disk upstream of the pressure relief device.

Commenter 0049 requested that a definition for “pressure relief device
or valve” be added, as in 40 CFR 63.161 of the HON.

Response:  The purpose of the management practice inspections is to
identify leaks to the atmosphere.  Thus, if the discharge from a
pressure relief device or valve is routed to a process, fuel gas system,
or control device, then the ductwork or closed-vent system is subject to
the inspection requirement.  Other pressure relief devices should still
be inspected in some manner.  If a rupture disk is located upstream of
the pressure relief device, one inspection option would be to verify
that the rupture disk was replaced since the last pressure release
(i.e., methods based on sight, sound, or smell are acceptable, but they
are not the only inspection procedures that may be used).  We do not
believe changes in the rule are needed to clarify these points.  In
addition, because there are no equipment-specific requirements for
pressure relief devices, we do not believe a definition of this term is
needed in the rule.

Comment:  According to one commenter (0053), equipment in bench-scale
processes should be excluded from the periodic inspections requirement
because they have low HAP emissions.

Response:  Bench-scale processes that meet the applicability
requirements are subject to standards.  Therefore, the requested
exemption has not been included in the final rule.

Comment:  Commenter 0053 requested an exclusion from inspection
requirements for equipment in vacuum service and for equipment with no
externally-actuated shaft penetrating the housing because they have low
HAP emissions.  In addition, two commenters (0037 and 0053) requested
that leak inspections not be required for pumps equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system, as in rules like 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.

Response:  Unlike Method 21 LDAR programs, the inspection requirements
in the final rule do not require a listing of each piece of equipment or
direct contact with each subject piece of equipment when conducting the
inspection.  Instead, the final rule requires the owner or operator to
inspect for leaks occurring anywhere in an affected process unit (and
associated storage tanks and transfer operations).  A sensory-based
inspection program is likely to involve scanning the piping, process
vessels, etc. for any indications of leaks.  There is no reason to
specifically avoid checking individual pieces of equipment that are not
expected to leak or are unlikely to leak.  Furthermore, if they are
leaking, they should be repaired.  In addition, although pumps with dual
mechanical seals are exempt from instrument monitoring in many other
rules, they are still subject to weekly visual inspections for
indications of liquids dripping (among other design and operating
requirements).  Therefore, the final rule does not include the requested
exclusions.  This approach is consistent with the sensory-based
inspection programs in 40 CFR part 63 subparts R and HHHHH.

7.3	Confirmation of Leaks

Comment:  Commenter 0049 requested EPA define the terms “leak” and
“leaking equipment.”

Response:  A leak is defined in the final rule as either:  (1)
observations of process materials escaping or being released from
process equipment or equipment as defined in §63.11502 when using
detection methods incorporating sight, sound, or smell, or (2) an
instrument reading obtained when monitoring in accordance with Method
21. that is greater than 500 ppm .  Liquids dripping or other evidence
of a potential leak that is due to a condition other than loss of
process fluid (e.g., drips of condensed water vapor from the atmosphere)
are not a leak.  As discussed in section 7.5, the term “repaired” is
also defined in the final rule.  We do not believe there is a need to
define “leaking equipment” as well.

7.4	Inspections for Batch Operations

Comment:  Commenter 0067 had concerns that LDAR for batch facilities is
fundamentally problematic because, unlike processes for which LDAR
programs were developed, batch plants operate intermittently, usually
handle liquids, use smaller volumes, and have less potential for leaks.

Commenter 0037 requested that to accommodate toll processors, §63.11498
should be modified to apply quarterly leak inspections only during times
you are subject to the regulation, because toll processors finish one
process before the monitoring period is over and the equipment may be
reconfigured within the timeframe.

Response:  We disagree with the comment that sensory-based leak
inspection programs are inappropriate for batch plants.  Inspecting for
leaks is a good operating practice that applies equally well to any
process.  However, we agree with the second comment that inspections
must occur while an affected process unit is operating.  In addition, if
an affected process unit does not operate during a calendar quarter,
then no inspection is required during that quarter (even if the same
equipment is used for another process not subject to this rule).

7.5	Repair and Delay of Repair

Comment:  Commenter 0049 requested EPA define the term “repaired.”
Commenter 0060 stated EPA should clarify the repair criteria for
equipment leaks.  According to the commenter, repair means the AVO
indication of a leak is removed.

Response:  A definition of “repaired” is needed to clarify how an
owner or operator demonstrates that compliance has been achieved.  In
the final rule, “repaired” means that the visual, audible,
olfactory, or other indications of a leak to the atmosphere have been
eliminated; that no bubbles are observed at potential leak sites during
a leak check using soap solution; or that the system will hold a test
pressure.  Alternatively, “repaired” means the owner or operator
adjusts or otherwise alters equipment found to be leaking and then
obtains an instrument reading less than 500 ppm when monitoring the
adjusted equipment in accordance with Method 21.

Comment:  Commenter 0049 stated EPA should confirm that delay of repair
language is allowed for a number of valid reasons, as in §63.171(a)
through (e) of the HON.  Commenter 0060 also stated EPA should specify
that delay of repair is allowed.

Response:  The proposed rule specified that leaks must be repaired
within 15 days or a reason for delay of repair must be documented.
Delay of repair was not restricted to specific situations.  This
provision has been retained in the management practice requirements in
the final rule.

7.6	Recordkeeping

Comment:  Commenter 0060 asked EPA to clarify that records of “the
date and results of each inspection” in §63.11498(c)(1) are for each
entire/complete inspection of all affected equipment, not separate
records for the inspection of each piece of equipment.

