each point where process 
wastewater exits the chemical manufacturing process unit (CMPU) (or 
MCPU, in the case of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF). However, the term 
does not have the same meaning under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF as it 
does in the HON due to an unintended consequence created by the 
decision to exclude control devices from the MCPU (whereas they are 
part of CMPU under the HON). To make the application of POD under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF consistent with their application in the HON, 
the final amendments include a freestanding (i.e., non-cross-
referenced) term ``point of determination'' in 40 CFR 63.2550(i) of 40 
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. This revised definition specifies that a POD 
is each point where process wastewater exits the MCPU or control 
device.
    As a result of this change, effluent discharge points from all 
scrubbers, not just those that are used to meet emission limits for 
process vents, are POD. Discharge points from other types of control 
devices are also POD. The effluent also is process wastewater, as under 
the HON. To determine if the effluent is subject to requirements for 
wastewater, you must determine if it meets any of the Group 1 
wastewater criteria, just like for other process wastewater streams.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that methyl ethyl ketone 
(MEK) be deleted from the list of PSHAP in Table 8 to subpart FFFF of 
40 CFR part 63 because MEK was removed from the list of HAP in the CAA 
on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75047). One of the commenters suggested a 
separate rulemaking to address the situation before the compliance 
date.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that MEK should no longer be 
listed in Table 8 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 because MEK has 
been removed from the HAP list. Therefore, we removed MEK from Table 8 
to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 in the final rule amendments.

D. Requirements for Equipment Leaks

    Comment: One commenter requested that bench-scale operations be 
exempt from the MON just as in the HON at 40 CFR 63.160(f) and 40 CFR 
63.190(f), the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP at 40 CFR 
63.1255(a)(6), and the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP at 
40 CFR 63.1363(a)(6). The commenter states that the justification for 
excluding bench-scale operations from the other rules, as stated in the 
preamble to an amendment for the HON (60 FR 18071, April 10, 1995), is 
equally applicable to the MON source category.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have corrected this 
oversight by adding an exemption for bench-scale batch operations in a 
new 40 CFR 63.2480(d). Although the term ``bench-scale batch 
operations'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.161 of the HON, we also added the 
same definition in the final amendments to 40 CFR 63.2550(i) because 
the term is not defined in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or in 40 CFR part 
65, subpart A.
    Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed amendments to the 
requirements for equipment leaks at existing sources in Table 6 to 
subpart FFFF. These changes would eliminate the 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
TT option for MCPU with no continuous process vents in favor of a new 
above-the-floor option that would require all MCPU to comply with 
either 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, or 40 CFR part 65, subpart F, both 
modified to allow sensory monitoring of connectors in place of Method 
21 monitoring.
    The commenter stated four objections to the proposed changes. 
First, the commenter does not believe we have met the statutory 
requirement to demonstrate that the costs of the new option are 
reasonable, particularly for equipment in an MCPU with no continuous 
process vents. To illustrate this concern, the commenter provided 
information for an example pump and concluded that the additional cost 
to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU instead of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TT could be over $70,000 per ton of HAP removed.
    Second, the commenter disagrees with our assertion that a 
consistent set of options for all MCPU will simplify applicability 
because this determination needs to consider other rules that apply at 
the MON facilities. For example, if a facility with MON batch 
operations is also subject to the Organic Liquid Distribution NESHAP, 
for which 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT is a compliance option, then 
eliminating the 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT option from the MON could 
make applicability more complicated.
    Third, even if the nationwide benefits of reduced connector 
monitoring for continuous operations more than offsets the additional 
nationwide burden to comply with the 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for all 
MCPU, the commenter is concerned that the offsets are inequitably 
distributed. Facilities primarily engaged in batch chemical 
manufacturing would incur additional costs but receive little or no 
benefit, whereas facilities that primarily operate continuous chemical 
manufacturing processes will receive the benefits but incur little or 
no cost.
    Fourth, the commenter stated that the new leak detection and repair 
(LDAR) options do not appropriately recognize the difference in 
potential environmental impact between batch and continuous operations. 
The commenter noted that, prior to the amendments, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF allowed for the fundamental differences of scale and modes 
of operation between continuous and batch operations by properly 
allocating the stringency of equipment leak requirements. The commenter 
argued that the proposed change does neither. The higher stringency of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart UU is appropriate for large continuous 
operations but not for small batch operations.
    Response: In the analysis for the proposed amendments, the MACT 
floor

[[Page 40322]]

for all MCPU was an LDAR program equivalent to the requirements in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart TT, and the above-the-floor option lowered the 
leak definition for pumps and valves to the level specified in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart UU. Although we stand by our original conclusion that 
the average nationwide impacts of the proposed above-the-floor option 
are reasonable, we also share the commenter's concern that the benefits 
and costs are not distributed equitably among facilities with different 
types of operations, especially when considering the leak detection and 
repair program already implemented at the facility.
    Upon closer examination of the results of the cost analysis, it is 
clear that the incremental impacts for pumps in MCPU that have no 
continuous process vents are much more significant than the impacts for 
valves in those same processes and the impacts for MCPU that have 
continuous process vents. To mitigate the excessive burden for batch 
operations already in compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, we 
have modified the above-the-floor option to lower the pump leak 
definition only for MCPU with continuous process vents (the option 
still lowers the leak definition for valves in all MCPU). As a result 
of this change, the incremental impacts for both batch and continuous 
operations are reasonable. For the final amendments, we did not change 
the language in Table 6 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 (i.e., the 
LDAR programs in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU and 40 CFR part 65, subpart 
F are still the starting point for all MCPU). However, new language in 
40 CFR 63.2480(b)(5) and (c)(5) specifies that you may elect to comply 
with a leak definition of 10,000 ppm for pumps in light liquid service 
in an MCPU that has no continuous process vents and is part of an 
existing source.
    In addition to the changes described above for pumps, the final 
amendments also include an additional compliance option for equipment 
leaks. Many facilities with processes that are subject to 40 CFR part 
63, subpart FFFF also have processes that are subject to the equipment 
leak provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. The requirements in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart H are substantially similar to the requirements in 
40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. Therefore, we decided to modify Table 6 of 
subpart FFFF to 40 CFR part 63 to allow compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart H as another alternative. This option provides additional 
flexibility, and it may reduce the burden for some owners and operators 
while achieving the same level of emissions control.

E. Initial Compliance Requirements

1. Design Evaluations
    Comment: A proposed amendment to 40 CFR 63.2450(h) would clarify 
that the option to conduct a design evaluation instead of a performance 
test for a small control device applies only to control devices used to 
control process vents and transfer racks because other provisions in 
the rule already allow design evaluations for storage tanks and 
wastewater. Section 63.2450(h) also references the criteria for design 
evaluations in 40 CFR 63.1257(a)(1) of the Pharmaceuticals Production 
NESHAP. One commenter believes it would be preferable to require 
compliance with the design evaluation requirements in 40 CFR 63.985(b) 
for small control devices used to meet the emission limits in Tables 1, 
3, and 5 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63, and require compliance with 
40 CFR 63.1257(a)(1) only for control devices used to meet the emission 
limits specified in Table 2 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63. 
According to the commenter, referencing the design evaluation 
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS for the emission types subject 
to Tables 1, 3, and 5 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 is appropriate 
because the performance test and other requirements in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS also apply to those emission types. The commenter also 
recommended adding the following statement: ``For continuous process 
vents the design evaluation shall be conducted at maximum 
representative operating conditions for the process, unless the 
Administrator specifies or approves alternate operating conditions.''
    Response: Although written in very different styles, the intent of 
the design evaluation requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and 
the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP are essentially the same, to the 
extent they overlap. We decided not to reference both sets of 
requirements because we believe it is clearer to reference only one 
wherever possible. We selected the criteria in the Pharmaceuticals 
Production NESHAP because they are slightly more comprehensive than the 
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (e.g., they include criteria 
for scrubbers and non-regenerative carbon adsorbers). Furthermore, the 
language in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP is nearly identical 
to the language in 40 CFR 63.139 of the HON, which 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF references for wastewater control devices.
    We agree with the commenter's suggested clarification regarding the 
conditions under which the design evaluation should be conducted for a 
control device that controls continuous process vents. This language is 
borrowed from 40 CFR 63.997(e)(1)(i), and it will ensure that design 
evaluations are conducted under the same conditions as performance 
tests. It also complements the instructions in 40 CFR 
63.2460(c)(2)(ii), which specify conditions under which a design 
evaluation should be conducted for a control device that controls batch 
process vents. Thus, we added the commenter's suggested language in 40 
CFR 63.2450(h). Along these same lines, we also added a statement 
specifying that a design evaluation for a control device that is used 
to control transfer racks must demonstrate that the required efficiency 
is achieved during the reasonably expected maximum transfer loading 
rate.
2. Requirements After Process Changes
    Comment: Proposed amendments in 40 CFR 63.2445(d), (e), and (f) 
specify requirements that apply after various types of process changes. 
In each case, the proposed amendments specify that a performance test 
or design evaluation is required within 150 days of the process change. 
Two commenters requested clarification of the proposed amendments 
because they noted that an initial compliance demonstration does not 
always require a performance test or design evaluation. For example, 
one commenter pointed out that no performance test should be required 
if the facility complies with the alternative standard or routes the 
emission stream to a fuel gas system. The other commenter described a 
situation where a performance test should not be required because a 
previous test is still valid. According to this commenter, when 
production is scaled up so that Group 2 batch process vents become 
Group 1 batch process vents, production may be shifted to different 
equipment for which initial compliance was previously demonstrated 
under worst-case conditions that are not exceeded by the operating 
scenario for the new process. To clarify the amendments, one commenter 
suggested replacing the references to performance tests and design 
evaluations with a reference to ``an initial compliance demonstration 
as specified in this subpart.''
    Response: Our intent was to require a performance test or design 
evaluation after the specified types of process changes only when a 
performance test or design evaluation would have been required to 
demonstrate initial

[[Page 40323]]

compliance if the situation after the change had existed at the time 
the facility first became subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. The 
commenters correctly observed that in some situations initial 
compliance can be demonstrated without a performance test or design 
evaluation, or it can be demonstrated using a previous performance 
test. Therefore, we revised 40 CFR 63.2445(d), (e), and (f) in the 
final rule amendments to require any applicable initial compliance 
demonstration instead of requiring only a new performance test or 
design evaluation.
3. Calculation of Uncontrolled Emissions
    Comment: One commenter pointed out that the calculation of HAP 
emissions from process condensers requires knowledge of condensate 
receiver composition and condenser exit gas temperature (or direct 
knowledge of exit gas stream composition). In most cases, data on the 
condensate composition is not available. The commenter stated that 
typical errors made in estimating emissions following process 
condensers include use of condenser exit water temperature instead of 
exit gas temperature, lack of an applied material balance, and use of 
reactor vessel liquid phase mole fraction to determine partial pressure 
of condensables in the condenser exit gas (single most common mistake). 
When the operator has no knowledge of the liquid condensate mole 
fractions, a material balance must be used to determine the mole 
fractions present in equilibrium with the exiting emission stream. The 
commenter provided an example of a material balance based on 
noncondensables for a process operation involving toluene and xylene. 
The commenter further points out that for process operations where 
temperature and pressure are changing, the material balance may be 
complex. In summary, the commenter stated that it is essential that the 
noncondensable material balance be applied in conjunction with an 
iterative solution to solve condensate liquid mole fraction for cases 
where liquid composition in the receiver is not known.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the required procedures 
to calculate uncontrolled emissions when a vessel is equipped with a 
process condenser should be corrected to reflect the condenser exit gas 
temperature and composition of the condensate. The following 
assumptions apply for calculating uncontrolled emissions from process 
vent from a process condenser:
    (1) For all condenser calculations one would use the condenser exit 
gas temperature and pressure as the reference conditions.
    (2) It should be assumed that the condenser exit vent gas is in 
equilibrium with the liquid condensate which is also leaving the 
condenser based on the exit gas temperature. Therefore, the calculated 
vapor pressure for each volatile component in the condensate would have 
approximately the same calculated partial pressure of the same 
component in the exit vent gas from the condenser.
    (3) Dalton's Law would be used to calculate the partial pressure of 
the noncondensable component (air, nitrogen, * * *) contained in the 
condenser exit vent gas. This is where the sum of all of the partial 
pressures is equal to the total system pressure and the partial 
pressure of the noncondensable component would be calculated by 
subtracting the sum of all volatile component vapor pressures from the 
total system pressure.
    (4) Material balance considerations should be taken into account 
for each component at the condenser. The amount of each component that 
enters the condenser should be approximately equal to the amount that 
is calculated to leave the condenser through the exit vapor stream and 
the exit condensate liquid stream.
    (5) The amount of each component that is emitted from the condenser 
should be determined first. The total HAP that are emitted from the 
condenser may then be calculated from the component emission totals. It 
is likely that many of the compounds that are emitted from the 
condenser may not be HAP but would need to be calculated as part of the 
overall condenser solution.
    In all but the simplest cases (single component systems) the 
solution to the condenser problem will require a numerical iteration as 
part of the basic procedure. We are changing the procedures for 
calculating emissions from condensers to be as technically correct as 
possible. This is important because uncontrolled emission estimates are 
used as a threshold for requiring installation and operation of control 
devices.
    Comment: As part of the proposed amendments, a new paragraph was 
added at 40 CFR 63.2460(b)(4) to require the use of procedures in 40 
CFR 63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) to calculate uncontrolled batch process vent 
emissions from a vessel equipped with a process condenser. Three 
commenters noted that there are some batch process steps where a 
process condenser is used, but the required equations do not adequately 
estimate the emissions. The commenters cited the following as examples: 
intermittent vents from continuous distillation columns, maintenance 
purges, or regenerator operations. To estimate uncontrolled emissions 
for such steps, the commenters believe 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF 
should allow the use of engineering assessments in accordance with 40 
CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii) of the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. 
According to one commenter, engineering assessments also should be 
allowed for emission episodes covered by the equations if the owner or 
operator can demonstrate to the Administrator that those methods are 
not appropriate.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that the specified equations 
do not address all possible types of emission episodes from process 
condensers, just as they do not address all possible types of emission 
episodes directly from process equipment. Therefore, we have modified 
40 CFR 63.2460(b)(4) in the final amendments to allow the use of 
engineering assessments for types of emission episodes not covered by 
the specified equations. However, the revised procedure for calculating 
condenser emissions will always apply. We also added the provision that 
allows engineering assessments covered by the equations in 40 CFR 
63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) if you can demonstrate that those methods are not 
appropriate. These changes make the procedures for estimating 
uncontrolled emissions from process condensers consistent with the 
procedures for estimating uncontrolled emissions directly from process 
equipment.
    Comment: A proposed amendment in 40 CFR 63.2465(b) clarifies that 
uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions may be estimated 
using either the equations in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) or an engineering 
assessment in accordance with 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii), whichever is 
appropriate. One commenter noted that in order to use an engineering 
assessment for emission episodes covered by the equations, 40 CFR 
63.1257(d)(2)(ii) requires a demonstration that the equations are not 
appropriate. The commenter asked if information to support the 
demonstration should be documented in the notification of compliance 
status report.
    Response: According to 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii)(E), all information 
must be documented in the precompliance report. However, we

