[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17339-17382]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04305]

Vol. 79

Thursday,

No. 59

March 27, 2014

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions:
Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Active Ingredient Production;
and Polyether Polyols Production; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435; FRL-9906-34-OA]
RIN 2060-AR02

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production; and Polyether Polyols Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
conducted for nine source categories regulated under the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV
Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Active Ingredient Production; and
Polyether Polyols Production. Today's action promulgates amendments
concerning the following: Residual risk reviews; technology reviews;
emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction;
standards for previously unregulated hazardous air pollutant emission
sources; revisions to require monitoring of pressure relief devices
that release to the atmosphere; and electronic reporting of performance
test results. This action also lifts the stay of requirements for
process contact cooling towers at existing sources in one Group IV
Polymers and Resins subcategory, issued on February 23, 2001. The
revisions to the final rules maintain the level of environmental
protection or emissions control on sources regulated by these rules.

DATES: This final action is effective on March 27, 2014. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final
rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March
27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435. 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., confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, William
Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building, Room 3334, 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 EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about these final rule
amendments, contact Mr. Nick Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-0246; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific
information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Darcie
Smith, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C159-02), OAQPS, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about the
applicability of these three NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms.
Tavara Culpepper, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20004;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. Several acronyms and terms used to
describe industrial processes, data inventories and risk modeling are
included in this final action. While this may not be an exhaustive
list, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes,
the following terms and acronyms are defined here:

ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
AWP alternative work practice
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HI hazard index
HON National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
LDAR leak detection and repair
MABS Methyl Methacrylate Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MACT Code Code within the NEI used to identify processes included in
a source category
MBS Methyl Methacrylate Butadiene Styrene
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OGI optical gas imaging
OMB Office of Management and Budget
P&R IV Group IV Polymers and Resins
PAI Pesticide Active Ingredient
PCCT process contact cooling tower
PEPO Polyether Polyols
PET Poly (Ethylene Terephthalate)
ppm parts per million
PRD pressure relief device
PS Polystyrene
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAN Styrene Acrylonitrile
SOCMI Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
TPA Terephthalic Acid
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC volatile organic compounds

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    D. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Summary of the Final Rule Amendments
    A. What are the final rule amendments for the Group IV Polymers
and Resins MACT standards?
    B. What are the final rule amendments for the Pesticide Active
Ingredient Production MACT standards?
    C. What are the final rule amendments for the Polyether Polyols
Production MACT standards?
    D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. Compliance-Related Issues Common to the NESHAP
    A. How do the rules address startup, shutdown and malfunction?

    B. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
V. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. What changes did we make to the risk assessments for these
source categories since proposal?
    B. What changes did we make to the affirmative defense
provisions since proposal?
    C. What changes did we make to the PRD provisions since
proposal?
    D. What changes did we make to the Group IV Polymers and Resins
MACT standards since proposal?
    E. What changes did we make to the Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production MACT standards since proposal?
    F. What changes did we make to the Polyether Polyols Production
MACT standards since proposal?
    G. What other changes did we make since proposal?
VI. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes to the
Proposed Rule
    A. Pressure Relief Device Monitoring Requirements
    B. Startup and Shutdown Periods
    C. P&R IV Equipment Leak and PCCT Provisions for Previously-
Unregulated Sources
    D. Technology Review
VII. Impacts of the Final Rules
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the benefits?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

    A red-line version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
final changes in this action is available in the docket for this action
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435).