Response:  It appears the commenter is asking for confirmation that the
rule does not require a listing of all equipment and documentation of
inspection results individually for each piece of equipment.  If so, the
commenter’s interpretation is correct.  The rule requires
documentation that the inspection of the CMPU occurred, identification
of any leaking equipment, and documentation of repairs (or delay of
repair).

Chapter 8

Requirements for Wastewater

8.1	Determining Affected Wastewater Streams

Comment:  As an alternative to testing, two commenters (0053 and 0069)
requested that sources be allowed to use their process knowledge to
determine if the PSHAP concentration of a wastewater stream exceeds
10,000 ppmw.

Response:  The proposed rule specified that concentration should be
determined using the procedures in §63.144(b) of the HON.  One of the
options in §63.144(b) is to use “knowledge of the wastewater”.  The
final rule clarifies the requirements by specifying that concentrations
are to be determined using process knowledge, engineering assessment, or
test data.

Comment:  Because some wastewater streams contain multiple PSHAP, one
commenter (0049) stated that the 10,000 ppmw threshold should be based
on the concentration of any individual PSHAP, not the total PSHAP
concentration.

Response:  The effective solubility of HAP in water that is in
equilibrium with a mixture of organic compounds will be less than the
solubility of pure component in water.  Thus, if both the water and some
of the organic mixture are discarded together, the concentrations of
individual HAP in the discarded wastewater stream may all be less than
10,000 ppmw while the total partially soluble HAP concentration may
exceed 10,000 ppmw.  In this case, the two-phase wastewater stream
should be subject to the separation requirement, and that would be
possible only if the threshold for control is based on the total
partially soluble HAP concentration rather than the concentration of
individual HAP.  Also note that in the final rule we have redefined the
subcategory requiring separation as those wastewater streams with
greater that 10,000 ppmw partially soluble HAP and separate organic and
aqueous phases (see the preamble for a discussion of this change since
proposal).  This ensures that the separation technique we determined is
GACT is not required for a stream on which it would be ineffective.
Therefore, the threshold for separation in the final rule is based on
the total partially soluble HAP concentration, not the individual HAP
concentrations, and separate organic and aqueous phases.

Comment:  One commenter (0060) stated that considerable savings could be
realized if sources are not required to characterize streams that are
already compliant with treatment requirements or that they designate as
requiring treatment.

Response:  Typically, concentrations are needed in order to determine
whether or not a wastewater stream requires separation of organic and
aqueous phases before treatment of the water phase and recycling or
other options for the organic phase.  Simply designating that a stream
will be “treated” generally will not satisfy the treatment/control
requirements for both the organic and aqueous phases if the wastewater
stream contains a separate organic phase.  One exception is if a
wastewater stream is treated by combustion (either onsite or offsite).
In this case, concentrations do not matter because combustion satisfies
both the disposition requirements for an organic phase and the treatment
requirements for an aqueous phase.  Therefore, the final rule specifies
that a wastewater stream does not need to be characterized if it is to
be treated and disposed of as a hazardous waste.

Comment:  To prevent process water streams from being regulated as
wastewater, one commenter (0056) stated that the final rule should
clearly state that wastewater standards apply only to discarded process
waters passing through a point of determination and a “point of
aggregation” (i.e., consistent with the evaluation criteria in 40 CFR
63.7943(b) of the Site Remediation MACT).  Furthermore, this commenter
stated that any material determined to be subject to hazardous waste
regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through 270 should not be subject to
standards under the CAA.

Response:  According to the definition of “wastewater,” a
water-containing stream is wastewater only if it is discarded from a
process unit.  Therefore, process streams that contain water, including
streams entering a recovery device (see section 8.4), are not
wastewater.  We do not believe changes in the rule are needed to clarify
this point.

The term “point of determination” is used in the HON and other rules
with complicated wastewater provisions.  For example, the HON allows
determination of flows and concentrations of a wastewater stream either
at the discharge point (i.e., the point of determination) or downstream
after combination with other streams, provided the measured values are
adjusted to account for the mixing.  Provisions like this adjustment
option are not included in the final subpart VVVVVV.  Therefore, the
term “point of determination” also is not needed.

Section 63.7943 of the Site Remediation MACT specifies procedures for
estimating the total HAP concentration prior to treatment of any single
remediation material stream or to combined streams consisting of either
two or more remediation material streams or a remediation material
combined with non-remediation material.  We assume that by mentioning
the site remediation procedures as “evaluation criteria” that the
commenter is suggesting that the final rule should allow wastewater
streams to be combined with other wastewater streams or non-wastewater
before determining whether the partially soluble concentration exceeds
10,000 ppmw.  This is not allowed because it could result in dilution of
wastewater streams to concentrations below the threshold for separation.
 However, for streams with partially soluble HAP concentrations below
10,000 ppmw (or that are a single phase at a higher concentration), the
rule does not limit mixing with any other streams prior to treatment.

As discussed in the preamble, the final rule includes provisions for
dealing with overlapping rules.  Thus, if a wastewater stream is subject
to hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through 270, then
compliance with the requirements in 40 CFR parts 260 through 270
constitutes compliance with subpart VVVVVV if those requirements are
more stringent than the requirements in subpart VVVVVV.

Comment:  Commenter 0067 suggested that EPA drop acetaldehyde from the
partially soluble HAP listing because it is miscible in water and
unlikely to form an organic phase.  Furthermore, even if it could be
decanted, the commenter noted that it would readily evaporate because it
has a high vapor pressure (740 mm Hg).  The commenter also noted that a
facility conveys wastewater that contains 40,000 ppmw of acetaldehyde
via hard pipe to biotreatment.  The stream is mixed and diluted such
that the acetaldehyde is more likely to undergo biological destruction
than evaporate, which the commenter believes is a better practice than
that in the proposed rule.

