standards during these times. It is only as a result of commenter input
that the EPA was made aware of potential issues with compliance during
periods of startup and shutdown for sources subject to the P&R IV MACT
standards, and, as previously stated, we have revised the final rule to
account for these periods.

C. P&R IV Equipment Leak and PCCT Provisions for Previously-Unregulated
Sources

    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA does not have the
authority to reconsider previously-issued MACT standards. The commenter
states that

the EPA cannot reconsider aspects of previously issued MACT standards
unrelated to ``development in practices, processes, and control
technologies,'' under CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter also states
the EPA cannot change its mind about what standards are required to
comply with CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), nor recalculate a floor
based on subsequent performance. The commenter adds 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, the EPA, and the public
know what emissions limitations will apply to a source rather than
having those limitations be subject to flux. The commenter states that
even if the EPA had the authority to change the existing MACT
standards, it could not reasonably make the revised standards effective
immediately. The commenter notes that CAA section 112(i) allows for a
compliance deadline of up to 3 years.
    Response: In Medical Waste Institute v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 425-27
(D.C. Cir. 2011), the D.C. Circuit held that the EPA may permissibly
amend prior MACT determinations, including amendments to improperly
promulgated floor determinations, using its authority under CAA section
129(a)(2), which is analogous to the authority in CAA section 112(d)(2)
and (3). The lack of judicial invalidation on these issues is a
distinction without a difference. National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 633-34;
see also Medical Waste Institute, 645 F. 3d at 426 (resetting MACT
floor, based on post-compliance data, permissible when originally-
established floor was improperly established, and permissibility of the
EPA's action does not turn on whether the prior standard was remanded
or vacated). See also our response in section VI.A above. The D.C.
Circuit's decision in Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189
(D.C. Cir. 2011) confirms the EPA is not constrained by CAA section
112(d)(6) and it may reassess its standards more often, including
revising MACT floors pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The
commenter is thus incorrect that the EPA lacks authority to set MACT
standards under 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) for PCCT and equipment leaks from
the PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory
that were not controlled under the initial P&R IV MACT standards. Put
another way, if the EPA did not adopt a proper MACT standard initially,
it is not amending a MACT standard but adopting one for the first time.
That is the case here for PCCT and equipment leaks from the PET
continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory that
were not controlled under the initial P&R IV MACT standards. The EPA
adopted no MACT standard for these emission points, an approach soundly
rejected by the D.C. Circuit in National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 633-34.
Consequently, the EPA is not barred from making MACT floor and beyond-
the-floor determinations and issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3) in this rulemaking.
    The EPA is not invoking CAA section 112(d)(6) or 112(f)(2) as its
authority to promulgate the MACT standards for currently uncontrolled
sources. Rather, the EPA is promulgating these MACT standards for the
first time pursuant to sections 112(d)(2) and (3), the provisions that
directly govern the promulgation of MACT standards. Using CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) ensures the process and considerations are those
associated with initially establishing a MACT standard. Contrary to the
commenter's assertion that the EPA conducted new MACT floor analyses
for standards currently in effect in setting MACT standards to address
certain unregulated sources, the EPA is not establishing these MACT
standards under section 112(d)(6). As explained above, the EPA is
promulgating new standards, not reevaluating the original standards,
under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The EPA's action to set MACT
standards for PCCT and equipment leaks from the PET continuous TPA high
viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory, which were not regulated
in the original MACT standards, is consistent with several recent
rulemakings, in which we have addressed underlying defects or made
other necessary revisions or clarifications in existing NESHAP under
sections 112(d)(2) and (3), the provisions that directly govern the
initial promulgation of MACT standards (see National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries, October 28,
2009, 74 FR 55670; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing
Industry, April 21, 2011, 76 FR 22566).
    The EPA proposed setting MACT standards for the first time for
equipment leaks from the PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end
finisher subcategory that were left unregulated in the original NESHAP.
Establishing standards for these emission points does not involve
developing a new MACT floor analysis for MACT standards currently in
effect. In the original NESHAP, the EPA exempted sources producing PET
using a continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher process
from the requirements for equipment leaks. The EPA established MACT
standards for the other P&R IV source categories, but left unregulated
this subcategory of PET production. Therefore, the EPA is establishing
for the first time MACT standards for the PET continuous TPA high
viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory. Based on available data on
the PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher
subcategory, the EPA performed the MACT floor and beyond-the floor
analyses to determine the MACT standards for this subcategory. In doing
so, the EPA did not reanalyze the MACT floor analysis for the standards
established in the original NESHAP for the other P&R IV source
categories.
    Regarding the proposed MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(2)
and (3) for PCCT from the PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple
end finisher subcategory, the EPA originally promulgated standards for
this emission point in the original P&R IV MACT standards. However,
these standards were a beyond-the-floor option and were subsequently
stayed indefinitely. Based on available data on the PET continuous TPA
high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory, the EPA performed the
MACT floor and beyond-the floor analyses to determine the MACT
standards for this subcategory. The EPA then proposed to re-set the
previously stayed MACT standard as an emission standard that reflects
the MACT floor option. In doing so, the EPA did not reanalyze the MACT
floor analysis for the standards established in the original NESHAP for
the other P&R IV source categories.
    Comment: One commenter opined that the work practice equipment leak
provisions the EPA proposed for PET sources using a continuous TPA high
viscosity multiple end finisher are unacceptable and that the EPA
should set a no-leak standard since leak-less valves are available. The
commenter asserted that the EPA has not demonstrated it is not
technologically or economically practicable to measure and control
fugitive emissions numerically, as required under section 112(h). The
commenter stated that the EPA must at least investigate

measurement techniques, such as remote sensing, before reaching the
conclusion that only work practice standards are ``feasible.'' The
commenter urged the EPA to set both numerical and work practice
standards for equipment leaks. The commenter also stated that under
section 112(d)(2) the EPA must consider requiring facilities to enclose
systems or processes to eliminate emissions and requiring capture of
fugitive emissions, which it has not done. The commenter opined that
the EPA must use the most up-to-date leak detection and repair (LDAR)
practices used in similar industries if the EPA determines that LDAR
practices are the only way to control such emissions. The commenter
also says that the EPA must set an absolute limit on how much of the
equipment can be allowed to leak.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the equipment leak
standard set for PET sources using a continuous TPA high viscosity
multiple end finisher is inappropriate. This source of emissions was
previously unregulated by the MACT standards, and we have established
standards for these emissions for the first time. Following the
procedures of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), we established the MACT
floor based on the best performing facilities in the source category or
subcategory. As there is only one facility in this source subcategory,
the current practices at the facility represent the best performing
facility in the subcategory and the MACT floor. We performed a beyond-
the-floor analysis to consider other technology available, including
the LDAR program required by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON), which
is the required level of control for other facilities subject to the
P&R IV MACT standards, and found this program to not be cost effective.
See the memorandum, Re-Evaluation of Equipment Leak Emissions and Costs
at PET Facilities, available in the docket for this action (Docket Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435-0059). We believe the HON LDAR program
represents the most feasible and cost-effective beyond-the-floor
option, as anything with more stringent requirements or more expensive
equipment would only further increase the costs relative to the
emission reductions. This was demonstrated in our analysis of leak-less
valves performed as part of the ample margin of safety analysis for the
PET source category, which showed very high costs relative to emission
reductions for facilities that already have the HON LDAR program in
place (see the memorandum, Impacts of Control Options to Address
Residual Risks for the Pesticide Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols,
and Polymers and Resins IV Production Source Categories, available in
the docket for this action (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435-
0006)). In addition, as explained in the preamble to the proposed rule
(77 FR 1293), the established work practice standards are consistent
with CAA section 112(h). Applying a measurement methodology to this
class of sources is not technologically and economically feasible due
to the number of openings and possible emission points, and because the
fugitive emissions cannot be routed to a conveyance designed to capture
such emissions. See the memorandum, Re-Evaluation of Equipment Leak
Emissions and Costs at PET Facilities, available in the docket for this
action (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435-0059). We also note that
the EPA is not permitted to set both a numerical and work practice
standard for an emission point. A work practice standard may only be
established when it is not technologically and economically feasible to
establish a numerical emission standard. See CAA section 112(h).

