[Federal Register: December 8, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 235)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 73097-73122]
[DOCID:fr08de05-32]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-OAR-2003-0121; FRL-8005-2]
RIN 2060-AM43

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

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

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 24,
2006.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by December 19, 2005, a public hearing will be held on
December 23, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA OAR-
2003-0121, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,

EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, will be replaced by
an enhanced Federal-wide electronic docket management and comment
system located at http://www.regulations.gov. When this occurs, you will be

redirected to that site to access the docket and submit comments.
Follow the on-line instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a duplicate copy, if possible.
     Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA, Room B-102,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. We request that a separate copy of each public comment
also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2003-
0121. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment with a disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

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

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. at EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina or at an alternate site nearby.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Organic Chemicals
Group (C504-04), Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-3470; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:

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

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.2435. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Randy
McDonald, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (Mail
Code C504-04), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, electronic mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least two days in advance of the potential

date of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public
hearing also must call Mr. Randy McDonald to verify the time, date, and
location of the hearing. A public hearing will provide interested
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed amendments.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the proposed rule is also available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network Web site (TTN Web). Following
signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted on the TTN's
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and

technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Organization of This Document. The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:

I. Why are we proposing amendments to subpart FFFF?
II. How are we proposing to amend the compliance dates?
    A. Existing Sources
    B. Process Changes Resulting in New Compliance Requirements
III. How are we proposing to amend the applicability requirements?
    A. Compounding and Finishing Operations in Polymer Processes
    B. Carbon Monoxide Production
    C. Boundary of a Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Process Unit That Produces a Solid Product
    D. Applicability of the MON to Coke By-Product Plants
IV. How are we proposing to amend the requirements for process
vents?
    A. Process Condensers
    B. Requirements for HAP Metal Compounds
    C. Compliance Requirements for Process Tanks
    D. Provisions for Switching Batch Process Vents from Group 2 to
Group 1
    E. Definition of Batch Process Vent
    F. Definitions of Continuous Process Vent and Related Terms
    G. Definition of Group 1 Continuous Process Vent
    H. Requirements for Biofilter Control Devices
    I. Emission Limit for Hydrogen Halide and Halogen HAP from
Process Vents
V. How are we proposing to amend the requirements for wastewater
systems?
    A. Definitions of Wastewater and Group 1 Wastewater
    B. Management Requirements for Wastewater That is Group 1 for
Soluble HAP
    C. Discarding Materials to Water or Wastewater
    D. Compliance Requirements
    E. Definition of Wastewater
VI. How are we proposing to amend the requirements for equipment
leaks?
VII. How are we proposing to amend the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements?
    A. Processes with Uncontrolled Emissions Below the Thresholds
for Control
    B. Standard and Nonstandard Batches
    C. Operating Logs
    D. Reporting Requirements for Emission Points that Change from
Group 2 to Group 1
VIII. How are we proposing to change requirements that apply when
requirements in subpart FFFF and another rule apply to the same
equipment?
IX. What miscellaneous technical corrections are we proposing?
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

I. Why are we proposing amendments to subpart FFFF?

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

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

    Today's proposed amendments address the issues raised by
Petitioners and include corrections and clarifications to ensure that
the final rule is implemented as intended. Today's proposed amendments
also provide some new compliance options, as well as new provisions
that would reduce the burden associated with demonstrating compliance.
For example, the use of biofilters is proposed as an option for
complying with the 95 percent reduction emission limit for batch
process vents, a new compliance option is proposed for wastewater that
would allow certain waste management units in a biotreatment system to
be uncovered if the wastewater being treated is Group 1 only for
soluble HAP, and a new regulatory alternative for equipment leaks would
simplify applicability by applying the same requirements to all MON
processes and reduce the leak detection burden for connectors. We are
also proposing revised recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.2525(e)
for Group 2 batch process vents that would eliminate recordkeeping in
certain situations and reduce the recordkeeping burden if non-reactive
HAP usage is less

than 10,000 pounds per year (lb/yr) or if emissions are less than 1,000
lb/yr, and we are proposing to eliminate the requirement to include
results of engineering assessments that determine emissions from batch
operations that have hazardous air pollutant (HAP) concentrations less
than 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in your precompliance
report.

II. How are we proposing to amend the compliance dates?

A. Existing Sources

    The Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP promulgated
on November 10, 2003, specifies that existing source must be in
compliance with the NESHAP no later than November 10, 2006.
Precompliance reports must be filed by May 10, 2006. We are proposing a
new compliance date of May 10, 2008, because the proposed amendments
are sufficiently far reaching and complex that an amended rule would
effectively be a new rule warranting a new compliance date and because
we do not anticipate finalizing the proposed amendments with sufficient
time for parties to comply with the amended rule, which set forth
provisions inconsistent with existing provisions.
    Section 112(a)(3) of the CAA provides that existing sources are to
be in compliance with applicable emission standards ``as expeditiously
as practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after the effective
date of such standard.'' The November 10, 2003, Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP specify a compliance date 3 years from
the issuance of that rule. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA provides
authority for the Administrator to revise the emission standards issued
under CAA section 112 ``no less often than every 8 years.'' We believe
the authority to revise the standards inherently includes the authority
to set new compliance dates for revised rules. Congress provided us
discretion to set a compliance date for existing sources of up to 3
years in order to provide time for retrofitting of controls where
necessary. Thus, due to the extensive nature of the proposed
amendments, we are proposing a new compliance date.
    We believe that 18 months from the otherwise applicable compliance
date will be sufficient for all sources to come into compliance with
the proposed amendments. However, should any source be unable to meet
that compliance date because of the need to install controls that
cannot be installed by that date, each source may request an extension
of up to 1 year in accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4) and (6).

B. Process Changes Resulting in New Compliance Requirements

    We are proposing to add language to 40 CFR 63.2445 to clarify when
compliance is required after making any of the following types of
process changes after the compliance date: Changing the status of any
emission point from Group 2 to Group 1, increasing uncontrolled
hydrogen halide and halogen emissions from all process vents within a
process above 1,000 lb/yr, increasing uncontrolled HAP metals emissions
from all process vents within a process at a new source above 150 lb/yr
(see discussion later in this preamble regarding the change from PM HAP
to HAP metals), or changing the status of a control device from small
to large. A large control device is a control device that has an inlet
HAP load equal to or greater than 10 tons per year (tpy), and a small
control device has an inlet HAP load less than 10 tpy.
    After making any of the noted process changes, information
presented in the notification of compliance status report demonstrating
initial compliance must be updated according to 40 CFR
63.2520(e)(10)(i). If the situations after any of the changes described
above had existed on the initial compliance date, a performance test
(or design evaluation in some cases) would have been required to
demonstrate initial compliance. Thus, a performance test or design
evaluation is also required to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
63.2520(e)(10)(i) after one of the noted process changes, and the
results must be included in the compliance report for the period during
which the change occurred. Compliance reports are due 2 months after
the end of a reporting period. This means a facility would have between
approximately 60 and 240 days, depending on when the change occurred
during the reporting period, to complete the performance test or design
evaluation and include it in the applicable report. We consider 60 days
to be insufficient, particularly for a performance test. Work on a
design evaluation could begin before the change occurs, but a
performance test cannot be conducted until the equipment is operating.
We also consider the potential variability in timing among sources to
be unreasonable. Therefore, we are proposing language in 40 CFR 63.2445
to specify that performance tests and design evaluations must be
conducted within 150 days after making one of the types of process
changes listed above. This timeframe is also consistent with the amount
of time allowed to complete these activities after the initial
compliance date and include the results in the notification of
compliance status report.
    Sections 63.2445(b) and (c) of the promulgated rule require
compliance with all applicable requirements no later than the
compliance date. If you make a process change after the compliance
date, this requirement means you must comply with all applicable
requirements for the changed situation beginning on the date the change
occurs. To clarify this requirement for the types of process changes
described above, we are proposing language in 40 CFR 63.2445 to
explicitly state that Group 1 requirements (e.g., emission limits in
table 2 to subpart FFFF for batch process vents) apply beginning on the
date of a change from Group 2 to Group 1, that applicable emission
limits in table 3 to subpart FFFF apply beginning on the date HAP
metals or hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions are increased above
applicable thresholds, and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
for large control devices apply beginning on the date a control device
changes status from small to large.

III. How are we proposing to amend the applicability requirements?

    We are proposing several changes to the applicability requirements,
particularly to clarify and add exceptions in order to make the
regulation consistent with our intent and the data underlying the
standards. Another change involves the boundary of a miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing process unit (MCPU) that produces a
solid product.