Response:  As discussed in the preamble, the final rule does not require
separation if an owner or operator demonstrates that a wastewater stream
containing more than 10,000 ppmw of partially soluble HAP is only a
single phase.  Therefore, the requested change regarding acetaldehyde is
unnecessary and has not been made in the final rule.

8.2	Standards for Process Wastewater

8.2.1	Other Treatment Issues

Comment:  One commenter (0060) noted that owners and operators would be
unable to certify compliance with the proposed treatment requirement
because the proposed rule did not indicate what would constitute
treatment.

Response: We have included the following definition in the final rule.
Wastewater treatment means chemical, biological, and mechanical
procedures applied to an industrial wastewater to remove, reduce, or
neutralize contaminants.

 Comment:  One commenter (0060) requested clarification that each stream
does not need to be treated individually because to do so is
inefficient, unrealistic, and inconsistent with the impacts analysis.
According to the commenter, sources should be allowed to manage streams
in whatever combination is most effective, including combining streams
with and without HAP.

Response:  The final rule, like the proposed rule, does not prescribe
how to manage streams that require treatment.  Therefore, owners and
operators may manage such streams in any manner that they consider most
effective.  For example, wastewater streams may be combined with each
other or with streams that do not meet the definition of
“wastewater.”  However, wastewater streams may not be combined prior
to determining the partially soluble HAP concentration and whether there
are separate organic and aqueous phases because such combinations could
result in dilution below the threshold for which separation of organic
and aqueous phases is required.

Comment:  One commenter (0037) asked that §63.11500(a) be revised to
specify that the wastewater compliance requirements apply only when the
wastewater streams contain any HAP listed in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G.

Response:  It appears the commenter is concerned that the reference to
“wastewater streams” in §63.11500(a) of the proposed rule could be
interpreted as applying to all water discharges, regardless of what HAP
they contain.  However, “wastewater” is defined as “water that []
contains [] any HAP listed in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G”.
This language limits the applicability of §63.11500(a) in the proposed
rule (and §63.11498(a) in the final rule) in the same manner as the
commenter’s suggested change.  Therefore, we do not think the
suggested change is necessary and have not incorporated it in the final
rule.

8.2.2	Requirements for Separated Organic Material

Comment:  One commenter (0060) requested clarification that the options
for separated organic material (i.e., recycling to a process, using as
fuel, or disposing as hazardous waste) may be exercised either on-site
or offsite.  This commenter also noted that some recovered organic
materials (e.g., heavy oils) are not hazardous waste.  Therefore, this
commenter stated that any appropriate disposal option should be allowed,
not just disposal as hazardous waste.  Similarly, another commenter
(0049) recommended that the rule allow disposal in accordance with any
applicable regulations.  This commenter also stated that the rule should
clearly state that recycled streams from a decanter are not wastewater
streams.

Response:  GACT does not restrict the location at which separated
organic material is recycled, used as fuel, or disposed of as hazardous
waste.  Therefore, the final rule states that these disposition options
may be implemented either onsite or offsite.  A separated organic
material that is recycled to a process becomes a feedstock to that
process (or if it is recycled to the same process, it is still a process
fluid within the process unit).  In either case, the act of recycling
satisfies the GACT control requirement so that the recycled stream is
not a wastewater stream and is no longer subject to the wastewater
provisions in subpart VVVVVV.  Therefore, the final rule states that
separated organic material is no longer wastewater and no longer subject
to the wastewater provisions in the rule after it has been recycled to a
process.

 Disposal as hazardous waste is a control option because of the level of
control that it achieves, not because the separated organic material is
necessarily a hazardous waste.  We have not included “any appropriate
disposal” as a compliance option because the commenters have not
defined this term and we cannot determine that such disposal methods
would achieve HAP emission reductions at least equivalent to the
reductions achieved by the options in the rule.

8.3	Requirements for Maintenance Wastewater

Comment:  One commenter (0049) stated that EPA should provide a
definition of “maintenance wastewater” as in other NESHAP.

Response:  The introductory paragraph in §63.11502 of the proposed rule
stated that terms used in the proposed rule have the meaning given them
in referenced subparts.  Two of the referenced subparts (§63.101 and
§63.2550) define “maintenance wastewater.”  After considering the
comment, we realized that this approach is not clear because the
definitions in the two subparts are not identical.  Therefore, the final
rule specifies that the definition of “maintenance wastewater” in
§63.2550 of the MON applies for the purposes of subpart VVVVVV.

8.4	Definition of “Recovery Device” as it Relates to Wastewater

Comment:  One commenter (0049) requested that EPA revise the “recovery
device” definition to match the definition in the HON.  According to
the commenter, inlet streams to a decanter should not be considered
wastewater.

Response:  To be wastewater, a water stream must be discarded from a
process unit.  As in previous rules, our intent was that recovery
devices for water streams are part of the process unit, and the point at
which a stream is discarded and becomes wastewater is the outlet of a
recovery device.  This was not clear in the proposed rule.  The
definition of “recovery device” in the proposed rule properly cited
decanters and other equipment for recovery of chemicals from water
streams as examples of recovery devices.  However, the definition also
stated that a recovery device is equipment used for the purpose of
recovering chemicals from gas streams, which suggested that it does not
include equipment used to recover chemicals from water streams.  This
inadvertent inconsistency has been corrected in the final rule by
removing the reference to gas streams.