D. Technology Review

    Comment: One commenter asserted the EPA did not show that it looked
for improvements in any of the technologies reviewed under section
112(d)(6), and noted several such improvements. These improvements
include leak-less valves, seal-less pumps, welded connections, and the
use of passive optical gas imaging (OGI) devices to reduce equipment
leaks. The commenter also stated that the EPA should also require lower
leak definitions of 100 ppm for valves, connectors and other equipment;
500 ppm for pumps, compressors, and pressure relief valves; tighter
repair timelines of minimization of leaks within 24 hours of
identification and repairs within seven days; and repairs using the
best available technologies for frequent or high emissions leakers, all
of which are the requirements in the California Bay Area Air Quality
Management District and the South Coast Air Quality Management
District. For other emission sources, the commenter opined that the EPA
must prohibit flaring and require complete capture through flare gas
recovery systems because it is widely believed that flares do not
reduce HAP emissions to the level previously understood and flares
create new toxic air emissions. The commenter asserted the EPA should
also require the use of remote sensing technology as a routine matter
for all current sources, considering a 2009 report showing reductions
from the Texas Petrochemicals Houston plant using this technology. The
commenter further asserted the EPA must consider developments noted in
a 2008 report by the Environmental Integrity Project and other authors
for control of fugitive emissions from storage tanks and wastewater and
improved monitoring and repair for tanks.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Houston, We Have a Problem--A Roadmap for Reducing
Petrochemical Industry Toxic Emissions in the Lone Star State.''
Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention, Industry
Professionals for Clean Air, Environmental Defense Fund, and
Environmental Integrity Project. May 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: 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 standards were 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.
    The commenter suggested we analyze ``leak-less'' technologies such
as leak-less valves, seal-less pumps, and welded connections. Packing
combinations for valves and gaskets for flanges that significantly
reduce emissions are in place in some facilities, particularly oil
refineries. Facilities and packing manufacturers have created emission
testing protocols for low leak packing in order to study and test their
effectiveness.\12\ Costs for leak-less valves were previously estimated
for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI).\13\
Using these estimates, we analyzed the costs associated with requiring
leak-less valve technology for each of these

source categories. Annual costs per source category ranged from $1.3
million/yr to $30.1 million/yr per facility for each of the source
categories, with total capital investments ranging from $9.2 million to
$220 million. Emission reductions were assumed to be 100 percent and
ranged from 5.2 to 123.4 tpy of HAP per source category, resulting in a
cost effectiveness of $244,000/ton HAP. We do not consider this cost
effectiveness to be reasonable and, as a result, do not consider leak-
less valves to be economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ``Analysis of Emission Reduction Techniques for
Equipment Leaks.'' Memorandum from C. Hancy, RTI International, to
Jodi Howard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 21,
2011. (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869-0029).
    \13\ See ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry: Proposed Rule.'' 71 FR
34422, June 14, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter suggested we evaluate seal-less pump and welded
connections. However, we do not have cost information that can be used
to estimate costs for these technologies and the commenter did not
provide such costs.
    The commenter suggested we evaluate OGI devices as an advancement
in technology. We note that the General Provisions for NESHAP at 40 CFR
63.11(c) through (e) already allows the use of OGI as an alternative
work practice (AWP) to the traditional LDAR monitoring program (e.g.,
EPA Method 21). Section 63.11(c) through (e) allows the use of OGI
along with an annual EPA Method 21 survey of all of the equipment.
    We conducted a technology review to assess lowering the leak
definition for valves to the 100 ppm level used by Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD).\14\ We evaluated the incremental cost
effectiveness between retaining the leak definition of 500 ppm (as
proposed) and a leak definition of 100 ppm. According to our analysis,
the incremental cost effectiveness for all three source categories
ranged from $16,000/ton HAP to $18,000/ton HAP. We do not consider this
to be cost effective. In our technology review, we also evaluated the
BAAQMD program for tightening the repair timeline for components
awaiting repair.\15\ According to our analysis, the cost effectiveness
for all three source categories ranged from $11,000/ton HAP to $99,000/
ton HAP. We do not consider this to be cost effective. As a result, the
final rule retains the leak definition for valves of 500 ppm and the
current repair schedule, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ``Supplemental Technology Review for Equipment Leaks in
Group IV Polymers and Resins, Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production, and Polyether Polyols Production Source Categories.''
Memorandum from EC/R Incorporated to Nick Parsons, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. January 31, 2014. (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435.)
    \15\ See footnote 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, as a part of our technology review, we conducted an analysis
to determine the economic feasibility of lowering the leak definition
for pumps to 500 ppm, as compared to the current leak definition of
2,000 ppm.\16\ We evaluated the incremental cost effectiveness between
retaining the leak definition of 2,000 ppm (as proposed) and a leak
definition of 500 ppm. According to our analysis, the incremental cost
effectiveness for all three source categories was $29,000/ton HAP. We
do not consider this to be cost effective and, as a result, the final
rule retains the leak definition for pumps of 2,000 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See footnote 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter suggested that we evaluate lowering the leak
definition for pressure relief devices to 500 ppm. For all three source
categories, the existing requirements for pressure relief devices
already specify operation with no detectable emissions, defined as an
instrument reading above 500 ppm.
    We are not at this point able to agree with the premise underlying
the commenter's suggestions that flaring should be entirely prohibited
in the subject source categories in favor of complete capture through
flare gas recovery systems. As further discussed elsewhere, the EPA is
currently studying the performance of flares to control HAP emissions,
and we do not yet have sufficient performance data for the PAI, PEPO
and P&R IV source categories. Therefore, we are not at this time
prepared to finalize any changes to the currently applicable
regulations pertaining to the performance of flares in the PAI, PEPO,
and P&R IV source categories, including prohibiting flaring in favor of
complete capture. We may explore whether to revise flare requirements
in the future, if we conclude that new requirements are warranted and
would be applicable to subject source categories.
    In the meantime, we note that none of the EPA's MACT standards
currently require the use of flare gas recovery systems, and the use of
flare gas recovery systems, while prevalent in the petroleum refining
source category, has not yet been demonstrated as being applicable to
these or other chemical manufacturing source categories, primarily due
to the variety of chemical compounds being sent to the flare (e.g.,
streams from multiple chemical manufacturing process units are often
sent to the same flare header system). This issue would particularly
need further analysis in order to consider the commenter's suggestion,
and we are not at this point prepared to resolve it. The commenter
provided no data regarding this issue that would have enabled us to
promulgate its suggested revision. Nor did the commenter provide data
to support the assertion that flaring from these source categories
``can create new toxic air emissions.'' Therefore, the EPA is not
presently able to agree with the commenter's claim that the benefits of
the use of flares, especially as a backup control device to reduce HAP
emissions, are outweighed by secondary HAP emissions that may be caused
by flaring, such that prohibiting flaring entirely is warranted at this
point in the EPA's continuing analysis.

VII. Impacts of the Final Rules

A. What are the air impacts?

    We are finalizing new emission standards for equipment leaks and
PCCT in the PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher
subcategory regulated by the P&R IV MACT standards at the MACT floor
emissions levels currently achieved by the one facility in this
subcategory. As a result, no additional emission reductions from
equipment leaks and PCCT in this subcategory will be realized, although
increases in emissions in the future will be prevented. For the final
revisions to the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards regarding SSM and
PRDs, these changes will result in fewer emissions during SSM periods
and PRD releases or less frequent SSM periods or PRD releases. However,
the emission reductions, while tangible, are difficult to quantify and
are not included in our assessment of air quality impacts. Therefore,
no quantifiable air quality impacts are expected to result from the
final amendments to these three MACT standards. While we are unable to
quantify these emission reductions, we expect that emissions will
decrease as a result of this rulemaking.

B. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the final amendments, facilities in the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV
source categories are expected to incur initial capital and annual
recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with the PRD monitoring
requirements and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The
capital costs for each facility were estimated based on available
information on the subject source categories and data collected for
other EPA projects. The total annual costs for the PAI source category
are estimated to be $222,000. The total annual costs for the PEPO
source category are estimated to be $242,000. For the P&R IV source
categories, the total annual costs are estimated to be $566,000. The
memorandum titled, Revised Cost Impacts Associated with

the Final Pressure Relief Device Monitoring Requirements for the
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, Polyether Polyols Production,
and Group IV Polymers and Resins Source Categories, includes a complete
description of the cost estimate methods used for this analysis and is
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435).
    Though the cost savings cannot be monetized, consistent with
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,''
issued on January 18, 2011, the electronic reporting requirements being
finalized in this action for performance test reports are expected to
reduce the burden for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV facilities in the future
by cutting back on the recordkeeping costs and the costs that would be
associated with fewer or less-substantial data collection requests (due
to performance test information being readily available on the EPA's
WebFIRE database). Although the use of electric reporting may reduce
the recordkeeping and reporting burden for facilities in the future,
facilities will still incur annualized costs, on net, due to these
final amendments.

C. What are the economic impacts?

    We estimate that there will be no more than a 0.01-percent price
change and a similar reduction in output associated with this action.
This is based on the costs of the rule and the responsiveness of
producers and consumers to supply and demand elasticities for the
industries affected by this action. The impacts to affected firms will
be low because the annual compliance costs are small when compared to
the annual revenues for the affected parent firms (much less than 1
percent for each). The impacts to affected consumers should also be
small. Thus, there will not be any significant economic impacts on
affected firms and their consumers as a result of this final action.

D. What are the benefits?

    As explained in the air quality impacts section, we are finalizing
new emission standards for equipment leaks and PCCT in the PET
continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory
regulated by the P&R IV MACT standards at the MACT floor emissions
levels currently achieved by the one facility in this subcategory. As a
result, no additional emission reductions from equipment leaks and PCCT
in this subcategory will be realized, although increases in emissions
in the future will be prevented. For the final revisions to the PAI,
PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards regarding SSM and PRDs, these changes
will result in fewer emissions during SSM periods and PRD releases or
less frequent SSM periods or PRD releases. However, the emission
reductions, while tangible, are difficult to quantify and are not
included in our assessment of health benefits. As a result, there are
no quantifiable emission reductions associated with the final
amendments for these three MACT standards and, therefore, there are no
quantifiable health benefits to associate with reduced emissions. While
we are unable to quantify these emission reductions, as a result of
this rulemaking we expect reductions in the actual and potential cancer
risks and non-cancer health effects due to emissions of HAP from these
source categories.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule 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 in
this rulemaking are based on the 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 CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C.
7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The OMB previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations being amended with this final
rule (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts JJJ, MMM and PPP) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The
OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in
40 CFR part 9. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    For these final rules, the EPA is adding affirmative defense to the
estimates of burden in the ICR for these rules. 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, the EPA has provided administrative adjustments to this ICR to
show what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail.
The EPA's estimate for the required notification, reports and records
for any individual incident, including the root cause analysis, totals
$1,584 annually per MACT standard, 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 the EPA.
The 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 the 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 for
this estimate, as source owners or operators previously operated their
facilities in recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to
comply with emission standards during malfunctions. Even if the
historical records were an appropriate basis for this estimate, they
would still lead us to believe that the number of instances in which
source operators might avail themselves of the affirmative defense will
be extremely small. The records indicate that only a small number of
excess emissions events reported by source operators would be expected
to result from a malfunction (based on the definition above), and that
only a subset of excess emissions events caused by malfunctions would
result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative

defense, resulting in no more than an estimated 1 or 2 such occurrences
for all sources subject to subparts JJJ, MMM and PPP 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.
1. Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT Standards
    For the Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT standards, an ICR
document prepared by the EPA for the amendments to the standards has
been assigned EPA ICR number 2457.02. Burden changes associated with
these amendments result from new recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with the cooling towers and equipment leak
provisions for one facility, and PRD monitoring systems and affirmative
defense provisions for all facilities subject to the MACT standards.
    We estimate 31 regulated facilities are currently subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart JJJ. The annual monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3
years after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments
to subpart JJJ is estimated to be 459 labor hours at a cost of $26,000
per year. The initial capital costs per facility (based on PRD
monitoring system costs) range from $13,000 to $112,000. The annualized
capital costs per facility range between $1,800 to $16,000 based on a
10-year equipment lifespan. There is no estimated change in annual
burden to the federal government for these amendments.
2. Pesticide Active Ingredient Production MACT Standards
    For the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production MACT standards, an
ICR document prepared by the EPA for the amendments to the standards
has been assigned EPA ICR number 1807.07. Burden changes associated
with these amendments result from new recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with PRD monitoring systems and affirmative
defense provisions for all facilities subject to the MACT standards.
    We estimate 18 regulated facilities are currently subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart MMM. The annual monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3
years after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments
to subpart MMM is estimated to be 229 labor hours at a cost of $20,000
per year. The initial capital costs per facility (based on PRD
monitoring system costs) range from $12,700 to $82,000. The annualized
capital costs per facility range from $1,800 to $11,700 based on a 10-
year equipment lifespan. There is no estimated change in annual burden
to the federal government for these amendments.
3. Polyether Polyols Production MACT Standards
    For the Polyether Polyols Production MACT standards, an ICR
document prepared by the EPA for the amendments to the standards has
been assigned EPA ICR number 1811.09. Burden changes associated with
these amendments result from new recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with PRD monitoring systems and affirmative
defense provisions for all facilities subject to the MACT standards.
    We estimate 23 regulated facilities are currently subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPP. The annual monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3
years after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments
to subpart PPP is estimated to be 292 labor hours at a cost of $18,000
per year. The initial capital costs per facility (based on PRD
monitoring system costs) range from $29,000 to $69,000. The annualized
capital costs per facility range from $4,100 to $9,800 based on a 10-
year equipment lifespan. 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 the
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 this final rule.

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 impacts of this final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 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 that is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. According to the SBA small business
standards definitions, for the Group IV Polymers and Resins source
categories, which have the NAICS code of 325211 (i.e., Plastics
Material and Resin Manufacturing), the SBA small business size standard
is 750 employees. For the PEPO source category, which has the NAICS
code of 325199 (i.e., All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing),
the SBA small business size standard is 1,000 employees. For the PAI
source category, which has the NAICS codes of 325199 (i.e., All Other
Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing) and 325320 (i.e., Pesticide and
Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing), the SBA small business size
standards are 1,000 employees and 500 employees, respectively.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no
affected small businesses in any source category affected by the final
rule. Virtually all of the companies affected by this rule are large
integrated corporations that are not considered to be small entities
per the definitions provided in this section.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless
has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities that
could potentially be impacted by this rule in the future. The final
requirements for PRD monitoring have been revised to provide facilities
with greater flexibility based on their current equipment and
operations. In addition, the final malfunction recordkeeping
requirement was designed to provide all affected facilities, including
small entities, with a means of supporting an affirmative defense in
the event of a violation occurring during a malfunction.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local

or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any
one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it 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. None of the affected facilities are
owned or operated by state governments, and the requirements discussed
in today's notice will not supersede state regulations that are more
stringent. The burden to the respondents and the states is
approximately $977,000 for the three MACT standards addressed in this
final rule. 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. Although
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA solicited
comments on this action from tribal officials, but received none.

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 EPA 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 this action) 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 subject to Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

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 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
the 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
the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This action involves technical standards. The EPA has elected to
use ASTM D2908-74 or 91 and ASTM D3370-76 or 95a for the PCCT at the
one Group IV Polymers and Resins facility in the PET continuous TPA
high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory. No applicable VCS
were identified for these methods.
    Under section 63.7(f) and section 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the
General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications or
procedures in the final rule.

