
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22566-22602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8168]



[[Page 22565]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 77

April 21, 2011

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: 
Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations; 
Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing Industry; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 22566]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600; FRL-9291-3]
RIN 2060-AO91


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading 
Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing 
Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action for four national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) that regulate 12 
industrial source categories evaluated in our risk and technology 
review. The four NESHAP include: National Emissions Standards for Group 
I Polymers and Resins (Butyl Rubber Production, Epichlorohydrin 
Elastomers Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production, 
Hypalon\TM\ Production, Neoprene Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber 
Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, Polysulfide Rubber 
Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production); Marine 
Tank Vessel Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and The 
Printing and Publishing Industry.
    For some source categories, EPA is finalizing our decisions 
concerning the residual risk and technology reviews. For the Marine 
Tank Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP and the Group I Polymers and 
Resins NESHAP, EPA is finalizing emission standards to address certain 
emission sources not previously regulated under the NESHAP. EPA is also 
finalizing changes to the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP to correct 
an editorial error. For each of the four NESHAP, EPA is finalizing 
revisions to the regulatory provisions related to emissions during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and promulgating 
provisions addressing electronic submission of emission test results.

DATES: This final action is effective on April 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600. 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 (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet, and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at 
the EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours 
of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), 
Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room 
is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Refining and 
Chemicals Group (E143-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4516; fax 
number: (919) 685-3219; and e-mail address: kissell.mary@epa.gov. For 
additional contact information, see the following SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For specific information regarding the 
modeling methodology, contact Ms. Elaine Manning, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air 
Toxics Assessment Group (C539-02), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-
5499; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and e-mail address: 
manning.elaine@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of 
these four NESHAP to a particular entity, contact the appropriate 
person listed in Table 1 to this preamble.

  Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         NESHAP for:            OECA contact \1\      OAQPS contact \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group I Polymers and Resins.  Marcia Mia (202) 564- Nick Parsons, (919)
                               7042,                 541-5372,
                               mia.marcia@epa.gov.   parsons.nick@epa.gov.
Marine Tank Vessel Loading    Maria Malave, (202)   Steve Shedd, (919)
 Operations.                   564-7027,             541-5397,
                               malave.maria@epa.go   shedd.steve@epa.gov
                               v.                    .
Pharmaceuticals Production..  Marcia Mia, (202)     Nick Parsons, (919)
                               564-7042,             541-5372,
                               mia.marcia@epa.gov.   parsons.nick@epa.gov.
The Printing and Publishing   Rafael Sanchez,       David Salman, (919)
 Industry.                     (202) 564-7028,       541-5402,
                               sanchez.rafael@epa.   salman.dave@epa.gov
                               gov.                  .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OECA stands for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
  Assurance.
\2\ OAQPS stands for EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

    Background Information Document. On October 21, 2010 (75 FR 65068), 
EPA proposed revisions to six NESHAP that regulate 16 industrial source 
categories evaluated in our risk and technology review. The six NESHAP 
and industrial source categories are: National Emissions Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Hard and Decorative Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Group I Polymers and 
Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals 
Production; The Printing and Publishing Industry; and Steel Pickling--
HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration. In this 
action, we are finalizing decisions for four of these NESHAP--Group I 
Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations; 
Pharmaceuticals Production; and The Printing and Publishing Industry. 
We will finalize our decisions for the Hard and Decorative Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks NESHAP and the Steel 
Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration in 
a future rulemaking.\1\ A summary of the public comments on the 
proposal, and EPA's responses to the comments, is

[[Page 22567]]

available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We addressed two additional source categories as part of 
this proposed rule, Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and 
Chromium Anodizing Tanks and Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities 
and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration, and we plan to take final action 
on those two source categories in June 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in the preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rules
    A. What are the final rule amendments for the Group I Polymers 
and Resins source categories?
    B. What are the final rule amendments for the Marine Tank Vessel 
Loading Operations (MTVLO) source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments for the Pharmaceuticals 
Production source category?
    D. What are the final rule amendments for the Printing and 
Publishing Industry source category?
    E. What are the requirements during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction?
    F. What are the requirements for submission of emissions test 
results to EPA?
    G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. What changes did we make to the risk assessments for these 
source categories since proposal?
    B. What changes did we make to the Group I Polymers and Resins 
MACT since proposal?
    C. What changes did we make to the Marine Tank Vessel Loading 
Operations MACT since proposal?
V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
    A. EPA's Authority Under CAA Section 112
    B. Group I Polymers and Resins
    C. Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations
    D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Requirements
VI. Impacts of the Final Rules
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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 Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

    A red-line version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
changes in this action is available in the docket.

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

 Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       NESHAP and source category         NAICS \1\ code   MACT \2\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group I Polymers and Resins:
    Butyl Rubber Production.............          325212            1307
    Epichlorohydrin Elastomers                    325212            1311
     Production.........................
    Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production          325212            1313
    Hypalon\TM\ Production..............          325212            1315
    Neoprene Production.................          325212            1320
    Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production.          325212            1321
    Polybutadiene Rubber Production.....          325212            1325
    Polysulfide Rubber Production.......          325212            1332
    Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex            325212            1339
     Production.........................
Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations...            4883            0603
Pharmaceuticals Production..............            3254            1201
The Printing and Publishing Industry....           32311            0714
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

    Table 2 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final 
action for the source categories listed. To determine whether your 
facility would be affected, you should examine the applicability 
criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding 
the applicability of any of these NESHAP, please contact the 
appropriate person listed in Table 1 of this preamble in the preceding 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the World Wide Web (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 and promulgated rules at the following 
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control.
    Additional information is available on the residual risk and 
technology review (RTR) Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source category descriptions and 
detailed emissions and other data that were used as inputs to the risk 
assessments.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review 
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit by June 20, 2011. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce the 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

[[Page 22568]]

section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to 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 20460.

II. Background

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of 
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the 
CAA, section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those 
sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, or have the potential 
to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (TPY) or more, or 
25 TPY or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these 
technology-based standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission 
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts), 
and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) standards.
    For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor requirements, 
and may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). 
For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the 
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled 
similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less 
stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we must 
also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor, 
under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements. In promulgating MACT standards, CAA 
section 112(d)(2) directs us to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems, or techniques that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from 
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; and/or are 
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake two 
different analyses, as required by the CAA: Section 112(d)(6) of the 
CAA calls for us to review these technology-based standards, and to 
revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years; and within 8 years after promulgation of the 
technology standards, CAA section 112(f) calls for us to evaluate the 
risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-
based standards and to revise the standards, if necessary, to provide 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, 
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant 
factors, an adverse environmental effect. In doing so, EPA may adopt 
standards equal to existing MACT standards if EPA determines that the 
existing standards are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 
1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    On October 21, 2010, EPA published a proposed rule and supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for these four 
NESHAP that took into consideration the RTR analyses. For these 
NESHAP--Group I Polymers and Resins, Marine Tank Vessel Loading 
Operations, Pharmaceuticals Production, and The Printing and Publishing 
Industry--this action provides EPA's final determinations pursuant to 
the RTR provisions of CAA section 112. In addition, we are promulgating 
amendments as follows:
     For the Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP and 
Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) 
and (3), EPA is finalizing revisions to address certain emission 
sources not currently regulated under the standards.
     For the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP, EPA is 
finalizing changes to correct an editorial error.
     For each of the four NESHAP, EPA is finalizing revisions 
to requirements in each NESHAP related to emissions during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).
     For each of the four NESHAP, EPA is finalizing revisions 
to requirements in each NESHAP related to electronic reporting.

III. Summary of the Final Rules

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Group I Polymers and 
Resins source categories?

    The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins were promulgated on September 5, 
1996 (62 FR 46925), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart U. The 
Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards apply to major sources and 
regulate HAP emissions from nine source categories: Butyl Rubber 
Production, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Ethylene Propylene 
Rubber Production, Hypalon\TM\ Production, Neoprene Production, Nitrile 
Butadiene Rubber (NBR) Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, 
Polysulfide Rubber Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex 
Production.
    The Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards regulate HAP 
emissions resulting from the production of elastomers (i.e., synthetic 
rubber). An elastomer is a synthetic polymeric material that can 
stretch to at least twice its original length and then return rapidly 
to approximately its original length when released. Elastomers are 
produced via a polymerization/copolymerization process, in which 
monomers undergo intermolecular chemical bond formation to form a very 
large polymer molecule. Generally, the production of elastomers entails 
four processes: (1) Raw material (i.e., solvent) storage and refining; 
(2) polymer formation in a reactor (either via the solution process, 
where monomers are dissolved in an organic solvent, or the emulsion 
process, where monomers are dispersed in water using a soap solution); 
(3) stripping and material recovery; and (4) finishing (i.e., blending, 
aging, coagulation, washing, and drying).
    Sources of HAP emissions from elastomers production include raw 
material storage vessels, front-end

[[Page 22569]]

process vents, back-end process operations, wastewater operations, and 
equipment leaks. The ``front-end'' processes include pre-
polymerization, reaction, stripping, and material recovery operations; 
and the ``back-end'' process includes all operations after stripping 
(predominantly drying and finishing). Typical control devices used to 
reduce organic HAP emissions from front-end process vents include 
flares, incinerators, absorbers, carbon adsorbers, and condensers. 
Emissions from storage vessels are controlled by floating roofs or by 
routing them to a control device.
    While emissions from back-end process operations can be controlled 
with control devices such as incinerators, the most common method of 
reducing these emissions is the pollution prevention method of reducing 
the amount of residual HAP that is contained in the raw product going 
to the back-end operations. Emissions from wastewater are controlled by 
a variety of methods, including equipment modifications (e.g., fixed 
roofs on storage vessels and oil water separators; covers on surface 
impoundments, containers, and drain systems), treatment to remove the 
HAP (steam stripping, biological treatment), control devices, and work 
practices.
    Emissions from equipment leaks are typically reduced by leak 
detection and repair work practice programs, and in some cases, by 
equipment modifications.
    For these five Group I Polymers and Resins \2\ source categories--
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production; HypalonTM Production; 
Polybutadiene Rubber Production; Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex 
Production; and NBR Production--we have determined that the current 
MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, and prevent adverse 
environmental effects. We are, therefore, re-adopting the existing MACT 
standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. We have also determined 
that there have been no significant developments in practices, 
processes, or control technologies since promulgation of the MACT 
standards, and that, therefore, it is not necessary to revise the MACT 
standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We previously re-adopted the existing MACT standards to 
satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA for four Group I Polymers and 
Resins source categories--Neoprene Rubber Production; Ethylene 
Propylene Rubber Production; Butyl Rubber Production; and 
Polysulfide Rubber Production. See 73 FR 76220, published December 
16, 2008.
    \3\ We note there are no longer any operating facilities in the 
United States that produce Hypalon\TM\, and we do not anticipate 
that any will begin operation in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are eliminating the subcategories in the Butyl Rubber source 
category (Butyl Rubber and Halobutyl Rubber) because the technical 
differences that distinguished the subcategories when the original rule 
was developed no longer exist. The existing requirements for facilities 
producing either butyl rubber or halobutyl rubber as the primary 
product are identical, and, therefore, the removal of the subcategory 
distinction does not affect these requirements. The source category 
remains named Butyl Rubber Production. We are establishing standards at 
the MACT floor level of control for previously unregulated hydrochloric 
acid (HCl) emissions from front-end process vents in the Butyl Rubber 
and Ethylene Propylene Rubber source categories. We are also 
establishing standards at the MACT floor level of control for 
previously unregulated back-end process operations in the 
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, NBR, Neoprene, and Butyl Rubber source 
categories.
    The numerical emission standards that are being finalized in this 
action for new and existing major source facilities in the Group 1 
Polymers and Resins source categories are shown in Table 3 of this 
preamble.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 22570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP11.001

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 22571]]

    We are finalizing changes to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT 
standards to eliminate the SSM exemption. These changes revise Table 1 
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart U to indicate that several requirements of 
the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions related to periods of SSM do not 
apply. We are adding provisions to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT 
standards to operate in a manner that minimizes emissions, removing the 
SSM plan requirement, removing the explanation of applicability of 
emissions standards during periods of SSM, revising the definition of 
initial start-up to remove references to malfunctions, clarifying the 
required conditions for performance tests, and revising the SSM-
associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to 
require reporting and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are 
also adding provisions to provide an affirmative defense against civil 
penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions, 
as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense.
    We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test 
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to 
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners and operators of Group 
I Polymers and Resins facilities are required to submit electronic 
copies of applicable reports of performance tests to EPA's WebFIRE 
database through an electronic emissions test report structure called 
the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). This requirement to submit 
performance test data electronically to EPA does not require any 
additional performance testing, and applies only to those performance 
tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT.
    We anticipate that the front-end process vent limits will not 
require additional control to meet the floor-level standards for HCl 
emissions from front-end process operations at the facilities in the 
Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber source categories. We 
anticipate that facilities in the Butyl Rubber, Epichlorohydrin 
Elastomers, Neoprene Rubber, and NBR source categories will not require 
additional control to meet the floor-level standards for the back-end 
process operations.
    To demonstrate compliance with the front-end process vent HCl 
emissions provisions of the final rule, the facility owner or operator 
will be required to submit an initial notification of the calculated 
front-end HCl limit for the facility and to perform and record monthly 
calculations of the mass of HCl emissions and the mass of elastomer 
product produced. These recorded monthly calculations are required to 
be submitted in the semi-annual compliance reports already required by 
existing provisions of the rule.
    To demonstrate compliance with the back-end process operation 
provisions of the final rule, the facility owner or operator will be 
required to submit an initial notification of the calculated back-end 
limit for the facility, and to perform and record monthly calculations 
of the mass of HAP emissions and the mass of elastomer product 
produced. These recorded monthly calculations are required to be 
submitted in the semi-annual compliance reports already required by 
existing provisions of the rule.
    The final changes to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards 
are not expected to result in substantial emissions reduction or 
economic impacts. We have determined that facilities in the Group 1 
Polymers and Resins categories can meet the applicable emissions limits 
at all times, including periods of startup and shutdown, with the 
exception of the organic HAP emissions limits applicable to front-end 
process vents at facilities in the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene 
Rubber source categories. We have determined that facilities in the 
Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber source categories cannot 
meet the applicable organic HAP emission limits applicable to 
continuous front-end process vents during periods of shutdown. 
Therefore, we are establishing alternative emissions limits during 
these periods. No substantial changes in costs to industry are 
predicted.

B. What are the final rule amendments for the Marine Tank Vessel 
Loading Operations (MTVLO) source category?

    MTVLO are loading operations conducted at marine terminals in which 
liquid commodities, such as crude oil, gasoline, and other fuels or 
chemicals, are pumped from the terminal's large, above-ground storage 
tanks through a network of pipes into a storage compartment (tank) on 
the vessel. Emissions occur as vapors are displaced from the tank as it 
is being filled. Most MTVLO facilities are either independent terminals 
or are associated with synthetic organic chemical manufacturers or with 
petroleum refineries (although MTVLO at petroleum refineries are part 
of the Petroleum Refinery source category).
    For these MTVLO facilities, we have determined that the current 
MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, and prevent adverse 
environmental effects. We are, therefore, re-adopting the existing MACT 
standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. We have also determined 
that the costs of the only significant development in practices, 
processes, or control technologies since promulgation of the MACT 
standards is disproportionate to the emission reduction that would be 
achieved, and we are not adopting additional technology standards 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
    We are finalizing changes to the MTVLO MACT standards to require 
standards for two subcategories of MTVLO facilities for which the 
current MTVLO MACT standards do not include emission standards. These 
subcategories are facilities with MTVLO that emit less than 10/25 TPY 
of HAP that are located at a major source of HAP emissions and 
facilities located more than 0.5 miles from shore. For these source 
categories, we are adding a requirement for the facilities to perform 
submerged fill. This requirement is the MACT floor level of control.
    We are finalizing changes to the MTVLO MACT standards to eliminate 
the SSM exemption. These changes revise Table 1 in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart Y to indicate that several requirements of the 40 CFR part 63 
General Provisions related to periods of SSM do not apply. We are 
adding provisions to the MTVLO MACT standards to operate in a manner 
that minimizes emissions, clarifying the required conditions for 
performance tests, and revising the SSM-associated monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to require reporting and 
recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are also adding provisions 
to provide an affirmative defense against civil penalties for 
exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions, as well as 
criteria for establishing the affirmative defense.
    Additionally, we are requiring the electronic submittal of 
performance test data to increase the ease and efficiency of data 
submittal and to improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners and 
operators of MTVLO are required to submit electronic copies of 
applicable reports of performance tests to EPA's WebFIRE database 
through an electronic emissions test report structure called the ERT. 
This requirement to submit performance test data electronically to EPA 
does not require any additional performance testing, and applies only 
to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are 
supported by the ERT. The final changes to the

[[Page 22572]]

MTVLO MACT standards will have little or no impact on HAP emissions or 
costs because facilities currently use submerged fill, as required by 
Coast Guard regulations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 46 CFR 153.282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the final rule amendments for the Pharmaceuticals 
Production source category?