Chapter 9

Requirements for Storage Tanks

9.1	Definitions

Comment:  Commenter 0049 asked that a definition of “process vessel”
be added to the rule because the term is used within the definition of
“storage vessel.”

Response:  To clarify the requirements, the final rule includes a
definition for “process tank” consistent with the definition in the
MON.

9.2	Standards

Comment:  Commenters 0043 and 0049 asked for clarification of
requirements for “large storage tanks” and “small storage
tanks.”  The preamble mentioned both types of tanks, but the terms are
not defined in the proposed rule.  The commenters also asked that Table
2 be modified to refer only to “large storage tanks” instead of all
tanks.

Response:  Our intent was to require the use of floating roofs or other
control technology only for “large storage tanks” that meet the tank
size and vapor pressure thresholds in NSPS subpart Kb, and management
practices would be required for all other storage tanks.  The final
standards have been modified to clarify this point.

Comment:  Commenter 0049 asked that monitoring/inspection of closed vent
systems (if complying by venting emissions to an air pollution control
device) be consistent with equipment leak requirements, such that an
audio, visual, and olfactory means to detect a leak are allowed instead
of the Method 21 monitoring required by §60.112b(a)(3)(i).  The
commenter noted that the monitoring requirement would be very burdensome
for small sites.

Response:  Method 21 monitoring of a closed-vent system on storage tanks
is unreasonable given that equipment leak requirements for similar
equipment consist of sensory-based inspections.  The final rule
specifies that closed vent systems must be inspected in accordance with
the equipment leak management practice requirements in §63.11495, not
the procedures specified in §60.112b(a)(3)(i).

9.3	Recordkeeping and Reporting

Comment:  Commenter 0053 requested clarification of the recordkeeping
time period for large storage tanks.  The recordkeeping requirements in
§60.115b require some records to be kept for at least 2 years and other
records to be kept for the life of the control equipment.  However, the
proposed rule requires maintaining information for at least 5 years
[§63.11501].

Response:  To be consistent with other NESHAP, the final rule requires
that all records be kept for 5 years, thus overriding §60.115b.

Comment:  Commenter 0053 asked EPA to review reporting requirements in
§60.115(b) and include them only if justified for large storage tanks.
The Subpart Kb reporting requirements are not aligned with or are
redundant with the semiannual reporting requirements and the
notification of compliance status notifications found in the Part 63
General Provisions and this proposal.

Response:  After consideration of this comment we decided to make a
number of changes to clarify the reporting requirements in the final
rule.  First, the final rule specifies that the reports required by
§60.115b(a)(1) and (b)(1) do not apply because certification that
floating roofs meets the specified requirements is addressed by the
certification required in §63.11501.  Second, the information regarding
deviations detected during inspections must be included in semiannual
compliance reports, not the reports required under §60.115b(a)(3) and
(4).  Third, the final rule specifies that reporting of seal gap
measurements specified in §60.115b(b)(2) does not apply; keeping
records as specified in §60.115b(b)(3) will suffice.  Fourth, initial
compliance measurements for flares is to be included in the notification
of compliance status report, not the report required by §60.115b(d).
The source must identify which provisions it will comply with in the
NOCS report.

Chapter 10

Requirements for Transfer Operations

10.1	Exclusions from Definition of Transfer Operations

	Comment:  Two commenters (0060 and 0067) requested that the definition
of transfer operations exclude transfer racks where vapor balancing is
used for all transfers, as in other rules, because there is no potential
for emissions.

	Response:  The final rule, like the proposed rule, allows vapor
balancing as an alternative to the management practice requirement of
submerged loading.  Even if vapor balancing is used for all transfers at
a particular transfer rack, the facility must certify in the
notification of compliance status report that standards are being met
and to document any deviations in semiannual compliance reports (i.e.,
any instance when a transfer was conducted without submerged loading, or
other acceptable methods).  We do not view this requirement as
burdensome, and it is needed to demonstrate compliance.  Therefore, we
have not made the requested change to the definition of transfer
operations.

	Comment:  Two commenters (0060 and 0067) requested that the definition
of transfer operations exclude the use of vacuum trucks to collect
wastes and wastewater because these activities were not considered in
the impacts analysis and cannot be easily or cost-effectively
controlled.  The commenters also noted in MACT rules such operations are
typically handled under wastewater provisions for containers.

	Response:  The requirements for transfer operations apply to product
transfers at a transfer rack.  A vacuum truck that collects wastes from
numerous tanks or containers at a facility is not a transfer rack.  As
the commenters noted, the wastes and wastewater streams collected by a
vacuum truck are subject to the wastewater provisions in the final rule.
 Therefore, we determined that there is no need to change the definition
of transfer operations as requested by the commenters.

	Comment:  Two commenters (0060 and 0067) requested that loading of
marine vessels be excluded from the definition of transfer operations.

	Response:  The management practice of submerged loading is only
generally available as control technology for loading of tank trucks and
railcars.  Therefore, the requirements do not apply to the loading or
filling of other types of vessels and containers.

	Comment:  If the final rule does not include a partial pressure de
minimis threshold below which transfer operation standards do not apply,
then one commenter (0060) requested that the definition of transfer
operations exclude loading of material that contains HAP only as an
impurity.  Even if a partial pressure de minimis threshold is included
in the final rule, another commenter (0067) requested an exclusion for
transfer of materials that contain HAP only as an impurity to minimize
the burden of identifying the transferred streams, determining the HAP
partial pressure, and keeping records.