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.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. To examine the potential for any environmental
justice issues that might be associated with the level of the standards
for each source category, we performed a comparative analysis of the
demographics of the population within the vicinity of the facilities in
these source categories (i.e., within a 3-mile radius) and the national
average demographic distributions. Our analysis shows that most
demographic categories are within 2 percentage points of national
averages, except for the African American population, which exceeds the
national average by 6 percentage points (18 percent versus 12 percent).
The EPA has determined that the current health risks posed by emissions
from these source categories are acceptable and provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental
effects.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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. The EPA
will submit a report containing this final rule and other required
information to the United States Senate, the United States House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the final rule 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 March 27, 2014.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: January 31, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is amending Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 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 A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraphs (g)(28) and (29);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(30) through (84) as (g)(40) to (94);
and
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (g)(28) through (39).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (28) ASTM D2908-74, Standard Practice for Measuring Volatile
Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas Chromatography,
Approved June 27, 1974, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1329(c).
    (29) ASTM D2908-91, Standard Practice for Measuring Volatile
Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas Chromatography,
Approved December 15, 1991, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1329(c).
    (30) ASTM D2908-91(Reapproved 2001), Standard Practice for
Measuring Volatile Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas
Chromatography, Approved December 15, 1991, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1329(c).
    (31) ASTM D2908-91(Reapproved 2005), Standard Practice for
Measuring Volatile Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas
Chromatography, Approved December 1, 2005, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1329(c).
    (32) ASTM D2908-91(Reapproved 2011), Standard Practice for
Measuring Volatile Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas
Chromatography, Approved May 1, 2011, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1329(c).
    (33) ASTM D3173-03 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for
Moisture in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke, (Approved February 1,
2008), IBR approved for table 6 to subpart DDDDD and table 5 to subpart
JJJJJJ.
    (34) ASTM D3257-93, Standard Test Methods for Aromatics in Mineral
Spirits by Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for Sec.  63.786(b).
    (35) ASTM D3370-76, Standard Practices for Sampling Water, Approved
August 27, 1976, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1329(c).
    (36) ASTM D3370-95a, Standard Practices for Sampling Water from
Closed Conduits, Approved September 10, 1995, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1329(c).
    (37) ASTM D3370-07, Standard Practices for Sampling Water from
Closed Conduits, Approved December 1, 2007, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1329(c).
    (38) ASTM D3370-08, Standard Practices for Sampling Water from
Closed Conduits, Approved October 1, 2008, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1329(c).
    (39) ASTM D3370-10, Standard Practices for Sampling Water from
Closed Conduits, Approved December 1, 2010, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1329(c).
* * * * *

Subpart JJJ--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.1310 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) introductory text, (a)(4)(iv), and
(a)(4)(vi);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (j); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1310  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Emission points and equipment. The affected source also
includes the emission points and components specified in paragraphs
(a)(4)(i) through (vi) of this section that are associated with each
applicable group of one or more TPPU constituting an affected source.
* * * * *
    (iv) Each process contact cooling tower used in the manufacture of
poly (ethylene terephthalate) resin (PET) that is associated with a new
affected source.
* * * * *
    (vi) Components required by, or utilized as a method of compliance
with, this subpart, which may include control devices and recovery
devices.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Components and equipment that do not contain organic HAP and
are located within a TPPU that is part of an affected source;
* * * * *
    (d) Processes excluded from the affected source. The processes
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section are not part
of the affected source and are not subject to the requirements of both
this subpart and subpart A of this part:
* * * * *
    (j) Applicability of this subpart. (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.
    (2) The emission limitations set forth in subpart H of this part,
as referred to in Sec.  63.1331, 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.  63.1331 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) General duty. At all times, the owner or operator must operate
and maintain any 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. 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 the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements 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.
    (k) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during
malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set
forth in this subpart, the owner or operator may assert an affirmative
defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards
that are caused by malfunction, as defined at Sec.  63.2. Appropriate
penalties may be assessed if the owner or operator fails to meet their
burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense.
The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for
injunctive relief.

    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, the owner or operator
must timely meet the reporting requirements in paragraph (k)(2) of this
section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a
violation occurred; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation 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; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health;
and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event
at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were
the result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator, with all
necessary supporting documentation, that explains how it has met the
requirements set forth in paragraph (k)(1) of this section. This
affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic
compliance report, deviation report, or excess emission report
otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the
relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging
period). If such compliance report, deviation report, or excess
emission report is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence
of the violation, the affirmative defense report may be included in the
second compliance report, deviation report, or excess emission report
due after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant
standard.

0
4. Section 63.1311 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text and (d)(6); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(7).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1311  Compliance dates and relationship of this subpart to
existing applicable rules.

* * * * *
    (b) New affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after March 29, 1995 shall be in compliance with this
subpart (except Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii)) upon initial start-up or by
June 19, 2000, whichever is later, except that new affected sources
whose primary product, as determined using the procedures specified in
Sec.  63.1310(f), is PET shall be in compliance with Sec.  63.1331
(except Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii)) upon initial start-up or August 6,
2002, whichever is later. New affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after March 25, 1995, but on or before
January 9, 2012, shall be in compliance with the pressure relief device
monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii) no later than March
27, 2017. New affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after January 9, 2012, shall be in compliance with the
pressure relief device monitoring requirements of Sec.
63.1331(a)(9)(iii) upon initial startup or by March 27, 2014, whichever
is later.
    (c) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with this
subpart (except for Sec.  63.1331 for which compliance is covered by
paragraph (d) of this section) 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, except that the compliance date for the
provisions contained in Sec.  63.1329 is extended to March 27, 2014,
for existing affected sources whose primary product, as determined
using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1310(f), is PET using a
continuous terephthalic acid high viscosity multiple end finisher
process.
    (d) Except as provided for in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this
section, existing affected sources shall be in compliance with Sec.
63.1331 no later than June 19, 2001, unless an extension has been
granted pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section,
existing affected sources whose primary product, as determined using
the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1310(f), is PET shall be in
compliance with Sec.  63.1331 (except Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii)) no
later than August 6, 2002.
    (7) Compliance with the pressure relief device monitoring
provisions of Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii) shall occur no later than March
27, 2017.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.1312 is amended by:
0
a. Adding, alphabetically, the term ``Pressure relief device or valve
(Sec.  63.161)'' and removing the term ``Start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (Sec.  63.101)'' in paragraph (a); and
0
b. Adding the definition for ``Affirmative defense'' in alphabetical
order in paragraph (b).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1312  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Affirmative defense means, 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.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.1315 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(19); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(2).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1315  Continuous process vents provisions.

    (a) For each continuous process vent located at an affected source,
the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec.
63.113 through 63.118, with the differences noted in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (19) of this section for the purposes of this subpart,

except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (19) During periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to
using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.116, an owner or operator of
an affected source or emission unit subject to an emission limit
expressed as mass emissions per mass product may demonstrate compliance
with the limit in accordance with paragraph (a)(19)(i), (ii), or (iii)
of this section.
    (i) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (ii) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or
shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent
performance test associated with a production rate greater than zero
according to Sec.  63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.
    (iii) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of
the control device used to comply with the emission limit in Sec.
63.113(a)(1) or (2) were maintained at the level established to meet
the emission limit at maximum representative operating conditions.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Not allow organic HAP emissions from the collection of
continuous process vents at the affected source to be greater than
0.000590 kg organic HAP/Mg of product. Compliance with this paragraph
(b)(2) shall be determined using the procedures specified in Sec.
63.1333(b). During periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to
using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1333(b), an owner or
operator of an affected source or emission unit subject to an emission
limit expressed as mass emissions per mass product may demonstrate
compliance with the limit in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii),
or (iii) of this section.
    (i) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (ii) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or
shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent
performance test associated with a production rate greater than zero
according to Sec.  63.1333(b). Keep records of this calculation.
    (iii) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of
the control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section were maintained at the level established to meet
the emission limit at maximum representative operating conditions.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.1316 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A),
(b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(ii)(A), and (c)(1)(i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1316  PET and polystyrene affected sources--emissions control
provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents in each
individual material recovery section shall, as a whole, be no greater
than 0.018 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from the associated
TPPU(s)); or alternatively, organic HAP emissions from all continuous
process vents in the collection of material recovery sections within
the affected source shall, as a whole, be no greater than 0.018 kg
organic HAP per Mg product from all associated TPPU. During periods of
startup or shutdown, as an alternative to using the procedures
specified in Sec.  63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of an affected
source or emission unit subject to an emission limit expressed as mass
emissions per mass product may demonstrate compliance with the limit in
accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of this
section.
    (1) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (2) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or shutdown
by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent performance test
associated with a production rate greater than zero according to Sec.
63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.
    (3) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of the
control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph
(b)(1)(i)(A) of this section were maintained at the level established
to meet the emission limit at maximum representative operating
conditions.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents in each
individual polymerization reaction section (including emissions from
any equipment used to further recover ethylene glycol, but excluding
emissions from process contact cooling towers) shall, as a whole, be no
greater than 0.02 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from the associated
TPPU(s); or alternatively, organic HAP emissions from all continuous
process vents in the collection of polymerization reaction sections
within the affected source shall, as a whole, be no greater than 0.02
kg organic HAP per Mg product from all associated TPPU(s). During
periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to using the
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of an
affected source or emission unit subject to an emission limit expressed
as mass emissions per mass product may demonstrate compliance with the
limit in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of
this section.
    (1) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (2) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or shutdown
by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent performance test
associated with a production rate greater than zero according to Sec.
63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.
    (3) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of the
control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section were maintained at the level established
to meet the emission limit at maximum representative operating
conditions.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents
associated with the esterification vessels in each individual raw
materials preparation section shall, as a whole, be no greater than
0.04 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from the associated TPPU(s); or
alternatively, organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents
associated with the esterification vessels in the collection of raw
material preparation sections within the affected source shall, as a
whole, be no greater than 0.04 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from
all associated TPPU(s). Other continuous process vents (i.e., those not
associated with the esterification vessels) in the collection of raw
materials preparation sections within the affected source shall comply
with Sec.  63.1315. During periods of startup or shutdown, as an
alternative to using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1318(b)(1),
an owner or operator of an affected source or emission unit subject to
an emission limit expressed as mass emissions per mass product may
demonstrate compliance with the limit in accordance with paragraphs
(b)(2)(i)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
    (1) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (2) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or shutdown
by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent performance test
associated with a production rate greater than zero according to Sec.
63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.