A. Compounding and Finishing Operations in Polymer Processes

    We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2435(c)(4) to clarify the
types of polymer finishing operations that are exempted from subpart
FFFF. Section 63.2435(c)(4) currently exempts only fabricating
operations (such as spinning a polymer to its end use). Another
finishing operation (compounding of purchased resins) is exempted by
the exemption in 40 CFR 63.2435(c)(5) for production activities
described using the 1997 version of NAICS code 325991. These exemptions
for finishing operations were included in the final rule due to the
minimal potential for emissions from such operations. After reviewing
this issue, we have determined that additional finishing operations can
be exempted for the same reason. Thus, the proposed

amendments to 40 CFR 63.2435(c)(4) would expand the exemption for
finishing operations to cover activities that can be classified as
fabricating, compounding, drawing, or extrusion operations, provided
they do not meet certain specified conditions. For example, the
exemption would not apply where residual monomer remains with some
polymers and an intended purpose of the finishing operation is to
remove the residual monomer. A finishing operation also would not be
exempt if it involves processing with HAP solvent (e.g., if a solid
polymer product is dissolved in a HAP solvent prior to the finishing
operation). These changes would make the exemptions consistent with the
exemptions in previous rules for polymer production processes such as
40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJ.
    As noted above, spinning a polymer into its end use is given as an
example of ``fabricating operations'' in the existing rule. To further
exemplify the meaning of this term, the proposed amendments provide
compressing a solid polymer into its end use as another example.
    The proposed amendments would exempt all compounding operations
with a previously produced solid polymer, not just compounding of
purchased resins as currently provided for in 40 CFR 63.2435(c)(5). The
compounding operation is the same whether it is done with purchased
resins or at the facility that produced the resins. Thus, there is no
reason to limit the exemption to compounding of purchased resins. To
clarify what we mean by ``compounding operations,'' the proposed
amendments describe them as ``blending, melting, and resolidification
of a solid polymer * * * for the purpose of incorporating additives,
colorants, or stabilizers.''
    The proposed amendments include a new exemption for extrusion and
drawing operations. These finishing operations are described in the
proposed amendments as operations that ``convert[] an already produced
solid polymer into a different shape by melting or mixing the polymer
and then forcing it or pulling it through an orifice to create an
extruded product.'' Note that this means some extrusion and drawing
operations are not exempt (in addition to those operations that are
intended to remove residual HAP monomer or involve processing with a
HAP solvent). Specifically, extrusion and drawing operations integral
to production of the solid polymer are part of a MCPU and are not
exempt.

B. Carbon Monoxide Production

    While carbon monoxide (CO) is an inorganic compound,\2\ petitioners
argued that the final rule was ambiguous whether CO production was
covered by the MON since it is included under NAICS category 325120,
and the MON has no exemption for CO production. While we did not intend
to cover CO production under the MON, it is not a HAP and thus not
subject to regulation under CAA section 112, we are proposing to
clarify the MON by adding a new 40 CFR 63.2435(c)(7) to specifically
exempt CO production processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Numerous government documents and technical references
identify CO as an inorganic compound. For example, the term
``volatile organic compounds'' is defined in 40 CFR 51.1000(s) as
``any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide * * * which
participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions.'' The
definition goes on to list compounds that have negligible
photochemical reactivity. Since CO was explicitly excluded, and it
is clearly volatile, the definition makes it clear that CO is not
considered to be an organic compound. In addition, Hawley's
Condensed Chemical Dictionary states that CO is classified as an
inorganic chemical, and the physical properties of CO are listed in
a table of inorganic compounds in the Chemical Engineers' Handbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Boundary of a Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Process
Unit That Produces a Solid Product

    A miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit is
defined in 40 CFR 63.2550(i) of the MON as ``all equipment which
collectively function to produce a product * * *'' The end of a process
is the point at which product is transferred to a storage tank or a
transfer rack because 40 CFR 63.2435(d) specifies that such equipment
is associated with a process (i.e., not part of the process), and it
may be part of the MCPU if it meets specified criteria. Both liquid and
solid products may be stored or transferred to shipping containers.
However, the definitions of ``storage tank'' and ``transfer rack''
explicitly refer to storage or transfer of organic liquids. Thus, it is
not clear if storage and transfer of solid products should be subject
to these definitions, if they are unit operations that are part of the
process, or if they are exempt from the final rule.
    To eliminate this ambiguity, we are proposing to revise the
definition of ``miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process''
in 40 CFR 63.2550(i) to specify the endpoint of a process that produces
a solid product. If the product is dried, the end of the process would
be the dryer. For a polymer production process without a dryer, the end
of the process would be the extruder or die plate. This is consistent
with the revisions to the exemption for polymer finishing operations
discussed above. There would be two exceptions to these endpoints. One
exception is if the dryer, extruder, or die plate is followed by
blending or another operation that is designed and operated to remove
HAP solvent or residual HAP monomer from the solid product. The second
exception is if the dried solid is mixed with a HAP-based solvent. In
both cases, the HAP removal operation would be the last step in the
process.

D. Applicability of the MON to Coke By-Product Plants

    One of the petitioners requested clarification as to the
applicability of the MON to coke by-product plants. On January 30,
2001, EPA deleted coke by-product plants from the list of major and
area sources of HAP required by CAA section 112(c)(1). (See 66 FR
8220.) Consequently, 40 CFR part 63 miscellaneous achievable control
technology (MACT) standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d), such
as the MON, would not apply to the deleted coke by-product plant source
category. Moreover, as EPA explained in 2001, coke by-product plants
remain subject to the pre-existing NESHAP for benzene emissions from
coke by-product recovery plants at 40 CFR part 61, subpart L. (See 66
FR at 8222.) EPA is not proposing any changes to the MON in order to
clarify this issue, as it is unnecessary to do so. Today's
clarification is wholly consistent with EPA's previous action in 2001
deleting the coke by-product plant source category.

IV. How are we proposing to amend the requirements for process vents?

A. Process Condensers

    We are proposing several changes to clarify the definition of
``process condenser,'' the procedures for calculating emissions when
process condensers are used, and related recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. We are proposing changes to the definition because we
have become aware of an inconsistency between the definition of that
term as it is used in the MON and the way industry representatives
interpreted the term when they were reporting uncontrolled emissions in
response to our information request in 1997. The inconsistency stems
from a difference in the interpretation of ``integral to a process.''
Companies considered condensers to be integral to a process if
collected material was returned to the process or used for fuel value,
whereas

we considered condensers to be integral only if they reduced the
temperature below the bubble point or boiling point. Thus, the
companies reported uncontrolled emissions at the outlet of more
condensers than we realized, which means the current regulatory
requirements do not align with the data that were used to develop the
MACT floor. The proposed revisions would correct this misalignment by
clarifying the term process condenser as described below.
    Section 63.2460(c)(1) of the current rule references the definition
of process condenser in 40 CFR 63.1251 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG
(the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP). According to this definition,
the primary purpose of a process condenser is to recover material as an
integral part of a process. To clarify what is meant by the terms
``recover'' and ``an integral part of a process,'' we are proposing to
create a freestanding (i.e., non-cross referenced) term ``process
condenser'' in 40 CFR 63.2550(i) of subpart FFFF. This proposed
definition would specify that ``a primary condenser or condensers in
series are considered to be integral to the MCPU if they are capable of
and normally used for the purposes of recovering chemicals for fuel
value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse or for sale for
fuel value, use, or reuse.'' The definition of process condenser in
subpart GGG also specified that a process condenser included a
condenser recovering condensate from a process at or above the boiling
point, and all condensers in line prior to a vacuum source. This part
of the definition is retained in the proposed definition for 40 CFR
63.2550(i).
    The new language related to ``recover'' and ``integral part of a
process'' is already used in the definition of ``recovery device'' in
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, that is referenced in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF, for continuous process vents. Thus, the proposed change
to the definition of process condenser makes it clear that the concept
of recovering chemicals with a condenser has similar meaning regardless
of whether the vent is associated with a batch unit operation or a
continuous unit operation. An important point to note is that the
proposed changes to the definition mean condensers cannot be recovery
devices for the purpose of complying with the 95 percent reduction
requirement specified in table 2 to subpart FFFF because any recovery
operation makes the condenser a process condenser. Condensers that are
not process condensers can still be control devices used alone or in
series with other control devices to comply with either the 98 percent
reduction or the outlet concentration option.
    We are also proposing additional changes to 40 CFR 63.2460(b) and
(c) to clarify procedures for calculating uncontrolled emissions
associated with process condensers. We are proposing to amend
paragraphs (1) and (2) in 40 CFR 63.2460(b) to clarify that the
referenced procedures for calculating uncontrolled emissions from
heating and depressurization events for batch process vents are only
for situations where the process vessel is not equipped with a process
condenser. We are proposing to add a new paragraph in 40 CFR 63.2460(b)
to provide the appropriate procedures for calculating uncontrolled
emissions for all types of emission episodes when a process vessel is
equipped with a process condenser.
    We are proposing to add regulatory text to 40 CFR 63.2460(c)
specifying that you must make the determination of whether a condenser
is a process condenser or air pollution control device as part of your
initial compliance demonstration, and you must report the results and
supporting rationale in your notification of compliance status report.
This determination is made on a process basis, which means a condenser
is either a process condenser for all gas streams from a given process,
or it is an air pollution control device for all gas streams from the
process. Furthermore, for nondedicated operations, this means a
condenser may be a process condenser for some processes and an air
pollution control device for others.
    Finally, we are proposing changes to the initial compliance
demonstration for process condensers to be consistent with the changes
in the definition. Section 63.2460(c)(2)(v) references the initial
compliance demonstration procedures in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B) for
process condensers that are not followed by an air pollution control
device or the air pollution control device is not in compliance with
the alternative standard. The procedures require you to either measure
the exhaust gas temperature and show it is less than the boiling or
bubble point of the substances in the process vessel or perform a
material balance around the vessel and condenser to show that at least
99 percent of the material vaporized while boiling is condensed. To be
consistent with the proposed definition of process condenser, we are
also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(2)(v) to specify that this
demonstration is only required for process condensers that are used
with boiling operations (at least part of the time), and that the
demonstration must be performed while boiling operations are occurring.