[[Page 40324]]

understand that the emission equations in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) were 
developed for organic HAP and decided that a demonstration that the 
equations are not appropriate for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
emissions would be an unnecessary burden. Therefore, 40 CFR 63.2465(b) 
of the final amendments specifies that the information to support an 
engineering assessment for estimating hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
emissions must be submitted in the notification of compliance status 
report.

F. Monitoring Requirements

1. Absorbers
    Comment: Five commenters objected to the proposed amendments to the 
monitoring requirements for absorbers in 40 CFR 63.2450(k)(5). These 
amendments would require continuous monitoring of liquid and gas flow, 
and records of the liquid-to-gas ratio, in addition to the monitoring 
and recordkeeping required in 40 CFR 63.990(c)(1), 63.993(c)(1), and 
63.998(a)(2)(ii)(C). According to the commenters, the current 
monitoring requirements (liquid temperature and specific gravity) are 
sufficient to demonstrate compliance, and they believe we have not 
explained why these requirements are inadequate. They also noted that 
there is no precedent for the proposed monitoring (except for halogen 
scrubbers, for which flow monitoring is already required in 40 CFR 
63.994), and it would add significant burden and cost to monitoring 
absorbers. Therefore, the commenters believe the proposed amendments 
should not be finalized.
    Response: Our intent was to require liquid and gas flow monitoring 
only for absorbers where water is used as the scrubbing fluid. As the 
commenters pointed out, the rule already requires this monitoring for 
halogen scrubbers by referencing the requirements in 40 CFR 63.994. 
However, water can also be used to scrub organic compounds from an 
emission stream. We believe the same monitoring requirements that apply 
to halogen scrubbers should also apply to any other absorber that uses 
water as the scrubbing liquid. Therefore, 40 CFR 63.2450(k)(5) in the 
final amendments has been revised to require the liquid and gas flow 
monitoring only for absorbers that control organic compounds and use 
water as the scrubbing fluid.
2. Organic Monitoring Devices
    Comment: The proposed amendments added a new 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(9) 
to specify requirements for biofilters that are used as control devices 
for batch process vents. Section 63.2460(c)(9)(iii) specified 
requirements for temperature monitoring devices and organic monitoring 
devices. This section also indicated that general requirements for 
continuous emissions monitoring system(s) (CEMS) are specified in 40 
CFR 63.2450(j) and in Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63. The 
preamble to the proposed amendments explained that this rule language 
means the quality assurance/quality control and other requirements for 
CEMS in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 would apply to organic monitoring 
devices. Three commenters disagreed with this statement. One of the 
commenters pointed out that a CEMS must provide a record of the 
emissions, whereas an organic monitoring device is required to provide 
an indication of concentration. As an example, this commenter noted 
that the monitored parameter for an organic monitoring device could be 
a calibrated indicator of HAP concentration such as the millivolts 
generated by a concentration sensor. According to another commenter, 
the references to CEMS in the amended explanations for citations in 
Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63 should be applicable only to 
CEMS that are used for compliance with the alternative standard in 40 
CFR 63.2505. Thus, the three commenters recommended removing the 
proposed changes from 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(9)(iii), Table 12 to subpart 
FFFF of 40 CFR part 63, and all associated preamble discussions.
    Response: The commenters' interpretation of the differences in 
requirements for CEMS and organic monitoring devices is correct. 
Requirements for CEMS were inappropriately applied to organic 
monitoring devices in 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(9)(iii) of the proposed 
amendments, and they have been removed from the final amendments. As a 
result of these changes, the use of an organic monitoring device with a 
biofilter is subject to the parameter monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SS. All other organic monitoring devices, except those 
used with controls for wastewater systems, are also subject to the 
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. Organic monitoring devices 
used with controls for wastewater systems are subject to the similar 
parameter monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart G of the 
HON.
    We disagree with the comments regarding the proposed changes in 
Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63. Nothing in the rule 
prohibits the use of a CEMS to monitor pollutant concentrations to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with a percent reduction requirement. 
For example, a control device might reduce HAP concentrations to less 
than 100 ppm. This would not be enough to demonstrate compliance with 
the alternative standard, but it might be more than 98 percent 
reduction. Most owners and operators in this situation might choose to 
comply with the organic monitoring device provisions and monitor a 
parameter like the millivolts generated by the concentration sensor. 
That would be acceptable. However, you also have the option to directly 
monitor the concentration. We believe that monitoring the concentration 
continuously makes the equipment a CEMS, and the requirements for CEMS 
should apply. The proposed changes to Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 40 
CFR part 63 make it clear that requirements for CEMS apply anytime a 
CEMS is used (i.e., emissions concentrations are continuously 
monitored), but they do not apply to an organic monitoring device. 
Thus, the proposed changes to Table 12 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 
63 are retained in the final amendments.
3. Scrubber Monitoring
    Comment: Sections 63.994(c) and 63.2450(k)(3) require continuous 
monitoring of either pH or caustic strength in the effluent from 
halogen scrubbers. One commenter argued that the requirement for 
continuous monitoring is ``arbitrary and particularly burdensome to 
batch operators'' and should be changed to daily monitoring to match 
the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP and the Pesticide Active 
Ingredient Production NESHAP.
    Response: We decided to modify 40 CFR 63.2450(k)(3) in the final 
amendments to allow daily monitoring of pH or caustic strength as an 
alternative to continuous monitoring for halogen scrubbers used to 
control only batch process vents. This change minimizes the burden for 
batch operations and brings the monitoring requirements for such 
operations at MON sources in line with the monitoring requirements for 
batch operations at pharmaceutical and pesticide active ingredient 
(PAI) sources.
4. Periodic Verification
    Comment: Section 63.2460(c)(5) of the final rule specifies 
alternative monitoring provisions, called periodic verifications, for 
control devices that control less than 1.0 ton per year HAP from batch 
process vents. One commenter suggested that the periodic

[[Page 40325]]

verification option should be available for monitoring control devices 
that control emissions from all types of emission points, not only 
batch process vents. To support this suggestion, the commenter noted 
that both the proposed rule (67 FR 16154, April 4, 2002) and the 
pharmaceuticals production NESHAP did not limit the use of the periodic 
verification provision to batch process vents.
    Response: The purpose of the periodic verification option is to 
minimize the monitoring burden on small operations that are expected to 
contribute only a small fraction of the total emissions. We agree with 
the commenter that there is no need to restrict the option to controls 
for batch process operations. As the commenter noted, the proposed rule 
and other rules (pharmaceuticals production and PAI production) did not 
limit the option to controls for batch process vents. To correct this 
inadvertent oversight, the final amendments move the periodic 
verification requirements from 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(5) to 40 CFR 
63.2450(k)(6) so that they will apply to control devices that control 
less than 1.0 ton per year of HAP from any emission points.

G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

1. Wastewater Control Devices
    Comment: As part of the proposed amendments, a new paragraph with 
recordkeeping requirements for flare monitors was added in 40 CFR 
63.2485(o)(1). One commenter believes the proposed provision mistakenly 
references requirements for nonflares. The commenter recommended 
revising the proposed language to match the subpart SS recordkeeping 
requirements for flares.
    Response: Flares that are used to control wastewater emissions are 
subject to the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart G of the HON. 
The proposed language in 40 CFR 63.2485(o)(1) was added to make the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for flares used to control 
wastewater systems consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 
63.998(a)(1)(iii) of subpart SS. Since proposal of the amendments we 
realized that the proposed language is unnecessary because 40 CFR 
63.147(d)(1) contains the same recordkeeping requirement, and Table 20 
to subpart G of 40 CFR part 63 (as referenced from 40 CFR 63.146(e)(1)) 
contains the same reporting requirement. Therefore, the proposed 
amendments to 40 CFR 63.2485(o)(1) were not included in the final 
amendments.
    Comment: According to one commenter, the proposed 40 CFR 
63.2485(o)(2) creates a recordkeeping conflict for nonflare control 
devices used for wastewater emissions. The section requires compliance 
with both 40 CFR 63.152(f) of subpart G and 40 CFR 63.998(c)(1) of 
subpart SS. Because some of the requirements are not consistent with 
each other, the commenter recommended revising 40 CFR 63.2485(o)(2) to 
read, ``you must keep records as specified either in Sec.  63.998(c)(1) 
or Sec.  63.152(f) in addition to the other records required in Sec.  
63.147(d).''
    Response: We disagree with the suggested change. Section 63.152(f) 
specifies requirements such as the frequency of monitoring 
measurements, procedures for developing daily or other average values, 
and the amount of time records must be kept. These procedures would 
overlap with procedures in 40 CFR 63.998(b), but subpart FFFF does not 
reference 40 CFR 63.998(b) for wastewater control devices. On the other 
hand, 40 CFR 63.998(c)(1) requires records of information such as 
calibration results, periods when the CPMS is inoperative, and the 
occurrence and duration of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of CPMS. 
For a source subject to the HON, comparable records may be required by 
40 CFR 63.103, but this section of the HON is not referenced from 40 
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. Therefore, we retained the proposed 
requirement in the final amendments so that the same CPMS monitoring 
records are required for non-flare control devices regardless of the 
emission point that is controlled.
2. Operating Logs
    Comment: As part of the proposed amendments, Sec. Sec.  
63.2520(e)(5)(ii)(C), 63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(K), and 63.2525(c) were 
modified to require operating logs only for ``processes with batch 
vents.'' The preamble to the proposed amendments also stated that 
operating logs are not needed for processes that consist entirely of 
continuous operations. Two commenters agree with the preamble language, 
but they noted that the proposed rule language still requires operating 
logs for continuous operations with intermittent emissions because 
these operations fit the definition of ``batch vents.'' Therefore, the 
commenters recommended changing the proposed language to refer to batch 
``operations.''
    Response: As the commenters noted, by referring to ``processes with 
batch vents,'' the proposed rule language did not fully accomplish our 
goal as stated in the proposal preamble because continuous operations 
with intermittent emissions are defined as batch process vents. 
Therefore, 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(5)(ii)(C), 63.2520(e)(5)(iii)(K), and 
63.2525(c) were revised in the final amendments to require operating 
logs only for ``processes with batch process vents from batch 
operations.''
3. Frequency of Recordkeeping Calculations for Group 2 Batch Process 
Vents
    Comment: Sections 63.2520(e)(2) and (3) of the proposed amendments 
specified recordkeeping requirements for MCPU with Group 2 batch 
process vents for which you documented that the amount of non-reactive 
HAP used is less than 10,000 lb/yr or the uncontrolled organic HAP 
emissions are less than 1,000 lb/yr. These sections also require you to 
calculate daily rolling annual sums of either the non-reactive HAP 
usage or number of batches operated. Data may be accumulated for up to 
a month, and all calculations for each day in the month may be 
performed at one time. One commenter requested that these daily rolling 
annual sums be changed to monthly rolling annual sums.
    According to the commenter, calculations on a daily basis will add 
to the compliance burden because a new system would be needed to ensure 
that production is assigned to the correct day. Of particular concern 
to the commenter is how to comply when a batch operates for longer than 
1 day. The commenter believes that new procedures will need to be 
developed to arbitrarily assign products to individual days during the 
batch cycle. On the other hand, the commenter pointed out that many 
facilities already have monthly recordkeeping systems in place under 
their title V permits, and these systems include procedures to ensure 
that the monthly data is complete and accurate.
    The commenter also argued that the daily calculations would not 
provide better information than monthly calculations. According to the 
commenter, the purpose of both procedures is to ``track emissions from 
processes that are well below the Group 1 process vent standards,'' and 
a monthly sum would ensure this threshold was not exceeded.
    Response: We rejected the suggestion to change the rolling annual 
sums from a daily to monthly basis for several reasons. First, daily 
calculation of the annual usage or number of batches is consistent with 
the basis for the 10,000 lb/yr emission threshold for Group 1 batch 
process vents. Less frequent calculations increases the potential that