    (3) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of the
control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph
(b)(2)(i)(A) of this section were maintained at the level established
to meet the emission limit at maximum representative operating
conditions.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents in each
individual polymerization reaction section (including emissions from
any equipment used to further recover ethylene glycol, but excluding
emissions from process contact cooling towers) shall, as a whole, be no
greater than 0.02 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from the associated
TPPU(s); or alternatively, organic HAP emissions from all continuous
process vents in the collection of polymerization reaction sections
within the affected source shall, as a whole, be no greater than 0.02
kg organic HAP per Mg of product from all associated TPPU(s). During
periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to using the
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of an
affected source or emission unit subject to an emission limit expressed
as mass emissions per mass product may demonstrate compliance with the
limit in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of
this section.
    (1) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (2) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or shutdown
by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent performance test
associated with a production rate greater than zero according to Sec.
63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.
    (3) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of the
control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section were maintained at the level established
to meet the emission limit at maximum representative operating
conditions.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents in each
individual material recovery section shall, as a whole, be no greater
than 0.0036 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from the associated
TPPU(s); or alternatively, organic HAP emissions from all continuous
process vents in the collection of material recovery sections within
the affected source shall, as a whole, be no greater than 0.0036 kg
organic HAP per Mg of product from all associated TPPU(s). During
periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to using the
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of an
affected source or emission unit subject to an emission limit expressed
as mass emissions per mass product may demonstrate compliance with the
limit in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this
section.
    (A) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (B) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or shutdown
by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent performance test
associated with a production rate greater than zero according to Sec.
63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.
    (C) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of the
control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section were maintained at the level established to
meet the emission limit at maximum representative operating conditions.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.1318 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a sentence after the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1)
introductory text and before Equation 1; and
0
b. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (c).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1318  PET and polystyrene affected sources--testing and
compliance demonstration provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * During periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative
to using Equation 1 of this subpart, the owner or operator may divide
the emission rate of total organic HAP or TOC during startup or
shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent
performance test associated with a production rate greater than zero to
determine compliance with the emission limit. * * *
* * * * *
    (c) Compliance with mass emissions per mass product standards. * *
* During periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to using the
procedures specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the owner or
operator may divide the emission rate of total organic HAP or TOC
during startup or shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the
most recent performance test associated with a production rate greater
than zero to comply with the emission limit.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.1319 is amended by revising the heading of paragraph (c)
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1319  PET and polystyrene affected sources--recordkeeping
provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) Records demonstrating compliance with temperature limits for
final condensers. * * *
0
10. Section 63.1324 is amended by revising the second sentence of
paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(C) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1324  Batch process vents--monitoring equipment.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) * * * 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 other than
malfunctions. * * *

0
11. Section 63.1329 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (c) introductory text; and adding paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and
(ii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1329  Process contact cooling towers provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) Existing affected source requirements. The owner or operator of
an existing affected source subject to this section who manufactures
PET using a continuous terephthalic acid high viscosity multiple end
finisher process and who is subject or becomes subject to 40 CFR part
60, subpart DDD, shall maintain an ethylene glycol concentration in the
process contact cooling tower at or below 6.0 percent by weight
averaged on a daily basis over a rolling 14-day period of operating
days. * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Where 40 CFR 60.564(j)(1) requires the use of ASTM D2908-74 or
91, ``Standard Practice for Measuring Volatile Organic Matter in Water
by Aqueous-Injection Gas Chromatography,'' ASTM D2908-91 (2011), D2908-
91 (2005), D2908-91 (2001), D2908-91, or D2908-74 (all standards
incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) may be used.
    (ii) Where 40 CFR 60.564(j)(1)(i) requires the use of ASTM D3370-76
or 95a, ``Standard Practices for Sampling

Water from Closed Conduits,'' ASTM D3370-10, D3370-08, D3370-07, D3370-
95a, or D3370-76 (all standards incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.1331 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(9); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (c).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1331  Equipment leak provisions.

    (a) Except Sec.  63.165 and as provided for in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, the owner or operator of each affected source
shall comply with the requirements of subpart H of this part, with the
differences noted in paragraphs (a)(1) through (13) of this section.
* * * * *
    (9) Requirements for pressure relief devices. Except as specified
in paragraph (a)(9)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator must
comply with the operating and pressure release requirements specified
in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) and (ii) of this section for pressure relief
devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service. Except as specified in
paragraph (a)(9)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator must also
comply with the pressure release management requirements specified in
paragraph (a)(9)(iii) of this section for all pressure relief devices
in organic HAP service.
    (i) Operating requirements. Except during a pressure release event,
operate each pressure relief device in organic HAP gas or vapor service
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background as
detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (ii) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in
organic HAP gas or vapor service, comply with paragraph (a)(9)(ii)(A)
or (B) of this section, as applicable.
    (A) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as detected by Method 21
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar days after the
pressure release to verify that the pressure relief device is operating
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background,
except as provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (B) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a rupture
disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable after a
pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure
release, except as provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (iii) Pressure release management. Except as specified in paragraph
(a)(9)(iv) of this section, pressure releases to the atmosphere from
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service are prohibited, and the
owner or operator must comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (a)(9)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section for all pressure
relief devices in organic HAP service.
    (A) For each pressure relief device in organic HAP service, the
owner or operator must equip each pressure relief device with a
device(s) or use a monitoring system that is capable of:
    (1) Identifying the pressure release;
    (2) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
    (3) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is
occurring. The device or monitoring system may be either specific to
the pressure relief device itself or may be associated with the process
system or piping, sufficient to indicate a pressure release to the
atmosphere. Examples of these types of devices and systems include, but
are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion
detector on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, or pressure
monitor.
    (B) If any pressure relief device in organic HAP service releases
to atmosphere as a result of a pressure release event, the owner or
operator must calculate the quantity of organic HAP released during
each pressure release event and report this quantity as required in
Sec.  63.1335(e)(6)(xiii). Calculations may be based on data from the
pressure relief device monitoring alone or in combination with process
parameter monitoring data and process knowledge.
    (iv) Pressure relief devices routed to a control device, process,
or drain system. If a pressure relief device in organic HAP service is
designed and operated to route all pressure releases through a closed
vent system to a control device, process, or drain system, the owner or
operator is not required to comply with paragraphs (a)(9)(i), (ii), or
(iii) (if applicable) of this section. Both the closed vent system and
control device (if applicable) must meet the requirements of Sec.
63.172. The drain system (if applicable) must meet the requirements of
Sec.  63.136.
* * * * *
    (c)(1) Each affected source producing PET using a continuous TPA
high viscosity multiple end finisher process shall monitor for leaks
upon startup following an outage where changes have been made to
equipment in gas/vapor or light liquid service. This leak check shall
consist of the introduction of hot ethylene glycol vapors into the
system for a period of no less than 2 hours during which time sensory
monitoring of the equipment shall be conducted.
    (2) A leak is determined to be detected if there is evidence of a
potential leak found by visual, audible, or olfactory means.
    (3) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as
practical, but not later than 15 days after it is detected, except as
provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (i) The first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 days
after each leak is detected.
    (ii) Repaired shall mean that the visual, audible, olfactory or
other indications of a leak 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.
    (4) When a leak is detected, the following information shall be
recorded and kept for 2 years and reported in the next periodic report:
    (i) The instrument and the equipment identification number and the
operator name, initials or identification number.
    (ii) The date the leak was detected and the date of first attempt
to repair the leak.
    (iii) The date of successful repair of the leak.