B. Requirements for HAP Metal Compounds

    Table 3 to the final rule specifies emission limits for particulate
matter (PM) HAP emissions from process vents at new sources, but the
final rule does not define ``PM HAP.'' After reexamining this
provision, we decided to propose a number of changes to table 3 and the
corresponding compliance procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.2465(d).
These proposed amendments focus the emission limit on metallic HAP
compounds and clarify compliance requirements for metallic HAP.
    Our intent in setting the PM HAP emission limit in table 3 to the
final rule was to ensure the control of metallic PM HAP emissions.
Organic compounds that are emitted as solids are separately addressed
by the emission limits for organic compounds (see tables 1 and 2 of
subpart FFFF). The term PM HAP, and associated measurement and
monitoring techniques, however, does not clearly capture this intent.
Accordingly, to clarify this point, we are proposing a number of
changes. First, we are proposing to revise table 3 in the rule to
specify emission limits for ``HAP metals'' rather than ``PM HAP.'' This
does not impact the substance of the final rule as uncontrolled HAP
metals must still be reduced by 97 percent, identical to the reduction
specified for PM HAP in the final rule. Second, the term ``HAP metals''
would be defined in 40 CFR 63.2550(i) to mean the metal portion of
antimony compounds, arsenic compounds, beryllium compounds, cadmium
compounds, chromium compounds, cobalt compounds, lead compounds,
manganese compounds, nickel compounds, and selenium compounds. Third,
the emissions threshold above which control is required would be
changed from 400 lb/yr of PM HAP (i.e., compounds that contain metals)
to 150 lb/yr of HAP metals. Fourth, to determine the uncontrolled
emissions of HAP metals, we are proposing to allow the use of process
knowledge, engineering assessments, or test data. If you do not wish to
determine the uncontrolled emissions, we are proposing to allow you to
designate the HAP metals emissions as greater than 150 lb/yr. Finally,
to demonstrate initial compliance with the 97 percent reduction
requirement for the HAP metals, we are proposing to allow the use of
Method 29 of appendix A of 40

CFR part 60 as well as Method 5 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
    The proposed definition of ``HAP metals'' and the revised emissions
threshold are based on the metal portion of the compounds rather than
the total mass of the compounds that contain metals simply to clarify
that the threshold does not include non-HAP particulate matter. The
revised threshold was developed using the same process that was used to
develop the original threshold for the MACT floor. This process emitted
400 lb/yr of manganese sulfate. Since manganese sulfate is about 36
percent manganese by weight, the amount of manganese emitted was about
150 lb/yr. Method 29 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 allows you to
determine the quantity of each HAP metal at the inlet and outlet of the
control device(s). However, since controls for PM would also control
the HAP metals, a second option is to use Method 5 of appendix A of 40
CFR part 60 to determine the quantity of PM at the inlet and outlet of
the control device(s).

C. Compliance Requirements for Process Tanks

    As defined in 40 CFR 63.2550(i), batch process vents include
process tanks. Table 2 to subpart FFFF requires reduction of HAP from
batch process vents by greater than or equal to 98 percent, or 95
percent if HAP is recovered and reused onsite. As currently written,
however, the recovery option is restricted to situations where there is
a closed-vent system and a recovery device. Such a system, however, is
not the only option for preventing loss of product. Floating roof
technology achieves 95 percent or greater reductions by preventing
evaporation. Thus, it is a pollution prevention control technology that
meets the intent of the 95 percent recovery option for batch process
vents in table 2 to subpart FFFF.
    Indeed, several rules, such as the hazardous organic NESHAP (HON)
and the new source performance standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb,
specify that emissions from storage tanks must be reduced using an
internal or external floating roof or by venting the emissions through
a closed-vent system to a control device that reduces the emissions by
at least 95 percent. To allow floating roof technology to comply with
batch process tanks we are revising table 2 to subpart FFFF to
reference the requirements of subpart WW of this part for any process
tank. In addition, to make the referenced language consistent with
process vent requirements, we propose adding regulatory text in 40 CFR
63.2460(c) specifying that when subpart WW uses the term ``storage
vessel,'' it means ``process tank'' for the purposes of 40 CFR 63.2460.

D. Provisions for Switching Batch Process Vents From Group 2 to Group 1

    We are proposing to add a new 40 CFR 63.2460(b)(6) to specify that
a performance test report (or design evaluation, if emissions are
controlled by a small control device) must be submitted in the next
compliance report whenever you switch from Group 2 batch process vents
to Group 1. This requirement is inherent in the existing rule because
an initial compliance demonstration is required for Group 1 vents but
not Group 2 vents. The proposed language simply makes more explicit
this requirement. Also see the discussion earlier in this preamble
regarding compliance dates for emission points that switch from Group 2
to Group 1.
    We are also proposing to include language in the new 40 CFR
63.2460(b)(6) to clarify the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
associated with making a switch from Group 2 to Group 1. Section
63.2520(e)(10)(ii)(C) currently requires a 60-day advance notification
of any change in status from Group 2 to Group 1. The primary reason for
this notification is that it alerts the regulatory authority to a
situation where a performance test (or design evaluation) will be
needed. However, we realize that certain facilities have frequent
turnover in their batch production processes, and it can be difficult
to predict 60 days in advance which new processes will grow to the
point that they have Group 1 batch process vents. To minimize this
burden, we are proposing to eliminate the advance notification
requirement if records show the process has been in compliance with the
10,000 lb/yr threshold for Group 2 batch process vents for at least 365
days prior to the switch (on a rolling average). For these processes,
we believe it will be sufficient to receive notification of the switch
in the next compliance report. The existing requirement for a 60-day
advance notification of a switch would still apply if the process has
not been operated for at least one year with Group 2 batch process
vents. See discussion later in this preamble regarding the related
changes to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(10).

E. Definition of Batch Process Vent

    We are proposing minor changes to clarify the threshold levels
specified in the definition of ``batch process vent.'' Although these
changes will not change the thresholds or the intended meaning of the
definition, we are including a detailed explanation in this preamble of
how to apply the thresholds to ensure that the revised language is
interpreted as we intended. We are also proposing to make a separate
change to reduce the burden of demonstrating whether emission streams
exceed these thresholds and, thus, constitute batch process vents.
    Item number 8 in the definition of batch process vent specifies two
HAP thresholds below which emission streams are not a batch process
vent. The first threshold is 50 ppmv of HAP. This threshold applies to
the emission stream from each individual emission episode (e.g., a
displacement, purge, vacuum operation, etc.). If the average HAP
concentration over the episode is less than 50 ppmv, then the emission
stream is not a batch process vent. The second threshold is 200 lb/yr
of HAP. This threshold applies to the collective emissions from a
single vent (i.e., release point); including releases below the 50 ppmv
threshold. Note that HAP concentration is not necessarily required for
determination of the single vent emission rate. If the total HAP
emissions for a vent are less than 200 lb/yr, then that vent is not a
batch process vent, and none of the emission streams that discharge
from it are subject to requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF.
The vent in this determination may be for a single unit operation that
has multiple emission episodes. On the other hand, if you connect the
vents from multiple unit operations to a manifold and discharge
combined emissions at one point, then the discharge point is the vent
for the purposes of this determination. Note that the HAP in emission
streams that are exempted by this determination (either because they
are individually below the 50 ppmv threshold or because the total
emissions from the vent are below the 200 lb/year threshold) do not
need to be counted towards the 10,000 lb/yr threshold in the
determination of whether batch process vents are Group 1 batch process
vents.
    The following example provides a simple illustration of how to
apply these thresholds. Consider operations in a single vessel that
generate HAP emissions from three emission episodes: the first contains
HAP at >50 ppmv that amounts to 180 lb/yr when summed over all of the
batches for the process in a year, the second contains HAP at < 50 ppmv
and 20 lb/yr, and the third contains < 50 ppmv and 250 lb/yr. A batch
process vent exists for this vessel

because total emissions exceed 200 lb/yr and the first emission episode
has a HAP concentration >50 ppmv. Note that only the first emission
episode meets the definition of batch process vent. In addition, only
the 180 lb/yr from the first emission episode must be added with
emissions from other batch process vents to determine if total
emissions from the process meet the 10,000 lb/yr threshold. If the
example were changed slightly to have a manifolded vent with emissions
from both this vessel and other operations within the process, your
manifolded vent would be a batch process vent (regardless of the
contribution from the other operations) because the total HAP emissions
from the original vessel alone exceed the 200 lb/yr threshold, and an
emission episode from the vessel exceeds 50 ppmv.
    Other proposed changes to the definition involve the procedures for
conducting and reporting the results of an engineering assessment to
determine the HAP concentration or mass emission rate for emission
streams that will be exempt from control because it is determined that
HAP is present at a concentration less than 50 ppmv or a mass emission
rate less than 200 lb/yr. Item 8 in the current definition specifies
that you may determine the concentration or mass emission rate using an
engineering assessment as discussed in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii) of
subpart GGG. According to the referenced provision, you could use an
engineering assessment only if you first demonstrate that the equations
in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) are not applicable. You would also have to
provide the results and supporting information in your precompliance
report for this finding as well as for the engineering assessment that
you want to use.
    Since promulgation, it has been brought to our attention that many
emission streams from batch operations in MON processes are likely to
have HAP emissions below the specified thresholds. As a result, this
provision is likely to impose a substantial burden on both affected
sources and regulatory agencies. We have determined that such an
expenditure of resources on documenting and approving procedures used
to estimate emissions from these minor sources imposes an unreasonable
regulatory burden relative to the additional precision potential
achieved by using the equations in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i).
    To minimize this burden, we are proposing changes to item 8 of the
definition of batch process vent and to related precompliance reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 63.2520(c)(4). One new provision in the
definition of batch process vent would specify that you do not have to
demonstrate that the equations in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i) are not
appropriate before you may use an engineering assessment, and the
second would specify that the precompliance reporting requirements
specified in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(ii)(E) do not apply for the purposes
of demonstrating compliance with the applicable threshold. One of the
proposed changes to 40 CFR 63.2520(c)(4) would eliminate the
requirement to include data and results from an engineering assessment
in your precompliance report if you determine the HAP concentration is
less than 50 ppmv. We believe that this reporting requirement can be
eliminated without compromising the regulatory agency's ability to
determine compliance; documenting these results in your notification of
compliance status report will be sufficient. Another proposed change to
40 CFR 63.2520(c)(4) would eliminate the requirement to include the
results of an engineering assessment that is based on previous test
data in your precompliance report. Results based on test data do not
need to be approved by the regulatory agency, and we believe that
documenting these results in your notification of compliance status
report will be sufficient.