    The pharmaceutical manufacturing process consists of chemical 
production operations that produce drugs and medications. These 
operations include chemical synthesis (deriving a drug's active 
ingredient) and chemical formulation (producing a drug in its final 
form). Emissions occur from breathing and withdrawal losses from 
chemical storage tanks, venting of process vessels, leaks from piping 
and equipment used to transfer HAP compounds (equipment leaks), and 
volatilization of HAP from wastewater streams.
    For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and in the support 
documents in the docket, we have determined that the current MACT 
standards for Pharmaceutical Production facilities reduce risk to an 
acceptable level, provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, and prevent adverse environmental effects. We are, therefore, 
re-adopting the existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of 
the CAA. We have also determined that there have been no significant 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies since 
promulgation of the MACT standards, and that, therefore, it is not 
necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6).
    We are finalizing changes to the Pharmaceutical Production MACT 
standards to eliminate the SSM exemption. These changes revise Table 1 
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG to indicate that several requirements of 
the 40 CFR General Provisions related to periods of SSM do not apply. 
We are adding provisions to the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT 
standards to operate in a manner that minimizes emissions, removing the 
SSM plan requirement, removing the exemption provisions for periods of 
SSM in 40 CFR 63.1250(g), requiring that delay of equipment leak repair 
plans be contained in a separate document, clarifying the required 
conditions for performance tests, and revising the SSM-associated 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to require 
reporting and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are also 
adding provisions to provide an affirmative defense against civil 
penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions, 
as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense.
    We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test 
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to 
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners and operators of 
Pharmaceuticals Production facilities are required to submit electronic 
copies of applicable reports of performance tests to EPA's WebFIRE 
database through an electronic emissions test report structure called 
the ERT. This requirement to submit performance test data 
electronically to EPA does not require any additional performance 
testing, and applies only to those performance tests conducted using 
test methods that are supported by the ERT.
    We are also finalizing a correction to an editorial error in 40 CFR 
63.1257(e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii). This section incorrectly provides that 
only one of the three listed criteria must be met for the inlet to the 
equalization tank to be considered the inlet to the biological 
treatment process. The final correction specifies that all of the 
criteria must be met.
    These revisions to the Pharmaceutical Production MACT standards are 
not expected to result in substantial emissions reduction or economic 
impacts. We have determined that facilities in this source category can 
meet the applicable emissions standards at all times, including periods 
of startup and shutdown, are in compliance with the current MACT 
standard. No substantial changes in costs to industry are predicted. 
The correction to the editorial error may result in minimal costs to 
add or move equipment and may also result in some small amount of 
emission reductions for any facility that was meeting only one or two 
of the three listed criteria. However, as the intent of the current 
MACT standards at the time they were promulgated was to require 
facilities to meet all three criteria, the costs and emission 
reductions associated with this requirement were factored into the 
impacts of the MACT standards at the time the standards were 
promulgated in 1998. See 63 FR 50287.

D. What are the final rule amendments for the Printing and Publishing 
Industry source category?

    Printing and publishing facilities are those facilities that use 
rotogravure, flexography, and other methods, such as lithography, 
letterpress, and screen printing, to print on a variety of substrates, 
including paper, plastic film, metal foil, and vinyl. The Printing and 
Publishing Industry MACT standards include two subcategories: (1) 
Publication rotogravure printing and (2) product and packaging 
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing. Emissions occur from 
the evaporation of solvents in the inks and from cleaning solvents. The 
emission points include printing presses and associated dryers and ink 
and solvent storage.
    For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and in the support 
documents in the docket, we have determined that the current MACT 
standards for Printing and Publishing facilities reduce risk to an 
acceptable level, provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, and prevent adverse environmental effects. We are, therefore, 
re-adopting the existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of 
the CAA. We have also determined that the costs of the only significant 
development in practices, processes, or control technologies since 
promulgation of the MACT standards is disproportionate to the emission 
reduction that would be achieved, and, therefore, we are not adopting 
additional technology standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
    We are finalizing changes to the Printing and Publishing Industry 
MACT standards to eliminate the SSM exemption. These changes revise 
Table 1 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK to indicate that several 
requirements of the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions related to 
periods of SSM do not apply. We are adding provisions to the Printing 
and Publishing Industry MACT standards requiring sources to operate in 
a manner that minimizes emissions, removing the SSM plan requirement, 
clarifying the required conditions for performance tests, and revising 
the SSM-associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements to require reporting and recordkeeping for periods of 
malfunction. We are also adding provisions to provide an affirmative 
defense against civil penalties for exceedances of emission standards 
caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the 
affirmative defense.
    We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test 
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to 
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners and operators of 
printing and publishing facilities are required to submit electronic 
copies of applicable reports of performance tests to EPA's WebFIRE

[[Page 22573]]

database through an electronic emissions test report structure called 
the Electronic ERT. This requirement to submit performance test data 
electronically to EPA does not require any additional performance 
testing, and applies only to those performance tests conducted using 
test methods that are supported by the ERT.
    These revisions to the Printing and Publishing Industry MACT 
standards are not expected to result in substantial emissions reduction 
or economic impacts. We have determined that facilities in this source 
category can meet the applicable emissions standards at all times, 
including periods of startup and shutdown, are in compliance with the 
current MACT standards. No substantial changes in costs to industry are 
predicted.

E. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in EPA's CAA section 112 
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. 
Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that is part of a 
regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General Provisions Rule,'' 
that EPA promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated 
into CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, 
these two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with 
the otherwise applicable CAA section 112 emission standards during 
periods of SSM.
    While the Court's ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC 
Cir. 2008), did not directly affect all the NESHAP rules being 
addressed, the legality of source category-specific SSM provisions, 
such as those in all four NESHAP rules, are called into question based 
on the reasoning in that decision.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemptions in these four NESHAP. 
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA's standards in these rules will 
apply at all times. We have eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements that were related to the SSM exemption that 
no longer applies. EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not 
included in the regulatory language any provisions that are 
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in light of the removal of the 
SSM exemption.
    EPA has not established different standards for periods of startup 
and shutdown for three of the four NESHAP addressed in this rule 
because we believe compliance with the standards is achievable during 
these periods. In the case of MTVLO, loading of marine tank vessels 
occurs in ``batches,'' and general practice is for the loading 
operators to test out the vapor control system before it is attached to 
the tank vessel. In the case of the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT 
standards, we expect the difference in emission levels during periods 
of startup and shutdown are insignificant and that facilities in this 
source category should be able to comply with the standards during 
these times. In the case of the Printing and Publishing MACT standards, 
we believe there are sufficiently long averaging times incorporated 
into the emissions limits that facilities should be able to comply 
during periods of startup and shutdown. In the case of Group I Polymers 
and Resins, one commenter stated that organic HAP emissions that are 
required to be sent to emissions control equipment (i.e., flares) may 
not be able to comply with the MACT standards during periods of 
shutdown. The commenter stated that they may not always be able to 
route some of their process vents to a flare during periods of shutdown 
due to the low pressure or low heating value in the process vent. EPA 
agrees with the commenter that it is not possible to comply with the 
applicable standard during periods of shutdown, and has provided an 
alternative standard applicable during these times.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by 
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, 
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner 
* * *'' (40 CFR 60.2). EPA has determined that CAA section 112 does not 
require that emissions that occur during periods of malfunction be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under CAA 
section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less 
stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar 
source, and for existing sources, generally must be no less stringent 
than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best 
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in 
CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing or best 
controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while EPA 
accounts for variability in setting emissions standards consistent with 
the CAA section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the 
Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. CAA Section 
112 uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best performing'' 
unit in defining the level of stringency that CAA section 112 
performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of ``best 
controlled'' or ``best performing'' to a unit that is malfunctioning 
presents significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and 
unexpected events. Further, accounting for malfunctions would be 
difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of 
malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category, and, 
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the 
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might 
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not 
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 
658, 662 (DC Cir. 1999) (EPA typically has wide latitude in determining 
the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally 
defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect 
scientific information, rather than to ``invest the resources to 
conduct the perfect study.''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 
F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general 
limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate 
all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of 
regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' 
such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a 
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative 
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification 
in advance by regulation.''). In addition, the goal of a best 
controlled or best performing source is to operate in such a way as to 
avoid malfunctions of the source, and accounting for malfunctions could 
lead to standards that are significantly less stringent than levels 
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. EPA's 
approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112, and is a 
reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112 standards as a result of a

[[Page 22574]]

malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate response based 
on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to 
minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative 
and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 
rectify excess emissions. EPA would also consider whether the source's 
failure to comply with the CAA section 112 standard was, in fact, 
``sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable'' and was not instead 
``caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 
63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly 
designed and maintained can sometimes fail, and that such failure can 
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (See, 
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions 
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on 
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 
Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). EPA is, therefore, adding to the final 
rules an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 
emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.482 
(Group I Polymers and Resins), 63.561 (MTVLO), 63.822 (The Printing and 
Publishing Industry), 63.1251 (Pharmaceuticals Production). The 
regulations define ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of 
an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a 
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and 
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 
judicial or administrative proceeding. We also have added other 
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to 
establish this affirmative defense. See 40 CFR 63.480 (Group I Polymers 
and Resins), 40 CFR 63.560 (MTVLO), 40 CFR 63.820 (The Printing and 
Publishing Industry), 40 CFR 63.1250 (Pharmaceuticals Production). The 
source must prove by a preponderance of evidence that it has met all of 
the elements set forth in affirmative defense. See 40 CFR 22.24. The 
criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where 
the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the 
narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, 
not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and/or 
careless operation). For example, to successfully assert the 
affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, 
and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or 
usual manner * * *'' The criteria also are designed to ensure that 
steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in 
accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), and to prevent future 
malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a preponderance of 
the evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible 
when the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded * * *'' 
and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of 
the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human 
health * * *'' In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the 
Administrator may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense, 
and, if the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the 
requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be 
assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 
part 22.77).

F. What are the requirements for submission of emissions test results 
to EPA?

    EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews of 
CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many other purposes, 
including compliance determinations, emission factor development, and 
annual emission rate determinations. In conducting these required 
reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for 
us, but also for regulatory agencies, and source owners and operators, 
to locate, collect, and submit performance test data because of varied 
locations for data storage and varied data storage methods. In recent 
years, though, performance test data in electronic format have become 
readily available, making it possible to move to an electronic data 
submittal system that would increase the ease and efficiency of data 
submittal and improve data accessibility.
    In this action, as a step to increase the ease and efficiency of 
data submittal and improve data accessibility, EPA is requiring the 
electronic submittal of select performance test data. Specifically, EPA 
is requiring owners and operators of sources subject to these MACT 
standards to submit electronic copies of applicable reports of 
performance tests to EPA's WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE database was 
constructed to store performance test data for use in developing 
emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is available at 
http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. Data entry will 
be through an electronic emissions test report structure called the 
ERT.
    The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report through 
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE 
database. Although ERT is not the only electronic interface that can be 
used to submit performance test data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, 
it makes submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description 
of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
EPA would not require any additional performance testing, and would 
apply to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are 
supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry 
form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of 
the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. When a facility 
submits performance test data to CDX, there will be no additional 
requirements for performance test data compilation. Moreover, we 
believe that industry will benefit from this new electronic data 
submittal requirement. Having these data, EPA will be able to develop 
improved emission factors, make fewer information requests, and 
promulgate better regulations. The information to be reported is 
already required for the existing test methods, and is necessary to 
evaluate the conformance to the test method.
    One major advantage of submitting performance test data through the 
ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much of the 
documentation required to be reported by this rule that also clearly 
states what testing information would be required. Another important 
benefit of submitting these data to EPA at the time the source test is 
conducted is that it should substantially reduce the effort involved in 
data collection activities in the future. When EPA has performance test 
data in hand, there will likely be fewer or less substantial data 
collection requests in conjunction with prospective required residual 
risk assessments or technology reviews. This results in a reduced 
burden on both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to 
respond to data collection requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and 
distributing data collection requests and assessing the results).

[[Page 22575]]

    State, local, and tribal agencies will benefit from electronic data 
submission as their review of the data will be more streamlined and 
accurate, because they would not have to re-enter the data to assess 
the calculations and verify the data entry. Finally, another benefit of 
submitting data to WebFIRE electronically is that these data will 
greatly improve the overall quality of the existing and new emission 
factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test data upon which the 
emission factor is based, and by ensuring that data are more 
representative of current industry operational procedures. A common 
complaint heard from industry and regulators is that emission factors 
are outdated or not representative of a particular source category. By 
receiving and incorporating data for most performance tests, EPA will 
be able to ensure that emission factors, when updated, represent the 
most current range of operational practices. In summary, in addition to 
supporting regulation development, control strategy development, and 
other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database 
populated with performance test data will save industry, State, local, 
and tribal agencies, and EPA significant time, money, and effort while 
improving the quality of emission inventories, and, as a result, air 
quality regulations.

G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on April 21, 2011. For the MACT standards being 
addressed in this action, the compliance date for the revised SSM 
requirements is the effective date of the standards, April 21, 2011. 
The electronic reporting requirements for the four MACT standards being 
addressed in this action are effective on January 1, 2012. For the 
Group 1 Polymers and Resins MACT standards, the compliance date for 
existing sources for the new MACT standards applicable to front-end and 
back-end process operations is 1 year from the effective date of the 
standards, April 23, 2012. For the Marine Tank Vessel Loading 
Operations MACT standards, the compliance date for the new requirements 
for submerged fill is 1 year from the effective date of the standards, 
April 23, 2012. The compliance date for the corrected provision in the 
Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards is the effective date of the 
standards, April 21, 2011. Beyond the revised SSM and electronic 
reporting requirements, there are no changes to The Printing and 
Publishing Industry MACT standards.

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. What changes did we make to the risk assessments for these source 
categories since proposal?

    CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine whether certain 
emissions standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, and once we 
have ensured that the risk is acceptable, whether the standards provide 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an 
adverse environmental effect. First we determine whether there is an 
acceptable risk. EPA generally presumes that, if the maximum individual 
risk (MIR) is no higher than 100-in-1 million, that risk is acceptable. 
In addition to MIR, EPA also considers a series of other health 
measures and factors to complete an overall judgment on acceptability. 
In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may 
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the 
exposed population than MIR alone. If the risk is unacceptable, EPA 
must require additional controls, without consideration of cost, to 
ensure an acceptable level of risk. After determining that the level of 
risk is acceptable, EPA evaluates whether the standards provide an 
ample margin of safety by considering costs and economic impacts of 
controls, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors, in 
addition to those health measures and factors considered to determined 
acceptability. Considering all of these factors, EPA ensures that the 
standard is set at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health, as required by CAA section 112(f).
    At proposal, we conducted risk assessments that provided estimates 
of the MIR posed by the allowable and actual HAP emissions from each 
source in a category, the distribution of cancer risks within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, hazard index (HI) for chronic 
exposures to HAP with non-cancer health effects, and hazard quotient 
(HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with non-cancer health effects. We 
found that the residual risks to public health from all source 
categories subject to these four MACT standards are acceptable, and, 
further, that the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety 
to protect public health and pose no adverse environmental effects. 
Thus, we proposed that no additional controls would be required to 
address such risks. Specifically, we found that the lifetime cancer 
risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from each of these 
seven source categories \5\ was less than 100-in-1 million for both the 
actual emissions and the emissions that would occur if emissions from 
the source categories were at the maximum levels allowed by the 
standards. Additional analyses showed that the cancer incidence and 
number of people with cancer risk over 1-in-1 million were low. In 
addition, a review of the acute non-cancer exposures showed that none 
of these seven source categories posed an appreciable risk of acute 
non-cancer health effects. We also determined that HAP emissions from 
these source categories were not expected to result in adverse 
environmental effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The seven source categories for which we conducted RTR are 
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production; Polybutadiene Rubber 
Production; Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production; and NBR 
Production; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, Pharmaceuticals 
Production; and Printing and Publishing. We did not conduct RTR for 
four of the Group I Polymers and Resins source categories (Butyl 
Rubber Production; Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production; Polysulfide 
Rubber Production; and Neoprene), because we previously re-adopted 
the existing MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. See 
73 FR 76220, published December 16, 2008. In addition, we did not 
conduct RTR for Hypalon\TM\ Production, because there are no longer 
any facilities operating in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support our decisions regarding acceptability and ample margin 
of safety in the proposal, we also conducted risk assessments that 
accounted for HAP emissions from entire facilities at which a source 
covered by one of the standards under review was located. With the 
exception of two facilities with MTVLO on-site that had facility-wide 
risks greater than 100-in-1 million, based on the data we had at that 
time, we concluded, for purposes of the proposal, that the facility-
wide risk for sources in the four source categories was also relatively 
low. As a result of data and information received from commenters on 
the proposal, we now project the highest facility-wide risk with MTVLO 
on-site is approximately 90-in-1 million.
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for the source categories 
addressed in these final rules. Although uncertainty exists, we believe 
that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, 
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A discussion of the 
uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships is 
provided in the preamble to the proposed rule. See 75 FR 65081-65083.

[[Page 22576]]

B. What changes did we make to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT 
since proposal?

    We are eliminating the subcategories (i.e., Butyl Rubber and 
Halobutyl Rubber) in the Butyl Rubber source category because we agree 
with commenters who stated that both facilities in the Butyl Rubber 
source category now produce halobutyl rubber as the primary product, 
and the technical differences that distinguished the subcategories no 
longer exist. The current MACT standards for facilities in this source 
category are not affected by the removal of the subcategory distinction 
because the existing standards are identical for each subcategory. In 
October 2010, we proposed the same standards for both subcategories for 
the front-end process operations. However, we proposed different 
standards for each subcategory for the back-end process operations. 
Considering that both facilities would now be identified as being part 
of one source category by primary product determination, it would not 
be appropriate to finalize the proposed requirements that were based on 
analyses of each facility in its own subcategory. To address the two 
facilities together in one Butyl Rubber source category, we re-
evaluated the emissions reductions, costs, and other impacts of 
controls for both the back-end operations and the front-end process 
vents for these two facilities. For the front-end process vents, we had 
proposed beyond-the-floor standards for both the Butyl Rubber 
subcategory and the Halobutyl Rubber subcategory, along with the 
Ethylene Propylene Rubber source category. Based on our revised 
analyses, we are setting requirements for the combined Butyl Rubber 
source category at the MACT floor level of control. The requirements 
for the Ethylene Propylene Rubber source category are also being set at 
the MACT floor level of control. For the back-end process operations, 
we had proposed beyond-the-floor standards for the Butyl Rubber 
subcategory, and the MACT floor level of control for the Halobutyl 
Rubber subcategory. Based on our revised analyses, we are setting 
requirements for the combined Butyl Rubber source category at the MACT 
floor level of control.
    We are finalizing our proposal to set standards at the MACT floor 
level of control for back-end process operations in the Epichlorohydrin 
Elastomers, NBR, and Neoprene source categories. However, based on 
information we received during the comment period, we have revised some 
of the MACT floor limits for these source categories. Information 
received for the only facility in the Neoprene Rubber Production source 
category corrected the emissions rate of one HAP emissions source, and 
we have revised the MACT floor limit for that source category to 
reflect the corrected emissions rate. We also received information 
during the comment period for the one facility in the NBR source 
category, which showed that, due to the different grades of product 
produced, the rate of emissions per unit of production varies. 
Similarly, the one facility in the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers source 
category also expected to have variations in the rate of emissions per 
unit of production, based on its different grades of product produced. 
Considering this variation in emissions, we increased the limit of the 
MACT floor for these source categories to allow for the observed 
variability in emissions per unit of production. We also added factors 
to account for variation in emissions per unit of production for the 
Butyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber source categories, based on 
information received for the facilities in this source category.