	Response:  An exemption for transfer of materials that contain HAP only
as an impurity would be, in effect, a de minimis threshold.  As
discussed in chapter 4, emission points cannot be exempt from standards
simply because of the quantity of Table 1 HAP in the process fluid or
emission stream.  However, the compliance burden under the final rule is
considerably less than at proposal because transfer operation
requirements in the final rule apply only to transfers from affected
process units, only to transfers that contain a Table 1 HAP, and only to
transfer of product.  Also note that there is no requirement to
determine the HAP partial pressure for any transferred material.
Furthermore, if management practices and/or alternative control
techniques are applied to all transfers at a given transfer rack, then
there is no need to identify streams or keep records (other than to
document any deviation from the requirements).  Therefore, we have not
excluded transfer of materials that contain HAP only as an impurity from
the definition of “transfer operations”.

10.2	Standards

Comment:  One commenter (0060) stated that routing emissions from
transfer operations for reuse in a process or for use as fuel should be
allowed as control options.

	Response:  Routing emissions to a fuel gas system or to a process
achieve HAP emission reductions at least equivalent to the reductions
from implementing submerged loading.  Therefore, the provisions in 40
CFR 63.982(d) are allowed as a compliance option in the final rule.

	Comment:  Three commenters (0049, 0067, and 0069) requested that bottom
filling be allowed in addition to submerged loading as a management
practice in §63.11495(f)(5).  Two commenters (0049 and 0060) requested
that bottom filling be listed as an acceptable control option in Table
2.

	Response:  For the proposed rule we considered bottom filling to be a
type of submerged loading.  However, upon reconsideration we realize
that the language in §63.11495(f)(5) could be interpreted as requiring
a fill pipe from the top of the tank truck or railcar.  The standards in
the final rule clarify that bottom loading is allowed.

Chapter 11

Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems

11.1	Monitoring Frequency

Comment:  Commenters 0049 and 0060 requested clarification in
§63.11500(b)(1) that the monthly monitoring frequency in
§63.104(c)(1)(iii) does not apply for systems with recirculating water
flow rates ≥8,000 gpm.  The commenters noted that §63.11500(b)(1)
specifies monitoring is to be conducted quarterly, and the supporting
impact documentation is based on quarterly monitoring, but
§63.104(c)(1)(iii) specifies monthly monitoring for six months and then
quarterly.

Response:  We intended that the monitoring frequency would be quarterly
for heat exchange systems.  Item 1.a.i in Table 8 to the final rule
clarifies this provision by stating “the reference to monthly
monitoring for the first 6 months in §63.104(c)(1)(iii) does not apply;
monitoring shall be no less frequent than quarterly.”

11.2	Monitoring Plans

Comment:  Commenter 0049 suggested EPA allow use of site-specific
monitoring plans as in §63.104(c), to minimize prescriptive monitoring
where a plant is already monitoring cooling towers for leaks.

Response:  Site-specific monitoring plans are required under §63.104(c)
of the HON.  This provision was included in the proposed rule through
the cross-reference to §63.104(c), and it is retained in the final
rule.

11.3	Alternatives to Monitoring Requirements

Comment:  Commenter 0053 stated EPA should allow sources to comply with
Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) as an alternative for the
cooling tower requirements, similar to the language incorporated into
subpart GGG for CGMP.

Response:  As part of the CGMP procedures, an owner or operator must
maintain the physical integrity of process equipment to prevent
malfunctions or contamination of products.  Implementing such procedures
demonstrates that process equipment is not leaking.  Therefore, the
final rule specifies that, for equipment that meets the CGMP
requirements of 21 CFR part 211, the physical integrity of the equipment
may be used as the surrogate indicator of leaks required by §63.104(c).

11.4	Delay of Repair

Comment:  To clarify that delay of repair is allowed for small cooling
tower systems, commenter 0060 requested that the text in
§63.11495(g)(1) be revised to read as follows:  “You must repair any
leak within 45 calendar days after detection of the leak or, if
necessary, delay repair and document the reason for any delay of
repair.”

Response:  We do not believe the commenter’s suggested language is
needed to clarify that delay of repair is allowed for small heat
exchange systems.  However, as discussed in the preamble, the final rule
allows sources to determine that indications of a leak do not constitute
a leak if the concentration in the cooling water does not meet the
definition of a leak as specified in §63.104(b)(6).  Therefore, instead
of the requirement to “repair any leak”, the final rule specifies
that “You must perform repairs to eliminate the leak and any
indications of a leak or demonstrate that the HAP concentration in the
cooling water does not constitute a leak, as defined by §63.104(b)(6),
within 45 calendar days after indications of the leak are identified, or
you must document the reason for any delay of repair in your next
semiannual compliance report.

Chapter 12

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Recordkeeping

Comment:  One commenter (0037) requested that electronic records be
allowed for inspection and repair information in §63.11498(c).
Commenter 0067 also asked that electronic recordkeeping be allowed for
equipment leak inspection information.  Commenter 0060 requested that we
delete the requirement to use “log books” in §63.11498(c) because
this is not common practice.  Commenter 0053 requested that the
equipment leak documentation requirements not include log books and
include electronic records.

Response:  We have concluded that records may be maintained in any
suitable form, including electronic records.  Therefore, the term ”log
books” has been removed from the final rule.

Notification of Compliance Status

Comment:  Two commenters (0052 and 0060) stated the NOCS containing
detailed and prescriptive compliance certification requirements for each
emission type is unnecessary and should be replaced with a general
certification as required under other rules.

Response:  We have concluded that a general certification for the NOCS
is sufficient and have revised the rule text to include a simplified
compliance certification.

Comment:  Commenter 0060 stated the NOCS language in §63.11501(b)
should be clarified to specifically reference the definition of
responsible official in §63.2.