F. Definitions of Continuous Process Vent and Related Terms

    In the existing rule, only air oxidation reactors, distillation
units, and reactors can have continuous process vents because the
definition of this term in 40 CFR 63.2550(i) references the criteria in
40 CFR 63.107 of the HON. We are proposing to revise this definition to
specify that it applies to any continuous unit operation for the
purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. We determined that this
change is needed because the data we used to develop the MACT floor for
continuous process vents was not limited to air oxidation reactors,
distillation units, and reactors.
    We also re-examined the data to determine if any distinct class of
continuous process vents, such as atmospheric dryers, would have a
different MACT floor than other classes or the combined group of all
continuous process vents. We concluded that developing separate MACT
floors would be infeasible because data were sparse and inadequate to
develop separate floors. However, the data we have indicates that
several atmospheric dryers, which are not considered continuous vents
in the current rule, have emission characteristics that are
sufficiently similar to other continuous process vents in our database
such that they should be included in the definition of continuous
process vents.
    We are also proposing to add another provision to the continuous
process vent definition to provide that the determination of whether a
gas stream is a continuous process vent must be made at a point before
the combination of the gas stream with any other gas streams from
process operations. As currently written, when continuous flow gas
streams from continuous operations are combined with other gas streams,
40 CFR 63.107(b) would allow determination of whether the combined
stream is a continuous process vent. This is inconsistent with our
intent that continuous process vents and batch process vents be
separate, distinct streams. This intent is evident in the hierarchical
provisions in 40 CFR 63.2450(c) for determining applicable requirements
for combined streams. The proposed change would eliminate this
inconsistency and ensure the rule is implemented consistent with our
intent.
    Surge control vessels are used in a process to transition from one
operation to another. Consistent with the current definition of
continuous process vent, the existing definition in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF describes surge control vessels as vessels that precede
continuous reactors, air oxidation reactors, and distillation units
(i.e., the only operations that have continuous process vents under the
existing rule). If the universe of continuous process vents expands as
proposed above, then a comparable change is needed in the definition of
surge control vessel. To maintain consistency, we are proposing to use
the term ``continuous operations'' in place of the reference to
reactors, air oxidation reactors, and distillation units in the
definition of surge control vessel. The term ``continuous operation''
is not defined in the existing rule. However, since the final rule
already contains a definition for the term ``batch operation,'' we are
proposing to define a continuous operation as any MON operation that is
not a batch operation.

G. Definition of Group 1 Continuous Process Vent

    We are proposing to revise the definition of ``Group 1 continuous
process vent'' by adding an exemption for continuous process vents with
a flow less than 0.005 standard cubic meter per minute, which was
inadvertently excluded from the MON. This error occurred because rather
than referencing the definition in 40 CFR 63.111 of the HON, we decided
to specifically define this term in 40 CFR 63.2550(i) of subpart FFFF
because the

definition is short and the key element of the definition, the total
resource effectiveness (TRE) threshold, differs between the two rules.
While our intent was that other elements of the definition would be the
same as in the HON we neglected to include the flowrate threshold. The
proposed amendment corrects this oversight.
    We believe this correction is appropriate in part because the HON
and other NESHAP that also use the same threshold often apply to the
same facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. Thus,
making the definitions more consistent between the rules may reduce
both the burden on the affected sources and the potential for
inadvertent deviations from requirements.

H. Requirements for Biofilter Control Devices

    Interest in using biofilters to control emissions is growing.
Therefore, we are proposing to specify that biofilter control devices
may be used to comply with the 95 percent reduction option (or outlet
concentration limit) for batch process vents. We are also proposing to
add a definition for biofilter in 40 CFR 63.2550(i) that is consistent
with the definition used in subpart DDDD to part 63 (Plywood and
Composite Wood Products NESHAP). Although biofilters are not recovery
devices, we are proposing to allow their use for complying with the 95
percent option because they have the ability to meet this limit and
they have few cross media impacts.
    In addition to specifying that biofilters may be used to comply
with the emission limit for batch process vents, we are also proposing
initial compliance and monitoring requirements. Initial compliance
would have to be demonstrated by conducting a performance test
according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.997. A design
evaluation would not be allowed because we do not have information on
the design characteristics that could be used to demonstrate proper
operation and maximum performance of biofilters. You would also have to
establish operating limits for either the biofilter bed temperature or
the outlet organic concentration based on continuous monitoring
conducted during the performance test. Extremes in temperature can slow
or halt microbial activity. Thus, monitoring temperature helps
determine the health of the microorganism population.
    If you elect to measure temperature, you would be allowed to place
multiple thermocouples in representative locations throughout the
biofilter bed and determine the average from these readings before
determining 15-minute or more frequent averages. As for other types of
control devices, you would be able to develop the operating limits
based on results of a previous performance test that meets all of the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.997 and achieves the required reduction.
However, we are proposing to require that the operating limits be based
only on these measurements. Engineering assessments and manufacturer's
recommendations could not be used to supplement the test data. You
would also be required to conduct repeat performance tests within 2
years following each previous test and within 150 days after each
replacement of any portion of the biofilter bed media with a different
type of media or each replacement of more than 50 percent (by volume)
of the biofilter bed media with the same type of media.
    Monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limit would be required for the same parameter measured during the
performance test. The continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS)
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.996 and 40 CFR
63.998 would apply to temperature monitors, and the continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) monitoring requirements in subpart A of 40 CFR
part 63 would apply to organic monitoring devices.

I. Emission Limit for Hydrogen Halide and Halogen HAP From Process
Vents

    We are proposing to add a halogen atom mass flow rate emission
limit of 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) as an alternative to the
current emission limits that require either a 99 percent reduction or
control to an outlet concentration limit of 20 ppmv because we
inadvertently neglected to include it in the final rule. This control
option is already available for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
emissions generated by combusting halogenated organic vent streams, and
there is no reason not to include it for hydrogen halide and halogen
HAP emissions from process vents. This control option also would make
the requirements for hydrogen halide and halogen HAP consistent with
the requirements for combusting halogenated organic vent streams. The
amendment will allow operators with halogenated Group 1 streams also
containing greater than 1,000 pounds per year halides to use the 0.45
kg/yr control option for combustion devices.

V. How are we proposing to amend the requirements for wastewater
systems?

A. Definitions of Wastewater and Group 1 Wastewater

    We are proposing several changes to the criteria for Group 1
wastewater in 40 CFR 63.2485(c) to address inconsistencies identified
by industry regarding concentration thresholds for partially soluble
HAP (PSHAP compounds in table 8 to subpart FFFF) and soluble HAP (SHAP
compounds in table 9 to subpart FFFF). We are also proposing to change
the HAP threshold in one set of criteria for Group 1 wastewater at a
new source due to uncertainty regarding the performance at the source
originally identified as the best performing source.
    The three sets of criteria in the final rule are as follows:
     The total annual average concentration of compounds in
table 8 to this subpart is greater than 50 parts per million by weight
(ppmw), and the combined total annual average concentration of
compounds in tables 8 and 9 to this subpart is greater than or equal to
10,000 ppmw at any flowrate.
     The total annual average concentration of compounds in
table 8 to this subpart is greater than 50 ppmw, the combined total
annual average concentration of compounds in tables 8 and 9 to this
subpart is greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw, and the annual average
flowrate is greater than or equal to 1 1/min.
     The total annual average concentration of compounds in
table 8 to this subpart is less than or equal to 50 ppmw, the total
annual average concentration of compounds in table 9 to this subpart is
greater than or equal to 30,000 ppmw at an existing source or greater
than or equal to 4,500 ppmw at a new source, and the total annual load
of compounds in table 9 to this subpart is greater than or equal to 1
tpy.
    The originally proposed wastewater provisions (67 FR 16154; April
4, 2002) closely followed the provisions in the HON, including Group 1
applicability determinations based on the total HAP in the wastewater
streams. In response to comments on the proposed rule, we decided to
develop the Group 1 criteria listed above based on SHAP and PSHAP,
which is analogous to the approach used in the Pharmaceuticals
Production NESHAP. By carving out streams that contain only soluble HAP
but continuing to look at total HAP in all other streams, we created an
inconsistency that became apparent only after promulgation of the rule.
Specifically, a wastewater stream with less than 30,000 ppmw of SHAP
would