C. What changes did we make to the Marine Tank Vessel Loading 
Operations MACT since proposal?

    We proposed the MACT floor as submerged fill for the two 
subcategories not previously regulated (facilities emitting less than 
10/25 TPY of HAP from MTVLO, and those ``offshore'' facilities located 
more than 0.5 miles from shore). Additionally, under the CAA section 
112(d)(6) technology review of the existing MTVLO MACT, and as setting 
the beyond-the-floor MACT standards for the two subcategories not 
previously regulated, we proposed that existing facilities loading 1 
million barrels per year (bbl/yr) of gasoline install vapor controls, 
either meeting 97-percent control, or the equivalent emission limit of 
10 milligrams per liter (mg/l).
    We are finalizing the proposed MACT floor work practice to require 
submerged fill of liquids into marine tank vessels at those previously 
unregulated sources. However, as a result of information received 
during the comment period, we are not finalizing the requirements we 
proposed under the technology review requirements of CAA section 
112(d)(6), the beyond the floor and technology review requirements for 
vapor control technology for facilities loading 1 million bbl/yr.

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

    In the proposed action, we requested public comments on our 
residual risk reviews, our technology reviews, proposed amendments to 
delete the startup and shutdown exemptions and the malfunction 
exemption, the control of unregulated HAP, and clarification of rule 
provisions. We received written comments from 104 commenters. Our 
responses to the public comments that changed the basis for our 
decisions or are otherwise significant are provided below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Group I 
Polymers and Resins, Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, 
Pharmaceutical Production, and The Printing and Publishing NESHAP 
(March 2011), for summaries of other comments and our responses to 
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. EPA's Authority Under CAA Section 112

    Comment: We received comments both in favor of and objecting to 
EPA's consideration of various factors in determining acceptable risk. 
Some commenters argue that the two-step process developed to address 
residual risk and determine ``ample margin of safety'' in the Benzene 
NESHAP should be preserved. Commenters also request that EPA continue 
to use its discretion to determine that a maximum cancer risk of 100-
in-1 million is acceptable. Another commenter supports EPA's commitment 
to avoid establishing inflexible decision points for acceptable risks 
or ample margin of safety. Commenters also debate whether EPA has the 
authority to evaluate, or should, as a matter of policy, evaluate 
facility-wide risk, demographic assessments, and risks based on actual 
or allowable emissions.
    Response: For the four rules we are finalizing, our evaluation of 
facility-wide risk, demographics, and allowable emissions did not 
change our decisions about acceptability and ample margin of safety. 
Therefore, comments on how these factors were used by EPA in 
determining acceptable risks are not germane to these final rules. We 
note, however, that section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves 
our use of the two-step process for developing standards to address 
residual risk and interpret ``ample margin of safety'' as developed in 
the Benzene NESHAP.\7\ In both the Benzene NESHAP and our

[[Page 22577]]

Residual Risk Report \8\ to Congress, we explain that we do not define 
``rigid line(s) of acceptability'' and that we will consider a series 
of other health measures and factors in determining if risk is 
acceptable. Our authority to use the two-step process laid out in the 
Benzene NESHAP, and to consider a variety of measures of risk to public 
health is discussed more thoroughly in the preamble to the proposal. 
See 75 FR 65071-65073.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, 
Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene 
Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene 
NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    \8\ See Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001 
(March 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters state that our review under CAA section 
112(d)(6) should be limited to only advances in work practices and 
control technologies, and should not include emission points not 
regulated by the existing MACT standard. Expanding rule applicability 
should not be considered, as it has nothing to do with developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies and is not indicated in 
the CAA as a basis for the technology review. The commenter states that 
EPA already made applicability determinations in the original MACT 
rules by evaluating the floor and beyond-the-floor options, and nothing 
in the CAA warrants review of these determinations. The commenters also 
state these changes should only be considered in the CAA section 112(f) 
risk review to reduce risks.
    Some commenters stated that a review under CAA section 112(d)(6) is 
not required if the post-MACT emissions levels result in risks that are 
deemed to be protective of public health with an ample margin of 
safety. Furthermore, they stated that EPA should exempt source 
categories from CAA section 112(d)(6) review once this level has been 
achieved. They add that the review under CAA section 112(d)(6) should 
be considered an extension of the main purpose of CAA section 112, 
which is to reduce the public's exposure to air toxics, and not to 
impose new technology just because it is available. One commenter 
states that it was the intent of Congress for the MACT standards to 
ultimately reduce risk from sources to a level considered acceptable, 
and there is no legislative history to suggest that Congress expected 
EPA to revise MACT standards after these levels had been achieved.
    Another commenter states an opposing view, saying that, in keeping 
with the context of CAA section 112(d), which requires technology-based 
standards that reflect the maximum degree of emission reduction 
achievable, CAA section 112(d)(6) serves as an on-going ratchet to 
continually require EPA to update standards to keep pace with new 
technology. The commenter states that the decision of the Court in the 
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) \9\ ruling, while not requiring 
recalculation of the floor for that standard, did so only for that MACT 
because there were no new developments in practices, processes, or 
control technologies, and expressly declined to decide whether EPA was 
required to recalculate the floors for other instances where there were 
such developments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We note that we do not consider unregulated emission 
points under CAA section 112(d)(6). To the extent there are unregulated 
emission points, we set standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). 
We are not revising any of the four MACT rules in this notice pursuant 
to the CAA section 112(d)(6) review. Instead, for the newly regulated 
emissions points in the Group I Polymers and Resins source categories 
and in the Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations source category we are 
promulgating MACT standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2)-(3).
    In our CAA section 112(d)(6) review of pre-existing standards, we 
consider both improvements in practices, processes, or control 
technologies that we may have previously considered, as well as 
practices, processes, or control technologies that are new, or were 
unknown to us when the original MACT rule was developed. Because 
incremental changes in the practices, processes, or control 
technologies can have a significant impact on emissions, these changes 
are considered in our analysis of whether to revise the MACT standards 
under CAA section 112(d)(6). In considering both existing and new 
practices, processes, and control technologies, we consider costs and 
other factors in determining whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the 
existing standard.
    We disagree with the view that a determination under CAA section 
112(f) of an ample margin of safety and no adverse environmental 
effects alone will, in all cases, cause us to determine that a revision 
is not necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6). In some cases, even if 
risk factors remain the same from one round of CAA section 112(d)(6) 
review to another, changes in costs or availability of control 
technology may be sufficient to alter a previous conclusion about 
whether to impose further controls. We also disagree with the assertion 
that the HON Court's ruling that CAA section 112(d)(6) does not require 
re-calculation of MACT floors was limited to instances in which there 
have not been developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies. In fact, the Court was quite clear on this point, and 
declined to rule only on whether it was appropriate for EPA to consider 
costs and risks in conducting CAA section 112(d)(6) reviews, as the 
issue was rendered moot by the litigants' failure to preserve it. See 
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1084 (``It has been argued that EPA was 
obliged to completely recalculate the maximum achievable control 
technology--in other words, to start from scratch. We do not think the 
words `review, and revise as necessary' can be construed reasonably as 
imposing any such obligation. Even if the statute did impose such an 
obligation, petitioners have not identified any post-1994 technological 
innovations that EPA has overlooked.'').
    Comment: Commenters state that EPA does not have the authority 
under CAA section 112(d)(2) or (3) to later review and possibly revise 
the MACT determination once a MACT determination has been made for a 
source category. Several commenters state that EPA only has the 
authority to revisit the rulemaking if a timely legal challenge to the 
standard is lodged. The commenters further note they are not aware of 
any instance where EPA has revisited a beyond-the-floor analysis in the 
absence of a Court decision, rule vacatur, or settlement agreement. 
Commenters also state that reassessing MACT standards and imposing more 
stringent requirements would also be inconsistent with Congress's 
desire for finality evident in the judicial review provisions of CAA 
section 307(b), which provides that challenges to MACT standards must 
be raised within 60 days of their promulgation, assuring that regulated 
entities, EPA, and the public know what emissions limitations will 
apply to a source rather than having those limitations be subject to 
flux.
    In contrast, one commenter states that it is appropriate and 
essential that EPA establish control for all emissions sources, 
including sources that previously had ``no control'' floors, under CAA 
section 112(d)(6). The commenter states that EPA should continue to do 
this for all MACT standards.
    Response: Under CAA section 112(d)(2), the EPA must promulgate 
technology-based standards that reflect the maximum degree of emission 
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). 
Nothing in the

[[Page 22578]]

CAA or its legislative history suggests that EPA is prohibited from 
reviewing and revising MACT standards, except as part of the CAA 
section 112(d)(6) or CAA section 112(f) reviews. Where we identify 
emission points that were erroneously not previously regulated under a 
MACT rule, we may identify MACT floor and beyond-the-floor control 
options for existing and new sources. An agency generally remains free 
to revise improperly promulgated or otherwise unsupportable rules, even 
in the absence of a remand from a Court. United Gas Improvement Co. v. 
Callery Props., Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 229 (1966) (``An agency, like a 
court, can undo what is wrongfully done by virtue of its order.''); 
Macktal v. Chao, 286 F.3d 822, 825-26 (5th Cir. 2002) (``[I]t is 
generally accepted that in the absence of a specific statutory 
limitation, an administrative agency has the inherent authority to 
reconsider its decisions.''). Agencies have particularly broad 
authority to revise their regulations to correct their errors. Last 
Best Beef, LLC v. Dudas, 506 F.3d 333, 340 (4th Cir. 2007); Friends of 
the Boundary Water Wilderness v. Bosworth, 437 F.3d 815, 823 (8th Cir. 
2006) (``It is widely accepted that an agency may, on its own 
initiative, reconsider its interim or even final decisions, regardless 
of whether the applicable statute and agency regulations expressly 
provide for such review.'') (citations omitted). Moreover, an agency 
may reconsider its methodologies and application of its statutory 
requirements and may even completely reverse course, regardless of 
whether a court has determined that its original regulation is flawed, 
so long as the agency explains its bases for doing so. Motor Vehicle 
Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983); 
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1810 (2009); 
Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 
967, 981-82 (2005) (internal citations omitted): (``'An initial agency 
interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. On the contrary, the 
agency * * * must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of 
its policy on a continuing basis,' Chevron, supra at 863-864[], for 
example, in response to changed factual circumstances, or a change in 
administration. That is, no doubt, why in Chevron itself, this Court 
deferred to an agency interpretation that was a recent reversal of 
agency policy.'')
    Here, both the Polymers and Resins I and the Marine Tank Vessel 
Loading Operations NESHAP, as originally promulgated, did not contain 
MACT standards for certain significant HAP emissions points, and, we 
are, therefore, appropriately promulgating standards for those 
emissions points under CAA sections 112(d)(2)-(3) for the first time. 
CAA section 112(d)(6) and CAA section 112(f)(2) do not govern the 
initial establishment of the MACT standards. This approach is 
consistent with other recent actions that establish MACT standards for 
the first time for significant emissions points that had not been 
previously addressed by CAA section 112 (d) standards. See, e.g., 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum 
Refineries; Final Rule, 74 FR 55670, 556773-74 (October 28, 2009).

B. Group 1 Polymers and Resins

    Comment: One commenter states that, due to changes made at a 
facility since MACT promulgation, the facility would no longer fall 
into the Butyl Rubber subcategory, based on the primary product made, 
and would be in the Halobutyl Rubber subcategory. (The Butyl Rubber and 
Halobutyl Rubber subcategories comprise the Butyl Rubber source 
category.) However, the unit at this facility that produces halobutyl 
rubber as the primary product is a flexible operations unit that 
produces three major products, one of which is still butyl rubber, and, 
therefore, emits significantly different emissions from the only other 
halobutyl rubber facility in the United States, which produces 
halobutyl rubber exclusively. Commenters recommend EPA revise the Butyl 
Rubber source category descriptions to distinguish between halobutyl 
rubber-only and flexible units, and to apply primary product 
determinations only at the category level, and not the subcategory 
level. The commenters further state that, if these facilities are not 
separated into different subcategories and are both included in the 
Halobutyl Rubber subcategory, the current proposal and supporting 
analyses will not be applicable, and new analyses and proposal will be 
needed.
    Response: Currently there are only two facilities in the United 
States that produce either butyl or halobutyl rubber. Since one of 
these facilities can produce both butyl rubber and halobutyl rubber, 
and since halobutyl rubber is the primary product for both of these 
facilities, we have concluded that there is no longer a need to 
maintain the subcategory distinction in the Butyl Rubber source 
category in the current MACT standards. Therefore, we have removed the 
subcategories of Halobutyl Rubber and Butyl Rubber in the Butyl Rubber 
source category, and both facilities that were in these subcategories 
will now be included in the Butyl Rubber source category. The Group I 
Polymers and Resins MACT standards create separate source categories or 
subcategories by requiring different standards for different types of 
primary products. In the final rule, we have removed the language that 
distinguishes halobutyl rubber as a separate product type, which has 
the effect of removing the subcategories from the Butyl Rubber source 
category. While the existing MACT standards have identical requirements 
for the Butyl and Halobutyl Rubber subcategories, we proposed different 
requirements for these subcategories for back-end process operations, 
and common requirements for the front-end process vents at proposal.
    With the removal of the subcategory distinction, we have revised 
our analyses of the emissions reductions, costs, and other impacts of 
controls for both the front-end and back-end process operations for 
these two facilities. Based on these analyses, we determined that the 
beyond-the-floor standards for front-end process operations that were 
proposed separately for both the Butyl Rubber and Halobutyl Rubber 
subcategories, which are a 98-percent reduction in organic HAP, and a 
99-percent reduction in hydrogen halides and halogens, are not cost-
effective for the Butyl Rubber source category. We are setting 
requirements for the combined front-end process operations for the 
Butyl Rubber source category at the MACT floor level of control. For 
the back-end process operations, we proposed beyond-the-floor standards 
for the Butyl Rubber subcategory, and the MACT floor level of control 
for the Halobutyl Rubber subcategory. Based on our revised analyses, 
the beyond-the-floor level of control, which is a 98-percent reduction 
in organic HAP, is not cost-effective for the Butyl Rubber source 
category. We are setting requirements for the combined back-end process 
operations for the Butyl Rubber source category at the MACT floor level 
of control. The current MACT standards are not affected by the removal 
of the subcategory distinction because the existing standards are 
identical for each subcategory.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, if a facility was subject to 
MACT standards limiting HCl emissions from its front-end process vents 
in the Butyl Rubber source category and the Ethylene Propylene Rubber 
source category, then it would be unacceptable business practice to 
route those emissions to the proposed shared control device. A shared 
control device

[[Page 22579]]

would limit operating flexibility, cause lost business due to shutdown 
of both units for expected maintenance of thermal oxidizers and halogen 
scrubbers, and the potential for lost business, excess emissions, and 
dual violations from both units from unplanned shutdowns. The commenter 
states that EPA, therefore, needs to consider separate controls for 
each unit, a spare thermal oxidizer and halogen scrubber, or the 
significant lost business and other costs and emission impacts of 
having a shared control device in the beyond-the-floor costs analysis 
for the proposed control. The commenter estimates that the costs for 
the units to be controlled separately are $20,600/ton HCl emissions 
reduced for the unit in the Butyl Rubber source category (note that the 
commenter refers to this as the halobutyl rubber unit, since that is 
the product being produced), and $51,000/ton HCl emissions reduced for 
the unit in the Ethylene Propylene Rubber source category. Commenters 
also stated that the proposed beyond-the-floor MACT standards to 
control front-end process vents in the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene 
Propylene Rubber source categories are not cost-effective and should 
not be finalized. One commenter provided data showing costs to range 
from $16,900/ton of HAP emissions reduced to $80,100/ton of HAP 
emissions reduced to meet the proposed front-end process vent MACT 
standards.
    Response: We disagree with the claim that the CAA precludes our 
taking note of the co-location of these units in estimating the costs 
to control the HCl from these units. Nevertheless, based on information 
received during the comment period, we recalculated separate source 
category cost estimates for control of HCl from ethylene propylene 
rubber and butyl rubber units for the one facility where these units 
are co-located. The changes from the estimate at proposal primarily 
include using a recuperative thermal oxidizer rather than a direct 
flame incinerator, and including additional ductwork and pumps needed 
to convey emissions to the control devices. We estimate that, 
considered separately, the cost to control the ethylene propylene 
rubber front-end process vents would be approximately $19,000/ton HCl 
emissions reduced, and the cost to control the butyl rubber front-end 
process vents would be approximately $12,000/ton HCl emission reduced.
    Comment: Commenters state that the proposed beyond-the-floor MACT 
standards to control the back-end process vents in the Butyl Rubber 
source category are not cost-effective, and should not be finalized. 
One commenter provided data showing costs to range from $72,300/ton of 
HAP emissions reduced to $75,600/ton of HAP emissions reduced to meet 
the proposed back-end process vent MACT standards.
    Response: With the removal of the subcategory distinction, we 
revised our analyses of the emissions reductions, costs, and other 
impacts of the beyond-the-floor option identified at proposal. This 
beyond-the-floor option would require the ducting of emissions from the 
uncontrolled back-end process operations to a control device for the 
two facilities now in the Butyl Rubber source category. In this revised 
analysis, we considered information provided during the comment period 
regarding the types of oxidizers and ducting equipment that would be 
needed for the facilities in this source category for the beyond-the-
floor control option, as well as the provided information on process 
flow rates. From the revised analysis, we estimate that thermal 
oxidizers would achieve an emissions reduction of 98 percent, resulting 
in a decrease in hexane emissions of approximately 66 TPY. The capital 
costs of this option are estimated to be approximately $3.5 million, 
total annual costs are estimated to be approximately $1.5 million, and 
the cost-effectiveness values would be approximately $23,000 per ton of 
HAP emissions reduced. We believe the costs of this beyond-the-floor 
option are not reasonable, given the level of emission reduction. 
Therefore, we are finalizing the MACT floor level of emissions. We have 
determined that the MACT floor level of control for the source category 
is a production-based limit reflecting each source's organic HAP 
emissions divided by its total elastomer product leaving the stripper 
in 2009, multiplied by a variability factor of 1.35. In establishing 
the floor-level limit, the variability factor was included to account 
for the historic variability in the amount of emissions per unit of 
production at these facilities.
    Comment: Commenters noted that the emissions from back-end process 
operations for facilities in the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, NBR, and 
Butyl Rubber source categories, and HCl emissions from front-end 
process operations in the Ethylene Propylene Rubber and Butyl Rubber 
source categories will vary only by the mass of polymer product 
produced, because there is only one facility in each source category. 
The commenters note that the proposed MACT standards were based on 
emissions data and associated production levels for certain years. 
These commenters state that it is not appropriate to set the standards 
in this way, as it does not allow for variability in the manufacturing 
process, or the potential for the production of different product mixes 
and volumes in the future. One commenter suggests using 2008 emissions, 
and, perhaps, other recent years of data in setting the limits. Another 
commenter suggests that EPA look at the statistical variation over 
time, and, if EPA revisits the current subcategorization scheme within 
the Butyl Rubber source category, then EPA should also consider 
variability in source design and operation. The commenter also notes 
that, over the last 10 years, emissions from back-end process vents 
varied by up to 43 percent from their levels in 2006 due to factors 
such as weather conditions, grade slate changes (such as product grade 
or slight variations in product type), and process and control device 
reliability/service. Both commenters submitted additional emissions 
data for EPA's consideration.
    Response: We have adjusted the emissions limits in the final rule 
to better account for process variability and other factors for the 
front-end process vent MACT limits in the Butyl Rubber and Ethylene 
Propylene Rubber source categories and the back-end MACT limits for the 
Butyl Rubber, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, and NBR source 
categories.\10\ For the Butyl Rubber source category, up to 10 years of 
annual emissions and annual production data were submitted for the two 
facilities in the source category. These data showed that the emissions 
per unit production varied up to 74 percent higher for HCl from front-
end process vents than that reported in 2010, and varied up to 35 
percent higher for back-end process vents than that reported for 2009. 
To account for this variability, we included a variability factor of 74 
percent over the HCl emissions per unit production in 2010 in the 
front-end process operations limit, and a variability factor of 35 
percent over the emissions per unit production in 2009 in the back-end 
process operations limit for this source category. For the Ethylene 
Propylene Rubber source category, historical annual emissions and 
annual production data were submitted for the one affected facility in 
the source category. These data showed that the emissions per unit 
production varied up to 39 percent higher for HCl from front-end 
process vents than reported in 2010. To account for this variability, 
we included a variability factor of 39 percent over the HCl emissions 
per unit production in 2010 in the front-end