Response:  We agree with the commenter’s suggestion and have
specifically referenced §63.2 for the definition of a responsible
official.

Comment:  Commenter 0056 stated EPA should allow use of the local permit
application process to document information required for the NOCS
because facilities will submit much or all of the NOCS information in a
permit application to incorporate the new requirements into a site’s
existing permit; this will reduce area source burden.

Response:  We have revised the rule text to include a simplified
compliance certification to significantly reduce the burden of preparing
and submitting the NOCS report.

Reduce Reporting Requirements

Comment:  Several commenters (0052, 0056, 0060, 0067, and 0069) stated
that sources should be able to consolidate deviation reports with other
reports, such as those required by a title V permit, to avoid duplicate
reports.  Commenters 0052 and 0060 stated area sources already submit
periodic reports under their synthetic minor or title V operating
permits; EPA should revise §63.11501(d) to require deviation reports
only for deviations that are not or will not be reported in a title V or
synthetic minor deviation report.  Commenter 0056 stated that facilities
operating under federally-enforceable operating permits should be
allowed to use existing periodic (annual or semi-annual) reporting
obligations to comply with CMAS reporting requirements.  Commenter 0069
stated that sources with title V permits should be exempt from
overlapping provisions if meeting similar requirements under other
rules, for example, allowed to submit combined semi-annual reports.
Commenter 0067 believes that §63.11501(d) should allow the required
semiannual report to be included in (or subsumed by) the title V
semiannual monitoring report for those facilities with title V permits.

Response:  Other reports that include the same information that is
required in semiannual reports may be used to fulfill the semiannual
reporting requirement under §63.11501(d).  However, if another report
normally includes only some of the information required by
§63.11501(d), then the owner or operator must either modify the other
report to include the additional information required by §63.11501(d)
or prepare a separate report.  The final rule clarifies these
requirements.

Comment:  Two commenters addressed the burden of semi-annual reporting.
Commenter 0049 stated that facilities should comply with the control
requirements and recordkeeping, and EPA should eliminate requirement for
semiannual compliance reporting and should instead require the data
records be kept onsite for agency inspection or submitted upon request.
Commenter 0053 stated EPA should not require the same semi-annual
reporting for area sources as major sources and supported the proposed
language that required semi-annual reports only for periods with a
deviation or a delay of repair.

Response:  In the final rule, semi-annual reporting is required only for
documenting deviations, delay of repairs, process changes that require a
new compliance certification, changes in the list of provisions in an
overlapping rule with which you comply, certain information related to
compliance with the alternative standard for batch or continuous process
vents, and additional uses of reactive or resinous materials.

General Provisions Requirements

Comment:  Commenter 0060 stated that applicability/imposing almost all
40 CFR part 63 General Provisions is overly burdensome and unjustified,
because area sources have limited technical expertise and staff
resources and small emission potential compared to major sources.
Commenter 0053 agreed EPA should review the General Provisions
requirements to not overly burden area sources.

Commenter 0060 stated that General Provisions requirements imposed
through Table 4 need to be clarified and/or modified to minimize burdens
and better reflect the intent of subpart VVVVVV. Commenter 0060
indicated that the “negative” records required by §63.1(b)(3) and
§63.10(b)(3) should be indicated as “No” in Table 4.

Commenter 0060 stated Table 4 should clearly indicate that §63.7 and
§63.8 and §63.997 should be “No” and that subpart SS performance
testing and monitoring provisions supersede §63.7 and §63.8 where
compliance with subpart SS is required in Table 2 of subpart VVVVVV.

Commenter 0060 stated that General Provisions interactions from 40 CFR
part 63 and 40 CFR part 60 need to be clarified; the commenter
recommended that the final rule clarify that only 40 CFR part 63 General
Provisions as specified in Table 4 to subpart VVVVVV apply.

Response:  In consideration of these comments, we have reviewed the
General Provisions in detail and determined that a number of provisions
are not necessary for area sources (e.g., testing and monitoring
provisions in subpart SS that take precedence).  We have also clarified
that General Provisions in parts other than Part 63 apply only if a
provision in an overlapping rule with which you comply references the
General Provisions in the other part.

Comment:  Commenter 0049 stated EPA should waive the update reporting
(within 15 days of any change to previously reported information)
required by §63.9(j).  As a different approach, Commenter 0053
recommended EPA define “process change” to limit reporting of only
those changes that affect the applicability or compliance determination.

Response:  We do not believe additional clarification of the term
“process change” is needed to limit reporting situations because
§63.11501(d)(4) in the proposed rule specified that reporting related
to process changes is required when the change “affects a compliance
determination.”  Thus, changes that do not affect a compliance
determination are not subject to reporting.  This language has been
retained in the final rule.  However, because the rule includes this
language, compliance with §63.9(j) is unnecessary.  Therefore, Table 4
in the final rule specifies that §63.9(j) does not apply.

Comment:  Two commenters requested EPA facilitate industry requests for
approval of alternatives where Administrator action or approval is
required (e.g., extension of compliance, alternative monitoring
parameters, alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping,
alternative controls, and use of engineering assessments).  Commenter
0060 stated that these applications should be considered approved if no
action is taken by Administrator within 60 days.  Commenter 0049
suggested including language similar to language in subpart U:
“Unless the Administrator objects to a request submitted by the owner
or operator within 45 days after its receipt, the request shall be
deemed approved”.

Response:  We are not adopting this suggestion because we do not think
it is an issue for sources affected by the streamlined management
practices in the final rule.  For sources affected by the other
standards we do not think it is appropriate to change the procedures for
requests of alternatives where Administrator approval is required.