not be Group 1 if no PSHAP was present, however, it would be Group 1 if
there was at least 50 ppmw of PSHAP and 10,000 ppmw of total HAP. We
are now proposing additional changes to the Group 1 criteria to more
closely match the format used in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP.
    We are proposing to make the lower concentration thresholds (i.e.,
1,000 ppmw and 10,000 ppmw) for PSHAP rather than total HAP, and to
make the higher concentration threshold (i.e., 30,000 ppmw) for total
HAP rather than SHAP. We are also proposing a PSHAP mass load threshold
for the streams with at least 10,000 ppmw of PSHAP because the other
two sets of criteria listed above and the Group 1 criteria in the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP also have minimum mass load
thresholds. The proposed level is 200 lb/yr, which is calculated using
10,000 ppmw and an average annual flow of 0.02 1/min.
    We are also proposing to amend the third set of criteria for Group
1 wastewater streams by changing the total PSHAP and SHAP threshold for
new sources from 4,500 ppmw to 30,000 ppmw. The original threshold was
based on the lowest methanol concentration in a stream that was sent to
a treatment unit that operated at a performance level equivalent to the
level required in the HON; this was determined to be the best
performing source. The stream that was determined to meet these
conditions had a concentration of 4,500 ppmw, and it was sent to an air
stripper (followed by incineration of the overhead gas stream).
However, since promulgation of the final rule, questions have been
raised about whether such a system is at least equivalent to the design
steam stripper option in the HON (i.e., the treatment part of the MACT
floor for wastewater at MON sources). Without actual test data for the
specific facility, we are unable to determine that the performance of
an air stripper system is more efficient than a design steam stripper
for a soluble HAP like methanol. Therefore, we removed the facility
with the 4,500 ppmw concentration from our new source analysis. The
best performing source in the revised analysis has a wastewater stream
with a methanol concentration of 30,000 ppmw. Therefore, we are
proposing to use this concentration as the threshold for new sources.
    A few of the streams in our database would no longer be Group 1
streams under the revised criteria, and a few other streams are now
Group 1 based on a different set of criteria. The changes do not affect
the MACT floor determinations. Overall performance of the final rule
for the streams in our database may be reduced by the slight reduction
in the number in Group 1 streams. However, most of the streams that are
no longer Group 1 are at facilities that still have other Group 1
streams that will need to be controlled, and only one of the remaining
streams has a load over 200 lb/yr.

B. Management Requirements for Wastewater That Is Group 1 for Soluble
HAP

    We are proposing to add an alternative compliance option in a new
40 CFR 63.2485(n) for wastewater streams that are Group 1 for soluble
HAP and receive biological treatment. Under the proposed option, you
would not be required to comply with the emission suppression
requirements (i.e., covers) for an equalization unit, neutralization
unit, or clarifier prior to the activated sludge unit, provided you
demonstrate that the treatment system achieves at least 90 percent
destruction of the total PSHAP and SHAP entering the equalization unit
(or whichever unit is first in the series of units). In addition to the
load from streams that are Group 1 for soluble HAP, this total must
include the PSHAP and SHAP in all Group 2 streams from MCPU that are
sent to the biotreatment unit. If your wastewater stream is Group 1 for
PSHAP as well as SHAP (i.e., the stream meets the criteria specified in
40 CFR 63.2485(c)(1) or (2) as well as the criteria in 40 CFR
63.2485(c)(3)), you may elect to meet the requirements specified in
table 7 to subpart FFFF for the PSHAP in the stream and then comply
with this new option for the remaining SHAP.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with this alternative, use the
new equation 1 in 40 CFR 63.2485(n)(2) and comply with the following
requirements. First, use the procedures specified in 40 CFR
63.145(f)(1) and (2) to estimate the flow rate and PSHAP and SHAP
concentrations at the inlet to the equalization unit under
representative conditions, and use these data to calculate the mass
flow rate of total PSHAP and SHAP into the equalization unit. Second,
use EPA's WATER9 model to estimate emissions from the equalization
unit, neutralization unit, and clarifier. Note that you must also
conduct testing or use other procedures to validate the modeling
results, and the data and results of the validation demonstration must
be included in your notification of compliance status report. Third,
subtract the estimated emissions from the inlet mass flow rate of total
PSHAP and SHAP to the equalization unit to estimate the total PSHAP and
SHAP load to the activated sludge unit. Fourth, determine the fraction
biodegraded in the activated sludge unit using the procedures specified
in 40 CFR 63.145(h). Note that you may assume all of the PSHAP and SHAP
entering the activated sludge unit is biodegraded (i.e.,
Fbio=1) if the biological treatment unit meets the
definition of an ``enhanced biological treatment unit'' and at least 99
percent by weight of the total PSHAP and SHAP at the inlet to the
equalization unit are compounds on list 1 of table 36 in 40 CFR part
63, subpart G. Alternatively, if your wastewater contains only a small
amount of PSHAP, you may elect to assume that none of it is biodegraded
in the activated sludge unit (i.e., fbio=0). Finally,
multiply together the fraction biodegraded and the HAP load at the
inlet to the activated sludge unit. If this value is more than 90
percent of the load to the equalization unit, then you have
demonstrated initial compliance.
    We are also proposing to change the venting requirements for lift
stations as part of this option. The final rule currently specifies
that venting to the atmosphere is allowed for lift stations that are
filled and emptied by gravity flow or that operate with no more than
slight fluctuations in the liquid level, provided the vent pipe is at
least 90 centimeters in length and 10.2 centimeters in nominal inside
diameter. The proposed option would allow any openings necessary for
proper venting of the lift station because we understand that the
specified vent pipe criteria may be too small to allow for proper
operation of large lift stations.
    Requirements for all waste management units prior to the
equalization unit, except for lift stations as noted above, are as
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart G. Similarly, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for the activated sludge unit
are unchanged from the requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G.
    We are proposing the new compliance option because we believe it
will achieve comparable or better control than existing requirements.
The 90 percent destruction efficiency is higher than the required
fraction removed for most SHAP, particularly methanol, which is by far
the most common SHAP. Furthermore, this destruction efficiency is
likely comparable to the overall destruction that would be achieved if
the emission limit were met using a design steam stripper, and effluent
from the steam stripper were discharged to a sewer and biological
treatment unit that

is not in compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.

C. Discarding Materials to Water or Wastewater

    Section 63.132(f) of the HON, which is referenced from table 7 to
subpart FFFF, states that liquid or solid organic materials (except for
certain exempted materials) with HAP concentrations >10,000 ppmw may
not be discarded to water or wastewater unless the receiving stream is
treated as Group 1 wastewater. The concentration in this provision is
consistent with the threshold for Group 1 wastewater in the HON. Since
the thresholds for Group 1 wastewater streams in subpart FFFF differ
from those in the HON, we are proposing to add a new paragraph (m) in
40 CFR 63.2485 to revise the meaning of 40 CFR 63.132(f) for the
purposes of subpart FFFF. To match the threshold for Group 1 wastewater
specified in 40 CFR 63.2485(c), as modified in amendments described
above, the proposed amendment would specify that 40 CFR 63.132(f)
applies to materials with a concentration greater than 30,000 ppmw of
total PSHAP and SHAP or greater than 10,000 ppmw of PSHAP.

D. Compliance Requirements

    We are proposing to add two requirements in new 40 CFR 63.2485(o)
to make the recordkeeping requirements for monitoring devices used with
control devices for wastewater emissions consistent with the
requirements for the same monitoring devices used with control devices
for other emissions. First, we are proposing to require that you keep
records of all periods during which a pilot flame monitor is not
operating. This record is required in 40 CFR 63.998(c)(ii)(C), but it
is not included in the referenced sections of subpart G that specify
requirements for wastewater systems. Second, we are proposing to
require that you keep records as specified in 40 CFR 63.998(c)(1) for
CPMS used with nonflare control devices because comparable records are
not required in the referenced sections of subpart G. They are required
in subpart A to part 63, but table 12 to subpart FFFF specifies that
those sections of subpart A do not apply to subpart FFFF because
subpart FFFF relies on comparable provisions in subpart SS of this
part.

E. Definition of Wastewater

    We are proposing three editorial changes to clarify the definition
of ``wastewater.'' According to the current definition, water must be
discarded from an MCPU through a ``single POD'' to be wastewater. We
understand that this term has caused confusion because it could be
interpreted to mean that an MCPU with multiple points of determination
(POD) does not have wastewater. To clarify the requirement, we are
proposing to delete the word ``single.'' The intended meaning is that
all water-containing discharges through a single point from a given
MCPU (e.g., a recovery device) are considered to be a single wastewater
stream.
    Another part of the definition specifies concentrations of
compounds in ``Tables 8 or 9.'' We are proposing to replace this phrase
with ``Tables 8 and 9'' to clarify that the thresholds are based on the
concentration of total PSHAP and SHAP, not the separate amounts of
PSHAP and SHAP.
    Finally, we are proposing to clarify the definition of wastewater
by specifying that wastewater means process wastewater or maintenance
wastewater. This language is also used in the definition of wastewater
in the HON, and it clarifies that these are the only types of streams
that are wastewater. Streams that are 100 percent organic by-product or
waste are not wastewater because they contain no water.