[[Page 22580]]

process operations limit. Similarly, for the NBR source category, 
historical annual emissions and production data were submitted after 
the comment period for the one facility in the source category. While 
this facility recently installed emissions control systems beyond those 
required to meet the current MACT requirements, after these control 
were in place, the data showed that emissions per unit production 
varied up to 42 percent higher than that reported for 2009. To account 
for this variability, we included a variability factor of 42 percent 
over the emissions per unit production in 2009 in the back-end process 
operations limit for this source category. For the Epichlorohydrin 
Elastomers source category, historical annual emissions indicative of 
the expected variation of emissions was unavailable. Due to the 
similarities between the NBR and Epichlorohydrin Elastomers facilities 
in the equipment used, and how they operate their back-end processes, 
however, the same 42-percent variability factor was applied to the 
emissions per unit production in 2009 in the back-end process 
operations limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Regulatory Alternative Impacts for Group I Polymers and 
Resins (March 2011) in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenters stated that EPA should provide an allowance for 
maintenance of any thermal oxidizer required to be installed. One 
commenter notes that a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) requires 
maintenance that sometimes necessitates that the RTO be bypassed. The 
commenter notes that back-end process vents at existing sources in the 
Butyl Rubber source category are currently permitted to allow bypass 
emissions during maintenance work on the control device up to the 
permitted limit with the use of purchased Emission Reduction Credits in 
Texas, and an allowance for bypass emissions is included in the unit 
operating permit in Louisiana. The commenter suggests that the MACT 
standards for the back-end process vents should recognize that 
bypassing currently occurs for RTO-controlled emissions, and allow for 
it in the MACT standards.
    Response: We recognize that bypassing currently occurs. However, 
the Court has made clear that MACT standards must apply at all times. 
See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 
130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). The emission limits we are finalizing for 
the back-end process operations are in the format of a 12-month rolling 
average, and, therefore, facilities may bypass only provided that they 
are in continuous compliance with the standards.
    Comment: Commenters requested that EPA clarify the definition of 
back-end processes specifically to exclude operations that have 
essentially no HAP emission potential, such as handling and storage of 
finished products. They stated that it would also be helpful for the 
Agency to clarify that surge control vessels, equipment leaks, storage 
vessels, and wastewater, which are regulated by the Group I Polymers 
and Resins MACT, are not included in the definition of back-end 
processes.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that the proposed definition 
of back-end processes was unclear, and that surge control vessels, 
equipment leaks, storage vessels, and wastewater are regulated in the 
existing Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards, and that handling 
and storage of finished products is not part of the back-end process 
operations. We have revised the language in the final rule accordingly.
    Comment: Commenters request clarification that, in the absence of 
allowing 4 years for compliance, the first compliance demonstration 
would be 24 months after the publication date for emission limits, 
based on a 12-month rolling average. This would allow for data 
collection to begin in the first month after the compliance date (13th 
month after promulgation) and provide for 1 year of data to be used in 
the compliance demonstration. One commenter requested that compliance 
not be determined on less than a 12-month basis, because this would 
limit the variability allowed for in the rolling 12-month limit.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that compliance should be 
determined on a 12-month basis. The first time 12 months of data will 
be available will be in the 13th month after the compliance date, which 
is the 25th month after the publication date. To demonstrate 
compliance, the 12-month rolling average information must be included 
in the first periodic report that occurs after 12 months of data have 
been collected. We have clarified the timing of the compliance 
demonstration in the final rule language.

C. Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations

    Comment: Commenters stated that there were errors in the 2005 
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data set, and that EPA significantly 
overestimated the MIR for the MTVLO source category for each of these 
facilities due to data errors.
    Response: At proposal, we found that the current MACT-based 
standards both provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent adverse environmental effects, and, therefore, did 
not make any changes to the existing standards due to the risk 
analysis. We found that three facilities had MIR greater than 1-in-1 
million (values of 10-, 20-, and 20-in-1 million) for the MTVLO source 
category. We identified two facilities with facility-wide MIR greater 
than 100-in-1 million (each with values of 200). Using new data 
obtained since proposal, we corrected the errors noted by the 
commenters for both MTVLO emission sources and other emission sources 
at the facilities. We found incorrect latitudes and longitudes for some 
emission sources, incorrect emissions reported for some sources, or 
incorrectly identified HAP. We updated the 2005 NEI data sets for each 
facility with corrected data, and conducted a reanalysis of the risk 
using the corrected data set. The revised risk assessment results show 
no facilities with MTVLO have a facility-wide risk of greater than 100-
in-1 million.\11\ Based on 2005 emissions data, MTVLO source category 
emissions from one facility result in a MIR of 50-in-1 million (20 
percent from benzene and 80 percent from butadiene), however, this 
facility reports in its public comments an 89- percent reduction in 
benzene emissions and a 97-percent reduction in butadiene emissions 
between years 2006 and 2009. Based on this information, the revised MIR 
associated with actual MTVLO emissions from this facility is less than 
1-in-1 million.\12\ No other facility has MTVLO emissions resulting in 
a MIR greater than 1-in-1 million. The corrections to the emission data 
files and risk results are included in memoranda in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Of the two facilities with MTVLO that previously showed 
facility-wide risks exceeding 100-in-1 million, the revised risk 
assessment results show one facility has facility-wide risks of 70-
in-1 million, and the other has facility-wide risks of 40-in-1 
million.
    \12\ For this facility, reported actual and allowable emission 
are the same; therefore, the MIR is the same for both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter noted that it is not clear whether offshore 
loading terminals at refineries would be exempt from proposed changes 
to MTVLO MACT. The commenter recommended rule text changes for 40 CFR 
63.560(d)(6). The commenter noted that their facility may be one of the 
few (or only) offshore loading terminals in the United States, meaning 
the cost analysis and controls selected for this subcategory by the 
MTVLO MACT proposal are likely to set a precedent in the Refinery RTR 
rule process.

[[Page 22581]]

    Response: We have considered the comment and agree that the 
proposed rule was not clear. Therefore, this final rule clarifies 
applicability for petroleum refineries.
    Comment: Three commenters supported submerged fill requirements. 
One commenter supported the requirement for submerged fill for 
previously-exempt subcategories, and stated that submerged fill is 
cost-effective. One commenter agreed with EPA's decision to establish 
submerged fill as the MACT floor. The Commenter noted that submerged 
fill, as defined by the Coast Guard, has been standard industry 
practice for some time, reduces HAP emissions, and eliminates static 
electricity from free-falling cargo, thereby enhancing operational 
safety. One commenter suggested that if additional control is needed, a 
work practice standard (submerged fill) should be adopted for the 
offshore loading subcategory instead of 99-percent efficient vapor 
control systems.
    Response: The commenters agree with the proposal to require 
submerged fill as the floor level of control for the two subcategories 
not previously regulated (those facilities emitting less than 10/25 TPY 
of HAP from MTVLO, and those facilities located more than 0.5 miles 
from shore). We have included the submerged fill requirement in the 
final rule.
    Comment: One commenter noted the discussion in the preamble is 
confusing concerning whether the proposed 1 million bbl/yr threshold is 
a MACT measure, or a reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
measure. The preamble states that the existing MACT standards require 
vapor recovery control for at least 10 million bbl/yr of gasoline, 
however, this provision is in the RACT provisions of the existing rule. 
Furthermore, the commenter asserts that the proposal preamble justifies 
the proposed new 1 million bbl/yr threshold on a volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) RACT basis rather than a HAP (MACT) basis, and 
describes the lower threshold as a beyond-the-floor MACT measure for 
the two previously-exempt subcategories. In addition, the commenter 
noted that the throughput threshold for a major source is 5 million 
bbl/yr, and asked how a facility only loading 1 million bbl/yr could be 
considered a major source, and subject to MACT. The commenter stated 
that the preamble discussion should be consistent with both the basis 
presented for justification of this measure, and the language of the 
rule.
    Response: The proposed and final rules only pertain to the MACT 
requirements in the rule that address major sources of HAP; no changes 
were proposed for the RACT requirements.\13\ While the commenter noted 
that a particular throughput would be required to define a major source 
of HAP, the throughput levels for MTVLO were not defined with the 
intent of identifying a major source. Applicability for the current 
rule is two-fold: (1) Is the facility, as a whole, a major source of 
HAP; and (2) does the facility conduct MTVLO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ RACT and MACT requirements are both included in 40 CFR part 
63, subpart Y--National Emission Standards of Marine Tank Vessel 
Loading Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree that the discussion in the proposed preamble regarding the 
gasoline throughput thresholds used to analyze the proposed 1 million 
bbl/yr gasoline threshold was not clear (75 FR 65115). As discussed 
below, we have not included a requirement for MTVLO facilities with a 
throughput of 1 million bbl/yr of gasoline to install and operate vapor 
recovery controls in the final rule.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA's cost-effectiveness 
determination for the beyond-the-floor MACT is flawed/not accurate, and 
noted concerns that the cost analysis is based on information from one 
vendor, for one control technology, for a single facility, and assumed 
installation costs. One commenter stated that EPA's cost information 
was limited. One commenter indicated that beyond-the-floor MACT options 
must be cost-effective in reducing HAP, and since EPA's estimated cost 
was $74,000/ton HAP emissions reduced, it is not cost-effective, and, 
thus, illegal to promulgate this requirement as a MACT measure. The 
commenter stated that the real cost, based on corrected values of HAP 
content, would be $180,000/ton HAP emissions reduced. The commenter 
requested that EPA rescind the proposed action.
    Commenters stated that the EPA does not have the authority to 
consider non-HAP emission reductions in conducting a review of existing 
MACT standards under CAA section 112(d). The commenters noted that, in 
setting MACT standards, the CAA expressly forbids EPA from considering 
the co-benefits of non-HAP emissions reductions, and the MACT floor 
must be based on the HAP emission reductions achieved; any beyond-the-
floor standard may be based only on consideration of the cost of 
achieving HAP emission reductions, and any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
    Response: As discussed earlier, we established and proposed the 
MACT floor as submerged fill for the two subcategories not previously 
regulated (facilities emitting less than 10/25 TPY of HAP from MTVLO, 
and those ``offshore'' facilities located more than 0.5 miles from 
shore). Additionally, under the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review 
of the existing MTVLO MACT, and as setting the beyond-the-floor MACT 
standards for the two subcategories not previously regulated, we 
proposed that existing facilities loading 1 million bbl/yr of gasoline, 
install vapor controls either meeting 97-percent control, or the 
equivalent emission limit of 10 mg/l (10 milligrams of total organic 
compound emissions per liter of gasoline loaded). At proposal, we 
estimated the cost and emissions reductions for installing vapor 
controls for facilities loading 1 million bbl/yr of gasoline, and we 
estimated a cost of $74,000/ton HAP emissions reduction (190 TPY HAP 
emissions reduction) and $5,500/ton VOC emissions reduction (2,600 TPY 
VOC emissions reduction).
    As discussed in the cost section of the response to comment and the 
cost memoranda in the docket, we received and considered the comments 
on the control costs, emission rate differences for ships and barges, 
additional costs for offshore facilities, and the HAP content in 
gasoline. All those factors change the cost-effectiveness calculations. 
Based on information received as part of the comments, we reevaluated 
the costs used at proposal. The revised costs and emissions for the 
proposed threshold of 1 million bbl/yr gasoline are as high as $500,000 
per ton of HAP emissions reduced (1.9 tons of HAP reduced annually per 
facility) for loading ships offshore. Looking at a less stringent 
threshold for the final rule of 7 million bbl/yr of gasoline loaded 
would likely achieve little or no HAP or VOC emission reductions, since 
many facilities near that threshold were required to install controls 
under the current rule. We agree with commenters that these costs are 
unreasonable. Therefore, we are not including the proposed vapor 
controls for loading 1 million bbl/yr of gasoline requirement in the 
final rule. We disagree with the commenter that we cannot consider VOC 
benefits, but, given that we are not requiring these additional vapor 
controls for HAP, the issue is now moot.
    Comment: One commenter stated that VOC and HAP emission rates from 
ships and barges at their facility are lower than EPA uses in its cost-
effectiveness determinations. EPA used the uncontrolled gasoline 
loading emissions factor for barges (3.4 pounds (lb) VOC/1,000 gallons 
(gal) loaded), but should

[[Page 22582]]

use the emissions factor for ocean-going ships and barges (1.8 lb VOC/
1,000 gal loaded); AP-42 notes in Chapter 5 that vapor saturation is 
much lower in ship and barge loading.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the emission factors for 
ships and barges, as applicable to the type of marine vessel being 
loaded, should be considered for estimating VOC and HAP emissions. We 
have revised the emission estimates using the barge and ship emission 
factors from AP-42.
    Comment: One commenter noted that HAP content in the vapor phase is 
3.0 percent, and not the 7.3 percent determined by EPA in the proposal. 
The commenter provided the analysis showing the calculations, based on 
conventional gasoline, where the commenter assumed no methyl tertiary 
butyl ether (MTBE) in the gasoline; no change to the total partial 
pressure; and benzene concentration of 1.8 percent. Another commenter 
stated the HAP emissions factor is approximately 50 percent of the EPA 
factor.
    Response: In the proposal, we determined that the HAP content in 
the vapor phase of gasoline of 7.3 percent (based on 2006 gasoline 
composition) was appropriate, and used 7.3 percent in our emissions 
estimates for gasoline loading at MTVLO. We reviewed and considered the 
data provided by the commenter, and reviewed HAP content information 
from several other sources that have more recent gasoline composition 
data. We conducted a reanalysis of the HAP content, looking at both 
conventional and reformulated gasoline, considering the phase-out of 
MTBE and the requirements for reduced benzene content. Based on the 
revised analysis, we concluded that a good typical value for HAP 
content in the vapor is 5.0 percent. The revised analysis of HAP 
content in gasoline is in a memorandum in the docket.
    Comment: Commenters argued that lean oil absorption technology is 
not capable of meeting the rule efficiency, is not in common use for 
MTVLO, and must be demonstrated as an effective technology for MTVLO. 
One commenter cited an instance where lean oil absorption installed on 
MTVLO was unable to meet control requirements in their permit. The 
commenter stated that lean oil absorption is typically used in smaller 
applications. Commenters stated that EPA must provide actual 
performance data for lean oil absorption technology in the MTVLO source 
category.
    Response: Lean oil absorption systems are not new control 
technologies for MTVLO. Lean oil absorption was discussed as a vapor 
recovery device, in addition to refrigeration (condenser) systems and 
carbon adsorption systems, for marine vessel loading in the 1987 
National Research Council, Committee on Control and Recovery of 
Hydrocarbons Vapors from Ships and Barges report, Controlling 
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Tank Vessel Loading. Lean oil absorption 
also was discussed in the 1992 proposal, Technical Support Document for 
MTVLO (EPA-450/3-92-001a), and has been installed as vapor recovery 
devices for MTVLO. While we have not selected a beyond-the-floor option 
as MACT, we would like to clarify that lean oil absorption systems were 
included in the cost analysis for the beyond-the-floor option, because 
lean oil absorption systems achieving an emission reduction efficiency 
of 97 percent are used by at least one MTVLO facility, and because the 
units are a relatively less expensive control technology option that 
has the added benefit of recovered product.