0
13. Section 63.1332 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1332  Emissions averaging provisions.

* * * * *
    (f) Debits and credits shall be calculated in accordance with the
methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this
section, respectively, and shall not include emissions during periods
of monitoring excursions, as defined in Sec.  63.1334(f). For these
periods, the calculation of monthly credits and debits shall be
adjusted as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) No credits would be assigned to the credit-generating emission
point.
    (2) Maximum debits would be assigned to the debit-generating
emission point.
    (3) The owner or operator may demonstrate to the Administrator that
full or partial credits or debits should be assigned using the
procedures in paragraph (l) of this section.
* * * * *

0
14. Section 63.1333 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) introductory
text; and
0
b. Adding a sentence after the third sentence of paragraph (b)
introductory text and before Equation 49.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1333  Additional requirements for performance testing.

    (a) 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 and in accordance with Sec.  63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), (d), (e)(2),
(e)(4), (g), and (h), with the exceptions specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (5) of this section and the additions specified in
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by the
Administrator or an applicable subpart. The owner or operator may not
conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or
operator must record the process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. 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. Sections 63.1314 through 63.1330 also
contain specific testing requirements.
    (1) Performance tests shall be conducted according to the
provisions of Sec.  63.7(e)(2), except that 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.
* * * * *
    (b) * * * During periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative
to using Equation 49 of this subpart, the owner or operator may divide
the emission rate of total organic HAP or TOC during startup or
shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent
performance test associated with a production rate greater than zero to
comply with the emission limit. * * *

0
15. Section 63.1334 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (f)(1) introductory text and
paragraph (f)(1)(v);
0
b. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (f)(2) introductory text and
paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B);
0
c. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (f)(3) introductory text and
the last sentence of paragraph (f)(3)(i) introductory text;
0
d. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (f)(4);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (f)(5) and (f)(6);
0
f. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (f)(7); and
0
g. Removing paragraph (g).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1334  Parameter monitoring levels and excursions.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (v) The periods listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(v)(A) and (B) of this
section are not considered to be part of the period of control or
recovery device operation, for the purposes of paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)
and (iii) of this section.
    (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) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (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
(f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, to obtain the operating time used to
determine if monitoring data are insufficient.
* * * * *
    (3) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
    (i) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (4) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
    (5) With respect to continuous process vents complying with the
temperature limits for final condensers specified in Sec.
63.1316(b)(1)(i)(B) or (c)(1)(ii), an excursion has occurred when the
daily average exit temperature exceeds the appropriate condenser
temperature limit. For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be
deemed out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart. The
periods listed in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section are not
considered to be part of the period of operation for the condenser for
purposes of determining the daily average exit temperature.
    (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.
    (6) With respect to new affected sources producing SAN using a
batch process, an excursion has occurred when the percent reduction
calculated using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1333(c) is less
than 84 percent. For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be
deemed out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart. The
periods listed in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section are not
considered to be part of the period of control or recovery device
operation for purposes of determining the percent reduction.
    (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.
    (7) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.

0
16. Section 63.1335 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
b. Revising the first two sentences of paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
c. Revising the paragraph (d)(7);
0
d. Adding paragraph (d)(10);
0
e. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text;
0
f. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(3) introductory text;
0
g. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e)(3)(i);
0
h. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(v);
0
i. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(3)(viii);
0
j. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(ix)(B);
0
k. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e)(5) introductory text;
0
l. Adding paragraph (e)(5)(xii);
0
m. Revising the first two sentences of paragraph (e)(6) introductory
text;
0
n. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(B);
0
o. Revising paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(E), (e)(6)(xii)(A)(1), and
(e)(6)(xii)(D);
0
p. Adding paragraphs (e)(6)(xiii) and (e)(9);