VI. How are we proposing to amend the requirements for equipment leaks?

    We are proposing to restructure the equipment leak requirements for
existing sources to simplify applicability without impacting the
overall level of control achieved by the leak detection and repair
(LDAR) program for the MON. We are achieving this improvement by
adopting a single beyond-the-floor standard covering both continuous
and batch process vents consisting of the requirements in 40 CFR part
63, subpart UU, except that you may elect to comply with sensory
monitoring requirements for connectors. This consolidated approach
differs from the final rule, which requires compliance with the LDAR
program specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, if an MCPU has any
continuous process vents (i.e., a beyond-the-floor requirement), and it
requires compliance with the LDAR program in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
TT, (i.e., the MACT floor) for MCPU that have no continuous process
vents.\3\ The net effect of these changes is to eliminate the
requirement of EPA Method 21 monitoring of connectors for processes
with a continuous process vent, requiring sensory monitoring instead,
while simultaneously lowering the detection limit for pumps and valves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The LDAR program in 40 CFR part 65, subpart F, the
Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR), is also an option for any
process. The proposed amendments to 40 CFR 63.2480 include
comparable exceptions to the requirements for connectors for the
CAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We decided to propose these changes after we reanalyzed the data in
light of an alternative beyond-the floor standard suggested by
Petitions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A number of Petitioners argued that in light of Arteva
Specialties S.R.R.L., d/b/a KoSa v. EPA, 323 F.3d 1088, 1092 (D.C.
Cir. 2003), we must review impacts of LDAR monitoring requirements
on an individual component basis and not on an LDAR program basis.
They urged that we adopt the standard we are proposing today on the
basis of such an analysis. While we disagree with Petitioner's
assessment of Arteva, we note that if their position were correct
the standard we are proposing today would be identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the analysis used to select the program in the final rule,
we also looked at more stringent alternatives, including requiring
adoption of 40 CFR part, subpart UU, for all vents, but for this
industry the incremental reductions are marginal. Accordingly, we
rejected adopting an even tighter beyond-the-floor standard.
    We believe that overall these revisions will reduce regulatory
burdens. While the lower leak definition should result in
identification of additional leaking components in batch processes,
thus requiring additional time and materials to repair leaking valves
and pumps this increased burden should be more than offset by the
decrease in burden achieved by eliminating instrument monitoring for
connectors in processes with continuous process vents. Furthermore,
some facilities with batch processes are likely to experience a
reduction in burden associated with complying with the equipment leak
requirements because they also have processes with continuous process
vents.
    Another change under the proposed amendments to the equipment leak
requirements is that you would not be required to develop an initial
list of connector identification numbers as otherwise required in 40
CFR 63.1022(b)(1). We are proposing this change to the connector
identification requirements because 40 CFR 63.1029 does not require you
to calculate the percentage of all connectors that are leaking, and it
does not include any other requirements that depend on an
identification of specific connectors.

VII. How are we proposing to amend the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements?

A. Processes With Uncontrolled Emissions Below the Thresholds for
Control

    We are proposing a number of changes to the recordkeeping

requirements in 40 CFR 63.2525(e) to clarify the requirements and
reduce the burden associated with ongoing compliance demonstrations for
processes that do not meet the annual mass emission rate thresholds for
control of process vent emissions. The final rule currently requires
four records for a process if either uncontrolled organic HAP emissions
from the sum of all batch process vents within the process are less
than 10,000 lb/yr (i.e., Group 2 batch process vents) or uncontrolled
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions from the sum of all batch and
continuous process vents are less than 1,000 lb/yr. The four records
are: (1) A record of the day on which each batch was completed; (2) a
record of whether each batch operated was considered a standard batch;
(3) the estimated uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each
nonstandard batch; and (4) records of the daily 365-day rolling
summation of emissions, or alternative records that correlate to the
emissions (such as the cumulative number of batches). No records are
required if you document in your notification of compliance status
report that the process does not process, use, or produce HAP.
    After re-examining these requirements, we determined that
recordkeeping could be eliminated where emissions from a Group 2 batch
vent are being controlled as if they are being emitted from a Group 1
batch process vent. In such case, keeping records to demonstrate that
you are below the thresholds is necessary. To implement this change, we
are amending 40 CFR 63.987 to provide that you need not comply with the
reporting requirements if either of two conditions are met. One of
these conditions is if you control Group 2 batch process vents using a
flare that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 63.987. There is no need in
this case to keep records demonstrating that emissions remain below the
threshold for control because you would have been complying with the
requirements for Group 1 batch process vents at all times, i.e., you
are in fact controlling emissions from the process with a flare. The
second condition under which no recordkeeping would be required is if
you control Group 2 batch process vents using a control device that
meets the requirements for Group 1 vents specified in table 2 to
subpart FFFF and for which your determination of worst case for initial
compliance includes the contribution of all Group 2 batches. In this
case, just like when the control device is a flare, the emissions are
always controlled as if they are from Group 1 vents. Thus, there is no
need to maintain records that show whether or not the emissions remain
below the threshold for control.
    We also determined that it is appropriate to reduce recordkeeping
requirements under circumstances where we can be confident that the
relevant thresholds cannot be exceeded. Specifically, we believe that
recordkeeping and reporting are appropriate where: (1) If non-reactive
organic HAP usage is less than 10,000 lb/yr (i.e., solvents and
impurities in raw materials that pass through the process without
participating in reactions), and (2) if total uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions from the batch process vents in an MCPU are less than 1,000
lb/yr.
    We are proposing two changes that would reduce the initial and
ongoing compliance burden for processes with total non-reactive organic
HAP usage less than 10,000 lb/yr. First, we are proposing to add a new
40 CFR 63.2460(b)(7) to specify that, as an alternative to determining
the uncontrolled batch process vent emissions, you may elect to
document in your notification of compliance status report that the non-
reactive organic HAP usage is less than 10,000 lb/yr. We are proposing
this change to address impurities. There is no need to calculate the
emissions if the total non-reactive HAP usage itself is less than the
emissions threshold, and the MCPU does not process, use, or produce any
other organic HAP. The second proposed amendment would reduce the
recordkeeping requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2525(e). If non-
reactive organic HAP usage is expected to be less than 10,000 lb/yr,
then simply tracking the consumption of the HAP material would be
sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this threshold. Therefore,
the proposed amendments would require you to keep records of the amount
of non-reactive organic HAP material used and to calculate the daily
rolling annual sum of the amount used; you would be allowed to collect
and maintain the necessary data for up to one month before actually
performing each of the daily calculations. In a new 40 CFR
63.2520(e)(5)(iv), the proposed amendments also would require you to
include records for each calculation that shows usage exceeded 10,000
lb/yr in your next compliance report. If you exceed the 10,000 lb/yr
usage threshold, you must begin keeping the standard records for Group
2 batch process vents for at least one year. After at least 1 year with
usage below 10,000 lb, you could return to recording only usage. We
limited this option to non-reactive HAP to keep the recordkeeping
simple.
    We recognize that many MCPU may have only trace amounts of HAP, yet
they still generate emissions from batch operations that exceed either
the 50 ppmv or 200 lb/yr threshold in the definition of a batch process
vent. Some of these MCPU also may have estimated emissions well below
the 10,000 lb/yr threshold for Group 1 batch process vents. As the
final rule is currently written, you are required to keep the records
specified in 40 CFR 63.2525(e) regardless of the actual annual emission
rate from the batch process vents. We have determined that these
records are unnecessary if the anticipated emissions are sufficiently
low because it would be virtually impossible to exceed the 10,000 lb/yr
threshold by operating nonstandard batches. Therefore, we are proposing
to add a provision in 40 CFR 63.2525(e) that reduces the recordkeeping
burden for MCPU with anticipated batch process vent emissions less than
1,000 lb/yr. For these MCPU you would be required to document in your
notification of compliance status report that the total uncontrolled
organic HAP emissions from the batch process vents in the MCPU will be
less than 1,000 lb/yr for the anticipated number of batches operated.
You would also be required to keep records of the number of batches
operated and to calculate a daily rolling annual sum of the batches
operated. Similar to the proposed amendment for MCPU with non-reactive
organic HAP usage rates less than 10,000 lb/yr, you would be allowed to
collect the necessary data for up to one month before performing all of
the required daily calculations. Finally, you would be required to
include the applicable records in your next compliance report for each
calculation that shows the actual number of batches operated exceeds
the number specified in your notification of compliance status report.
If any record shows you exceeded the 1,000 lb/yr threshold, you would
be required to begin keeping the standard records for Group 2 batch
process vents for at least 1 year with emissions less than 1,000 lb. We
selected the level of 1,000 lb/yr because we believe it is high enough
to eliminate unnecessary recordkeeping for processes with clearly
minimal emissions from standard batches while still providing an ample
margin of safety to ensure that nonstandard batches and increased
production rates do not cause the process to exceed the 10,000 lb/yr
threshold for Group 1 batch process vents.

    As currently written, 40 CFR 63.2525(e) does not clearly specify
what records should be kept when a process emits hydrogen chloride and
halogen HAP from continuous operations because all of the required
records relate to batch operations. To clarify this requirement, our
final proposed amendment to 40 CFR 63.2525(e) is to add a provision
that would require you to keep records of the number of hours of
operation for such processes. In addition, you would need to document
in your notification of compliance status report the number of hours
per year for continuous operations plus the number of batches for batch
operations that corresponds to emissions of 1,000 lb/yr. You would be
required to include the applicable records in your compliance report
for each calculation that shows the actual hours per year exceeds the
hours per year specified in your notification of compliance status
report.