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Requirements

    Comment: Two commenters state that EPA offers little support for 
the assertion that it is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 as not 
requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting emissions 
standards, or that malfunctions are not a distinct operating mode. The 
commenters state that it does not make sense for EPA to assert that 
malfunctions are part of normal operations, but then exclude emissions 
from these parts of normal operations in the determination of the 
emissions limits. The commenters state that, due to the unplanned 
nature and variety of potential malfunctions, it would be difficult, if 
not impossible, for EPA to gather data and set an emissions standard 
for periods of malfunction. Due to these difficulties, the commenters 
suggest that, under the authority of CAA section 112(h), EPA prescribe 
alternative design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards 
where it is not feasible to set or enforce a numerical emissions limit. 
The commenters add that there are work practices that can be identified 
as being the best to minimize emissions during a malfunction, and EPA 
must acknowledge the fact that even the best-performing sources 
experience malfunction events.
    Response: EPA has determined that CAA section 112 does not require 
that emissions that occur during periods of malfunction be factored 
into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under CAA section 112, 
emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the 
level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source, and for 
existing sources, generally, must be no less stringent than the average 
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of 
sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that 
directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level 
``achieved'' by the best performing or best controlled sources when 
setting emission standards. Moreover, while EPA accounts for 
variability in setting emissions standards consistent with the CAA 
section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the Agency to 
consider malfunctions as part of that analysis.
    CAA section 112 uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best 
performing'' unit in defining the level of stringency that CAA section 
112 performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of ``best 
controlled'' or ``best performing'' to a unit that is malfunctioning 
presents significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and 
unexpected events. Accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if 
not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that 
can occur across all sources in the category, and given the 
difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the 
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might 
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not 
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (EPA typically has wide latitude in 
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. 
We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of 
imperfect scientific information, rather than to ``invest the resources 
to conduct the perfect study.''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 
F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general 
limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate 
all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of 
regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' 
such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a 
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative 
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification 
in advance by regulation.''). In addition, the goal of a best 
controlled or best performing source is to operate in such a way as to 
avoid malfunctions of the source, and accounting for malfunctions could 
lead

[[Page 22583]]

to standards that are significantly less stringent than levels that are 
achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. EPA's approach 
to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112, and is a reasonable 
interpretation of the statute.
    Comment: Several commenters argued that emissions limits should not 
apply during SSM events, while other commenters stated that SSM 
emissions should be included in calculations of emissions and 
standards. Commenters suggested that requiring continuous compliance 
during periods of SSM constitutes beyond-the-floor requirements, and 
the Agency should have to justify this more stringent level of control, 
because facilities would need to install redundant control systems and 
bypass systems. They further stated that, in order to assure that SSM 
are appropriately accommodated, EPA must either assure that the data on 
which the standard is based include representative data from such 
periods, or, alternatively, set a separate work practice standard to 
properly accommodate SSM, and they cited case law supporting 
establishment of special SSM provisions. Further, several commenters 
stated that compliance with emissions standards during malfunction 
events will be difficult to gauge since emissions testing during such 
events is nearly impossible, given the sporadic and unpredictable 
nature of malfunctions. The commenters contended that the rules could 
have the effect of forcing units to choose between safety and 
compliance with emissions requirements. The commenters stated that, for 
some affected units, malfunctions, by their very nature, create unsafe 
conditions which can lead to excessive combustible mixtures that can 
result in explosions, equipment damage, and personnel hazards. 
Commenters also noted that some of the MACT standards included in this 
action did not rely exclusively upon the General Provisions, and, thus, 
were not immediately affected by the Court's vacatur of the SSM 
exemptions in the General Provisions. The commenters pointed out that, 
given that these categories were not immediately affected, EPA is not 
compelled to remove the exemptions that are established within these 
individual category-specific MACT standards.
    Other commenters expressed support for requiring continuous 
compliance with the MACT standards, including periods of SSM. They 
noted that malfunctions are also preventable, and, thus, there should 
be no relief from the standards during these events.
    Response: At this time, we are not promulgating separate emission 
standards for periods of startup and shutdown for three of the four 
categories addressed in this rule, because we believe compliance with 
the standards is achievable during these periods. In the case of the 
Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards, we expect the difference in 
emission levels during periods of startup and shutdown are 
insignificant, and that facilities in this source category should be 
able to comply with the standards during these times. In the case of 
the Printing and Publishing MACT standards, we believe there are 
sufficiently long averaging times incorporated into the emissions 
limits that facilities should be able to comply during periods of 
startup and shutdown. In the case of MTVLO, loading of marine tank 
vessels occurs in ``batches,'' and general practice is for the loading 
operators to test out the vapor control system before it is attached to 
the tank vessel. In the case of Group I Polymers and Resins, one 
commenter stated that organic HAP emissions that are required to be 
sent to emissions control equipment (i.e., flares) may not be able to 
comply with the MACT standards during periods of shutdown. The 
commenter stated that they may not always be able to route some of 
their process vents to a flare during periods of shutdown due to low 
pressure or low heat content in the process vent. EPA agrees with the 
commenter that it is not possible to comply with the applicable 
standard during periods of shutdown, and is establishing alternative 
emissions standards that apply during these periods.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by 
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, 
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner 
* * *'' (40 CFR 60.2). EPA has determined that malfunctions should not 
be viewed as a distinct operating mode, and, therefore, any emissions 
that occur at such times do not need to be factored into development of 
CAA section 112 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. 
Also refer to section III.E of this preamble, and the response to 
comments document available in the docket for this action for 
additional discussion of this issue.
    Comment: Commenters on the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT 
disagreed with EPA's statement that the proposed rules will reduce the 
reporting burden associated with having to prepare and submit an SSM 
report. The commenters also state that the claims EPA makes that EPA is 
not proposing any new paperwork requirements is false if a facility 
wants to claim an affirmative defense. The affirmative defense 
provision contains much more onerous reporting and implied 
recordkeeping requirements than the existing rules. The commenters 
state that EPA needs to account for the information collection burden 
associated with affirmative defense in the Information Collection 
Request (ICR) for the SSM portion of the Group I Polymers and Resins 
MACT, and otherwise comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    Response: As discussed in section VII.B of this preamble, EPA is 
providing the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the 
burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense position 
adopted by a source, and is providing administrative adjustments to the 
ICR for the MACT standards subject to these final rules that show what 
the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated 
with the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail.
    Comment: Two commenters note that, in making changes to the rules 
to exclude the SSM exemption and add the general duty clause to the 
MACT standards, three of the six MACT standards in the proposal include 
the statement that ``the general duty to minimize emissions does not 
require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce 
emissions if levels required by this standard have been achieved,'' but 
the other three do not (i.e., Group I Polymers and Resins, MTLVO, and 
Printing and Publishing Industry MACT standards). The commenters state 
that this clarifying language should be included in all six standards.
    Response: We agree that this language should be included in each of 
the six MACT standards, and we have added this clarifying language to 
40 CFR 63.823(b) in the Printing and Publishing Industry MACT standards 
and 40 CFR 63.562(e) in the MTVLO MACT standards. However, we find that 
40 CFR 63.483 in the Group 1 Polymers and Resins MACT standards already 
includes this language, and we have not revised the proposed language.

VI. Impacts of the Final Rules

    The final changes to the Group I Polymers and Resins, MTVLO, 
Pharmaceuticals Production, and the Printing and Publishing Industry 
MACT standards are not estimated to have any significant emission 
reductions, costs, or other impacts.

[[Page 22584]]

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' This action is a 
significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal and policy 
issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and 
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes 
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 
docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rules have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant 
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    These final rules would require maintenance inspections of the 
control devices, but would not require any notifications or reports 
beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping 
requirements require only the specific information needed to determine 
compliance.
    When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them according to 
the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts U, Y, 
KK, and GGG. An affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances 
of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions is available to a 
source if it can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are 
satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is 
available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the 
emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 
63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable, and not caused by 
poor maintenance and or careless operation) and where the source took 
necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source must 
meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For example, the 
source must prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a written 
report to the Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions 
and requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense.
    For two of the rules promulgated, National Emissions Standards for 
Group I Polymers and Resins (Butyl Rubber Production, Epichlorohydrin 
Elastomers Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production, 
HypalonTM Production, Neoprene Production, NBR Production, 
Polybutadiene Rubber Production, Polysulfide Rubber Production, and 
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production); and Pharmaceuticals 
Production, EPA is adding affirmative defense to the estimate of burden 
in the ICR. To provide the public with an estimate of the relative 
magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative 
defense position adopted by a source, EPA has provided administrative 
adjustments to these two ICR that show what the notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with the assertion 
of the affirmative defense might entail. EPA's estimate for the 
required notification, reports, and records, including the root cause 
analysis, totals $3,141, and is based on the time and effort required 
of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees, and 
document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an 
exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to 
produce and retain the record and reports for submission to EPA. EPA 
provides this illustrative estimate of this burden, because these costs 
are only incurred if there has been a violation, and a source chooses 
to take advantage of the affirmative defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could 
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance 
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of 
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It 
is important to note that EPA has no basis currently for estimating the 
number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative defense. 
Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as source 
owners or operators previously operated their facilities in recognition 
that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with emissions 
standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess emission events 
reported by source operators, only a small number would be expected to 
result from a malfunction (based on the definition above), and only a 
subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions would result in the 
source choosing to assert the affirmative defense. Thus, we believe the 
number of instances in which source operators might be expected to 
avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be extremely small. 
For this reason, we estimate no more than 2 or 3 such occurrences for 
all sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subparts U and GGG over the 3-
year period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information on 
such events in the future, and will revise this estimate as better 
information becomes available.
    With respect to MTVLO and Printing and Publishing source 
categories, operations would not proceed or continue if there is a 
malfunction of a control device, and, thus, it is unlikely that a 
control device malfunction would cause an exceedance of any emission 
limit. The existing MTVLO rule requires the vapor displaced during 
loading of the vessel be sent to vapor processors that meet specified 
efficiency standards. In discussions with industry, and at plant 
visits, the industry reports that marine vessels are not allowed to 
start loading until the vapor collection and processor system has been 
thoroughly checked for proper operation. If the loading equipment, and 
the vapor collection and possessor system are not properly operating, 
the vessel is not allowed to load. In addition, if processor system 
settings are not maintained during vessel loading, loading is 
automatically stopped. Therefore, we believe there is no burden to the 
industry for the affirmative defense provisions added to the final 
rule. Additionally, an ICR document (number 1679.08) was prepared and 
submitted for the October 21, 2010, proposed rule that included burdens 
associated with testing, reporting, and recordkeeping for the proposed 
lowering of the threshold for when additional vapor collection and 
processor systems are required. In this action we are not requiring the 
lower threshold for additional vapor collection and processor systems. 
However, submerged fill requirements are added in the final rule, and 
are already being met under Coast Guard rules; thus, there is no 
additional ICR burden associated with the final rule for MTVLO.
    For Printing and Publishing, we do not believe that printing and 
publishing

[[Page 22585]]

facilities have excess emissions caused by malfunctions. Printing 
presses and control devices are interlocked. If the control device is 
not operating, the press cannot start printing. If the control device 
stops operating, the press stops printing. Also, given the 
characteristics of the affected units at printing and publishing 
sources, EPA does not believe that any other type of malfunction could 
conceivably cause excess emissions.
    Therefore, sources within these two source categories are not 
expected to have any need or use for the affirmative defense. Thus, for 
these source categories, EPA is not assigning any burden associated 
with affirmative defense.
    For the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standards, an ICR document 
prepared by EPA for the amendments to the standards has been assigned 
EPA ICR number 2410.02, which has been revised since the proposed 
estimate assigned EPA ICR number 2410.01. Burden changes associated 
with these amendments result from the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements of the affirmative defense provisions added to the rule; 
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the new 
back-end process operation emission limits for Epichlorohydrin 
Elastomers, Neoprene Rubber, NBR, and Butyl Rubber Production source 
categories; and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated 
with the new HCl emission limits for the front-end process vents for 
the Ethylene Propylene Rubber and Butyl Rubber Production source 
categories. The respondents' annual reporting and recordkeeping burden 
for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the standards) for these amendments is estimated to 
be 251 labor hours at a cost of $12,222 per year. The annual burden for 
the Federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the standard) for these amendments is estimated to be 
9 labor hours at a cost of $408 per year.
    For the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards ICR document 
prepared by EPA, which has been revised to include the amendments to 
the standards, has been assigned EPA ICR number 1781.06. Burden changes 
associated with these amendments result from the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements of the affirmative defense provisions added 
to the rule. The change in respondents' annual reporting and 
recordkeeping burden associated with these amendments for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the standards) is estimated to be 20 labor hours at a cost of $2,094 
per year. There is no estimated change in annual burden to the Federal 
government for these amendments.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When these ICR are 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control numbers 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in the 
final rules.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act, or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of these final rules on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; 
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of these final rules on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. These final 
rules will not change the level of any emission standard, or impose 
emission measurements or reporting requirements on small entities 
beyond those specified in existing regulations.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    These rules do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
Thus, these rules are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 
or 205 of UMRA.
    These rules are also not subject to the regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. They 
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose 
obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. These final rules primarily affect 
private industry, and do not impose significant economic costs on State 
or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
this action.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have 
substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined 
in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. This action will not relax the 
control measures on existing regulated sources, and EPA's risk 
assessments (included in the docket for the proposed rules) demonstrate 
that the existing regulations are health protective.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not 
likely to have a

[[Page 22586]]

significant adverse energy effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. This action will not create any new requirements for sources 
in the energy supply, distribution, or use sectors. Further, we have 
concluded that these final rules are not likely to have any adverse 
energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 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. NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that these final rules will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations, because they do not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. To examine the potential for any environmental justice 
issues that might be associated with each source category, we evaluated 
the distributions of HAP-related cancer and non-cancer risks across 
different social, demographic, and economic groups within the 
populations living near the facilities where these source categories 
are located. Our analyses also show that, for all the source categories 
evaluated, there is no potential for an adverse environmental effect or 
human health multipathway effects, and that acute and chronic non-
cancer health impacts are unlikely. Our additional analysis of 
facility-wide risks showed that the maximum facility-wide cancer risks 
for all source categories are within the range of acceptable risks, and 
that the maximum chronic non-cancer risks are unlikely to cause health 
impacts. Our additional analysis of the demographics of the exposed 
population may show disparities in risks between demographic groups for 
all three categories, but EPA has determined that, although there may 
be a disparity in risks between demographic groups, no group is exposed 
to unacceptable level of risk.
    The rules will not relax the control measures on emissions sources 
regulated by the rules, and, therefore, will not increase risks to any 
populations exposed to these emissions sources.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing these 
final rules 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 rules in the 
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rules will be effective 
on April 21, 2011.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: March 31, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal 
Regulations 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 U--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.480 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.480  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

* * * * *
    (j) Applicability of this subpart. Paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of 
this section shall be followed during periods of non-operation of the 
affected source or any part thereof.
    (1) The emission limitations set forth in this subpart and the 
emission limitations referred to in this subpart shall apply at all 
times except during periods of non-operation of the affected source (or 
specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to 
which this subpart applies. However, if a period of non-operation of 
one portion of an affected source does not affect the ability of a 
particular emission point to comply with the emission limitations to 
which it is subject, then that emission point shall still be required 
to comply with the applicable emission limitations of this subpart 
during the period of non-operation. For example, if there is an 
overpressure in the reactor area, a storage vessel that is part of the 
affected source would still be required to be controlled in accordance 
with the emission limitations in Sec.  63.484.
    (2) The emission limitations set forth in subpart H of this part, 
as referred to in Sec.  63.502, shall apply at all times, except during 
periods of non-operation of the affected source (or specific portion 
thereof) in which the lines are drained and depressurized, resulting in 
cessation of the emissions to which Sec.  63.502 applies.
    (3) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment 
that are required or utilized for compliance with this subpart during 
times when emissions (or, where applicable, wastewater streams or 
residuals) are being routed to such items of equipment if the shutdown 
would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to such items 
of equipment.
    (4) In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
this subpart, an owner or operator may assert an affirmative defense to 
a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are 
caused by a malfunction, as defined in Sec.  63.2. Appropriate 
penalties may be assessed, however, if the owner or operator fails to 
meet the burden of proving all the requirements in the affirmative 
defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 
injunctive relief.

[[Page 22587]]

    (i) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a limit, the owners or operators of a facility must timely meet 
the notification requirements of paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this section, 
and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 
or a process to operate in a normal and usual manner; and could not 
have been prevented through careful planning, proper design, or better 
operation and maintenance practices; did not stem from any activity or 
event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and 
were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, 
operation, or maintenance;
    (B) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs;
    (C) The frequency, amount, and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions;
    (D) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage;
    (E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human 
health;
    (F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation, if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices;
    (G) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs;
    (H) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent 
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause 
analysis, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate 
the primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions 
resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also 
specify, using the best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, 
the amount of excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
    (ii) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile 
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business 
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to 
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within 
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 
this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph 
(j)(4)(i) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension 
of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written 
request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45 day 
period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the 
Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to 
submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 
exceedance.


0
3. Section 63.481 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.481  Compliance dates and relationship of this subpart to 
existing applicable rules.