[[Page 40326]]

short-term fluctuations and periods of non-compliance will be masked. 
Second, usage at 10,000 lb/yr is not necessarily ``well below'' the 
Group 1 emission threshold of 10,000 lb/yr. For example, usage may 
nearly equal batch process vent emissions for a process that consists 
of little more than a batch reactor. Third, we are not persuaded that 
the burden to collect data for daily calculations will be significantly 
different than collecting data for monthly calculations. The 
fundamental information about production and HAP usage that would be 
collected for monthly calculations most likely would be developed on a 
batch or daily basis. Handling data for processes that take more than 
one day also should not be difficult. Any consistent procedure should 
be acceptable. For example, your system could account for each batch on 
the day the batch is completed. Similarly, the amount of non-reactive 
HAP used in each batch could be assigned to the day the batch is 
completed, or you could elect to define some procedure to assign a 
percentage of the total usage to each day over which the process 
operated.

H. Overlap With Other Rules

    Comment: The proposed amendments modified provisions in 40 CFR 
63.2535(k) that are intended to minimize the burden of complying with 
equipment leak requirements when both 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF and 
another rule apply to the same process. The first sentence in this 
section specifies that an owner or operator may elect to comply with 
only 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF for equipment that is part of the 
affected source under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF and is also subject 
to either 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. If 
an owner or operator elects this method of compliance, the proposed 
second sentence requires all organic compounds, minus methane and 
ethane, to be considered as if they were HAP. One commenter noted that 
in this context the second sentence is unnecessary because all of the 
equipment described by the first sentence must be in HAP service. 
However, the commenter believes that this section also should allow 
sources to apply the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF to 
equipment in an MCPU that is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV or 
40 CFR part 61, subpart V, but is not subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF. The commenter notes that this requirement in conjunction 
with the proposed second sentence would make sense, and together these 
provisions would be consistent with 40 CFR 63.160(c) of the HON.
    Response: Our intent with the proposed amendments was to include 
provisions in 40 CFR 63.2435(k) that are consistent with the provisions 
in 40 CFR 63.160(c) of the HON. We inadvertently neglected to include 
the first sentence from 40 CFR 63.160. Therefore, the final amendments 
to 40 CFR 63.2535(k) include the additional sentence as suggested by 
the commenter to make the provisions consistent with the provisions in 
40 CFR 63.160(c).
    Comment: Section 63.2535(c) specifies provisions that are intended 
to minimize the compliance burden when 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF and 
another rule (either 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb or 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart Y) apply to the same storage tank. One commenter requested that 
this section be revised to include provisions similar to those for 
equipment leaks in 40 CFR 63.2535(k). The commenter believes such 
provisions would simplify compliance for storage tanks that are 
assigned to an MCPU but are not subject to the storage tank 
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF because they contain 
little or no HAP. According to the commenter, such flexibility is 
provided in the HON.
    Response: Although a storage tank with little or no HAP may be 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y and 
also be assigned to an MCPU, there is essentially no overlap because no 
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF apply to such a tank. This 
situation is similar to that for shared storage tanks that are assigned 
to a process unit that is subject to one rule but is also used with a 
process unit that is subject to another rule. Unlike the situation for 
equipment leaks, we believe any reduction in burden achieved by 
complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF for storage tanks in an 
MCPU that are not subject to requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
FFFF would be negligible. Furthermore, the HON does not include the 
provisions described by the commenter. Therefore, we have decided not 
to amend 40 CFR 63.2435(c) as suggested by the commenter.

I. Definitions

1. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Process
    Comment: As part of the amendments, the definition of 
``miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process'' in 40 CFR 
63.2550(i) was changed to specify an endpoint to processes that 
manufacture solid products. One commenter concurred with the concept of 
defining an end point for such processes. However, the commenter is 
concerned that the proposed definition could be misapplied on polymer 
production processes that have no dryer and no extruder or die-plate. 
The commenter explained that their solid-state polymerization process 
for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) operates without any of this 
equipment. The finished polymer is discharged from the reactors as a 
coarse, ready-to-use powder. Without clarification, the commenter is 
concerned that the proposed definition conceivably extends the PET 
process into the subsequent film manufacturing process, which would 
conflict with previous guidance EPA has provided regarding the 
applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. To clarify this 
situation, the commenter suggested the endpoint for solid-state 
polymerization processes be ``at the container or vessel used to 
collect or store the reacted polymer if subsequent drying is not 
required and the polymer is in a form amenable to its intended 
manufacturing purpose.''
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed definition 
needs to be modified to clarify the endpoint of a solid-state 
polymerization process that does not include a dryer. We believe the 
reactor is the appropriate end of such a process, provided there are no 
HAP removal steps following the reactor. This point is comparable to 
the end points specified for other processes that manufacture solid 
products. The definition in the final amendments has been revised to 
reflect this decision.
    Comment: In addition to the proposed endpoint described above for 
processes that produce solid products, one commenter thinks the 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process definition also 
should specify an endpoint for processes that produce liquid products. 
The commenter cited acrylic polymer manufacturing processes as examples 
of processes for which an endpoint is needed. According to the 
commenter, after the polymerization reaction, the product is an 
emulsion of polymer solids in water, and the residual HAP monomer 
concentration generally is low. The commenter suggested that EPA could 
establish an option that would exempt from regulation all processing 
steps after the point where the residual HAP monomer falls below some 
reasonable threshold concentration. The commenter pointed to the 5 
weight percent HAP option in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 
NESHAP as a good example.
    Response: This comment is similar to several comments on the 
original

[[Page 40327]]

proposed rule. The earlier commenters wanted the rule to exempt 
processing steps where the HAP content is less than 5 weight percent or 
HAP is present only as an impurity. In our response to those comments 
(see docket item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121-0036), we explained that the 
rule includes numerous applicability cutoffs and exemptions that we 
think are sufficient.
    For example, equipment leak requirements do not apply to equipment 
that contains or contacts fluid that is less than 5 percent organic HAP 
by weight. Storage tanks are not subject to requirements if the stored 
material has a maximum true vapor pressure less than 6.9 kilopascals. 
Emissions from transfer operations are exempt if the rack-weighted 
average partial pressure of organic HAP is less than 1.5 pounds per 
square inch absolute. Emissions from many continuous process operations 
are exempt if the HAP content is less than 0.005 weight percent, and 
emissions from other continuous operations and batch operations are 
exempt if the HAP concentration is less than 50 ppm. In addition, 
continuous process vents are exempt from some or all requirements if 
the total resource effectiveness, which is inversely related to the HAP 
emission rate, is greater than 1.9 or 5.0, respectively. Batch process 
vents are exempt from all but some recordkeeping requirements if the 
total organic HAP emissions from the collection of all batch vents in 
the process are less than 10,000 lb/yr. Strictly speaking, all Group 1 
batch process vents are subject to control, regardless of their 
emission rate, but vents with low emission rates may not actually have 
to be controlled if the control or recovery from other vents in the 
process meets the overall reduction requirement. All of these exemption 
levels are based directly or depend on concentration of HAP. 
Furthermore, they were all developed as part of the MACT floor.
    Although our earlier response did not address the issue of 
emulsions (or dispersions), we do not believe this should have any 
bearing on the exemption levels because such fluids are managed the 
same as other liquids. Finally, the 5 weight percent option in the 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing NESHAP is not comparable or 
relevant to this discussion. That 5 percent limit was based on a 
determination that reducing the HAP content of existing HAP-based 
coating products to less than 5 percent would achieve comparable 
reductions to the MACT floor. A similar analysis is not feasible for 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing processes. Therefore, we 
do not believe an additional exemption level is needed, and we have not 
created an exemption as suggested by the commenter.

2. Continuous Process Vent

    Comment: Two commenters strongly objected to the proposed changes 
introduced in the new item 7 in the definition of the term ``continuous 
process vent.'' The proposed language specified, in part, that ``when a 
gas stream that originates as a continuous flow from a continuous 
operation is combined with gas streams from other process operations 
[], the determination of whether the gas stream is a continuous process 
vent must be made prior to the combination of the gas streams.'' One of 
the commenter's concerns was that the proposed changes will alter how 
some vents are handled under the HON and other NESHAP because the 
proposed language is not confined to gas streams from MCPU. For 
example, emission streams from batch operations within a HON process 
(which are batch process vents under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) that 
are combined with emissions from continuous operations within the HON 
process should not affect the point at which a continuous process vent 
is determined under the HON.
    The commenters also believe the proposed regulatory language is far 
more expansive than needed to satisfy our stated reason for the change 
in the preamble, which they noted was to meet our intent that 
continuous process vents and batch process vents be separate, distinct 
streams. According to the commenters, only the mixing of potential 
continuous process vents with Group 2 process vents needs to be 
addressed because the rule is already clear that anything mixed with 
Group 1 batch process vents must be controlled. Furthermore, mixing 
potential continuous process vents with any other types of emission 
streams is already addressed by the referenced language in 40 CFR 
63.107 of the HON and is consistent with the database used to determine 
the MACT floor for continuous process vents. As a result, both 
commenters strongly recommended revising the proposed language to 
minimize differences from the continuous process vent provisions in the 
HON.
    Response: We agree with the commenter's assessment that several 
changes are needed to avoid confusion over the regulatory status of 
continuous process vents. First, the proposed language should have 
specified that the continuous operations of interest were only those in 
MCPU because we did not intend to affect determinations under other 
rules. After reconsideration, we also decided that there is no need to 
address the combination of potential continuous process vents and batch 
process vents. As the commenters pointed out, if a combined stream 
includes Group 1 batch process vents, the combined stream must be 
controlled as required for the Group 1 batch process vents. However, 
note that when Group 2 batch process vent emissions are combined with 
emissions from potential continuous process vents, the recordkeeping 
requirements for the Group 2 batch process vents still apply. In 
addition, by referring only to other process operations in the proposed 
language, we were trying to indicate that continuous process vent 
determinations could be downstream of the point where emissions from 
continuous process operations combine with emissions from storage 
tanks, wastewater systems, or other sources, consistent with 40 CFR 
63.107.
    Although our discussion in the preamble to the proposed amendments 
neglected to explain it, a related objective of the proposed language 
was to ensure that separate determinations are made for emissions from 
each MCPU. This concept is not part of the provisions in 40 CFR 63.107, 
and we continue to believe that it is important because it is 
consistent with the data used to develop the MACT floor for continuous 
process vents. Therefore, in the final amendments, we have revised item 
7 in the definition of ``continuous process vent'' to specify that 
separate determinations are required for the emissions from each MCPU, 
even if emission streams from two or more MCPU are combined.
3. Continuous Operation
    Comment: One commenter believes the definition of the term 
``continuous operation'' should allow for the interruption of product 
flow during a switch from one feed tank to another if the materials are 
similar in nature. The commenter described a situation where a flaker 
or pastille maker is fed from either of two storage tanks. The 
commenter noted that the flaker and pastille maker equipment operates 
continuously, except when switching from one feed tank to the other.
    Response: We have not changed the definition in the final rule 
because the rule already allows you to consider an operation to be a 
continuous operation even if there are periodic breaks in operation. We 
think the commenter may be misinterpreting the definition of ``batch 
operation.'' Although this definition says a batch operation