0
q. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(1)(i);
0
r. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);
0
s. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(1)(iii); and
0
t. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (iv).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1335  General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Malfunction recordkeeping and reporting. (i) Records of
malfunctions. The owner or operator shall keep the records specified in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the
date, time, and duration of each failure.
    (B) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit,
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (C) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec.  63.1310(j)(4), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (ii) Reports of malfunctions. If a source fails to meet an
applicable standard, report such events in the Periodic Report. Report
the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each
instance, report the date, time, and duration of each failure. For each
failure the report must include a list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (d) Recordkeeping and documentation. Owners or operators required
to keep continuous records shall keep records as specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of this section, unless an alternative
recordkeeping system has been requested and approved as specified in
paragraph (g) of this section, and except as provided in paragraph (h)
of this section. If a monitoring plan for storage vessels pursuant to
Sec.  63.1314(a)(9) requires continuous records, the monitoring plan
shall specify which provisions, if any, of paragraphs (d)(1) through
(10) of this section apply. * * *
    (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.
* * * * *
    (10) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, keep
records of the information specified in paragraphs (d)(10)(i) through
(v) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
that the owner or operator elects to equip with a closed-vent system
and control device, subject to the provisions in Sec.
63.1331(a)(9)(iv).
    (ii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(i).
    (iii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
equipped with rupture disks, subject to the provisions in Sec.
63.1331(a)(9)(ii)(B).
    (iv) The dates and results of the Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, monitoring following a pressure release for each pressure
relief device subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(i) and
(ii). The results shall include:
    (A) The background level measured during each compliance test.
    (B) The maximum instrument reading measured at each piece of
equipment during each compliance test.
    (v) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii), keep records of each pressure release to the
atmosphere, including the following information:
    (A) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (B) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (C) The quantity of total HAP emitted during the pressure release
and the calculations used for determining this quantity.
    (D) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
    (e) Reporting and notification. In addition to the reports and
notifications required by subpart A of this part as specified in Table
1 of this subpart, the owner or operator of an affected source shall
prepare and submit the reports listed in paragraphs (e)(3) through (9)
of this section, as applicable. * * *
    (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.  63.1323(b)(6)(i)(C); or wishing to
establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures
contained in Sec.  63.1334(c) or (d), shall submit a Precompliance
Report according to the schedule described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of
this section. * * *
    (i) Submittal dates. * * * To submit a Precompliance Report for the
first time after the compliance date to request an extension for
compliance; request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters,
alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping or alternative
controls; request approval to use engineering assessment to estimate
emissions from a batch emissions episode, as described in Sec.
63.1323(b)(6)(i)(C); or to request to establish parameter monitoring
levels according to the procedures contained in Sec.  63.1334(c) or
(d), the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator at least 90
days before the planned change is to be implemented; the change shall
be considered approved if the Administrator either approves the change
in writing, or fails to disapprove the change in writing within 45 days
of receipt.
* * * * *
    (v) The owner or operator shall report the intent to use
alternative emission standards to comply with the provisions of this
subpart in the Precompliance Report. The Administrator may deem
alternative emission standards to be equivalent to the standard
required by the subpart, under the procedures outlined in Sec.
63.6(g).
* * * * *
    (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.  63.1334(c) or (d), as
specified in paragraph (e)(3)(vii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) Notification of Compliance Status. * * * For pressure relief
devices subject to the requirements of Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii), the
owner or operator shall submit the information listed in paragraph
(e)(5)(xii) of this section in the Notification of Compliance Status
within 150 days after the first applicable compliance date for pressure
relief device monitoring.
* * * * *
    (xii) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, a
description of the device or monitoring system to be implemented,
including the pressure relief devices and process parameters to be
monitored (if applicable), a description of the alarms or other methods
by which operators will be notified of a pressure release, and a
description of how the owner or operator will determine the information
to be recorded under paragraphs (d)(10)(v)(B) and (C) of this section
(i.e., the duration of the pressure release and the methodology and
calculations for determining of the quantity of total HAP emitted
during the pressure release).
    (6) Periodic Reports. For existing and new affected sources, the
owner or operator shall submit Periodic Reports as specified in
paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through (xiii) of this section. In addition, for
equipment leaks subject to Sec.  63.1331, with the exception of Sec.
63.1331(c), the owner or operator shall submit the information
specified in Sec.  63.182(d) under the conditions listed in Sec.
63.182(d), and for heat exchange systems subject to Sec.  63.1328, the
owner or operator shall submit the information specified in Sec.
63.104(f)(2) as part of the Periodic Report required by this paragraph
(e)(6). * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) The daily average values or batch cycle daily average values of
monitored parameters for unexcused excursions, as defined in Sec.
63.1334(f). * * *
    (E) The information in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section for
reports of malfunctions.
* * * * *
    (xii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) A control or recovery device for a particular emission point or
process section has one or more excursions, as defined in Sec.
63.1334(f), in two consecutive semiannual reporting periods; or
* * * * *
    (D) After quarterly reports have been submitted for an emission
point for 1 year without one or more excursions occurring (during that
year), the owner or operator may return to semiannual reporting for the
emission point or process section.
    (xiii) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, Periodic
Reports must include the information specified in paragraphs
(e)(6)(xiii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
Sec.  63.1331(a)(9), report confirmation that all monitoring to show
compliance was conducted within the reporting period.
    (B) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service
subject to Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(ii), report any instrument reading of
500 ppm above background or greater, more than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release.
    (C) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii), report each pressure release to the
atmosphere, including the following information:
    (1) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (2) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (3) The quantity of total HAP emitted during the pressure release
and the method used for determining this quantity.
    (4) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (5) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
* * * * *
    (9) Electronic reporting. Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2), the owner
or operator must submit the results of the performance tests, including
any associated fuel analyses, required by this subpart according to the
methods specified in paragraphs (e)(9)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA-
provided software, the owner or operator shall submit the results of
the performance test to the EPA by direct computer-to-computer
electronic transfer via EPA-provided software, unless otherwise
approved by the Administrator. Owners or operators, who claim that some
of the information being submitted for performance tests is
confidential business information (CBI), must submit a complete file
using EPA-provided software that includes information claimed to be CBI
on a compact disk, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked
as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The
same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA by direct
computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software.
    (ii) For any performance test conducted using test methods that are
not compatible with the EPA-provided software, the owner or operator
shall submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator
at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unrealistic or
impossible data during periods of operation (e.g., a temperature
reading of -200 [deg]C on a boiler), and will alert the operator by
alarm or other means. * * *
    (ii) The monitoring system generates, updated at least hourly
throughout each operating day, a running average of the monitoring
values that have been obtained during that operating day, and the
capability to observe this running average is readily available to the
Administrator on-site during the operating day. The owner or operator
shall record the occurrence of any period meeting the criteria in
paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. All instances in an
operating day constitute a single occurrence.
    (A) The running average is above the maximum or below the minimum
established limits; and
    (B) The running average is based on at least six 1-hour average
values.
    (iii) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unchanging data
during periods of 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. * * *
    (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 this paragraph (h). For any calendar week, if compliance
with paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) 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 operation.
    (iv) For purposes of paragraph (h) of this section, an excursion
means that

the daily average (or batch cycle daily average) value of monitoring
data for a parameter is greater than the maximum, or less than the
minimum established value.

0
17. Table 1 to Subpart JJJ of Part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing entries Sec.  63.1(a)(6)-(8) and Sec.  63.1(a)(9);
0
b. Adding entries Sec.  63.1(a)(6) and Sec.  63.1(a)(7)-(9);
0
c. Revising entries Sec.  63.1(c)(4), Sec.  63.6(e), Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i), and Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(ii);
0
d. Adding entry Sec.  63.6(e)(3);
0
e. Removing entries Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(i), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(i)(A), Sec.
63.6(e)(3)(i)(B), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(i)(C), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(ii), Sec.
63.6(e)(3)(iii), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iv), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(v), Sec.
63.6(e)(3)(vi), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(vii), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(vii)(A), Sec.
63.6(e)(3)(vii)(B), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(vii)(C), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(viii),
and Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(ix);
0
f. Revising entries Sec.  63.6(f)(1), Sec.  63.7(e)(1), Sec.
63.8(c)(1)(i), Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), and Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(iii);
0
g. Adding entry Sec.  63.10(d)(5);
0
h. Removing entries Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i) and Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(ii); and
0
i. Removing footnote (a).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

 Table 1 to Subpart JJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
                     to Subpart JJJ Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference               Subpart JJJ          Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.1(a)(6).............  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(7)-(9).........  No...............  [Reserved.].

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.1(c)(4).............  No...............  [Reserved.].

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)................  Yes..............  Except as otherwise
                                                    specified for
                                                    individual
                                                    paragraphs.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..........  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.1310(j)(4) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).........  No...............  .....................

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).............  No...............  .....................

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.1333(a).

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..........  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).........  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)........  No...............  .....................

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)............  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.1335(b)(1)(ii)
                                                    for malfunction
                                                    reporting
                                                    requirements.

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

Subpart MMM--[Amended]

0
18. Section 63.1360 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (e) heading, (e)(1) introductory text, (e)(3),
and (e)(4); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1360  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (e) Applicability of this subpart. (1) Each provision set forth 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.
* * * * *
    (3) 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.
    (4) General duty. At all times, the owner or operator must operate
and maintain any 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. 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 the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements 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.
* * * * *
    (k) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during
malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set
forth in this subpart, the owner or operator may assert an affirmative
defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards
that are caused by malfunction, as defined at Sec.  63.2. Appropriate
penalties may be assessed if the owner or operator fails to meet their
burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense.
The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for
injunctive relief.
    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative
defense in

any action to enforce such a standard, the owner or operator must
timely meet the reporting requirements in paragraph (k)(2) of this
section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a
violation occurred; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation 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; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health;
and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event
at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were
the result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator, with all
necessary supporting documentation, that explains how it has met the
requirements set forth in paragraph (k)(1) of this section. This
affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic
compliance report, deviation report, or excess emission report
otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the
relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging
period). If such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report
is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation,
the affirmative defense report may be included in the second
compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the
initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.

0
19. Section 63.1361 is amended by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Affirmative
defense'';
0
b. In the definition of ``Group 1 process vent'' by removing the word
``hydogen'' and adding in its place the word ``hydrogen''; and
0
c. Revising the definition for ``Pesticide active ingredient or PAI''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1361  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Affirmative defense means, 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.
* * * * *
    Pesticide active ingredient or PAI means any material that is an
active ingredient within the meaning of FIFRA section 2(a); that is
used to produce an insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide end use
pesticide product; that consists of one or more organic compounds; and
that must be labeled in accordance with 40 CFR part 156 for transfer,
sale, or distribution. These materials are typically described by North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Codes 325199 and
32532 (i.e., previously known as Standard Industrial Classification
System Codes 2869 and 2879). These materials are identified by product
classification codes 01, 21, 02, 04, 44, 07, 08, and 16 in block 19 on
the 1999 version of EPA form 3540-16, the Pesticides Report for
Pesticide-Producing Establishments. The materials represented by these
codes are: insecticides; insecticide-fungicides; fungicides;
herbicides; herbicide-fungicides; plant regulators; defoliants,
desiccants; or multi-use active ingredients.
* * * * *
0
20. Section 63.1362 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1362  Standards.