* * * * *
    (c) With the exceptions provided in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) 
of this section, existing affected sources shall be in compliance with 
this subpart no later than June 19, 2001, as provided in Sec.  63.6(c), 
unless an extension has been granted as specified in paragraph (e) of 
this section.
    (1) Existing affected sources producing epichlorohydrin elastomer, 
butyl rubber, neoprene rubber, and nitrile butadiene rubber shall be in 
compliance with the applicable emission limitation in Sec.  
63.494(a)(4) no later than April 23, 2012.
    (2) Existing affected sources producing butyl rubber and ethylene 
propylene rubber shall be in compliance with Sec.  63.485(q)(1) no 
later than April 23, 2012.
    (3) Compliance with Sec.  63.502 is covered by paragraph (d) of 
this section.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.482 is amended by removing the definition of ``halobutyl 
rubber,'' adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``affirmative 
defense,'' revising the definitions of ``back-end,'' ``butyl rubber,'' 
``elastomer product,'' ``initial start-up,'' and ``product'' in 
paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.482  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits 
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
    Back-end refers to the unit operations in an EPPU following the 
stripping operations. Back-end process operations include, but are not 
limited to, filtering, coagulation, blending, concentration, drying, 
separating, and other finishing operations, as well as latex and crumb 
storage. Back-end does not include storage and loading of finished 
product or emission points that are regulated under Sec. Sec.  63.484, 
63.501, or 63.502 of this subpart.
* * * * *
    Butyl rubber means a copolymer of isobutylene and other monomers. 
Typical other monomers include isoprene and methylstyrene. A typical 
composition of butyl rubber is approximately 85- to 99-percent 
isobutylene, and 1- to 15-percent other monomers. Most butyl rubber is 
produced by precipitation polymerization, although other methods may be 
used. Halobutyl rubber is a type of butyl rubber elastomer produced 
using halogenated copolymers.
* * * * *
    Elastomer product means one of the following types of products, as 
they are defined in this section:
    (1) Butyl Rubber;
    (2) Epichlorohydrin Elastomer;
    (3) Ethylene Propylene Rubber;
    (4) Hypalon TM;
    (5) Neoprene;
    (6) Nitrile Butadiene Rubber;
    (7) Nitrile Butadiene Latex;
    (8) Polybutadiene Rubber/Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Solution;
    (9) Polysulfide Rubber;
    (10) Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Emulsion; and
    (11) Styrene Butadiene Latex.
* * * * *
    Initial start-up means the first time a new or reconstructed 
affected source begins production of an elastomer product, or, for 
equipment added or changed as described in Sec.  63.480(i), the first 
time the equipment is put into operation to produce an elastomer 
product. Initial start-up does not include operation solely for testing 
equipment. Initial start-up does not include subsequent start-ups of an 
affected source or portion thereof

[[Page 22588]]

following shutdowns, or following changes in product for flexible 
operation units, or following recharging of equipment in batch 
operation.
* * * * *
    Product means a polymer produced using the same monomers, and 
varying in additives (e.g., initiators, terminators, etc.); catalysts; 
or in the relative proportions of monomers, that is manufactured by a 
process unit. With respect to polymers, more than one recipe may be 
used to produce the same product, and there can be more than one grade 
of a product. As an example, styrene butadiene latex and butyl rubber 
each represent a different product. Product also means a chemical that 
is not a polymer, is manufactured by a process unit. By-products, 
isolated intermediates, impurities, wastes, and trace contaminants are 
not considered products.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.483 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.483  Emission standards.

    (a) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and maintain 
any affected source subject to the requirements of this subpart, 
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to 
minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any 
further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this standard 
have been achieved. Determination of whether such operation and 
maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information 
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source. Except as allowed under paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 
section, the owner or operator of an existing or new affected source 
shall comply with the provisions in:
    (1) Section 63.484 for storage vessels;
    (2) Section 63.485 for continuous front-end process vents;
    (3) Sections 63.486 through 63.492 for batch front-end process 
vents;
    (4) Sections 63.493 through 63.500 for back-end process operations;
    (5) Section 63.501 for wastewater;
    (6) Section 63.502 for equipment leaks;
    (7) Section 63.504 for additional test methods and procedures;
    (8) Section 63.505 for monitoring levels and excursions; and
    (9) Section 63.506 for general reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.484 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.484  Storage vessel provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Storage vessels located downstream of the stripping operations 
at affected sources subject to the back-end residual organic HAP 
limitation located in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), that are 
complying through the use of stripping technology, as specified in 
Sec.  63.495;
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.485 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (q) introductory text, and (q)(1) introductory 
text;
0
b. Adding paragraphs (q)(1)(iii) through (q)(1)(vi); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.485  Continuous front-end process vent provisions.

* * * * *
    (q) Group 1 halogenated continuous front-end process vents must 
comply with the provisions of Sec.  63.113(a)(1)(ii) and Sec.  
63.113(c), with the exceptions noted in paragraphs (q)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) Group I halogenated continuous front-end process vents at 
existing affected sources producing butyl rubber or ethylene propylene 
rubber using a solution process are exempt from the provisions of Sec.  
63.113(a)(1)(ii) and Sec.  63.113(c) if the conditions in paragraphs 
(q)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section are met, and shall comply with the 
requirements in paragraphs (q)(1)(iii) through (vi) of this section. 
Group I halogenated continuous front-end process vents at new affected 
sources producing butyl rubber or ethylene propylene rubber using a 
solution process are not exempt from Sec.  63.113(a)(1)(ii) and Sec.  
63.113(c).
* * * * *
    (iii) The average HCl emissions from all front-end process 
operations at affected sources producing butyl rubber and ethylene 
propylene rubber using a solution process shall not exceed the limits 
determined in accordance with paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this 
section for any consecutive 12-month period. The specific limitation 
for each elastomer type shall be determined based on the calculation or 
the emissions level provided in paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of 
this section divided by the base year elastomer product that leaves the 
stripping operation (or the reactor(s), if the plant has no 
stripper(s)). The limitation shall be calculated and submitted in 
accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (A) For butyl rubber, the HCl emission limitation shall be 
calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP11.002

Where:

HCl2010 = HCl emissions in 2010, megagrams per year (Mg/
yr)
BRHClEL = Butyl rubber HCl emission limit, Mg HCl emissions/Mg butyl 
rubber produced
P2010 = Total elastomer product leaving the stripper in 
2010, Mg/yr
1.74 = variability factor, unitless

    (B) For ethylene propylene rubber using a solution process, the HCl 
emission limitation, in units of Mg HCl emissions per Mg of ethylene 
propylene rubber produced, shall be calculated by dividing 27 Mg/yr by 
the mass of ethylene propylene rubber produced in 2010, in Mg.
    (iv) If the front-end process operation is subject to a HCl 
emission limitation in paragraph (q)(1)(iii) of this section, the owner 
and operator must submit the information specified in paragraphs 
(q)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) The applicable HCl emission limitation determined in accordance 
with paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section shall be 
submitted no later than 180 days from the date of publication of the 
final rule amendments in the Federal Register.
    (B) Beginning with the first periodic report required to be 
submitted by Sec.  63.506(e)(6) that is at least 13 months after the 
compliance date, the total mass of HCl emitted for each of the rolling 
12-month periods in the reporting period divided by the total mass of 
elastomer produced during the corresponding 12-month period, determined 
in accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(v) of this section.
    (v) Compliance with the HCl emission limitations determined in 
accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(iii) of this section shall be 
demonstrated in accordance with paragraphs (q)(1)(v)(A) through (E) of 
this section.
    (A) Calculate your HCl emission limitation in accordance with 
paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, as applicable, 
record it, and submit it in accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of 
this section.

[[Page 22589]]

    (B) Each month, calculate and record the HCl emissions from all 
front-end process operations using engineering assessment. Engineering 
assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    (1) Use of material balances;
    (2) Estimation of flow rate based on physical equipment design, 
such as pump or blower capacities;
    (3) Estimation of HCl concentrations based on saturation 
conditions; and
    (4) Estimation of HCl concentrations based on grab samples of the 
liquid or vapor.
    (C) Each month, record the mass of elastomer product produced.
    (D) Each month, calculate and record the sum of the HCl emissions 
and the mass of elastomer produced for the previous calendar 12-month 
period.
    (E) Each month, divide the total mass of HCl emitted for the 
previous calendar 12-month period by the total mass of elastomer 
produced during this 12-month period. This value must be recorded in 
accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(vi) of this section and reported in 
accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (vi) If the front-end process operation is subject to an HCl 
emission limitation in paragraph (q)(1)(iii) of this section, the owner 
or operator shall maintain the records specified in paragraphs 
(q)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section.
    (A) The applicable HCl emission limitation determined in accordance 
with paragraphs (q)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (B) The HCl emissions from all front-end process operations for 
each month, along with documentation of all calculations, and other 
information used in the engineering assessment to estimate these 
emissions.
    (C) The mass of elastomer product produced each month.
    (D) The total mass of HCl emitted for each 12-month period divided 
by the total mass of elastomer produced during the 12-month period, 
determined in accordance with paragraph (q)(1)(v) of this section.
* * * * *
    (w) Shutdown. (1) During periods of shutdown, a Group 1 continuous 
front-end process vent at an existing affected source producing butyl 
rubber or ethylene propylene rubber using a solution process must be 
routed to a flare until either the organic HAP concentration in the 
vent is less than 50 ppmv, or the vent pressure is below 103.421 kPa.

0
8. Section 63.489 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.489  Batch front-end process vents--monitoring equipment.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) The owner or operator may prepare and implement a gas stream 
flow determination plan that documents an appropriate method which will 
be used to determine the gas stream flow. The plan shall require 
determination of gas stream flow by a method which will at least 
provide a value for either a representative or the highest gas stream 
flow anticipated in the scrubber during representative operating 
conditions. The plan shall include a description of the methodology to 
be followed and an explanation of how the selected methodology will 
reliably determine the gas stream flow, and a description of the 
records that will be maintained to document the determination of gas 
stream flow. The owner or operator shall maintain the plan as specified 
in Sec.  63.506(a).
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.491 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.491  Batch front-end process vents--recordkeeping 
requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Monitoring data recorded during periods of monitoring system 
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments shall not be included in computing the batch cycle 
daily averages. In addition, monitoring data recorded during periods of 
non-operation of the EPPU (or specific portion thereof) resulting in 
cessation of organic HAP emissions shall not be included in computing 
the batch cycle daily averages.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.493 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.493  Back-end process provisions.

    Owners and operators of new and existing affected sources shall 
comply with the requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.494 through 63.500. 
Owners and operators of affected sources whose only elastomer products 
are latex products, liquid rubber products, or products produced in a 
gas-phased reaction process, are not subject to the provisions of 
Sec. Sec.  63.494 through 63.500. If latex or liquid rubber products 
are produced in an affected source that also produces another elastomer 
product, the provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.494 through 63.500 do not 
apply to the back-end operations dedicated to the production of one or 
more latex products, or to the back-end operations during the 
production of a latex product. Table 8 to this subpart contains a 
summary of compliance alternative requirements for the emission limits 
in Sec.  63.494(a)(1)-(3) and associated requirements.

0
11. Section 63.494 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(5) introductory text;
0
e. Adding paragraph (a)(6);
0
f. Revising paragraph (b);
0
g. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
h. Revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.494  Back-end process provisions--residual organic HAP and 
emission limitations.

    (a) The monthly weighted average residual organic HAP content of 
all grades of styrene butadiene rubber produced by the emulsion 
process, polybutadiene rubber and styrene butadiene rubber produced by 
the solution process, and ethylene-propylene rubber produced by the 
solution process that is processed, shall be measured after the 
stripping operation (or the reactor(s), if the plant has no 
stripper(s)), as specified in Sec.  63.495(d), and shall not exceed the 
limits provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, as 
applicable. Owners or operators of these affected sources shall comply 
with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section 
using either stripping technology, or control or recovery devices. The 
organic HAP emissions from all back-end process operations at affected 
sources producing butyl rubber, epichlorohydrin elastomer, neoprene, 
and nitrile butadiene rubber shall not exceed the limits determined in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *
    (4) The organic HAP emissions from back-end processes at affected 
sources producing butyl rubber, epichlorohydrin elastomer, neoprene, 
and nitrile butadiene rubber shall not exceed the limits determined in 
accordance with paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section for 
any consecutive 12-month period. The specific limitation for each 
elastomer type shall be determined based on the calculation or the 
emissions level provided in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through

[[Page 22590]]

(iv) of this section divided by the base year elastomer product that 
leaves the stripping operation (or the reactor(s), if the plant has no 
stripper(s)). The limitation shall be calculated and submitted in 
accordance with Sec.  63.499(f)(1).
    (i) For butyl rubber, the organic HAP emission limitation shall be 
calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP11.003

Where:

Be2009 = Bypass emissions in 2009, Mg/yr
BREL = Butyl rubber emission limit, Mg organic HAP emissions/Mg 
butyl rubber produced
Ce2009 = Controlled emissions in 2009, Mg/yr
P2009 = Total elastomer product leaving the stripper in 
2009, Mg/yr
UCe2009 = Uncontrolled emissions in 2009, Mg/yr
1.35 = variability factor, unitless

    (ii) For epichlorohydrin elastomer, the organic HAP emission 
limitation, in units of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of 
epichlorohydrin elastomer produced, shall be calculated by dividing 51 
Mg/yr by the mass of epichlorohydrin elastomer produced in 2009, in Mg.
    (iii) For neoprene, the organic HAP emission limitation, in units 
of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of neoprene produced, shall be 
calculated by dividing 30 Mg/yr by the mass of neoprene produced in 
2007, in Mg.
    (iv) For nitrile butadiene rubber, the organic HAP emission 
limitation, in units of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of nitrile 
butadiene rubber produced, shall be calculated by dividing 2.4 Mg/yr by 
the mass of nitrile butadiene rubber produced in 2009, in Mg.
    (5) For EPPU that produce both an elastomer product with a residual 
organic HAP limitation listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 
section, and a product listed in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of 
this section, only the residual HAP content of the elastomer product 
with a residual organic HAP limitation shall be used in determining the 
monthly average residual organic HAP content.
* * * * *
    (6) There are no back-end process operation residual organic HAP or 
emission limitations for Hypalon \TM\ and polysulfide rubber 
production. There are also no back-end process operation residual 
organic HAP limitations for latex products, liquid rubber products, 
products produced in a gas-phased reaction process, styrene butadiene 
rubber produced by any process other than a solution or emulsion 
process, polybutadiene rubber produced by any process other than a 
solution process, or ethylene-propylene rubber produced by any process 
other than a solution process.
    (b) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP 
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this section using 
stripping technology, compliance shall be demonstrated in accordance 
with Sec.  63.495. The owner or operator shall also comply with the 
recordkeeping provisions in Sec.  63.498, and the reporting provisions 
in Sec.  63.499.
    (c) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP 
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this section using 
control or recovery devices, compliance shall be demonstrated using the 
procedures in Sec.  63.496. The owner or operator shall also comply 
with the monitoring provisions in Sec.  63.497, the recordkeeping 
provisions in Sec.  63.498, and the reporting provisions in Sec.  
63.499.
    (d) If the owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP 
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this section using a 
flare, the owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with 
the requirements in Sec.  63.504(c).

0
12. Section 63.495 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(5); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.495  Back-end process provisions--procedures to determine 
compliance with residual organic HAP limitations using stripping 
technology and organic HAP emissions limitations.

    (a) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP 
limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) using stripping 
technology, compliance shall be demonstrated using the periodic 
sampling procedures in paragraph (b) of this section, or using the 
stripper parameter monitoring procedures in paragraph (c) of this 
section. The owner or operator shall determine the monthly weighted 
average residual organic HAP content for each month in which any 
portion of the back-end of an elastomer production process is in 
operation. A single monthly weighted average shall be determined for 
all back-end process operations at the affected source.
    (b) * * *
    (5) The monthly weighted average shall be determined using the 
equation in paragraph (f) of this section. All representative samples 
taken and analyzed during the month shall be used in the determination 
of the monthly weighted average.
* * * * *
    (g) Compliance with the organic HAP emission limitations determined 
in accordance with Sec.  63.494(a)(4) shall be demonstrated in 
accordance with paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Calculate your organic HAP emission limitation in accordance 
with Sec.  63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv), as applicable, record it, and 
submit it in accordance with Sec.  63.499(f)(1).
    (2) Each month, calculate and record the organic HAP emissions from 
all back-end process operations using engineering assessment. 
Engineering assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    (i) Previous test results, provided the test was representative of 
current operating practices.
    (ii) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data obtained under conditions 
representative of current process operating conditions.
    (iii) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering 
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws 
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not 
limited to:
    (A) Use of material balances;
    (B) Estimation of flow rate based on physical equipment design, 
such as pump or blower capacities;
    (C) Estimation of organic HAP concentrations based on saturation 
conditions; and
    (D) Estimation of organic HAP concentrations based on grab samples 
of the liquid or vapor.
    (3) Each month, record the mass of elastomer product produced.
    (4) Each month, calculate and record the sums of the organic HAP 
emissions

[[Page 22591]]

and the mass of elastomer produced for the previous calendar 12-month 
period.
    (5) Each month, divide the total mass of organic HAP emitted for 
the previous calendar 12-month period by the total mass of elastomer 
produced during this 12-month period. This value must be recorded in 
accordance with Sec.  63.498(e) and reported in accordance with Sec.  
63.499(f)(2).


0
13. Section 63.496 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.496  Back-end process provisions--procedures to determine 
compliance with residual organic HAP limitations using control or 
recovery devices.

    (a) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP 
limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) using control or recovery 
devices, compliance shall be demonstrated using the procedures in 
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Previous test results conducted 
in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section may be 
used to determine compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) A facility is in compliance if the average of the organic HAP 
contents calculated for all three test runs is below the residual 
organic HAP limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3).
    (d) An owner or operator complying with the residual organic HAP 
limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) using a control or 
recovery device, shall redetermine the compliance status through the 
requirements described in paragraph (b) of this section whenever 
process changes are made. The owner or operator shall report the 
results of the redetermination in accordance with Sec.  63.499(d). For 
the purposes of this section, a process change is any action that would 
reasonably be expected to impair the performance of the control or 
recovery device. For the purposes of this section, the production of an 
elastomer with a residual organic HAP content greater than the residual 
organic HAP content of the elastomer used in the compliance 
demonstration constitutes a process change, unless the overall effect 
of the change is to reduce organic HAP emissions from the source as a 
whole. Other examples of process changes may include changes in 
production capacity or production rate, or removal or addition of 
equipment. For the purposes of this paragraph, process changes do not 
include: Process upsets; unintentional, temporary process changes; or 
changes that reduce the residual organic HAP content of the elastomer.


0
14. Section 63.497 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; and
0
c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.497  Back-end process provisions--monitoring provisions for 
control and recovery devices used to comply with residual organic HAP 
limitations.

    (a) An owner or operator complying with the residual organic HAP 
limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) using control or recovery 
devices, or a combination of stripping and control or recovery devices, 
shall install the monitoring equipment specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (6) of this section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (d) The owner or operator of an affected source with a controlled 
back-end process vent using a vent system that contains bypass lines 
that could divert a vent stream away from the control or recovery 
device used to comply with Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), shall comply 
with paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section. Equipment such as low leg 
drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, open-ended valves or lines, 
and pressure relief valves needed for safety purposes are not subject 
to this paragraph.

* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.498 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(3);
0
f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
g. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
h. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B);
0
i. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(E); and
0
j. Adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.498  Back-end process provisions--recordkeeping.

    (a) Each owner or operator shall maintain the records specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4), and paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 
section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (3) If the back-end process operation is subject to a residual 
organic HAP limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), whether 
compliance will be achieved by stripping technology, or by control or 
recovery devices.
    (4) If the back-end process operation is subject to an emission 
limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(4), the organic HAP emission limitation 
calculated in accordance with Sec.  63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv), as 
applicable.
    (b) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using 
stripping technology to comply with a residual organic HAP limitation 
in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), and demonstrating compliance using 
the periodic sampling procedures in Sec.  63.495(b), shall maintain the 
records specified in paragraph (b)(1), and in paragraph (b)(2) or 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (3) If the organic HAP contents for all samples analyzed during a 
month are below the appropriate level in Sec.  63.494(a), the owner or 
operator may record that all samples were in accordance with the 
residual organic HAP limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), 
rather than calculating and recording a monthly weighted average.
    (c) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using 
stripping technology to comply with a residual organic HAP limitation 
in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), and demonstrating compliance using 
the stripper parameter monitoring procedures in Sec.  63.495(c), shall 
maintain the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (d) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using 
control or recovery devices to comply with a residual organic HAP 
limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), shall maintain the 
records specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. The 
recordkeeping requirements contained in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) 
pertain to the results of the testing required by Sec.  63.496(b), for 
each of the three required test runs.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Monitoring data recorded during periods of monitoring system 
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments, shall not be included in computing the hourly or 
daily averages. In addition, monitoring data recorded during periods of 
non-operation of the EPPU (or specific portion thereof) resulting in 
cessation of organic HAP emissions, shall not be included in

[[Page 22592]]

computing the hourly or daily averages. Records shall be kept of the 
times and durations of all such periods and any other periods of 
process or control device operation when monitors are not operating.
* * * * *
    (E) For flares, records of the times and duration of all periods 
during which the pilot flame is absent, shall be kept rather than daily 
averages. The records specified in this paragraph are not required 
during periods when emissions are not routed to the flare.
* * * * *
    (e) If the back-end process operation is subject to an organic HAP 
emission limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(4), the records specified in 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The applicable organic HAP emission limitation determined in 
accordance with Sec.  63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv).
    (2) The organic HAP emissions from all back-end process operations 
for each month, along with documentation of all calculations and other 
information used in the engineering assessment to estimate these 
emissions.
    (3) The mass of elastomer product produced each month.
    (4) The total mass of organic HAP emitted for each 12-month period 
divided by the total mass of elastomer produced during the 12-month 
period, determined in accordance with Sec.  63.495(g)(5).


0
16. Section 63.499 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and
0
e. Adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.499  Back-end process provisions--reporting.

    (a) * * *
    (3) If the back-end process operation is subject to a residual 
organic HAP limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), whether 
compliance will be achieved by stripping technology, or by control or 
recovery devices.
    (b) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using 
stripping to comply with a residual organic HAP limitation in Sec.  
63.494(a)(1) through (3), and demonstrating compliance by stripper 
parameter monitoring, shall submit reports as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) Each owner or operator of an affected source with a back-end 
process operation control or recovery device that shall comply with a 
residual organic HAP limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), 
shall submit the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) 
of this section as part of the Notification of Compliance Status 
specified in Sec.  63.506(e)(5).
* * * * *
    (d) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec.  63.496(d), is 
made that causes the redetermination of the compliance status for the 
back-end process operations subject to a residual organic HAP 
limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), the owner or operator 
shall submit a report within 180 days after the process change, as 
specified in Sec.  63.506(e)(7)(iii). The report shall include:
* * * * *
    (f) If the back-end process operation is subject to an organic HAP 
emission limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(4), the owner and operator must 
submit the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) The applicable organic HAP emission limitation determined in 
accordance with Sec.  63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv), shall be submitted 
no later than 180 days from the date of publication of the final rule 
amendments in the Federal Register.
    (2) Beginning with the first periodic report required to be 
submitted by Sec.  63.506(e)(6) that is at least 13 months after the 
compliance date, the total mass of organic HAP emitted for each of the 
rolling 12-month periods in the reporting period divided by the total 
mass of elastomer produced during the corresponding 12-month period, 
determined in accordance with Sec.  63.495(g)(5).


0
17. Section 63.501 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.501  Wastewater provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Back-end streams at affected sources that are subject to a 
residual organic HAP limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) and 
that are complying with these limitations through the use of stripping 
technology.

0
18. Section 63.502 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(4) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.502  Equipment leak and heat exchange system provisions.

    (a) Equipment leak provisions. The owner or operator of each 
affected source, shall comply with the requirements of subpart H of 
this part, with the exceptions noted in paragraphs (b) through (m) of 
this section. Surge control vessels required to be controlled by 
subpart H may, alternatively, comply with the Group 1 storage vessel 
provisions specified in Sec.  63.484.
    (b) * * *
    (4) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers located downstream 
of the stripping operations at affected sources subject to the back-end 
residual organic HAP limitation located in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through 
(3) that are complying through the use of stripping technology, as 
specified in Sec.  63.495;
* * * * *


Sec.  63.503--[Amended]  

0
19. Section 63.503 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(f)(1).

0
20. Section 63.504 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.504  Additional requirements for performance testing.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Performance tests shall be conducted at maximum representative 
operating conditions achievable during one of the time periods 
described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, without causing any 
of the situations described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section to 
occur. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *

0
21. Section 63.505 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (e)(4);
0
b. Revising paragraph (g)(1) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v)(A);
0
d. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v)(B);
0
e. Removing paragraphs (g)(1)(v)(C) through (g)(1)(v)(E);
0
f. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(B) introductory text; and
0
g. Adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.505  Parameter monitoring levels and excursions.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) An owner or operator complying with the residual organic HAP 
limitations in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of Sec.  63.494 using 
stripping, and demonstrating compliance by stripper parameter 
monitoring, shall redetermine the residual organic HAP content for all 
affected grades whenever process changes are made. For the purposes of 
this section, a process change is any action that would reasonably be

[[Page 22593]]

expected to impair the performance of the stripping operation. For the 
purposes of this section, examples of process changes may include 
changes in production capacity or production rate, or removal or 
addition of equipment. For purposes of this paragraph, process changes 
do not include: Process upsets; unintentional, temporary process 
changes; or changes that reduce the residual organic HAP content of the 
elastomer.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) With respect to storage vessels (where the applicable 
monitoring plan specifies continuous monitoring), continuous front-end 
process vents, aggregate batch vent streams, back-end process 
operations complying with Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) through the 
use of control or recovery devices, and process wastewater streams, an 
excursion means any of the three cases listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) 
through (g)(1)(iii) of this section. * * *
    (v) * * *
    (A) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and 
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or
    (B) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or portion 
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
monitoring applies.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Subtract the time during the periods of monitoring system 
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments from the total amount of time determined in paragraph 
(g)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, to obtain the operating time used to 
determine if monitoring data are insufficient.
* * * * *
    (j) Excursion definition for back-end operations subject to Sec.  
63.494(a)(4). An excursion means when the total mass of organic HAP 
emitted for any consecutive 12-month period divided by the total mass 
of elastomer produced during the 12-month period, determined in 
accordance with Sec.  63.495(g), is greater than the applicable 
emission limitation, determined in accordance with Sec.  
63.494(a)(4)(i) through (iv) and submitted in accordance with Sec.  
63.499(f)(1).

0
22. Section 63.506 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(7);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)(3) introductory text;
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(3)(viii);
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(ix)(B);
0
f. Revising paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(E);
0
g. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(i);
0
h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(C);
0
i. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(iii);
0
j. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iii);
0
k. Removing and reserving paragraph (h)(2)(iv)(A); and
0
l. Adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.506  General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Malfunction records. Each owner or operator of an affected 
source subject to this subpart shall maintain records of the occurrence 
and duration of each malfunction of operation (i.e., process 
equipment), air pollution control equipment, or monitoring equipment. 
Each owner or operator shall maintain records of actions taken during 
periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.483(a)(1), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning 
process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its 
normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) Monitoring data recorded during periods identified in 
paragraphs (d)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section shall not be included in 
any average computed under this subpart. Records shall be kept of the 
times and durations of all such periods and any other periods during 
process or control device or recovery device operation when monitors 
are not operating.
    (i) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and 
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or
    (ii) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or portion 
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
monitoring applies.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Precompliance Report. Owners or operators of affected sources 
requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use 
alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring 
and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use 
engineering assessment to estimate emissions from a batch emissions 
episode, as described in Sec.  63.488(b)(6)(i); wishing to establish 
parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in 
Sec.  63.505(c) or (d); shall submit a Precompliance Report according 
to the schedule described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section. The 
Precompliance Report shall contain the information specified in 
paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) through (vii) of this section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (viii) [Reserved]
    (ix) * * *
    (B) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to 
request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, as specified 
in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section; to use alternative continuous 
monitoring and recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of 
this section; to use alternative controls, as specified in paragraph 
(e)(3)(v) of this section; to use engineering assessment to estimate 
emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in paragraph 
(e)(3)(vi) of this section; or to establish parameter monitoring levels 
according to the procedures contained in Sec.  63.505(c) or (d), as 
specified in paragraph (e)(3)(vii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (E) The number, duration, and a brief description for each type of 
malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused 
or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. 
The report must also include a description of actions taken by an owner 
or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize 
emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.483(a)(1), including actions 
taken to correct a malfunction.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unrealistic or 
impossible data during periods of normal operation (e.g., a temperature 
reading of -200 [deg]C on a boiler), and will alert the operator by 
alarm or other means. The owner or operator shall record the 
occurrence. All instances of the alarm or other alert in an operating 
day constitute a single occurrence.
    (ii) * * *
    (C) The running average reflects a period of normal operation.
    (iii) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unchanging data 
during periods of normal operation, except in circumstances where the 
presence of unchanging data is the expected operating condition based 
on past experience (e.g., pH in some scrubbers), and will alert the 
operator by alarm or other means. The owner or operator shall record 
the occurrence. All instances of the alarm or other alert in

[[Page 22594]]

an operating day constitute a single occurrence.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The owner or operator shall retain the records specified in 
paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, for the duration 
specified in paragraph (h) of this section. For any calendar week, if 
compliance with paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section does 
not result in retention of a record of at least one occurrence or 
measured parameter value, the owner or operator shall record and retain 
at least one parameter value during a period of normal operation.
    (iv) * * *
    (A) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (i)(1) As of January 1, 2012, and within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec.  63.2 and as 
required in this subpart, you must submit performance test data, except 
opacity data, electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange by using 
the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only 
data collected using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to 
this requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE 
database.
    (2) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) of this section must be sent to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13. If 
acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a 
source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The 
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject 
to paragraph (i)(1) of this section in paper format.

0
23. Table 1 to Subpart U of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing entry 63.6(e);
0
b. Revising entries 63.6(e)(1)(i) and 63.6(e)(1)(ii);
0
c. Revising entry 63.6(e)(2);
0
d. Adding entry 63.6(e)(3);
0
e. Removing entries 63.6(e)(3)(i) through 63.6(e)(3)(ix);
0
f. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1); and
0
g. Revising entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.10(d)(5)(i) to read as follows:

 Table 1 To Subpart U of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to
                       Subpart U Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference                subpart U           Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..........  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.483(a)(1) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement. Any
                                                    cross reference to
                                                    Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)
                                                    in any other general
                                                    provision
                                                    incorporated by
                                                    reference shall be
                                                    treated as a cross
                                                    reference to Sec.
                                                    63.483(a)(1).
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).........  No...............
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).............  No...............  [Reserved.].
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  No...............
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).............  No...............
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.504(a)(1). Any
                                                    cross-reference to
                                                    Sec.   63.7(e)(1) in
                                                    any other general
                                                    provision
                                                    incorporated by
                                                    reference shall be
                                                    treated as a cross-
                                                    reference to Sec.
                                                    63.504(a)(1).
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.10(d)(5)(i)................  No...............
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
24. Table 5 to Subpart U of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

                          Table 5 to Subpart U of Part 63--Known Organic HAP Emitted From the Production of Elastomer Products
                                          [Known organic HAP emitted from the production of elastomer products]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Elastomer product/subcategory
    Organic HAP/Chemical name (CAS No.)    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               BR        EPI       EPR       HYP       NEO       NBL       NBR    PBR/SBRS     PSR       SBL      SBRE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrylonitrile (107131)....................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........        X         X   ........  ........  ........  ........
1,3 Butadiene (106990)....................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........        X         X         X   ........        X         X
Carbon Disulfide..........................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........        X         X         X   ........        X         X
Carbon Tetrachloride (56235)..............  ........  ........  ........        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
Chlorobenzene (108907)....................  ........  ........  ........        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
Chloroform (67663)........................  ........  ........  ........        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
Chloroprene (126998)......................  ........  ........  ........  ........        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
Epichlorohydrin (106898)..................  ........        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
Ethylbenzene (100414).....................        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........        X   ........
Ethylene Dichloride (107062)..............  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........        X   ........  ........
Ethylene Oxide (75218)....................  ........        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........        X   ........  ........
Formaldehyde (50000)......................  ........        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........        X   ........  ........

[[Page 22595]]

 
Hexane (110543)...........................        X   ........        X   ........  ........  ........  ........        X   ........  ........  ........
Methanol (67561)..........................        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........        X   ........  ........  ........
Methyl Chloride (74873)...................        X   ........  ........        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
Propylene Oxide (75569)...................  ........        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
Styrene (100425)..........................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........        X   ........        X         X
Toluene (108883)..........................  ........        X         X   ........        X   ........  ........        X   ........  ........  ........
Xylenes (1330207).........................        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
Xylene (m-) (108383)......................        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
Xylene (o-) (95476).......................        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
Xylene (p-) (106423)......................        X   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS No. = Chemical Abstract Service Number.
BR = Butyl Rubber.
EPI = Epichlorohydrin Rubber.
EPR = Ethylene Propylene Rubber.
HYP = Hypalon\TM\.
NEO = Neoprene.
NBL = Nitrile Butadiene Latex.
NBR = Nitrile Butadiene Rubber.
PBR/SBRS = Polybutadiene and Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Solution.
PSR = Polysulfide Rubber.
SBL = Styrene Butadiene Latex.
SBRE = Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Emulsion.

Subpart Y--[Amended]

0
25-26. Section 63.560 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(6); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (e)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
0
d. Table 1 to subpart Y of part 63 is amended by:
0
1. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1);
0
2. Removing entry 63.7(e);
0
3. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.7(e)(2)-(4);
0
4. Removing entries 63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), and 63.(c)(1)(iii);
0
5. Adding entry 63.8(c)(1);
0
6. Removing entry 63.10(b)(2)(i);
0
7. Adding entry 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii);
0
8. Removing entry 63.10(b)(2)(ii)-(iii);
0
9. Adding entry 63.10(b)(2)(iii);
0
10. Removing entry 63.10(c)(10)-(13); and
0
11. Adding entries 63.10(c)(10)-(11) and 63.10(c)(12)-(13).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.560  Applicability and designation of affected source.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Existing sources with emissions less than 10 and 25 tons must 
meet the submerged fill standards of 46 CFR 153.282. This submerged 
fill requirement does not apply to petroleum refineries.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to marine tank 
vessel loading operations at existing offshore loading terminals, as 
that term is defined in Sec.  63.561, however existing offshore loading 
terminals must meet the submerged fill standards of 46 CFR 153.282.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Existing sources with emissions less than 10 and 25 tons, and 
existing offshore loading terminals, shall comply with the submerged 
fill requirements in paragraph (a)(4) and (d)(6) of this section by 
April 23, 2012.
* * * * *

 Table 1 of Sec.   63.560--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference             affected sources         Comment
                                   in subpart Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.6(f)(1)....................  No.                .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.7(e)(1)....................  No...............  See 63.563(b)(1). Any
                                                    cross reference to
                                                    63.7(e)(1) in any
                                                    other general
                                                    provision
                                                    incorporated by
                                                    reference shall be
                                                    treated as a cross-
                                                    reference to
                                                    63.563(b)(1).
63.7(e)(2)-(4)................  Yes.               .....................
63.8(c)(1)....................  No.                .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)...........  No...............  See 63.567(m).

[[Page 22596]]

 
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Yes.               .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.10(c)(10)-(11).............  No...............  See 63.567(m) for
                                                    reporting
                                                    malfunctions. Any
                                                    cross-reference to
                                                    63.10(c)(10) or
                                                    63.10(c)(11) in any
                                                    other general
                                                    provision
                                                    incorporated by
                                                    reference shall be
                                                    treated as a cross-
                                                    reference to
                                                    63.567(m).
63.10(c)(12)-(13).............  Yes.               .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
27. Section 63.561 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a 
definition for ``affirmative defense'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.561  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits 
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *

0
28. Section 63.562 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.562  Standards.

* * * * *
    (e) Operation and maintenance requirements for air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment for affected sources. At all 
times, owners or operators of affected sources shall operate and 
maintain a source, including associated air pollution control 
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether 
acceptable operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be 
based on information available to the Administrator which may include, 
but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and 
maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, 
and inspection of the source.
* * * * *
    (7) In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
this subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for 
civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by a 
malfunction, as defined in Sec.  63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 
assessed, however, if the respondent fails to meet its burden of 
proving all the requirements in the affirmative defense. The 
affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive 
relief.
    (i) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a limit, the owners or operators of a facility must timely meet 
the notification requirements of paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this section, 
and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 
or a process to operate in a normal and usual manner; and could not 
have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better 
operation and maintenance practices; and did not stem from any activity 
or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and 
were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, 
operation, or maintenance;
    (B) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs;
    (C) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions;
    (D) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage;
    (E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human 
health;
    (F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices;
    (G) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs;
    (H) At all times, the affected facility was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause 
analysis, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate 
the primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions 
resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also 
specify, using the best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, 
the amount of excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
    (ii) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile 
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business 
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to 
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within 
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 
this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph 
(e)(7)(i) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension 
of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written 
request to the Administrator before the

[[Page 22597]]

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for an extension has 
been approved by the Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to 
the requirement to submit such report within 45 days of the initial 
occurrence of the exceedance.