[[Page 40328]]

involves intermittent or discontinuous feed, it also says addition of 
raw material and withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a 
batch operation. Both conditions must be met to be a batch operation. 
Thus, even though there may be a break in operation when switching from 
one feed tank to another, as long as material is being added and 
withdrawn simultaneously while it is in operation, it is a continuous 
operation.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that in our discussion of 
changes to the definition of ``continuous process vent,'' we appeared 
to conclude that all atmospheric dryers are continuous operations with 
continuous process vents. The preamble stated that many atmospheric 
dryers ``have emission characteristics that are sufficiently similar to 
other continuous process vents in our database such that they should be 
included in the definition of ``continuous process vents.'' The 
commenter argued that atmospheric dryers used in batch specialty 
chemical manufacturing are substantively dissimilar to continuous 
process vents because emissions vary with time as a function of the 
batch cycle. Therefore, the commenter requested that we clarify that 
atmospheric dryer vents can be either batch or continuous process vents 
and that the classification is determined by an evaluation of the 
emission characteristics of the vent.
    Response: The commenter is correct. Some atmospheric dryers are 
continuous operations with continuous process vents and others are 
batch operations with batch process vents. We did not mean to imply 
otherwise. As part of our analysis of the MACT floor for continuous 
process vents, we determined the characteristics of controlled dryers 
in both our continuous process database and batch process database. We 
confirmed that some of these dryers were continuous operations. Other 
dryers with controlled emissions were confirmed to be batch operations, 
and these were excluded from our analysis of continuous process vents.
4. Process Condenser and Recovery Device
    Comment: Two commenters believe the proposed definition of the term 
``process condenser'' is too expansive. The proposed definition reads 
as follows:

    Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to 
recover material as an integral part of an MCPU. A primary condenser 
or condensers in series are considered to be integral to the MCPU if 
they are capable of and normally used for the purpose of recovering 
chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, 
reuse or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. All condensers 
recovering condensate from an MCPU at or above the boiling point or 
all condensers in line prior to a vacuum source are considered 
process condensers.

    One of the commenters recommended modifying the definition to 
clarify that a condenser is not ``integral to the process'' if the 
condenser was intended to be a control device and it can be 
demonstrated that the process could technically or economically operate 
without it. This commenter described a situation where several 
condensers are used in a process to recover materials from gas streams. 
Condensate from these condensers is collected in single vessel and 
later reused in the process. Displaced gases from the collection vessel 
are routed through another condenser. Even though the final condenser 
recovers small amounts of material that are re-used, the commenter does 
not think it should be a process condenser.
    The second commenter requested changes that would allow condensers 
to be considered an integral part of recovery devices. According to the 
commenter, if HAP are to be recovered from a vapor stream that is at a 
temperature below their bubble point, condensation must be involved at 
some point. For example, condensation may be necessary to dehumidify a 
vent stream before it enters a carbon adsorber. The commenter suggested 
two ways that the rule could be modified to allow condensers to be part 
of recovery devices. One way would be to modify the definition of the 
term ``process condenser'' to exclude condensers that meet the 
conditions of the second sentence of the proposed definition if those 
condensers also receive an emission stream that is below its bubble 
point, and they are located prior to any recovery device that is not a 
condenser. Alternatively, the commenter suggested editing the 
definition of the term ``recovery device'' to delete condensers from 
the list of examples of equipment that may be recovery devices, and 
indicate that the remaining examples of recovery devices include any 
integral condensation equipment.
    Response: As discussed in the preamble to the proposed amendments, 
the main purpose of proposing a new definition was to align the 
requirements in the rule with the data that were used to develop the 
MACT floor for batch process vents. The final rule referenced the 
definition of ``process condenser'' in the Pharmaceuticals Production 
NESHAP. According to this definition, a condenser is a process 
condenser only if it supports a vapor-to-liquid phase change for 
periods of source equipment operation that are above the boiling or 
bubble point of substances at the liquid surface. Petitioners objected 
to this definition because they explained that it is inconsistent with 
the way industry representatives interpreted the term when they 
reported uncontrolled emissions in response to our information 
collection request (ICR) in 1997. They indicated that companies 
considered condensers to be integral to a process whenever condensate 
was returned to the process or used for fuel value, even if the inlet 
gas stream was at a temperature below the boiling or bubble point of 
the corresponding liquid. Thus, the final rule requires determination 
of uncontrolled emissions at different points than had been used in the 
processes that formed the basis for the MACT floor and the 10,000 lb/yr 
uncontrolled emissions threshold for Group 1 batch process vents.
    To align the rule with the data provided in the ICR responses, we 
developed the proposed definition as shown above. One consequence of 
this definition is that it will reduce the number of condensers that 
can be used to comply with the 95 percent reduction recovery device 
option because designation as a process condenser is intended to 
preclude the recovery option. After considering the comments and review 
of the data, we have decided that the proposed definition is more 
expansive than it needs to be to address the issue raised by the 
petitioners. None of the 44 processes in the project data base that 
were used to establish the 10,000 lb/yr threshold for Group 1 batch 
process vents was controlled with a non-condenser recovery device. 
Therefore, we believe that condensers can be considered as part of a 
recovery device if they are followed by a device that is clearly a 
recovery device, and the condenser is needed for the proper functioning 
of the downstream recovery device. Rather than leave this determination 
open to subjective determinations, we decided to specify such 
exceptions to the process condenser definition in the definition 
itself. These situations involve condensers that remove moisture in 
order to prevent icing in a following condenser, remove moisture that 
would negatively affect adsorption capacity in a following carbon 
adsorber, or remove high molecular weight organic compounds or other 
organic compounds prior to a carbon adsorber if those compounds would 
be difficult to

[[Page 40329]]

remove during regeneration of the carbon.
    In the preamble to the proposed amendments, we noted that the 
proposed definition of ``process condenser'' makes the concept of 
recovering chemicals with a condenser the same regardless of whether 
the vent is associated with a batch unit operation or a continuous unit 
operation. This was our intent, and, in addition, the recovery device 
definition also needs to be modified to allow recovery of chemicals for 
fuel value by devices associated with continuous process vents. To 
correct this oversight, the recovery device definition in the final 
amendments has been changed to allow equipment that is associated with 
continuous process vents to be a recovery device when it recovers 
chemicals for fuel value. The final definition retains the intent of 
the original definition for recovery devices that are used to reduce 
emissions from batch process vents; this equipment must recover 
chemicals to be reused in a process on site.
    Finally, all of the changes described above have created a conflict 
between the definition of ``process condenser'' and ``recovery 
device.'' Both definitions refer to recovery of chemicals for fuel 
value, use, or reuse. Thus, a condenser could meet both definitions. 
However, a process condenser is part of the MCPU and can not be 
considered a control device to meet the 95 percent control alternative 
in table 2.

J. Miscellaneous Technical Corrections

    We have made several changes throughout subpart FFFF to correct 
inconsistencies that have been discovered during the review processes. 
Other editorial changes have also been made to improve clarity. These 
changes are described in Table 1 in this preamble.

Table 1.--Miscellaneous Technical Corrections to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
                                  FFFF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Section of subpart FFFF             Description of correction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2435(b)(2) and            Replaced the word ``produces'' with
 63.2525(e)(1)(i).                   the word ``generates'' to clarify
                                     that generation of any HAP, not
                                     only HAP that are an intended
                                     product, makes the MCPU subject to
                                     40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.
40 CFR 63.2450(d), (e), and (f)...  1. Redesignated paragraphs (d), (e),
                                     and (f) as paragraphs (e)(1), (2),
                                     and (3).
                                    2. Reserved paragraph (d).
                                    3. Added a new paragraph (f) to
                                     clarify flare compliance assessment
                                     procedures. Section 63.11(b)(6) of
                                     the General Provisions contains
                                     alternative procedures for flares
                                     that control hydrogen emissions.
                                     The alternative procedures are not
                                     included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
                                     SS. The new provisions in paragraph
                                     (f) clarify that the alternative in
                                     the General Provisions is available
                                     under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.
40 CFR 63.2470(e)(2)(i) and (ii)    Offsite cleaning and reloading
 and 63.2535(a)(2).                  facilities must control emissions
                                     from tank trucks and railcars that
                                     are used in vapor balancing for
                                     storage tanks at the affected
                                     source. The final amendments
                                     include these new paragraphs to
                                     specify that such facilities may
                                     comply with the monitoring,
                                     recordkeeping, and reporting
                                     requirements in other applicable
                                     rules in 40 CFR part 63 as an
                                     alternative to the requirements in
                                     subpart FFFF. These changes make
                                     the requirements consistent with
                                     parallel requirements in 40 CFR
                                     part 63, subpart GGG.
40 CFR 63.2485(n)(2)(iv)(B).......  Replaced ``Fbio'' with ``fbio.''
40 CFR 63.2520(d)(2)(ix)..........  Replaced incorrect reference to 40
                                     CFR 63.2535(i)(1) with correct
                                     reference to 40 CFR 63.2535(l)(1).
40 CFR 63.2520(e)(9) and            Restored references to 40 CFR part
 63.2525(a).                         63, subpart UU that were mistakenly
                                     removed in the proposed amendments.
40 CFR 63.2525(e)(1)(iii).........  Replaced the undefined term ``Group
                                     2 batches'' with the defined term
                                     ``Group 2 batch process vents.''
40 CFR 63.2550(b).................  Added reference to terms defined in
                                     section 63.2 of 40 CFR part 65,
                                     subpart F.
40 CFR 63.2550(c).................  Did not finalize proposed amendment
                                     that mistakenly removed this
                                     paragraph.
40 CFR 63.2550(i) introductory      Restored reference to 40 CFR
 text.                               63.1020, which was mistakenly
                                     removed in the proposed amendments.
40 CFR 63.2550(i).................  1. Added definitions for the term
                                     ``emission point''.
                                    2. Added a sentence to the
                                     definition of ``isolated
                                     intermediate'' to clarify that the
                                     storage equipment is part of the
                                     process that produces the isolated
                                     intermediate, not a process that
                                     uses the isolated intermediate as a
                                     raw material. The new sentence also
                                     clarifies that isolated
                                     intermediate storage equipment is
                                     not subject to the storage tank
                                     assignment procedures in 40 CFR
                                     63.2445(d).
Table 3...........................  Removed the extraneous word ``with''
                                     from item 1.a.
Tables 4 and 5....................  Replaced references to 40 CFR 63.984
                                     with references to 40 CFR
                                     63.982(d). 40 CFR 63.982(d) not
                                     only references 40 CFR 63.984, but
                                     it also makes it clear that
                                     requirements for boilers and
                                     process heaters do not apply to
                                     fuel gas systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of 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

[[Page 40330]]

President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The final amendments give owners and operators options to some 
requirements. For example, biofilters are allowed as an option to meet 
the emission limit for batch process vents. Other changes may result in 
a minor reduction in the burden. For example, one option allows an 
owner or operator to conduct sensory monitoring as an alternative to 
instrument monitoring of connectors. Another change eliminates the 
requirement to include data and results from an engineering assessment 
of emissions from batch operations in the precompliance report if the 
HAP concentration is determined to be less than 50 ppmv. Since all of 
these changes are either options or have the potential to result in 
minor reductions in the information collection burden, the ICR has not 
been revised.
    OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0533 (EPA ICR number 
1969.02). A copy of the OMB approved ICR may be obtained from Susan 
Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. EPA (2822T); 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 566-
1672. Include the ICR or OMB number in any correspondence.
    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 purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule amendments.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the final rule amendments 
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
ranging from up to 500 employees to up to 1,000 employees, depending on 
the NAICS code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The 
maximum number of employees to be considered a small business for each 
NAICS code is shown in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 16178).
    After considering the economic impacts of the final rule amendments 
on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. The 
final amendments include additional compliance options for process 
tanks, batch process vents, equipment leaks, and SHAP-containing 
wastewater that provide small entities with greater flexibility to 
comply with the standards. Other amendments potentially reduce the 
recordkeeping and reporting burden. We have therefore concluded that 
the final rule amendments will relieve regulatory burden for all small 
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the final amendments do not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual costs of the 
final rule for any year was estimated to be about $75 million, and the 
final amendments do not add new requirements that would increase that 
cost. Thus, the final amendments are not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the final amendments 
contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because they contain no requirements that 
apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, 
the final

[[Page 40331]]

amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the 
UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    The final rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They 
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected 
facilities are owned or operated by State or local governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' The final rule amendments do not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The final 
rule amendments provide an owner or operator with several additional 
options for complying with the emission limits and other requirements 
in the rule. Therefore, the final rule amendments 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to the final amendments.