Chapter 13

Other Comments

13.1	Organization and Clarity of the Rule

Comment:  Several commenters (0045, 0049, 0054, 0056, 0067, and 0068)
suggested that the rule requirements should be written more clearly.
One commenter (0054) suggested EPA remain consistent in its rule writing
and provide simple, easy to read format as was used in subpart HHHHHH
and other earlier area source rules, including tables following rule
language to summarize requirements for specific units or processes.
Commenter 0068 believes the format of the rule should be revised to the
format of the Generic MACT at 40 CFR 63 subpart YY, which is more
self-contained and easier to understand.

Commenter 0056 requested that the requirements for batch process vents
in Item 1 of Table 2 be rewritten more clearly.

Commenter 0049 urged EPA to expand Table 2 of the rule to clarify rule
requirements by including testing and design evaluation, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

Commenter 0067 asked for consistency in the format of Table 2 including
presenting applicability criteria consistently in the left-hand column.

One commenter (0045) noted that the applicability flow chart contained
in the Agency’s draft brochure that summarizes requirements in the
proposed rule provided information necessary to determine the intent of
the Agency, and the commenter recommended including the flow chart in
the rule.

Response:  The rule has been extensively rewritten since proposal in an
effort to improve clarity.  For example, Table 2 from the proposed rule
has been split into separate tables for each emission point.  The tables
in the final rule consistently present applicability criteria in the
left-hand column, as requested by one commenter.  The revised tables
also include additional information regarding allowed compliance
options.  We have not tabulated the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements because these provisions are typically
cross-referenced in their entirety, and we do not want to inadvertently
introduce inconsistencies. Section 63.11494(a) of the final rule also
has been rewritten to clarify the applicability criteria.  We have not
included a flow chart in the rule, but one is available on the EPA
website.

Comment:  Commenter 0067 suggested that management practices and control
requirements be combined by emission point because sources will look up
requirements on an emission point basis and expect to find all relevant
requirements in one place, and separating them leads to redundant
cross-references and unintended discrepancies.

Response:  Management practice requirements in the final rule apply to
the CMPU as a whole rather than the proposed approach of separate
requirements for each type of emission point.  Therefore, we have
retained a separate section for management practices in the final rule.

Comment:  One commenter (0054) stated that EPA should include the exact
dates in the rule for the initial notification and compliance status
deadlines instead of relying on the General Provisions references.

Response:  Exact due dates for notifications and reports cannot be
specified for new sources because the required date will depend on the
facility startup date.  Dates for some notifications from either
existing or new sources depend on the timing of other activities like
construction/reconstruction or performance tests.  The General
Provisions clearly identify all of the potentially required
notifications and reports and their due dates (relative to the
compliance date or other events).  We do not think there is a compelling
need to specify actual calendar dates, where feasible, in the final
rule.

Comment:  Commenter 0049 suggested EPA develop compliance assistance
information for smaller sites.  Another commenter (0069) suggested that
plain English guides or compliance tools (like the draft EPA brochure)
would assist small area sources that have no familiarity with the
cross-referenced rules.

Response:  After promulgation of the rule, we will consider developing
compliance assistance documents depending on interest and availability
of resources.

Comment:  One commenter (0069) asked for clarification on the storage
tank requirements in Table 2.  The commenter indicated that a flowchart
would be helpful to understand which tanks require control.

Response:  The emission limits and compliance requirements for storage
tanks are specified in Table 5 of the final rule.  This table provides
much more detail than was included in Table 2 in the proposed rule.  The
table in the final rule has separate rows with the requirements for
tanks that meet different size and vapor pressure thresholds.  Because
there are so many available compliance options, we think it is clearer
to present the information in a table rather than a flowchart.

13.2	Cross References

Comment:  Several commenters (0053, 0054, 0056, and 0067) objected to
the use of cross-references to other subparts and requested EPA include
requirements directly in this rule text to simplify it for small
facilities.

One commenter (0054) indicated their outstanding concern for the rule is
the abundant use of cross references to at least six NESHAP and one NSPS
and recommended that EPA write in all requirements and refrain from
using cross references as much as possible.  This commenter (0054) also
recommended that EPA incorporate directly any definitions used for this
subpart from other regulations to ensure better understanding of the
requirements.

Commenter 0067 suggested that EPA put all relevant rule text into
subpart VVVVVV to avoid cross-references for small facilities and
encouraged EPA to revise the rule to make it much clearer and not expect
small facilities to reconstruct what EPA had in mind by navigating such
a tangled labyrinth of citations.

Commenter 0056 stated EPA should minimize cross-references for metal HAP
process vents, should consider the sophistication of the area source
audience as inexperienced regulation readers, and should specify the
§63.11496(f)(3) monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting directly in
subpart VVVVVV to reduce confusion.

Commenter 0053 requested EPA include all notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements in §63.11501, including those incorporated
by reference.

Response:  Some of the provisions in other rules that were
cross-referenced from the proposed rule have been incorporated directly
into the final rule.  Typically, these provisions are either short or
provisions that we expect will be implemented by numerous sources.
However, cross-references to lengthy provisions such as procedures for
determining the TRE for continuous process vents, conducting a
performance test or design evaluation, or inspecting a floating roof
have been retained in the final rule.  The cross-references ensure that
we do not inadvertently change a provision, thus introducing an
unintended inconsistency.  In addition, we expect that most area sources
will need to implement few of the cross-referenced provisions.
Cross-referencing these details makes the rule easier to navigate for
those area sources that do not need to implement the cross-referenced
provisions.