0
29. Section 63.563 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.563  Compliance and performance testing.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Initial performance test. An initial performance test shall be 
conducted using the procedures listed in Sec.  63.7 of subpart A of 
this part according to the applicability in Table 1 of Sec.  63.560, 
the procedures listed in this section, and the test methods listed in 
Sec.  63.565. The initial performance test shall be conducted within 
180 days after the compliance date for the specific affected source. 
During this performance test, sources subject to MACT standards under 
Sec.  63.562(b)(2), (3), (4), and (5), and (d)(2) shall determine the 
reduction of HAP emissions, as VOC, for all combustion or recovery 
devices other than flares. Performance tests shall be conducted under 
such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator 
based on representative performance of the affected source for the 
period being tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make 
available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests. Sources subject to RACT 
standards under Sec.  63.562(c)(3), (4), and (5), and (d)(2) shall 
determine the reduction of VOC emissions for all combustion or recovery 
devices other than flares.
* * * * *

0
30. Section 63.567 is amended by adding paragraphs (m) and (n) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.567  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (m) The number, duration, and a brief description for each type of 
malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused 
or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded 
shall be stated in a semiannual report. The report must also include a 
description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a 
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance 
with Sec.  63.562(e), including actions taken to correct a malfunction. 
The report, to be certified by the owner or operator or other 
responsible official, shall be submitted semiannually and delivered or 
postmarked by the 30th day following the end of each calendar half.
    (n)(1) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec.  63.2, and as 
required in this subpart, you must submit performance test data, except 
opacity data, electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange by using 
the ERT (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 
compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using test 
methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be 
submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
    (2) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraph (n)(1) of this section must be sent to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13. If 
acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a 
source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The 
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject 
to paragraph (n)(1) of this section in paper format.

Subpart KK--[Amended]

0
31. Section 63.820 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.820  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
this subpart, an owner or operator may assert an affirmative defense to 
a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are 
caused by a malfunction, as defined in Sec.  63.2. Appropriate 
penalties may be assessed, however, if the owner or operator fails to 
meet the burden of proving all the requirements in the affirmative 
defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 
injunctive relief.
    (1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a limit, the owners or operators of a facility must timely meet 
the notification requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and 
must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 
or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and could not have 
been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better 
operation and maintenance practices; and did not stem from any activity 
or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and 
were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, 
operation, or maintenance;
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs;
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions;
    (iv) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage;
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human 
health;
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation, if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices;
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs;
    (viii) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause 
analysis, the purpose of which is to determine, correct and eliminate 
the primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions 
resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also 
specify, using the best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, 
the amount of excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
    (2) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile 
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business 
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to 
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within 
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 
this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 
documentation,

[[Page 22598]]

that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of this deadline 
for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written request to the 
Administrator before the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a 
request for an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the 
owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit such report 
within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance.


0
32. Section 63.822 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a 
definition for ``affirmative defense'' to paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.822  Definitions.

    (a) * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits 
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *

0
33. Section 63.823 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.823  Standards: General.

    (a) Table 1 to this subpart provides cross references to the 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A, general provisions, indicating the applicability of 
the general provisions requirements to this subpart KK.
    (b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this 
subpart must at all times operate and maintain that affected source, 
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether 
such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based 
on information available to the Administrator, which may include, but 
is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and 
maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, 
and inspection of the source.


0
34. Section 63.827 is amended by adding introductory text to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.827  Performance test methods.

    Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the 
Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on 
representative performance of the affected source for the period being 
tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
35. Section 63.829 is amended by adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.829  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this 
subpart shall maintain records of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment), air pollution 
control equipment, or monitoring equipment.
    (h) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this 
subpart shall maintain records of actions taken during periods of 
malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.823(b), 
including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 
pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual 
manner of operation.


0
36. Section 63.830 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(5);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6)(v); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.830  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (v) The number, duration, and a brief description for each type of 
malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused 
or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. 
The report must also include a description of actions taken by an owner 
or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize 
emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.823(b), including actions taken 
to correct a malfunction.
    (c)(1) As of January 1, 2012, and within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec.  63.2 and as 
required in this subpart, you must submit performance test data, except 
opacity data, electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange by using 
the ERT (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 
compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using test 
methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be 
submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
    (2) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be sent to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13. If 
acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a 
source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The 
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject 
to paragraph (c)(1) of this section in paper format.


0
37. Table 1 to Subpart KK of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing entry 63.6(e);
0
b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii); 63.6(e)(1)(iii), 
63.6(e)(2), and 63.6(e)(3);
0
c. Removing entry 63.6(f);
0
d. Adding entries 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(f)(2)-(f)(3);
0
e. Removing entry 63.7;
0
f. Adding entries 63.7(a)-(d), 63.7(e)(1), and 63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4);
0
g. Removing entry 63.8(d)-(f);
0
h. Adding entries 63.8(d)(1)-(2), 63.8(d)(3), and 63.8(e)-(f);
0
i. Removing entries 63.10(b)(1)-(b)(3), 63.10(c)(10)-(c)(15), and 
63.10(d)(4)-(d)(5);
0
j. Adding entries 63.10(b)(1), 63.10(b)(2)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(ii), 
63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v), 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-
(b)(2)(xiv), 63.10(b)(3), 63.10(c)(10), 63.10(c)(11), 63.10(c)(12)-
(c)(14), 63.10(c)(15), 63.10(d)(4), and 63.10(d)(5) to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart KK of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to
                               Subpart KK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable to
  General provisons reference       subpart KK            Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..........  No...............  See 63.823(b) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement. Any
                                                    cross-reference to
                                                    63.6(e)(1)(i) in any
                                                    other general
                                                    provision
                                                    incorporated by
                                                    reference shall be
                                                    treated as a cross-
                                                    reference to
                                                    63.823(b).

[[Page 22599]]

 
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).........  No...............
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).............  No...............  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  No...............
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).............  No...............
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(f)(3)......  Yes.               .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d)............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  No...............  See 63.827
                                                    introductory text.
                                                    Any cross-reference
                                                    to 63.7(e)(1) in any
                                                    other general
                                                    provision
                                                    incorporated by
                                                    reference shall be
                                                    treated as a cross-
                                                    reference to 63.827
                                                    introductory text.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)......  Yes.               .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2).........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3).............  Yes, except for    .....................
                                 last sentence.
Sec.   63.8(e)-(f)............  Yes.               .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i).........  No.                .....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)........  No...............  See 63.829(g) for
                                                    recordkeeping of
                                                    occurrence and
                                                    duration of
                                                    malfunctions. See
                                                    63.829(h) for
                                                    recordkeeping of
                                                    actions taken during
                                                    malfunction. Any
                                                    cross-reference to
                                                    63.10(b)(2)(ii) in
                                                    any other general
                                                    provision
                                                    incorporated by
                                                    reference shall be
                                                    treated as a cross-
                                                    reference to
                                                    63.829(g).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii).......  Yes.               .....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-         No.                .....................
 (b)(2)(v).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-         Yes.               .....................
 (b)(2)(xiv).
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)............  Yes.               .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)...........  No...............  See 63.830(b)(6)(v)
                                                    for reporting
                                                    malfunctions. Any
                                                    cross-reference to
                                                    63.10(c)(10) in any
                                                    other general
                                                    provision
                                                    incorporated by
                                                    reference shall be
                                                    treated as a cross-
                                                    reference to
                                                    63.830(b)(6)(v).
Sec.   63.10(c)(11)...........  No...............  See 63.830(b)(6)(v)
                                                    for reporting
                                                    malfunctions. Any
                                                    cross-reference to
                                                    63.10(c)(11) in any
                                                    other general
                                                    provision
                                                    incorporated by
                                                    reference shall be
                                                    treated as a cross-
                                                    reference to
                                                    63.830(b)(6)(v).
Sec.   63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14)...  Yes.               .....................
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)...........  No.                .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)............  No.                .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart GGG--[Amended]


0
38. Section 63.1250 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1250  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (g) Applicability of this subpart. (1) Each provision set forth in 
this subpart shall apply at all times, except that the provisions set 
forth in Sec.  63.1255 of this subpart shall not apply during periods 
of nonoperation of the PMPU (or specific portion thereof) in which the 
lines are drained and depressurized resulting in the cessation of the 
emissions to which Sec.  63.1255 of this subpart applies.
    (2) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment 
that are required or utilized for compliance with the emissions 
limitations of this subpart during times when emissions (or, where 
applicable, wastewater streams or residuals) are being routed to such 
items of equipment, if the shutdown would contravene emissions 
limitations of this subpart applicable to such items of equipment. This 
paragraph does not apply if the owner or operator must shut down the 
equipment to avoid damage to a PMPU or portion thereof.
    (3) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and maintain 
any affected source subject to the requirements of this subpart, 
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to 
minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any 
further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this standard 
have been achieved. Determination of whether such operation and 
maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information 
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.

[[Page 22600]]

    (4) In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
this subpart, an owner or operator may assert an affirmative defense to 
a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are 
caused by a malfunction, as defined in Sec.  63.2. Appropriate 
penalties may be assessed, however, if owner or operator fails to meet 
the burden of proving all the requirements in the affirmative defense. 
The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 
injunctive relief.
    (i) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a limit, the owners or operators of a facility must timely meet 
the notification requirements of paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section, 
and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 
or a process to operate in a normal and usual manner; and could not 
have been prevented through careful planning, proper design, or better 
operation and maintenance practices; and did not stem from any activity 
or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and 
were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, 
operation, or maintenance;
    (B) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs;
    (C) The frequency, amount, and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions;
    (D) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage;
    (E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human 
health;
    (F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices;
    (G) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs;
    (H) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent 
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause 
analysis, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate 
the primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions 
resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also 
specify, using the best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, 
the amount of excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
    (ii) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile 
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business 
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to 
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within 
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 
this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph 
(g)(4)(i) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension 
of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written 
request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45 day 
period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the 
Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to 
submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 
exceedance.
* * * * *

0
39. Section 63.1251 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a 
definition for ``affirmative defense'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1251  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits 
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *

0
40. Section 63.1255 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(4)(v)(A) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.1255  Standards: Equipment leaks.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (A) The owner or operator may develop a written procedure that 
identifies the conditions that justify a delay of repair. The written 
procedures shall be included in a document that is maintained at the 
plant site. Reasons for delay of repair may be documented by citing the 
relevant sections of the written procedure.
* * * * *

0
41. Section 63.1256 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(i) 
introductory text, and removing paragraphs (a)(4)(iii) and (iv) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.1256  Standards: Wastewater.

    (a) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) The owner or operator shall prepare a description of 
maintenance procedures for management of wastewater generated from the 
emptying and purging of equipment in the process during temporary 
shutdowns for inspections, maintenance, and repair (i.e., a maintenance 
turnaround) and during periods which are not shutdowns (i.e., routine 
maintenance). The descriptions shall be included in a document that is 
maintained at the plant site and shall:
* * * * *

0
42. Section 63.1257 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and the first sentence of paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.1257  Test methods and compliance procedures.

    (a) General. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this 
section, the procedures specified in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) 
of this section are required to demonstrate initial compliance with 
Sec. Sec.  63.1253, 63.1254, 63.1256, and 63.1252(e), respectively. The 
provisions in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) apply to performance tests that 
are specified in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section. The 
provisions in paragraph (a)(5) of this section are used to demonstrate 
initial compliance with the alternative standards specified in 
Sec. Sec.  63.1253(d) and 63.1254(c). The provisions in paragraph 
(a)(6) of this section are used to comply with the outlet concentration 
requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.1253(c), 63.1254(a)(2)(i), and 
(a)(3)(ii)(B), 63.1254(b)(i), and 63.1256(h)(2). Performance tests 
shall be conducted under such conditions representative of performance 
of the affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, the 
owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such 
records as may be necessary to

[[Page 22601]]

determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) The owner or operator may consider the inlet to the 
equalization tank as the inlet to the biological treatment process if 
the wastewater is conveyed by hard-piping from either the last previous 
treatment process or the point of determination to the equalization 
tank; and the wastewater is conveyed from the equalization tank 
exclusively by hard-piping to the biological treatment process and no 
treatment processes or other waste management units are used to store, 
handle, or convey the wastewater between the equalization tank and the 
biological treatment process; and the equalization tank is equipped 
with a fixed roof and a closed-vent system that routes emissions to a 
control device that meets the requirements of Sec.  63.1256(b)(1)(i) 
through (iv) and Sec.  63.1256(b)(2)(i). * * *
* * * * *


Sec.  63.1258  [Amended]

0
43. Section 63.1258 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(8)(iv).

0
44. Section 63.1259 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1259  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) Malfunction records. Each owner or operator of an affected 
source subject to this subpart shall maintain records of the occurrence 
and duration of each malfunction of operation (i.e., process 
equipment), air pollution control equipment, or monitoring equipment. 
Each owner or operator shall maintain records of actions taken during 
periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.1250(g)(3), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning 
process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its 
normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *

0
45. Section 63.1260 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (i); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1260  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with 
the reporting requirements of paragraphs (b) through (n) of this 
section. Applicable reporting requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.9 and 63.10 
are also summarized in Table 1 of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (i) The owner or operator shall submit a report of the number, 
duration, and a brief description for each type of malfunction which 
occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have 
caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. The report 
must also include a description of actions taken by an owner or 
operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize 
emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.1250(g)(3), including actions 
taken to correct a malfunction. The report shall be submitted on the 
same schedule as the periodic reports required under paragraph (g) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (n)(1) As of January 1, 2012, and within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec.  63.2 and as 
required in this subpart, you must submit performance test data, except 
opacity data, electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange by using 
the ERT (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 
compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using test 
methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be 
submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
    (2) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) of this section must be sent to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13. If 
acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a 
source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The 
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject 
to paragraph (n)(1) of this section in paper format.

0
46. Table 1 to Subpart GGG is amended by:
0
a. Removing entry 63.6(e);
0
b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii), 
63.6(e)(2), and 63.6(e)(3);
0
c. Removing entry 63.6(f)-(g);
0
d. Adding entries 63.6(f)(1), 63.6(f)(2)-(3), 63.6(g);
0
e. Removing entry 63.7(e);
0
f. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.7(e)(2)-(4);
0
g. Removing entry 63.8(d);
0
h. Adding entries 63.8(d)(1)-(2) and 63.8(d)(3).
0
i. Removing entry 63.10(c)-(d)(2);
0
j. Adding entries 63.10(c)(1)-(9), 63.10(c)(10), 63.10(c)(11), 
63.10(c)(12)-(14), 63.10(c)(15), and 63.10(d)(1)-(2);
0
k. Removing entry 63.10(d)(4-5); and
0
l. Adding entries 63.10(d)(4) and 63.10(d)(5) to read as follows:

               Table 1 to Subpart GGG of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart GGG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Summary of
   General provisions reference        requirements         Applies to  subpart GGG             Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).............  Requirements during  No............................  See 63.1250(g)(3) for
                                    periods of                                           general duty
                                    startup, shutdown,                                   requirement. Any cross-
                                    and malfunction.                                     reference to
                                                                                         63.6(e)(1)(i) in any
                                                                                         other general provision
                                                                                         incorporated by
                                                                                         reference shall be
                                                                                         treated as a cross-
                                                                                         reference to
                                                                                         63.1250(g)(3).
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)............  Malfunction          No.                             ........................
                                    correction
                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...........  Enforceability of    Yes.                            ........................
                                    operation and
                                    maintenance
                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)................  Reserved...........  No............................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)................  Startup, shutdown,   No.                             ........................
                                    and malfunction
                                    plan requirements.

[[Page 22602]]

 
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.6(f)(1).......................  Applicability of     No.                             ........................
                                    nonopacity
                                    emission standards.
63.6(f)(2)-(3)...................  Methods of           Yes.                            ........................
                                    determining
                                    compliance and
                                    findings
                                    compliance.
63.6(g)..........................  Use of an            Yes.                            ........................
                                    alternative
                                    nonopacity
                                    emission standard.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.7(e)(1).......................  Conduct of           No............................  See 63.1257(a) text. Any
                                    performance tests.                                   cross-reference to
                                                                                         63.7(e)(1) in any other
                                                                                         general provision
                                                                                         incorporated by
                                                                                         reference shall be
                                                                                         treated as a cross-
                                                                                         reference to
                                                                                         63.1257(a).
63.7(e)(2)-(4)...................  Performance tests    Yes.                            ........................
                                    requirements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.8(d)(1)-(2)...................  CMS quality control  Yes.                            ........................
                                    program
                                    requirements.
63.8(d)(3).......................  CMS quality control  Yes, except for last sentence.  ........................
                                    program
                                    recordkeeping
                                    requirements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.10(c)(1)-(9)..................  Additional           Yes.                            ........................
                                    recordkeeping
                                    requirements for
                                    sources with
                                    continuous
                                    monitoring systems.
63.10(c)(10).....................  Malfunction          No............................  Subpart GGG specifies
                                    recordkeeping                                        recordkeeping
                                    requirement.                                         requirements.
63.10(c)(11).....................  Malfunction          No............................  Subpart GGG specifies
                                    corrective action                                    recordkeeping
                                    recordkeeping                                        requirements.
                                    requirement.
63.10(c)(12)-(14)................  Additional           Yes.                            ........................
                                    recordkeeping
                                    requirements for
                                    sources with
                                    continuous
                                    monitoring systems.
63.10(c)(15).....................  Additional SSM       No.                             ........................
                                    recordkeeping
                                    requirements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.10(d)(1)-(2)..................  General reporting    Yes.                            ........................
                                    requirements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.10(d)(4)......................  Progress report      Yes.                            ........................
                                    requirements.
63.10(d)(5)......................  Startup, shutdown,   No............................  Subpart GGG specifies
                                    and malfunction                                      reporting requirements.
                                    report
                                    requirements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-8168 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