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

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

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

    The final rule amendments do not constitute a ``significant energy 
action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. The final amendments include additional compliance options that 
provide affected sources with greater flexibility to comply with the 
standards. Further, we have concluded that the final rule amendments 
are not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No. 
104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so 
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and 
applicable VCS.
    During the rulemaking, the EPA conducted searches to identify VCS 
in addition to EPA test methods referenced by the final rule. The 
search and review results have been documented and placed in the docket 
for the NESHAP (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121). The final amendments do 
not require the use of any additional technical standards beyond those 
cited in the final rule. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of 
any additional VCS for the final amendments.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing the 
final rule amendments and other required information to the United 
States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the 
Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the 
final rule amendments in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take 
effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. 
This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 
final rule amendments are effective on July 14, 2006.

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: June 23, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart FFFF--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.2435 is amended by:
0
a. Revising ``product transfer racks'' to read ``transfer racks'' in 
paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(4); and

[[Page 40332]]

0
e. Adding new paragraph (c)(7) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) An organic chemical(s) classified using the 1987 version of SIC 
code 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, or 386, except as provided in 
paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
    (ii) An organic chemical(s) classified using the 1997 version of 
NAICS code 325, except as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) The MCPU processes, uses, or generates any of the organic HAP 
listed in section 112(b) of the CAA or hydrogen halide and halogen HAP, 
as defined in Sec.  63.2550.
* * * * *
    (c) The requirements in this subpart do not apply to the operations 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Fabricating operations (such as spinning or compressing a solid 
polymer into its end use); compounding operations (in which blending, 
melting, and resolidification of a solid polymer product occur for the 
purpose of incorporating additives, colorants, or stabilizers); and 
extrusion and drawing operations (converting an already produced solid 
polymer into a different shape by melting or mixing the polymer and 
then forcing it or pulling it through an orifice to create an extruded 
product). An operation is not exempt if it involves processing with HAP 
solvent or if an intended purpose of the operation is to remove 
residual HAP monomer.
* * * * *
    (7) Carbon monoxide production.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.2445 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) and the first sentence in paragraph (c); and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) If you have an existing source on November 10, 2003, you must 
comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart no 
later than May 10, 2008.
    (c) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.2515 
according to the dates specified in that section and in subpart A of 
this part 63. * * *
    (d) If you have a Group 2 emission point that becomes a Group 1 
emission point after the compliance date for your affected source, you 
must comply with the Group 1 requirements beginning on the date the 
switch occurs. An initial compliance demonstration as specified in this 
subpart must be conducted within 150 days after the switch occurs.
    (e) If, after the compliance date for your affected source, 
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions from process vents in a 
process increase to more than 1,000 lb/yr, or HAP metals emissions from 
a process at a new affected source increase to more than 150 lb/yr, you 
must comply with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 3 to 
this subpart and the associated compliance requirements beginning on 
the date the emissions exceed the applicable threshold. An initial 
compliance demonstration as specified in this subpart must be conducted 
within 150 days after the switch occurs.
    (f) If you have a small control device for process vent or transfer 
rack emissions that becomes a large control device, as defined in Sec.  
63.2550(i), you must comply with monitoring and associated 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for large control devices 
beginning on the date the switch occurs. An initial compliance 
demonstration as specified in this subpart must be conducted within 150 
days after the switch occurs.

0
4. Section 63.2450 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (d);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (e) and (f);
0
c. Revising paragraph (h);
0
d. Revising paragraph (k) introductory text, paragraph (k)(3), 
paragraph (k)(4) introductory text, and paragraph (k)(4)(i); and
0
e. Adding new paragraphs (k)(4)(iv), (k)(5), and (k)(6) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (d) [Reserved]
    (e) Requirements for control devices.
    (1) Except when complying with Sec.  63.2485, if you reduce organic 
HAP emissions by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to any 
combination of control devices (except a flare) or recovery devices, 
you must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.982(c) and the requirements 
referenced therein.
    (2) Except when complying with Sec.  63.2485, if you reduce organic 
HAP emissions by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a 
flare, you must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.982(b) and the 
requirements referenced therein.
    (3) If you use a halogen reduction device to reduce hydrogen halide 
and halogen HAP emissions from halogenated vent streams, you must meet 
the requirements of Sec.  63.994 and the requirements referenced 
therein. If you use a halogen reduction device before a combustion 
device, you must determine the halogen atom emission rate prior to the 
combustion device according to the procedures in Sec.  63.115(d)(2)(v).
    (f) Requirements for flare compliance assessments.
    (1) As part of a flare compliance assessment required in Sec.  
63.987(b), you have the option of demonstrating compliance with the 
requirements of Sec.  63.11(b) by complying with the requirements in 
either Sec.  63.11(b)(6)(i) or Sec.  63.987(b)(3)(ii).
    (2) If you elect to meet the requirements in Sec.  63.11(b)(6)(i), 
you must keep flare compliance assessment records as specified in 
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Keep records as specified in Sec.  63.998(a)(1)(i), except that 
a record of the heat content determination is not required.
    (ii) Keep records of the flare diameter, hydrogen content, exit 
velocity, and maximum permitted velocity. Include these records in the 
flare compliance report required in Sec.  63.999(a)(2).
* * * * *
    (h) Design evaluation. To determine the percent reduction of a 
small control device that is used to comply with an emission limit 
specified in Table 1, 2, 3, or 5 to this subpart, you may elect to 
conduct a design evaluation as specified in Sec.  63.1257(a)(1) instead 
of a performance test as specified in subpart SS of this part 63. You 
must establish the value(s) and basis for the operating limits as part 
of the design evaluation. For continuous process vents, the design 
evaluation must be conducted at maximum representative operating 
conditions for the process, unless the Administrator specifies or 
approves alternate operating conditions. For transfer racks, the design 
evaluation must demonstrate that the control device achieves the 
required control efficiency during the reasonably expected maximum 
transfer loading rate.
* * * * *
    (k) Continuous parameter monitoring. The provisions in paragraphs 
(k)(1) through (6) of this section apply in addition to the 
requirements for continuous parameter monitoring

[[Page 40333]]

system (CPMS) in subpart SS of this part 63.
* * * * *
    (3) As an alternative to continuously measuring and recording pH as 
specified in Sec. Sec.  63.994(c)(1)(i) and 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(D), you 
may elect to continuously monitor and record the caustic strength of 
the effluent. For halogen scrubbers used to control only batch process 
vents you may elect to monitor and record either the pH or the caustic 
strength of the scrubber effluent at least once per day.
    (4) As an alternative to the inlet and outlet temperature 
monitoring requirements for catalytic incinerators as specified in 
Sec.  63.988(c)(2) and the related recordkeeping requirements specified 
in Sec.  63.998(a)(2)(ii)(B)(2) and (c)(2)(ii), you may elect to comply 
with the requirements specified in paragraphs (k)(4)(i) through (iv) of 
this section.
    (i) Monitor and record the inlet temperature as specified in 
subpart SS of this part 63.
* * * * *
    (iv) Recording the downstream temperature and temperature 
difference across the catalyst bed as specified in Sec.  
63.998(a)(2)(ii)(B)(2) and (b)(2)(ii) is not required.
    (5) For absorbers that control organic compounds and use water as 
the scrubbing fluid, you must conduct monitoring and recordkeeping as 
specified in paragraphs (k)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section instead 
of the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements specified in 
Sec. Sec.  63.990(c)(1), 63.993(c)(1), and 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(C).
    (i) You must use a flow meter capable of providing a continuous 
record of the absorber influent liquid flow.
    (ii) You must determine gas stream flow using one of the procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.994(c)(1)(ii)(A) through (D).
    (iii) You must record the absorber liquid-to-gas ratio averaged 
over the time period of any performance test.
    (6) For a control device with total inlet HAP emissions less than 1 
tpy, you must establish an operating limit(s) for a parameter(s) that 
you will measure and record at least once per averaging period (i.e., 
daily or block) to verify that the control device is operating 
properly. You may elect to measure the same parameter(s) that is 
required for control devices that control inlet HAP emissions equal to 
or greater than 1 tpy. If the parameter will not be measured 
continuously, you must request approval of your proposed procedure in 
the precompliance report. You must identify the operating limit(s) and 
the measurement frequency, and you must provide rationale to support 
how these measurements demonstrate the control device is operating 
properly.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.2460 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraphs (b)(1), 
(b)(2), and (b)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(5) and revising 
``paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii)'' to read ``paragraph (b)(5)(i), 
(ii), or (iii)'' in redesignated paragraph (b)(5) introductory text;
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(7);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text, paragraph (c)(1), 
paragraph (c)(2)(iii), and the first sentence in paragraph (c)(2)(v);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(5), and
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Group status. If a process has batch process vents, as defined 
in Sec.  63.2550, you must determine the group status of the batch 
process vents by determining and summing the uncontrolled organic HAP 
emissions from each of the batch process vents within the process using 
the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii), except as 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) To calculate emissions caused by the heating of a vessel 
without a process condenser to a temperature lower than the boiling 
point, you must use the procedures in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3).
    (2) To calculate emissions from depressurization of a vessel 
without a process condenser, you must use the procedures in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(i)(D)(10).
    (3) To calculate emissions from vacuum systems for the purposes of 
this subpart, the receiving vessel is part of the vacuum system, and 
terms used in Equation 33 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, are defined 
as follows:

Psystem = absolute pressure of the receiving vessel;
Pi = partial pressure of the HAP determined at the exit 
temperature and exit pressure conditions of the condenser or at the 
conditions of the dedicated receiver;
Pj = partial pressure of condensables (including HAP) 
determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure conditions of the 
condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated receiver;
MWHAP = molecular weight of the HAP determined at the exit 
temperature and exit pressure conditions of the condenser or at the 
conditions of the dedicated receiver.

    (4) To calculate uncontrolled emissions when a vessel is equipped 
with a process condenser, you must use the procedures in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B), except as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) 
through (vii) of this section.
    (i) You must determine the flowrate of gas (or volume of gas), 
partial pressures of condensables, temperature (T), and HAP molecular 
weight (MWHAP) at the exit temperature and exit pressure 
conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated 
receiver.
    (ii) You must assume that all of the components contained in the 
condenser exit vent stream are in equilibrium with the same components 
in the exit condensate stream (except for noncondensables).
    (iii) You must perform a material balance for each component.
    (iv) For the emissions from gas evolution, the term for time, t, 
must be used in Equation 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG.
    (v) Emissions from empty vessel purging shall be calculated using 
Equation 36 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG and the exit temperature and 
exit pressure conditions of the condenser or the conditions of the 
dedicated receiver.
    (vi) You must conduct an engineering assessment as specified in 
Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(ii) for each emission episode that is not due to 
vapor displacement, purging, heating, depressurization, vacuum 
operations, gas evolution, air drying, or empty vessel purging. The 
requirements of paragraphs (b)(3) through (4) of this section shall 
apply.
    (vii) You may elect to conduct an engineering assessment if you can 
demonstrate to the Administrator that the methods in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) are not appropriate.
* * * * *
    (6) You may change from Group 2 to Group 1 in accordance with 
either paragraph (b)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section. You must comply 
with the requirements of this section and submit the test report in the 
next Compliance report.
    (i) You may switch at any time after operating as Group 2 for at 
least 1 year so that you can show compliance with the 10,000 pounds per 
year (lb/yr) threshold for Group 2 batch process vents for at least 365 
days before the switch. You may elect to start keeping records of 
emissions from Group 2 batch process vents before the compliance date. 
Report a switch based on this