B. Standard and Nonstandard Batches

    We understand there is some confusion about ``standard batches''
and ``nonstandard batches.'' We are not proposing changes to the
definitions of standard batch and nonstandard batch or to relevant
recordkeeping requirements; however, we want to take this opportunity
to explain how we expect the concept of standard and nonstandard
batches to be used.
    A standard batch is a batch process that is operated within an
acceptable range of operating conditions. Numerous operating
characteristics and other processing variables affect emissions from a
process. Typically, the actual values of these characteristics and
variables for successful batches will vary within some range from one
batch to the next. As a result, the actual emissions will also vary
from batch to batch. Demonstrating compliance by calculating emissions
for each batch based on the batch-specific characteristics would be
unnecessarily burdensome. Therefore, the final rule specifies that you
may develop a standard batch to represent typical batches with a single
emissions estimate. The uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each
emission episode in a standard batch must be estimated based on the
values within these ranges that result in the highest level of
emissions. The operating ranges and the calculated emissions become
part of the operating scenario for the process. These results also are
used in demonstrating initial compliance. Nonstandard batches are
batches that operate outside of the documented ranges, provided the
variation is due to a reasonably anticipated fluctuation or event, not
a malfunction or an intended permanent change. For example, a
nonstandard batch occurs when additional processing, or processing at
different operating conditions, must be conducted (perhaps in response
to a malfunction) to produce a product that is normally produced under
conditions described by the standard batch. Emissions for each
nonstandard batch must be estimated and recorded. Note that operating a
nonstandard batch does not mean you have to create a new operating
scenario. To clarify this point, we are proposing to state in 40 CFR
63.2520(e)(10)(i) that a nonstandard batch does not constitute a
process change.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with some of the requirements for
batch process vents, 40 CFR 63.2525(d) and (e) require records of the
uncontrolled and controlled emissions for standard batches. To
demonstrate ongoing compliance, records of whether each batch is a
standard or nonstandard batch and estimated uncontrolled and controlled
emissions for each nonstandard batch are required.
    One way of achieving an overall process-based percent reduction in
batch process vent emissions in accordance with table 2 to subpart FFFF
is to over control some vents and under control others. When this
strategy is used, you must monitor operating parameters to demonstrate
that the intended percent reductions are being achieved by individual
control device. However, information on nonstandard batches is needed
to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the overall percent reduction
requirement. Similarly, emission estimates are needed for each standard
and nonstandard batch to demonstrate ongoing compliance for a process
if you document in your notification of compliance status report that
the process has uncontrolled organic HAP emissions (from batch process
vents) less than 10,000 lb/yr, or uncontrolled hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP emissions (from both batch and continuous operations) less
than 1,000 lb/yr. The concept of standard batches and nonstandard
batches and the related recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.2525(d)
and (e) are used to demonstrate compliance in these situations. Note
that you must develop standard and nonstandard batches only when
complying with the specific process vent provisions identified above in
this paragraph. If you elect to comply with other options (e.g., by
using a flare or controlling all batch process vents with the same
control device), you do not need to develop standard and nonstandard
batches.
    Our intent was that you have flexibility in determining how to
identify and record nonstandard batches. The objective should be to
focus on the critical parameters in the standard batch that, if
exceeded, can affect emissions or control efficiency. In addition, we
are interested in changes that increase emissions from the process;
decreases do not need to be estimated and recorded. For example, if the
recorded duration of the batch, the measured mass of the batch, and the
monitored process condenser exit temperature are each less than the
values defined in the standard batch, and these are the critical
parameters affecting HAP emissions, then the batch is considered to be
standard. In other cases, tracking control device parameters, such as
condenser temperature, may be an adequate means of detecting
nonstandard batches. Insignificant episodes do not require any further
monitoring for ``nonstandard'' during the operating period.

C. Operating Logs

    We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2525(c) to require a schedule
or log of operating scenarios (i.e., ``operating logs'') only for
processes that have batch vents. We are also proposing related changes
to the compliance reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(5)(ii)(C)
and (e)(5)(iii)(K) to clarify that operating logs apply only for
processes that have batch vents. These proposed changes are intended to
minimize the recordkeeping and reporting burden without sacrificing the
collection of information needed to demonstrate compliance.
    An operating log is any paper or electronic recordkeeping system
that tracks the implementation of operating scenarios as an indicator
of which processes are operating on any given day. When you experience
a deviation from an emission limit, operating limit, or work practice
standard, you must include the applicable portion of the log in your
compliance report so that EPA or the delegated authority understands
which process(es) were operating during the deviation. For example,
when you have a deviation from an operating limit for a control device
or wastewater treatment unit that is shared by more than one process,
an operating log would identify which process (or processes) was
operating during the deviation.
    We have decided that processes that consist entirely of continuous
operations do not need to be included

in an operating log because such processes generally operate all of the
time. Furthermore, startup and shutdown records may serve the same
purpose, provided excess emissions (i.e., a deviation) occur during the
startup or shutdown. Although the proposed change means you would not
be required to include such a process in an operating log, it does not
prohibit you from including it. In the absence of information to the
contrary in an operating log or startup and shutdown records, our
default assumption will be that each process that consists only of
continuous operations was operating during deviations.

D. Reporting Requirements for Emission Points That Change From Group 2
to Group 1

    Section 63.2520(e)(10)(ii)(C) of the promulgated rule requires a
60-day advance notification for whenever you change an emission point
from Group 2 to Group 1. The purpose of the advance notification is to
provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate whether the change in
status is consistent with compliance requirements. Since promulgation
we have determined that changing batch process vents to Group 1 status
after at least 365 days of operation as Group 2 will always be
acceptable because the requirement to have uncontrolled emissions less
than 10,000 lb/yr would always be met. Thus, we are proposing to delete
the 60-day advance notification requirement for batch process vents.
Although the proposed amendment would delete the advance notification
requirement, the change in status would still have to be documented in
a revised operating scenario and submitted in the applicable compliance
report in accordance with 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(7) and (e)(10)(i).

VIII. How are we proposing to change requirements that apply when
requirements in subpart FFFF and another rule apply to the same
equipment?

    Section 63.2535(k) specifies compliance options when equipment
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, is
also subject to equipment leak provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFF. We are proposing two changes to this paragraph. First, as a
result of the proposed changes to the definition of continuous process
vent, we are proposing to delete the second sentence in this paragraph
because it is no longer applicable (see discussion earlier in this
preamble). Therefore, this paragraph would only indicate that you may
elect to apply subpart FFFF to all equipment subject to either of the
other two subparts as well as subpart FFFF. However, it is possible
that some equipment that is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart V or VV,
will be in contact with fluid that only contains volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and would not otherwise be subject to the MON. To
clarify the procedures in such situations, our second proposed change
is to add a statement that would require you to consider all total
organic compounds, minus methane and ethane, as if they were organic
HAP for the purposes of compliance with this provision. This language
is consistent with the language in 40 CFR 63.2535(h), which specifies
procedures for dealing with overlap between subpart FFFF and the new
source performance standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, subparts DDD,
III, NNN, and RRR.

IX. What miscellaneous technical corrections are we proposing?

    We are proposing to edit several provisions to clarify our intent.
These proposed changes are described in table 1 of this preamble.

             Table 1.--Technical Corrections to Subpart FFFF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Subpart FFFF              Description of proposed correction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2435(b) introductory      We are proposing to replace the
 text.                               phrase ``product transfer rack''
                                     with ``transfer rack.'' The change
                                     is needed to clarify that, like in
                                     the HON, the requirements for
                                     transfer racks apply to all
                                     materials from the process unit
                                     that are loaded at the transfer
                                     rack. It is not limited to intended
                                     products. This change also will
                                     make the language in this section
                                     consistent with the language
                                     throughout the rest of 40 CFR part
                                     63, subpart FFFF.
40 CFR 63.2435(b)(1)(i) and (ii)..  We are proposing to replace the
                                     phrase ``organic chemical or
                                     chemicals'' with ``organic
                                     chemical(s)'' to clarify that the
                                     final rule applies to the organic
                                     chemicals in the specified SIC and
                                     NAICS code categories.
40 CFR 63.2445(c).................  We are proposing to edit the first
                                     sentence in 40 CFR 63.2445(c) to
                                     clarify that due dates for
                                     notifications are specified in 40
                                     CFR 63.2515 and in subpart A of 40
                                     CFR part 63 (i.e., the General
                                     Provisions). This change also makes
                                     the sentence consistent with
                                     language used in other NESHAP.
40 CFR 63.2450(h).................  We are proposing to revise the first
                                     sentence in this section to clarify
                                     that the design evaluation option
                                     for small control devices applies
                                     only to control devices that are
                                     used to comply with an emission
                                     limit for process vents or transfer
                                     racks. This option does not apply
                                     to control devices for storage
                                     tanks and wastewater systems
                                     because referenced provisions in
                                     subparts G and SS, 40 CFR part 63,
                                     already allow a design evaluation
                                     for any control devices used to
                                     control these emissions.
40 CFR 63.2450(k)(3)..............  We are proposing changes to clarify
                                     that if you elect to measure
                                     caustic strength as an alternative
                                     to measuring pH, then you must also
                                     record the caustic strength
                                     measurements instead of pH
                                     measurements.
40 CFR 63.2450(k)(4)..............  We are proposing changes to this
                                     section to clarify that if you
                                     elect to monitor the inlet
                                     temperature and the catalyst
                                     activity level, then you must
                                     record only the inlet temperature,
                                     not both the inlet and outlet
                                     temperatures and the temperature
                                     difference across the catalyst bed.
40 CFR 63.2450(k)(5)..............  We are proposing to add this section
                                     to require monitoring of influent
                                     liquid flow, determination of gas
                                     flow, and recordkeeping of the
                                     liquid-to-gas ratio for absorbers.
                                     This monitoring would be in
                                     addition to the measuring the
                                     scrubbing liquid temperature and
                                     specific gravity, and it would
                                     ensure proper operation of the
                                     tower and that sufficient scrubbing
                                     fluid is circulated to achieve the
                                     intended reductions.
40 CFR 63.2460(c)(2)(iii).........  We are proposing revisions to
                                     clarify that the option to
                                     calculate controlled emissions from
                                     a condenser apply only if you are
                                     complying with a percent reduction
                                     standard, not an outlet
                                     concentration limit.
40 CFR 63.2465(b).................  We are proposing to replace the
                                     reference to ``40 CFR
                                     63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii)'' with a
                                     reference to ``40 CFR
                                     63.1257(d)(2)(i) and/or (ii), as
                                     appropriate.'' This change
                                     clarifies that uncontrolled HCl and
                                     hydrogen halide emissions from each
                                     process vent may be estimated using
                                     the appropriate procedures in
                                     either of the referenced
                                     paragraphs.