* * * * *
    (i) Opening of a safety device. The owner or operator that opens a
safety device, as defined in Sec.  63.1361, is not exempt from
applicable standards in order to avoid unsafe conditions. If opening a
safety device results in the failure to meet any applicable standard,
the owner or operator must still comply with the general duty to
minimize emissions. If opening a safety device results in a deviation
or excess emissions, such events must be reported as specified in Sec.
63.1368(i). If the owner or operator attributes the event to a
malfunction and intends to assert an affirmative defense, the owner or
operator is subject to Sec.  63.1360(k).
* * * * *

0
21. Section 63.1363 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(A), (g)(2)(iii)(A), and
(g)(2)(iii)(B);
0
e. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (g)(4)(v)(A);
0
f. Revising paragraph (g)(6) introductory text;
0
g. Adding paragraph (g)(11);
0
h. Adding a sentence after the first sentence of paragraph (h)(2)
introductory text;
0
i. Adding paragraph (h)(2)(iv);
0
j. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(3)(i);
0
k. Revising paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(J); and
0
l. Adding paragraph (h)(3)(v).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1363  Standards for equipment leaks.

* * * * *
    (b) References. The owner or operator shall comply with the
provisions of subpart H of this part as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section and with paragraph (b)(4) of this section
for pressure relief devices. * * *
    (2) The owner or operator shall comply with Sec. Sec.  63.164,
63.166, 63.169, 63.177, and 63.179 of subpart H of this part in their
entirety, except that when these sections reference other sections of
subpart H of this part, the owner or operator shall comply with the
revised sections as specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (3), and (4) of
this section. Section 63.164 of subpart H of this part applies to
compressors. Section 63.166 of subpart H of this part applies to
sampling connection systems. Section 63.169 of subpart H of this part
applies to: pumps, valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid
service; instrumentation systems; and pressure

relief devices in liquid service. Section 63.177 of subpart H of this
subpart applies to general alternative means of emission limitation.
Section 63.179 of subpart H of this part applies to alternative means
of emission limitation for enclosed-vented process units.
* * * * *
    (4) Requirements for pressure relief devices. Except as specified
in paragraph (b)(4)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator must
comply with the operating and pressure release requirements specified
in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section for pressure relief
devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service. Except as specified in
paragraph (b)(4)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator must also
comply with the pressure release management requirements specified in
paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section for all pressure relief devices
in organic HAP service.
    (i) Operating requirements. Except during a pressure release event,
operate each pressure relief device in organic HAP gas or vapor service
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background as
detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (ii) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in
organic HAP gas or vapor service, comply with paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A)
or (B) of this section, as applicable.
    (A) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as detected by Method 21
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar days after the
pressure release to verify that the pressure relief device is operating
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background,
except as provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (B) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a rupture
disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable after a
pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure
release, except as provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (iii) Pressure release management. Except as specified in paragraph
(b)(4)(iv) of this section, pressure releases to the atmosphere from
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service are prohibited, and the
owner or operator must comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section for all pressure
relief devices in organic HAP service.
    (A) For each pressure relief device in organic HAP service, the
owner or operator must equip each pressure relief device with a
device(s) or use a monitoring system that is capable of:
    (1) Identifying the pressure release;
    (2) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
    (3) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is
occurring. The device or monitoring system may be either specific to
the pressure relief device itself or may be associated with the process
system or piping, sufficient to indicate a pressure release to the
atmosphere. Examples of these types of devices and systems include, but
are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion
detector on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, or pressure
monitor.
    (B) If any pressure relief device in organic HAP service releases
to atmosphere as a result of a pressure release event, the owner or
operator must calculate the quantity of organic HAP released during
each pressure release event and report this quantity as required in
paragraph (h)(3)(v) of this section. Calculations may be based on data
from the pressure relief device monitoring alone or in combination with
process parameter monitoring data and process knowledge.
    (iv) Pressure relief devices routed to a control device, process,
or drain system. If a pressure relief device in organic HAP service is
designed and operated to route all pressure releases through a closed
vent system to a control device, process, or drain system, the owner or
operator is not required to comply with paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (ii), or
(iii) (if applicable) of this section. Both the closed vent system and
control device (if applicable) must meet the requirements of Sec.
63.172. The drain system (if applicable) must meet the requirements of
Sec.  63.136.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) A list of identification numbers for equipment that the owner
or operator elects to equip with a closed-vent system and control
device, subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b)(4)(iv) or (c)(7) of
this section or Sec.  63.164(h).
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
subject to the provisions in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.
    (B) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
equipped with rupture disks, subject to the provisions of paragraph
(b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (A) * * * The written procedures must be maintained at the plant
site. * * *
    (6) Records of compressor and pressure relief device compliance
tests. The dates and results of each compliance test required for
compressors subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.164(i) and the dates
and results of the Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, monitoring
following a pressure release for each pressure relief device subject to
the provisions in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. The
results shall include:
* * * * *
    (11) Records of pressure releases to the atmosphere from pressure
relief devices. For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service
subject to paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section, keep records of each
pressure release to the atmosphere, including the following
information:
    (i) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (ii) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (iii) The quantity of total HAP emitted during the pressure release
and the calculations used for determining this quantity.
    (iv) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (v) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
    (h) * * *
    (2) Notification of compliance status report. * * * For pressure
relief devices subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of
this section, the owner or operator shall submit the information listed
in paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this section in the Notification of
Compliance Status within 150 days after the first applicable compliance
date for pressure relief device monitoring. * * *
    (iv) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, a
description of the device or monitoring system to be implemented,
including the pressure relief devices and process parameters to be
monitored (if applicable), a description of the alarms or other methods
by which operators will be notified of a pressure release, and a
description of how the owner or operator will determine the information
to be recorded under paragraphs (g)(11)(ii) and (iii) of this section
(i.e., the duration of the pressure release and the methodology and
calculations for determining of the quantity of total HAP emitted
during the pressure release).
    (3) * * *
    (i) A report containing the information in paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)
through (v) of this section shall be submitted semiannually. * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (J) The results of all monitoring to show compliance with
Sec. Sec.  63.164(i) and

63.172(f) conducted within the semiannual reporting period.
* * * * *
    (v) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, Periodic
Reports must include the information specified in paragraphs
(h)(3)(v)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, report confirmation that all
monitoring to show compliance was conducted within the reporting
period.
    (B) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service
subject to paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section, report any instrument
reading of 500 ppm above background or greater, more than 5 calendar
days after the pressure release.
    (C) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section, report each pressure release to
the atmosphere, including the following information:
    (1) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (2) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (3) The quantity of total HAP emitted during the pressure release
and the method used for determining this quantity.
    (4) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (5) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.

0
22. Section 63.1364 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.1364  Compliance dates.

    (a) * * *
    (1) An owner or operator of an existing affected source must comply
with the provisions in this subpart (except Sec.  63.1363(b)(4)(iii))
by December 23, 2003. Compliance with the pressure relief device
monitoring provisions of Sec.  63.1363(b)(4)(iii) shall occur no later
than March 27, 2017.
* * * * *
    (b) Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. An owner or
operator of a new or reconstructed affected source must comply with the
provisions of this subpart (except Sec.  63.1363(b)(4)(iii)) on June
23, 1999 or upon startup, whichever is later. New or reconstructed
affected sources that commenced construction after November 10, 1997,
but on or before January 9, 2012, must be in compliance with the
pressure relief device monitoring provisions of Sec.
63.1363(b)(4)(iii) no later than March 27, 2017. New or reconstructed
sources that commenced construction after January 9, 2012, must be in
compliance with the pressure relief device monitoring provisions of
Sec.  63.1363(b)(4)(iii) upon initial startup or by March 27, 2014,
whichever is later.

0
23. Section 63.1365 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (h)(3).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1365  Test methods and initial compliance procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) Test methods and conditions. When testing is conducted to
measure emissions from an affected source, the test methods specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (9) of this section shall be used.
Compliance and performance tests shall be performed 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 and as specified in paragraphs (b)(10) and (11) of
this section. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and
shutdown unless specified by the Administrator or an applicable
subpart. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during
periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. 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
24. Section 63.1366 is amended by adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) introductory text; and revising paragraph (b)(8).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1366  Monitoring and inspection requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Scrubbers. * * * Alternatively, for halogen scrubbers, the
owner or operator may comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
63.994(c).
* * * * *