[[Page 40334]]

provision in your next compliance report in accordance with Sec.  
63.2520(e)(10)(i).
    (ii) If the conditions in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section are 
not applicable, you must provide a 60-day advance notice in accordance 
with Sec.  63.2520(e)(10)(ii) before switching.
    (7) As an alternative to determining the uncontrolled organic HAP 
emissions as specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii), you may 
elect to demonstrate that non-reactive organic HAP are the only HAP 
used in the process and non-reactive HAP usage in the process is less 
than 10,000 lb/yr. You must provide data and supporting rationale in 
your notification of compliance status report explaining why the non-
reactive organic HAP usage will be less than 10,000 lb/yr. You must 
keep records of the non-reactive organic HAP usage as specified in 
Sec.  63.2525(e)(2) and include information in compliance reports as 
specified in Sec.  63.2520(e)(5)(iv).
    (c) Exceptions to the requirements in subparts SS and WW of this 
part 63 are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this section.
    (1) Process condensers. Process condensers, as defined in Sec.  
63.2550(i), are not considered to be control devices for batch process 
vents. You must determine whether a condenser is a control device for a 
batch process vent or a process condenser from which the uncontrolled 
HAP emissions are evaluated as part of the initial compliance 
demonstration for each MCPU and report the results with supporting 
rationale in your notification of compliance status report.
    (2) * * *
    (iii) As an alternative to conducting a performance test or design 
evaluation to demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction 
requirement for a condenser, you may determine controlled emissions 
using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) and 
paragraphs (b)(3) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (v) If a process condenser is used for any boiling operations, you 
must demonstrate that it is properly operated according to the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(4)(ii) and 
(d)(3)(iii)(B), and the demonstration must occur only during the 
boiling operation. * * *
* * * * *
    (8) Terminology. When the term ``storage vessel'' is used in 
subpart WW of this part 63, the term ``process tank,'' as defined in 
Sec.  63.2550(i), applies for the purposes of this section.
    (9) Requirements for a biofilter. If you use a biofilter to meet 
either the 95 percent reduction requirement or outlet concentration 
requirement specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must meet the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) Operational requirements. The biofilter must be operated at all 
times when emissions are vented to it.
    (ii) Performance tests. To demonstrate initial compliance, you must 
conduct a performance test according to the procedures in Sec.  63.997 
and paragraphs (c)(9)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section. The design 
evaluation option for small control devices is not applicable if you 
use a biofilter.
    (A) Keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records of 
either the biofilter bed temperature averaged over the full period of 
the performance test or the outlet total organic HAP or TOC 
concentration averaged over the full period of the performance test. 
Include these data in your notification of compliance status report as 
required by Sec.  63.999(b)(3)(ii).
    (B) Record either the percent reduction of total organic HAP 
achieved by the biofilter determined as specified in Sec.  
63.997(e)(2)(iv) or the concentration of TOC or total organic HAP 
determined as specified in Sec.  63.997(e)(2)(iii) at the outlet of the 
biofilter, as applicable.
    (C) If you monitor the biofilter bed temperature, you may elect to 
use multiple thermocouples in representative locations throughout the 
biofilter bed and calculate the average biofilter bed temperature 
across these thermocouples prior to reducing the temperature data to 15 
minute (or shorter) averages for purposes of establishing operating 
limits for the biofilter. If you use multiple thermocouples, include 
your rationale for their site selection in your notification of 
compliance status report.
    (D) Submit a performance test report as specified in Sec.  
63.999(a)(2)(i) and (ii). Include the records from paragraph 
(c)(9)(ii)(B) of this section in your performance test report.
    (iii) Monitoring requirements. Use either a biofilter bed 
temperature monitoring device (or multiple devices) capable of 
providing a continuous record or an organic monitoring device capable 
of providing a continuous record. Keep records of temperature or other 
parameter monitoring results as specified in Sec.  63.998(b) and (c), 
as applicable. General requirements for monitoring are contained in 
Sec.  63.996. If you monitor temperature, the operating temperature 
range must be based on only the temperatures measured during the 
performance test; these data may not be supplemented by engineering 
assessments or manufacturer's recommendations as otherwise allowed in 
Sec.  63.999(b)(3)(ii)(A). If you establish the operating range 
(minimum and maximum temperatures) using data from previous performance 
tests in accordance with Sec.  63.996(c)(6), replacement of the 
biofilter media with the same type of media is not considered a process 
change under Sec.  63.997(b)(1). You may expand your biofilter bed 
temperature operating range by conducting a repeat performance test 
that demonstrates compliance with the 95 percent reduction requirement 
or outlet concentration limit, as applicable.
    (iv) Repeat performance tests. You must conduct a repeat 
performance test using the applicable methods specified in Sec.  63.997 
within 2 years following the previous performance test and within 150 
days after each replacement of any portion of the biofilter bed media 
with a different type of media or each replacement of more than 50 
percent (by volume) of the biofilter bed media with the same type of 
media.

0
6. Section 63.2465 is amended by revising the section heading, 
paragraph (b), and paragraph (d) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) If any process vents within a process emit hydrogen halide and 
halogen HAP, you must determine and sum the uncontrolled hydrogen 
halide and halogen HAP emissions from each of the process vents within 
the process using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i) 
and/or (ii), as appropriate. When Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(ii)(E) requires 
documentation to be submitted in the precompliance report, it means the 
notification of compliance status report for the purposes of this 
paragraph.
* * * * *
    (d) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit in Table 3 to 
this subpart for HAP metals at a new source, you must comply with 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Determine the mass emission rate of HAP metals based on process 
knowledge, engineering assessment, or test data.
    (2) Conduct an initial performance test of each control device that 
is used to comply with the emission limit for HAP metals specified in 
Table 3 to this subpart. Conduct the performance test according to the 
procedures in Sec.  63.997. Use Method 29 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 
60 to determine the HAP metals at the inlet and outlet of each control

[[Page 40335]]

device, or use Method 5 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 to determine 
the total particulate matter (PM) at the inlet and outlet of each 
control device. You have demonstrated initial compliance if the overall 
reduction of either HAP metals or total PM from the process is greater 
than or equal to 97 percent by weight.
    (3) Comply with the monitoring requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1366(b)(1)(xi) for each fabric filter used to control HAP metals.

0
7. Section 63.2470 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) To comply with Sec.  63.1253(f)(6)(i), the owner or operator of 
an offsite cleaning or reloading facility must comply with Sec. Sec.  
63.2445 through 63.2550 instead of complying with Sec.  
63.1253(f)(7)(ii), except as specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (ii) 
of this section.
    (i) The reporting requirements in Sec.  63.2520 do not apply to the 
owner or operator of the offsite cleaning or reloading facility.
    (ii) As an alternative to complying with the monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.2445 through 
63.2550, the owner or operator of an offsite cleaning or reloading 
facility may comply as specified in Sec.  63.2535(a)(2) with any other 
subpart of this part 63 which has monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting provisions as specified in Sec.  63.2535(a)(2).
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.2475 is amended by removing paragraph (c).

0
9. Section 63.2480 is revised to read as follows:


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

    (a) You must meet each requirement in Table 6 to this subpart that 
applies to your equipment leaks, except as specified in paragraphs (b) 
through (d) of this section.
    (b) If you comply with either subpart H or subpart UU of this part 
63, you may elect to comply with the provisions in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (5) of this section as an alternative to the referenced 
provisions in subpart H or subpart UU of this part.
    (1) The requirements for pressure testing in Sec.  63.179(b) or 
Sec.  63.1036(b) may be applied to all processes, not just batch 
processes.
    (2) For the purposes of this subpart, pressure testing for leaks in 
accordance with Sec.  63.179(b) or Sec.  63.1036(b) is not required 
after reconfiguration of an equipment train if flexible hose 
connections are the only disturbed equipment.
    (3) For an existing source, you are not required to develop an 
initial list of identification numbers for connectors as would 
otherwise be required under Sec.  63.1022(b)(1) or Sec.  
63.181(b)(1)(i).
    (4) For connectors in gas/vapor and light liquid service at an 
existing source, you may elect to comply with the requirements in Sec.  
63.169 or Sec.  63.1029 for connectors in heavy liquid service, 
including all associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements, 
rather than the requirements of Sec.  63.174 or Sec.  63.1027.
    (5) For pumps in light liquid service in an MCPU that has no 
continuous process vents and is part of an existing source, you may 
elect to consider the leak definition that defines a leak to be 10,000 
parts per million (ppm) or greater as an alternative to the values 
specified in Sec.  63.1026(b)(2)(i) through (iii) or Sec.  
63.163(b)(2).
    (c) If you comply with 40 CFR part 65, subpart F, you may elect to 
comply with the provisions in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this 
section as an alternative to the referenced provisions in 40 CFR part 
65, subpart F.
    (1) The requirements for pressure testing in Sec.  65.117(b) may be 
applied to all processes, not just batch processes.
    (2) For the purposes of this subpart, pressure testing for leaks in 
accordance with Sec.  65.117(b) is not required after reconfiguration 
of an equipment train if flexible hose connections are the only 
disturbed equipment.
    (3) For an existing source, you are not required to develop an 
initial list of identification numbers for connectors as would 
otherwise be required under Sec.  65.103(b)(1).
    (4) You may elect to comply with the monitoring and repair 
requirements specified in Sec.  65.108(e)(3) as an alternative to the 
requirements specified in Sec.  65.108(a) through (d) for any 
connectors at your affected source.
    (5) For pumps in light liquid service in an MCPU that has no 
continuous process vents and is part of an existing source, you may 
elect to consider the leak definition that defines a leak to be 10,000 
ppm or greater as an alternative to the values specified in Sec.  
65.107(b)(2)(i) through (iii).
    (6) When 40 CFR part 65, subpart F refers to the implementation 
date specified in Sec.  65.1(f), it means the compliance date specified 
in Sec.  63.2445.
    (7) When Sec. Sec.  65.105(f) and 65.117(d)(3) refer to Sec.  65.4, 
it means Sec.  63.2525.
    (8) When Sec.  65.120(a) refers to Sec.  65.5(d), it means Sec.  
63.2515.
    (9) When Sec.  65.120(b) refers to Sec.  65.5(e), it means Sec.  
63.2520.
    (d) The provisions of this section do not apply to bench-scale 
processes, regardless of whether the processes are located at the same 
plant site as a process subject to the provisions of this subpart.

0
10. Section 63.2485 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) and by adding new paragraphs (m), (n), and (o) to 
read as follows:


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

    (a) You must meet each requirement in Table 7 to this subpart that 
applies to your wastewater streams and liquid streams in open systems 
within an MCPU, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (o) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The total annual average concentration of compounds in Table 8 
to this subpart is greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw at any 
flowrate, and the total annual load of compounds in Table 8 to this 
subpart is greater than or equal to 200 lb/yr.
    (2) The total annual average concentration of compounds in Table 8 
to this subpart is greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw, and the annual 
average flowrate is greater than or equal to 1 l/min.
    (3) The combined total annual average concentration of compounds in 
Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart is greater than or equal to 30,000 ppmw, 
and the combined total annual load of compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to 
this subpart is greater than or equal to 1 tpy.
* * * * *
    (m) When Sec.  63.132(f) refers to ``a concentration of greater 
than 10,000 ppmw of Table 9 compounds,'' the phrase ``a concentration 
of greater than 30,000 ppmw of total partially soluble HAP (PSHAP) and 
soluble HAP (SHAP) or greater than 10,000 ppmw of PSHAP'' shall apply 
for the purposes of this subpart.
    (n) Alternative requirements for wastewater that is Group 1 for 
soluble HAP only. The option specified in this paragraph (n) applies to 
wastewater that is Group 1 for soluble HAP in accordance with paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section and is discharged to biological treatment. 
Except as provided in paragraph (n)(4) of this section, this option 
does not apply to wastewater

[[Page 40336]]

that is Group 1 for partially soluble HAP in accordance with paragraph 
(c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(4) of this section. For wastewater that is Group 
1 for SHAP, you need not comply with Sec. Sec.  63.133 through 63.137 
for any equalization unit, neutralization unit, and/or clarifier prior 
to the activated sludge unit, and you need not comply with the venting 
requirements in Sec.  63.136(e)(2)(ii)(A) for lift stations with a 
volume larger than 10,000 gal, provided you comply with the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (3) of this section 
and all otherwise applicable requirements specified in Table 7 to this 
subpart. For this option, the treatment requirements in Sec.  63.138 
and the performance testing requirements in Sec.  63.145 do not apply 
to the biological treatment unit, except as specified in paragraphs 
(n)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (1) Wastewater must be hard-piped between the equalization unit, 
clarifier, and activated sludge unit. This requirement does not apply 
to the transfer between any of these types of units that are part of 
the same structure and one unit overflows into the next.
    (2) Calculate the destruction efficiency of the biological 
treatment unit using Equation 1 of this section in accordance with the 
procedures described in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) through (vi) of this 
section. You have demonstrated initial compliance if E is greater than 
or equal to 90 percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JY06.031

Where:

E = destruction efficiency of total PSHAP and SHAP for the biological 
treatment unit including the equalization unit, neutralization unit, 
and/or clarifier, percent;
QMWa = mass flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP compounds 
entering the equalization unit (or whichever of the three types of 
units is first), kilograms per hour (kg/hr);
QMGe = mass flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP compounds 
emitted from the equalization unit, kg/hr;
QMGn = mass flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP compounds 
emitted from the neutralization unit, kg/hr;
QMGc = mass flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP compounds 
emitted from the clarifier, kg/hr
Fbio = site-specific fraction of PSHAP and SHAP compounds 
biodegraded in the biological treatment unit.