To clarify the requirements, the final rule includes definitions for a
number of terms that were not defined in the proposed rule.  The final
rule also references definitions in other rules and the General
Provisions.

13.3	Inorganic ICR

Comment:  Commenter 0069 asked about the submissions they made to
EPA’s February 2006 CAA Section 114 request, for 8 industrial
inorganic chemical manufacturing sites.  According to the commenter,
this information is more useful than 2002 NEI information and it is
important that EPA review the information.

Response:  The information is more recent than the NEI information and
informed us that these sources do not use, produce, or generate any of
the table 1 HAP.

13.4	Emissions Levels and Health Effects

Comment:  Two commenters (0031 and 0034) expressed concern that the
proposed rule allows emissions to be increased.  Commenter 0031
specifically identified concerns with increased lead emissions.

Response:  The commenters are mistaken.  The final rule, like the
proposed rule, requires application of management practices and, for
certain emission points, the use of add-on control devices to minimize
emissions of Table 1 HAP, including lead.  No existing requirements on
chemical manufacturing area sources are relaxed by the final rule.

Comment:  One commenter (0036) believed the adverse effects of HAP
emissions from area sources in the aggregate are significant and area
source rules should achieve real reductions as intended by the CAA.
This commenter urged EPA to incorporate provisions in the area source
rules that will provide additional public health protection from the
adverse effects of emissions of HAP from area sources.

Response:  The final rule satisfies the requirement in section 112(c)(3)
of the CAA to regulate area sources representing 90 percent of the
emissions of Table 1 HAP.  As discussed in the preamble to the final
rule, we estimate that the final rule will reduce organic HAP emissions
by more than 200 tons per year.  These standards reduce emissions of 15
of the urban HAP that pose the greatest threat to public health in urban
areas as well as numerous other HAP.

13.5	Credit for Existing Controls

Comment:  One commenter (0067) believed that facilities should get
credit for reductions achieved by installing controls to meet state RACT
requirements or by facilities that voluntarily installed controls in
order to become synthetic minor sources of HAP.  The commenter noted
that these controls often achieve reductions slightly below the levels
required in the proposed rule (e.g., 90 percent for batch process
vents).  According to the commenter, it would be unfair to require these
facilities to replace the existing controls for such a small incremental
increase in performance.

g

È

y

Û

'

(

)

*

-

.

C

F

G

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

…

†

‡

-‡

ˆ

‹

Œ

¤

§

¨

Â

Ã

Ä

Å

Æ

Ç

È

É

Ê

æ

ç

è

é

ì

í

$

%

&

'

0

T

U

X

Y

s

t

u

v

w

x

y

z

{

—

˜

™

š

-š

ž

·

º

»

Õ

Ö

×

Ø

Ù

Ú

Û

Ü

Ý

ù

ú

û

ü

ÿ

j¸

j;

j¬

j/

j

h

h

h

h

h„

h„

	š

gd„

š

š

š

š

š

š

h„

š

š

š

š

h„

h„

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

h

h

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

hz

Â

Â

Ê

Í

<

—

h5

î

1

2

;

P

S

‘

6

…

ž

¹

Ï

Ô

h/

 h

摧丧0

&

&

h

@We have maintained the 90 percent reduction for new batch vents.  We
have also determined that the overall average cost to achieve this
reduction is reasonable.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  ii

1-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

2-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

3-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

4-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

5-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

6-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

7-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  3

8-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

9-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2

10-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2

11-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2

12-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

13-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 15119]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05905]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0825; FRL-9908-17-Region 5]

Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Petition for
Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of action denying petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
of its response to a petition for reconsideration of a rule published
in the Federal Register on December 3, 2012, addressing Clean Air Act
regional haze planning requirements for the State of Michigan. The
petition, submitted on January 17, 2013, on behalf of St. Marys Cement
(SMC), asked EPA to reconsider its action promulgating emission limits
representing best available retrofit technology for SMC's facility in
Charlevoix, Michigan. EPA has denied the petition by action signed
February 20, 2014, for reasons that EPA explains in the document
denying SMC's petition.

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed by May 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0825, which includes the petition for
reconsideration, EPA's response, and other related documents. All
documents are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays, Environmental
Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental
Scientist, Air Planning and Maintenance Section, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action pertains to a particular
facility in Charlevoix, Michigan, and is not based on a determination
of nationwide scope or effect. Thus, under section 307(b)(1) of the
Clean Air Act, any petitions for review of EPA's action denying the SMC
petition for reconsideration must be filed in the Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit on or before May 19, 2014.

    Dated: March 6, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-05905 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 19984-19985]
[DOCID:fr20ap07-119]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-; SEC File No.--270-577]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549

XBRL Voluntary Program Questionnaire

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the
proposed collection of information, the XBRL Voluntary Program
Questionnaire, to the Office of Management and Budget for approval.
    The XBRL Voluntary Program Questionnaire consists mainly of
questions based on the respondent's experience with submitting
eXtensible Business Reporting Language (``XBRL'') tagged data to the
Commission on a voluntary basis as a supplemental exhibit to specified
filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.) and Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.).
    The Commission needs the information to learn about the voluntary
program from the participant perspective. Responses to the
questionnaire are voluntary and will be publicly available. The
Commission plans to use the information to help it assess the
feasibility and desirability of using tagged data on a more widespread
and, possibly, mandated, basis in the future. In addition, the
information may also be used by the Commission or its staff in
connection with public analyses of the responses. The likely
respondents to the questionnaire are the participants in the voluntary
program.
    We estimate that 80 respondents will take 4 hours per response for
a total reporting burden of 320 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312;
or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 12, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7488 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P