40 CFR 63.2470(b) and entries       We are proposing to specify in table
 1.a.iii and 1.b.iv to Table 2 to    2 to subpart FFFF rather than in 40
 subpart FFFF.                       CFR 63.2470(b) that you must comply
                                     with 40 CFR 63.984 if you reduce
                                     HAP emissions by routing to a fuel
                                     gas system or process. Therefore,
                                     we are proposing to delete and
                                     reserve 40 CFR 63.2470(b). The goal
                                     of these changes is to enhance
                                     clarity of the rule; the
                                     requirements are unchanged.
40 CFR 63.2475(c) and entry 1.c in  We are proposing to specify in table
 Table 5 to subpart FFFF.            5 to subpart FFFF rather than in 40
                                     CFR 63.2475(c) that you must comply
                                     with 40 CFR 63.984 if you reduce
                                     HAP emissions by routing to a fuel
                                     gas system or process. Therefore,
                                     we are proposing to delete 40 CFR
                                     63.2475(c). The goal of these
                                     changes is to enhance clarity of
                                     the final rule; the requirements
                                     are unchanged.
40 CFR 63.2520(c)(4)..............  We are proposing to add a statement
                                     specifying that the requirement to
                                     submit data and rationale used to
                                     support engineering assessments
                                     does not apply to engineering
                                     assessments that show an emission
                                     stream from a batch operation
                                     contains less than 50 ppmv of HAP
                                     or if you use previous test data in
                                     your engineering assessment.
40 CFR 63.2520(e)(10)(i)..........  This section currently requires you
                                     to submit a notification of process
                                     change whenever you make a change
                                     to any of the information submitted
                                     in the notification of compliance
                                     status report. We are proposing a
                                     revision to this section to clarify
                                     that the notification requirement
                                     applies to changes in information
                                     submitted in previous compliance
                                     reports as well as the notification
                                     of compliance status report.
40 CFR 63.2550(i).................  We are proposing to add a definition
                                     for the term ``halogen atoms'' to
                                     clarify that this term means
                                     chlorine and fluorine when it is
                                     used in the definition of
                                     ``halogenated vent stream.'' The
                                     concept of a halogenated vent
                                     stream is used for emission streams
                                     that are controlled using
                                     combustion devices that could
                                     generate inorganic combustion
                                     products that are HAP (i.e., HCl,
                                     chlorine, and hydrogen fluoride).
                                     Although bromine is also a halogen,
                                     it is not included in the
                                     definition of halogen atoms because
                                     its products of combustion (bromine
                                     and hydrogen bromide) are not HAP.
Table 2 to subpart FFFF...........  We are proposing to edit the
                                     language in item 2.c of table 2 to
                                     subpart FFFF to clarify our intent
                                     that flares are an option for
                                     controlling emissions from batch
                                     process vents. The revised language
                                     does not change the available
                                     compliance options.
Entry 1.b in Table 4 to subpart     We are proposing to correct several
 FFFF.                               typesetting errors. The maximum
                                     true vapor pressure threshold
                                     should be < 76.6 kilopascals, not
                                     < =76.6 kilopascals. The
                                     concentration limits for total
                                     organic compounds (TOC) or organic
                                     HAP and for hydrogen halide and
                                     halogen HAP should be < =20 ppmv,
                                     not < 20 ppmv.
Table 12 to subpart FFFF..........  We are proposing changes in the
                                     explanations column for many of the
                                     entries in table 12 to subpart FFFF
                                     to specify that requirements for
                                     continuous monitoring systems (CMS)
                                     in the General Provisions apply to
                                     all CEMS, not just CEMS used to
                                     comply with the alternative
                                     standard. This correction is needed
                                     because CEMS may also be used to
                                     monitor the outlet pollutant
                                     concentration to demonstrate
                                     ongoing compliance with a percent
                                     reduction emission limit. The
                                     provisions in 40 CFR part 63,
                                     subpart SS that apply to control
                                     device parameter monitors that are
                                     used to demonstrate compliance with
                                     a percent reduction emission limit
                                     do not apply to CEMS. Therefore,
                                     the provisions for CMS in the
                                     General Provisions must apply to
                                     CEMS that are used in this
                                     application as well as to CEMS that
                                     are used to comply with the
                                     alternative standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive
Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Although OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, OMB has
waived review of the proposed amendments.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed amendments impose no new information collection
requirements on the industry. The proposed amendments would give owners
and operators options to some requirements. For example, biofilters are
proposed as an option to meet the emission limit for batch process
vents. Other proposed changes may result in a minor reduction in the
burden. For example, one proposed option would allow an owner or
operator to conduct sensory monitoring as an alternative to instrument
monitoring of connectors. Another proposed change would eliminate the
requirement to include data and results from an engineering assessment
of emissions from batch operations in the precompliance report if the
HAP concentration is determined to be less than 50 ppmv. Since all of
these changes are either options or have the potential to result in
minor reductions in the information collection burden, the ICR has not
been revised.
    The OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has
assigned OMB control number 2060-0533 (EPA ICR number 1969.02). A copy
of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be
obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. EPA
(2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Include the ICR or
OMB number in any correspondence.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48, CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business ranging from up to 500 employees to up to 1,000 employees,
depending on the NAICS code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that
is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The
maximum number of employees to be considered a small business for each
NAICS code is shown in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 16178).
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, I certify that the proposed amendments
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact
of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small
entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility
analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which
minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or
otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities
subject to the rule. The proposed amendments include additional
compliance options for process tanks, batch process vents, equipment
leaks, and SHAP-containing wastewater that provide small entities with
greater flexibility to comply with the standards. Other proposed
amendments potentially reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed
amendments on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to
such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' The proposed amendments do not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The
proposed amendments provide an owner or operator with several
additional options for complying with the emission limits and other
requirements in the rule. Therefore, the proposed amendments will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to the proposed amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 1985, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed amendments are
not subject to the Executive Order because they are based on technology
performance and not health or safety risks.

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

    The proposed amendments do not constitute a ``significant energy
action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because the proposed amendments are
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that the
proposed amendments are not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 104-113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    During the rulemaking, the EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in addition to EPA test methods
referenced by the final rule. The search and review results have been
documented and placed in the docket for the NESHAP (Docket OAR-2003-
0121). The proposed amendments do not propose the use of any additional
technical standards beyond those cited in the final rule. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any additional voluntary consensus
standards for the proposed amendments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: November 30, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart FFFF--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.2435 is amended as follows:
    a. Revising ``product transfer racks'' to read ``transfer racks''
in paragraph (b) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii);
    c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
    d. Revising paragraph (c)(4); and
    e. Adding new paragraph (c)(7).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) An organic chemical(s) classified using the 1987 version of SIC
code 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, or 386, except as provided in
paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
    (ii) An organic chemical(s) classified using the 1997 version of
NAICS code 325, except as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) The requirements in this subpart do not apply to the operations
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Fabricating operations (such as spinning or compressing a solid
polymer into its end use); compounding operations (in which blending,
melting, and resolidification of a solid polymer product occur for the
purpose of incorporating additives, colorants, or stabilizers); and
extrusion and drawing operations (converting an already produced solid
polymer into a different shape by melting or mixing the polymer and
then forcing it or pulling it through an orifice to create an extruded
product). An operation is not exempt if it involves processing with HAP
solvent or if an intended purpose of the operation is to remove
residual HAP monomer.
* * * * *
    (7) Carbon monoxide production.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.2445 is amended as follows:
    a. Revising paragraph (b) and the first sentence in paragraph (c);
and
    b. Adding new paragraphs (d), (e), and (f).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

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

* * * * *

    (b) If you have an existing source on November 10, 2003, you must
comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart no
later than May 10, 2008.
    (c) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.2515
according to the dates specified in that section and in subpart A of
this part 63. * * *
    (d) If you have a Group 2 emission point that becomes a Group 1
emission point after the compliance date for your affected source, you
must comply with the Group 1 requirements beginning on the date the
switch occurs. A performance test (or design evaluation, if applicable)
must be conducted within 150 days after the switch occurs.
    (e) If, after the compliance date for your affected source,
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions from process vents in a
process increase to more than 1,000 lb/yr, or HAP metals emissions from
a process at a new affected source increase to more than 150 lb/yr, you
must comply with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 3 to
this subpart and the associated compliance requirements beginning on
the date the emissions exceed the applicable threshold. A performance
test (or design evaluation, if applicable) must be conducted within 150
days after the switch occurs.
    (f) If you have a small control device for process vent or transfer
rack emissions that becomes a large control device, as defined in Sec.
63.2550(i), you must comply with monitoring and associated
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for large control devices
beginning on the date the switch occurs. A performance test must be
conducted within 150 days after the switch occurs.
    4. Section 63.2450 is amended as follows:
    a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (h);
    b. Revising paragraph (k) introductory text, paragraph (k)(3),
paragraph (k)(4) introductory text, and paragraph (k)(4)(i); and
    c. Adding new paragraphs (k)(4)(iv) and (k)(5).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (h) Design evaluation. To determine the percent reduction of a
small control device that is used to comply with an emission limit
specified in Table 1, 2, 3, or 5 to this subpart, you may elect to
conduct a design evaluation as specified in Sec.  63.1257(a)(1) instead
of a performance test as specified in subpart SS of this part 63. * * *
* * * * *
    (k) Continuous parameter monitoring. The provisions in paragraphs
(k)(1) through (4) of this section apply in addition to the
requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) in
subpart SS of this part 63.
* * * * *
    (3) As an alternative to measuring and recording pH as specified in
Sec. Sec.  63.994(c)(1)(i) and 63.998(a)(2)(ii)(D), you may elect to
continuously monitor and record the caustic strength of the scrubber
effluent.
    (4) As an alternative to the inlet and outlet temperature
monitoring requirements for catalytic incinerators as specified in