    (i) Include all PSHAP and SHAP compounds in both Group 1 and Group 
2 wastewater streams from all MCPU, except you may exclude any 
compounds that meet the criteria specified in Sec.  63.145(a)(6)(ii) or 
(iii).
    (ii) Conduct the demonstration under representative process unit 
and treatment unit operating conditions in accordance with Sec.  
63.145(a)(3) and (4).
    (iii) Determine PSHAP and SHAP concentrations and the total 
wastewater flow rate at the inlet to the equalization unit in 
accordance with Sec.  63.145(f)(1) and (2). References in Sec.  
63.145(f)(1) and (2) to required mass removal and actual mass removal 
do not apply for the purposes of this section.
    (iv) Determine Fbio for the activated sludge unit as 
specified in Sec.  63.145(h), except as specified in paragraph 
(n)(2)(iv)(A) or paragraph (n)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
    (A) If the biological treatment process meets both of the 
requirements specified in Sec.  63.145(h)(1)(i) and (ii), you may elect 
to replace the Fbio term in Equation 1 of this section with 
the numeral ``1.''
    (B) You may elect to assume fbio is zero for any 
compounds on List 2 of Table 36 in subpart G.
    (v) Determine QMGe, QMGn, and QMGc 
using EPA's WATER9 model or the most recent update to this model, and 
conduct testing or use other procedures to validate the modeling 
results.
    (vi) Submit the data and results of your demonstration, including 
both a description of and the results of your WATER9 modeling 
validation procedures, in your notification of compliance status report 
as specified in Sec.  63.2520(d)(2)(ii).
    (3) As an alternative to the venting requirements in Sec.  
63.136(e)(2)(ii)(A), a lift station with a volume larger than 10,000 
gal may have openings necessary for proper venting of the lift station. 
The size and other design characteristics of these openings may be 
established based on manufacturer recommendations or engineering 
judgment for venting under normal operating conditions. You must 
describe the design of such openings and your supporting calculations 
and other rationale in your notification of compliance status report.
    (4) For any wastewater streams that are Group 1 for both PSHAP and 
SHAP, you may elect to meet the requirements specified in Table 7 to 
this subpart for the PSHAP and then comply with paragraphs (n)(1) 
through (3) of this section for the SHAP in the wastewater system. You 
may determine the SHAP mass removal rate, in kg/hr, in treatment units 
that are used to meet the requirements for PSHAP and add this amount to 
both the numerator and denominator in Equation 1 of this section.
    (o) Compliance records. For each CPMS used to monitor a nonflare 
control device for wastewater emissions, you must keep records as 
specified in Sec.  63.998(c)(1) in addition to the records required in 
Sec.  63.147(d).

0
11. Section 63.2495 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) You must comply with the emission limitations and work practice 
standards contained in Tables 1 through 7 of this subpart for all HAP 
that are generated in the MCPU and that are not included in 
consumption, as defined in Sec.  63.2550. If any vent stream routed to 
the combustion control is a halogenated vent stream, as defined in 
Sec.  63.2550, then hydrogen halides that are generated as a result of 
combustion control must be controlled according to the requirements of 
Sec.  63.994 and the requirements referenced therein.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.2520 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(4);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ix);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(5) introductory text, (e)(5)(ii)(C), and 
(e)(5)(iii)(K) and adding new paragraph (e)(5)(iv);
0
d. Revising paragraph (e)(9); and
0
e. Revising the first two sentences of paragraph (e)(10)(i) and 
paragraph (e)(10)(ii)(C) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2520  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Data and rationale used to support an engineering assessment to 
calculate uncontrolled emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(ii). This requirement does not apply to

[[Page 40337]]

calculations of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions as specified 
in Sec.  63.2465(b), to determinations that the total HAP concentration 
is less than 50 ppmv, or if you use previous test data to establish the 
uncontrolled emissions.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The results of any applicability determinations, emission 
calculations, or analyses used to identify and quantify HAP usage or 
HAP emissions from the affected source.
* * * * *
    (ix) Records as specified in Sec.  63.2535(l)(1) through (3) of 
process units used to create a PUG and calculations of the initial 
primary product of the PUG.
    (e) * * *
    (5) The compliance report must contain the information on 
deviations, as defined in Sec.  63.2550, according to paragraphs 
(e)(5)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) Operating logs of processes with batch vents from batch 
operations for the day(s) during which the deviation occurred, except 
operating logs are not required for deviations of the work practice 
standards for equipment leaks.
    (iii) * * *
    (K) Operating logs of processes with batch vents from batch 
operations for each day(s) during which the deviation occurred.
* * * * *
    (iv) If you documented in your notification of compliance status 
report that an MCPU has Group 2 batch process vents because the non-
reactive HAP is the only HAP and usage is less than 10,000 lb/yr, the 
total uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the batch process vents 
in an MCPU will be less than 1,000 lb/yr for the anticipated number of 
standard batches, or total uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 
emissions from all batch process vents and continuous process vents in 
a process are less than 1,000 lb/yr, include the records associated 
with each calculation required by Sec.  63.2525(e) that exceeds an 
applicable HAP usage or emissions threshold.
* * * * *
    (9) Applicable records and information for periodic reports as 
specified in referenced subparts F, G, H, SS, UU, WW, and GGG of this 
part and subpart F of 40 CFR part 65.
    (10) * * *
    (i) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(10)(ii) of this section, 
whenever you make a process change, or change any of the information 
submitted in the notification of compliance status report or a previous 
compliance report, that is not within the scope of an existing 
operating scenario, you must document the change in your compliance 
report. A process change does not include moving within a range of 
conditions identified in the standard batch, and a nonstandard batch 
does not constitute a process change. * * *
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) A change from Group 2 to Group 1 for any emission point except 
for batch process vents that meet the conditions specified in Sec.  
63.2460(b)(6)(i).

0
13. Section 63.2525 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), and (e) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2525  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (a) Each applicable record required by subpart A of this part 63 
and in referenced subparts F, G, SS, UU, WW, and GGG of this part 63 
and in referenced subpart F of 40 CFR part 65.
* * * * *
    (c) A schedule or log of operating scenarios for processes with 
batch vents from batch operations updated each time a different 
operating scenario is put into effect.
* * * * *
    (e) The information specified in paragraph (e)(2), (3), or (4) of 
this section, as applicable, for each process with Group 2 batch 
process vents or uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions 
from the sum of all batch and continuous process vents less than 1,000 
lb/yr. No records are required for situations described in paragraph 
(e)(1) of this section.
    (1) No records are required if you documented in your notification 
of compliance status report that the MCPU meets any of the situations 
described in paragraph (e)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
    (i) The MCPU does not process, use, or generate HAP.
    (ii) You control the Group 2 batch process vents using a flare that 
meets the requirements of Sec.  63.987.
    (iii) You control the Group 2 batch process vents using a control 
device for which your determination of worst case for initial 
compliance includes the contribution of all Group 2 batch process 
vents.
    (2) If you documented in your notification of compliance status 
report that an MCPU has Group 2 batch process vents because the non-
reactive organic HAP is the only HAP and usage is less than 10,000 lb/
yr, as specified in Sec.  63.2460(b)(7), you must keep records of the 
amount of HAP material used, and calculate the daily rolling annual sum 
of the amount used no less frequently than monthly. If a record 
indicates usage exceeds 10,000 lb/yr, you must estimate emissions for 
the preceding 12 months based on the number of batches operated and the 
estimated emissions for a standard batch, and you must begin 
recordkeeping as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section. After 1 
year, you may revert to recording only usage if the usage during the 
year is less than 10,000 lb.
    (3) If you documented in your notification of compliance status 
report that total uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the batch 
process vents in an MCPU will be less than 1,000 lb/yr for the 
anticipated number of standard batches, then you must keep records of 
the number of batches operated and calculate a daily rolling annual sum 
of batches operated no less frequently than monthly. If the number of 
batches operated results in organic HAP emissions that exceed 1,000 lb/
yr, you must estimate emissions for the preceding 12 months based on 
the number of batches operated and the estimated emissions for a 
standard batch, and you must begin recordkeeping as specified in 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section. After 1 year, you may revert to 
recording only the number of batches if the number of batches operated 
during the year results in less than 1,000 lb of organic HAP emissions.
    (4) If you meet none of the conditions specified in paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (3) of this section, you must keep records of the 
information specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) A record of the day each batch was completed and/or the 
operating hours per day for continuous operations with hydrogen halide 
and halogen emissions.
    (ii) A record of whether each batch operated was considered a 
standard batch.
    (iii) The estimated uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each 
batch that is considered to be a nonstandard batch.
    (iv) Records of the daily 365-day rolling summations of emissions, 
or alternative records that correlate to the emissions (e.g., number of 
batches), calculated no less frequently than monthly.
* * * * *

0
14. Section 63.2535 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (k) to 
read as follows:

[[Page 40338]]

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

* * * * *
    (a) Compliance with other subparts of this part 63. (1) If you have 
an MCPU that includes a batch process vent that also is part of a CMPU 
as defined in subparts F and G of this part 63, you must comply with 
the emission limits; operating limits; work practice standards; and the 
compliance, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for 
batch process vents in this subpart, and you must continue to comply 
with the requirements in subparts F, G, and H of this part 63 that are 
applicable to the CMPU and associated equipment.
    (2) After the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2445, at an 
offsite reloading or cleaning facility subject to Sec.  63.1253(f), as 
referenced from Sec.  63.2470(e), compliance with the monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of any other subpart of this 
part 63 constitutes compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting provisions of Sec.  63.1253(f)(7)(ii) or Sec.  
63.1253(f)(7)(iii). You must identify in your notification of 
compliance status report required by Sec.  63.2520(d) the subpart of 
this part 63 with which the owner or operator of the offsite reloading 
or cleaning facility complies.
* * * * *
    (k) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, and 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart V. After the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.2445, if you 
have an affected source with equipment that is also subject to the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart 
V, you may elect to apply this subpart to all such equipment. After the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  63.2445, if you have an affected 
source with equipment to which this subpart does not apply, but which 
is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR 
part 61, subpart V, you may elect to apply this subpart to all such 
equipment. If you elect either of these methods of compliance, you must 
consider all total organic compounds, minus methane and ethane, in such 
equipment for purposes of compliance with this subpart, as if they were 
organic HAP. Compliance with the provisions of this subpart, in the 
manner described in this paragraph (k), will constitute compliance with 
40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, as 
applicable.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.2550 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (i) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (8) in the definition of the term ``batch process 
vent'' in paragraph (i);
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (6) and (7) to the definition of the term 
``continuous process vent'' in paragraph (i);
0
e. Revising the definition of the term ``Group 1 continuous process 
vent'' in paragraph (i);
0
f. Revising the definition of the term ``isolated intermediate'' in 
paragraph (i);
0
g. Adding new paragraph (6) to the definition of the term 
``miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process'' in paragraph 
(i);
0
h. Revising the definition of the term ``recovery device'' in paragraph 
(i);
0
i. Revising the definition of the term ``surge control vessel'' in 
paragraph (i);
0
j. Revising the introductory text of the definition of the term 
``wastewater'' in paragraph (i); and
0
k. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for the terms 
``biofilter,'' ``continuous operation,'' ``emission point,'' ``halogen 
atoms,'' ``HAP metals,'' ``point of determination,'' and ``process 
condenser'' in paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2550  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 40 
CFR part 65, subpart F, the terms used in this subpart and in 40 CFR 
part 65, subpart F have the meaning given to them in Sec.  65.2.
* * * * *
    (i) * * * If a term is defined in Sec.  63.2, Sec.  63.101, Sec.  
63.111, Sec.  63.981, Sec.  63.1020, Sec.  63.1061, Sec.  63.1251, or 
Sec.  65.2 and in this paragraph (i), the definition in this paragraph 
(i) applies for the purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
    Batch process vent * * *
    (8) Emission streams from emission episodes that are undiluted and 
uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP are not part of any batch 
process vent. A vent from a unit operation, or a vent from multiple 
unit operations that are manifolded together, from which total 
uncontrolled HAP emissions are less than 200 lb/yr is not a batch 
process vent; emissions for all emission episodes associated with the 
unit operation(s) must be included in the determination of the total 
mass emitted. The HAP concentration or mass emission rate may be 
determined using any of the following: process knowledge that no HAP 
are present in the emission stream; an engineering assessment as 
discussed in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(ii), except that you do not need to 
demonstrate that the equations in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i) do not apply, 
and the precompliance reporting requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(ii)(E) do not apply for the purposes of this 
demonstration; equations specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i), as 
applicable; test data using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; or 
any other test method that has been validated according to the 
procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part.
* * * * *
    Biofilter means an enclosed control system such as a tank or series 
of tanks with a fixed roof that contact emissions with a solid media 
(such as bark) and use microbiological activity to transform organic 
pollutants in a process vent stream to innocuous compounds such as 
carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic salts. Wastewater treatment 
processes such as aeration lagoons or activated sludge systems are not 
considered to be biofilters.
* * * * *
    Continuous operation means any operation that is not a batch 
operation.
    Continuous process vent * * *
    (6) The references to an ``air oxidation reactor, distillation 
unit, or reactor'' in Sec.  63.107 mean any continuous operation for 
the purposes of this subpart.
    (7) A separate determination is required for the emissions from 
each MCPU, even if emission streams from two or more MCPU are combined 
prior to discharge to the atmosphere or to a control device.
* * * * *
    Emission point means each continuous process vent, batch process 
vent, storage tank, transfer rack, and wastewater stream.
* * * * *
    Group 1 continuous process vent means a continuous process vent for 
which the flow rate is greater than or equal to 0.005 standard cubic 
meter per minute, and the total resource effectiveness index value, 
calculated according to Sec.  63.2455(b), is less than or equal to 1.9 
at an existing source and less than or equal to 5.0 at a new source.
* * * * *
    Halogen atoms mean chlorine and fluorine.
    HAP metals means the metal portion of antimony compounds, arsenic 
compounds, beryllium compounds, cadmium compounds, chromium compounds, 
cobalt compounds, lead compounds, manganese compounds, mercury 
compounds, nickel compounds, and selenium compounds.
* * * * *

[[Page 40339]]

    Isolated intermediate means a product of a process that is stored 
before subsequent processing. An isolated intermediate is usually a 
product of a chemical synthesis, fermentation, or biological extraction 
process. Storage of an isolated intermediate marks the end of a 
process. Storage occurs at any time the intermediate is placed in 
equipment used solely for storage. The storage equipment is part of the 
MCPU that produces the isolated intermediate and is not assigned as 
specified in Sec.  63.2435(d).
    Miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process * * *
    (6) The end of a process that produces a solid material is either 
up to and including the dryer or extruder, or for a polymer production 
process without a dryer or extruder, it is up to and including the 
extruder, die plate, or solid-state reactor, except in two cases. If 
the dryer, extruder, die plate, or solid-state reactor is followed by 
an operation that is designed and operated to remove HAP solvent or 
residual HAP monomer from the solid, then the solvent removal operation 
is the last step in the process. If the dried solid is diluted or mixed 
with a HAP-based solvent, then the solvent removal operation is the 
last step in the process.
* * * * *
    Point of determination means each point where process wastewater 
exits the MCPU or control device.
    Note to definition for point of determination: The regulation 
allows determination of the characteristics of a wastewater stream: At 
the point of determination; or downstream of the point of determination 
if corrections are made for changes in flow rate and annual average 
concentration of soluble HAP and partially soluble HAP compounds as 
determined according to procedures in Sec.  63.144 of subpart G in this 
part 63. Such changes include losses by air emissions; reduction of 
annual average concentration or changes in flow rate by mixing with 
other water or wastewater streams; and reduction in flow rate or annual 
average concentration by treating or otherwise handling the wastewater 
stream to remove or destroy HAP.
* * * * *
    Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to 
recover material as an integral part of an MCPU. All condensers 
recovering condensate from an MCPU at or above the boiling point or all 
condensers in line prior to a vacuum source are considered process 
condensers. Typically, a primary condenser or condensers in series are 
considered to be integral to the MCPU if they are capable of and 
normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value 
(i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse or for sale for fuel 
value, use, or reuse. This definition does not apply to a condenser 
that is used to remove materials that would hinder performance of a 
downstream recovery device as follows:
    (1) To remove water vapor that would cause icing in a downstream 
condenser, or
    (2) To remove water vapor that would negatively affect the 
adsorption capacity of carbon in a downstream carbon adsorber, or
    (3) To remove high molecular weight organic compounds or other 
organic compounds that would be difficult to remove during regeneration 
of a downstream carbon adsorber.
* * * * *
    Recovery device means an individual unit of equipment used for the 
purpose of recovering chemicals from process vent streams and from 
wastewater streams for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value), 
use, reuse, or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. For the purposes 
of meeting requirements in Table 2 to this subpart, the recovery device 
must not be a process condenser and must recover chemicals to be reused 
in a process on site. Examples of equipment that may be recovery 
devices include absorbers, carbon adsorbers, condensers, oil-water 
separators or organic-water separators, or organic removal devices such 
as decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation units. To be a 
recovery device for a wastewater stream, a decanter and any other 
equipment based on the operating principle of gravity separation must 
receive only multi-phase liquid streams.
* * * * *
    Surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums, and 
intermediate vessels as part of any continuous operation. Surge control 
vessels are used within an MCPU when in-process storage, mixing, or 
management of flowrates or volumes is needed to introduce material into 
continuous operations.
* * * * *
    Wastewater means water that is discarded from an MCPU or control 
device through a POD and that contains either: an annual average 
concentration of compounds in Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart of at 
least 5 ppmw and has an annual average flowrate of 0.02 liters per 
minute or greater; or an annual average concentration of compounds in 
Tables 8 and 9 to this subpart of at least 10,000 ppmw at any flowrate. 
Wastewater means process wastewater or maintenance wastewater. The 
following are not considered wastewater for the purposes of this 
subpart:
* * * * *

0
16. Table 2 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entry 1 
to read as follows:

 Table 2 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                    Standards for Batch Process Vents
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        And you must . .
        For each . . .            Then you must . . .           .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Process with Group 1 batch   a. Reduce collective    Not applicable.
 process vents.                  uncontrolled organic
                                 HAP emissions from
                                 the sum of all batch
                                 process vents within
                                 the process by >=98
                                 percent by weight by
                                 venting emissions
                                 from a sufficient
                                 number of the vents
                                 through one or more
                                 closed-vent systems
                                 to any combination of
                                 control devices
                                 (except a flare); or
                                b. Reduce collective    Not applicable.
                                 uncontrolled organic
                                 HAP emissions from
                                 the sum of all batch
                                 process vents within
                                 the process by >=95
                                 percent by weight by
                                 venting emissions
                                 from a sufficient
                                 number of the vents
                                 through one or more
                                 closed-vent systems
                                 to any combination of
                                 recovery devices or a
                                 biofilter, except you
                                 may elect to comply
                                 with the requirements
                                 of subpart WW of this
                                 part for any process
                                 tank; or

[[Page 40340]]


                                c. Reduce uncontrolled  For all other
                                 organic HAP emissions   batch process
                                 from one or more        vents within
                                 batch process vents     the process,
                                 within the process by   reduce
                                 venting through a       collective
                                 closed-vent system to   organic HAP
                                 a flare or by venting   emissions as
                                 through one or more     specified in
                                 closed-vent systems     item 1.a and/or
                                 to any combination of   item 1.b of
                                 control devices         this table.
                                 (excluding a flare)
                                 that reduce organic
                                 HAP to an outlet
                                 concentration < =20
                                 ppmv as TOC or total
                                 organic HAP.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
17. Table 3 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 3 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits for Hydrogen Halide
  and Halogen HAP Emissions or HAP Metals Emissions From Process Vents
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Process with uncontrolled hydrogen    a. Reduce collective hydrogen
 halide and halogen HAP emissions from    halide and halogen HAP
 process vents >=1,000 lb/yr.             emissions by >=99 percent by
                                          weight or to an outlet
                                          concentration < =20 ppmv by
                                          venting through one or more
                                          closed-vent systems to any
                                          combination of control
                                          devices, or
                                         b. Reduce the halogen atom mass
                                          emission rate from the sum of
                                          all batch process vents and
                                          each individual continuous
                                          process vent to < =0.45 kg/hr
                                          by venting through one or more
                                          closed-vent systems to a
                                          halogen reduction device.
2. Process at a new source with          Reduce overall emissions of HAP
 uncontrolled emissions from process      metals by >=97 percent by
 vents >=150 lb/yr of HAP metals.         weight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
18. Table 4 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entry 1 
to read as follows:

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

[[Page 40341]]


                                                        ii. Reduce total
                                                         HAP emissions
                                                         by >=95 percent
                                                         by weight or to
                                                         < =20 ppmv of
                                                         TOC or organic
                                                         HAP and < =20
                                                         ppmv of
                                                         hydrogen halide
                                                         and halogen HAP
                                                         by venting
                                                         emissions
                                                         through a
                                                         closed vent
                                                         system to any
                                                         combination of
                                                         control devices
                                                         (excluding a
                                                         flare); or
                                                        iii. Reduce
                                                         total organic
                                                         HAP emissions
                                                         by venting
                                                         emissions
                                                         through a
                                                         closed vent
                                                         system to a
                                                         flare; or
                                                        iv. Reduce total
                                                         HAP emissions
                                                         by venting
                                                         emissions to a
                                                         fuel gas system
                                                         or process in
                                                         accordance with
                                                         Sec.
                                                         63.982(d) and
                                                         the
                                                         requirements
                                                         referenced
                                                         therein.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
19. Table 5 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entry 1 
to read as follows:

 Table 5 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                      Standards for Transfer Racks
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 transfer rack..........  a. Reduce emissions of total organic
                                     HAP by >=98 percent by weight or to
                                     an outlet concentration < =20 ppmv
                                     as organic HAP or TOC by venting
                                     emissions through a closed-vent
                                     system to any combination of
                                     control devices (except a flare);
                                     or
                                    b. Reduce emissions of total organic
                                     HAP by venting emissions through a
                                     closed-vent system to a flare; or
                                    c. Reduce emissions of total organic
                                     HAP by venting emissions to a fuel
                                     gas system or process in accordance
                                     with Sec.   63.982(d) and the
                                     requirements referenced therein; or
                                    d. Use a vapor balancing system
                                     designed and operated to collect
                                     organic HAP vapors displaced from
                                     tank trucks and railcars during
                                     loading and route the collected HAP
                                     vapors to the storage tank from
                                     which the liquid being loaded
                                     originated or to another storage
                                     tank connected by a common header.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
20. Table 6 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entry 1 
to read as follows:

  Table 6 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           For all . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment that is in organic     a. Comply with the requirements of
 HAP service.                        subpart UU of this part 63 and the
                                     requirements referenced therein,
                                     except as specified in Sec.
                                     63.2480(b) and (d); or
                                    b. Comply with the requirements of
                                     subpart H of this part 63 and the
                                     requirements referenced therein,
                                     except as specified in Sec.
                                     63.2480(b) and (d); or
                                    c. Comply with the requirements of
                                     40 CFR part 65, subpart F and the
                                     requirements referenced therein,
                                     except as specified in Sec.
                                     63.2480(c) and (d).

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
21. Table 8 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by removing entry 10 
and redesignating entries 11 through 61 as entries 10 through 60.
0
22. Table 12 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended as follows:

[[Page 40342]]

0
a. Removing the entries for Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii) and 
63.10(e)(1)-(2);
0
b. Adding new entries for Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(4)(i), 63.8(c)(4)(ii), 
63.10(e)(1), 63.10(e)(2)(i), and 63.10(e)(2)(ii); and
0
c. Revising the entries for Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(4), 63.8(c)(6), 
63.8(c)(7)-(8), 63.8(d), 63.8(e), 63.9(g), 63.10(b)(2)(xiii), and 
63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(15).

     Table 12 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63.--Applicability of General
                       Provisions to Subpart FFFF
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Citation                  Subject            Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).............  CMS Requirements.  Only for CEMS.
                                                    Requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subparts G and SS of
                                                    part 63.
                                                    Requirements for
                                                    COMS do not apply
                                                    because subpart FFFF
                                                    does not require
                                                    continuous opacity
                                                    monitoring systems
                                                    (COMS).
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i)..........  COMS Measurement   No; subpart FFFF does
                                 and Recording      not require COMS.
                                 Frequency.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(ii).........  CEMS Measurement   Yes.
                                 and Recording
                                 Frequency.

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).............  CMS Requirements.  Only for CEMS;
                                                    requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subparts G and SS of
                                                    this part 63.
                                                    Requirements for
                                                    COMS do not apply
                                                    because subpart FFFF
                                                    does not require
                                                    COMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8).........  CMS Requirements.  Only for CEMS.
                                                    Requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subparts G and SS of
                                                    part 63.
                                                    Requirements for
                                                    COMS do not apply
                                                    because subpart FFFF
                                                    does not require
                                                    COMS.
Sec.   63.8(d)................  CMS Quality        Only for CEMS.
                                 Control.
Sec.   63.8(e)................  CMS Performance    Only for CEMS.
                                 Evaluation.        Section
                                                    63.8(e)(5)(ii) does
                                                    not apply because
                                                    subpart FFFF does
                                                    not require COMS.

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.9(g)................  Additional         Only for CEMS.
                                 Notifications      Section 63.9(g)(2)
                                 When Using CMS.    does not apply
                                                    because subpart FFFF
                                                    does not require
                                                    COMS.

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)......  Records..........  Only for CEMS.

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6),(9)-     Records..........  Only for CEMS.
 (15).                                              Recordkeeping
                                                    requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subparts G and SS of
                                                    this part 63.

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)............  Additional CEMS    Yes.
                                 Reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(i).........  Additional CMS     Only for CEMS.
                                 Reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii)........  Additional COMS    No. Subpart FFFF does
                                 Reports.           not require COMS.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 06-5970 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