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    On January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1268), the EPA proposed amendments to
three national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP): Group IV Polymers and Resins (P&R IV); Pesticide Active
Ingredient Production (PAI); and Polyether Polyols Production (PEPO).
This action presents the results and final decisions based on the EPA's
review of these three NESHAP. Specifically, pursuant to the Clean Air
Act (CAA), the EPA has completed residual risk and technology reviews
(RTRs) for nine source categories covered by three separate
regulations. Significant public comments and our responses are
summarized in this preamble. A summary of the public comments on the
proposal not presented in the preamble, and the EPA's responses to
those comments, is available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0435).
    Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to review these
regulations (i.e., NESHAP) and revise them as necessary (taking into
account developments in practices, processes and control technologies)
no less frequently than every 8 years. Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA
requires the EPA to assess the remaining risks due to emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from these source categories and
determine whether the emission standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health within 8 years of promulgation of the
original standards.
    The amendments also address the following: Emissions during periods
of startup, shutdown and malfunction; standards for previously
unregulated HAP emission sources; revisions to require monitoring of
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service that release to the
atmosphere; and electronic reporting of performance test results. This
action also lifts the stay of requirements for process contact cooling
towers at existing sources in one P&R IV subcategory issued on February
23, 2001 (66 FR 11233).
2. Summary of Major Provisions
    The EPA has determined that no rule amendments are needed for these
three NEHSAP based on the RTRs under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and
112(f)(2). However, the EPA is making revisions to all three NESHAP in
three areas. First, the EPA is eliminating the exemption for periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM), so that the emission standards
in each rule apply at all times. Second, the EPA is requiring
electronic reporting of performance test results. Finally, the EPA is
requiring monitoring of pressure relief devices (PRDs) in organic HAP
service that release to the atmosphere.
    With regard to the NESHAP for P&R IV, the EPA is making revisions
in three additional areas. First, the EPA is addressing certain
emissions that were not previously regulated. Second, the EPA is
providing alternative compliance demonstration methods during periods
of startup and shutdown. Third, the EPA is lifting the stay of
requirements for process contact cooling towers at existing sources in
one P&R IV subcategory.
3. Costs and Emission Reductions
    Table 1 below summarizes the costs and emission reductions for this
action. See section VII of this preamble for further discussion of the
costs and impacts.

   Table 1--Summary of the Costs and Emission Reductions for the Final Group IV Polymers and Resins, Pesticide
                 Active Ingredient Production and Polyether Polyols Production NESHAP Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                                       Emission
                     NESHAP                          affected      Capital costs    Annualized      reductions
                                                      plants            ($)        costs  ($/yr)       (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP: Group IV Polymers and Resins............              31      $3,800,000        $566,000             N/A
NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient                        18       1,500,000         222,000             N/A
 Production.....................................
NESHAP for Polyether Polyols....................              23       1,600,000         242,000             N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

 Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   NESHAP and source
                                       category          NAICS Code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group IV Polymers and Resins..  Acrylic-Butadiene-                325211
                                 Styrene Production.
                                Methyl Methacrylate-              325211
                                 Acrylonitrile-
                                 Butadiene-Styrene
                                 Production \2\.
                                Methyl Methacrylate-              325211
                                 Butadiene-Styrene
                                 Production.
                                Nitrile Resins                    325211
                                 Production \2\.
                                Polyethylene                      325211
                                 Terephthalate
                                 Production.
                                Polystyrene Production            325211
                                Styrene-Acrylonitrile             325211
                                 Production.
-------------------------------------------------------
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production                    325199, 325320
-------------------------------
Polyether Polyols Production                                      325199
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ There are no longer any operating facilities in either the Methyl
  Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production or Nitrile
  Resins Production source categories, and none are anticipated to begin
  operation in the future. Therefore, this final rule does not address
  these source categories.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will be available on the Internet through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy
of this final action on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA
will post the Federal Register version of the final action and key
technical documents on the project Web sites: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pr4/pr4pg.html, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/polyol/polyolpg.html and
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pest/pestpg.html. Information on the overall
RTR program is available at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

D. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 27,
2014. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this
final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, William Jefferson
Clinton Federal Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail
Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460.

II. Background Information for This Final Rule

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, after the EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one
or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b), section 112(d) calls
for us to promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major
sources'' are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any
single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or
more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these technology-
based standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions
of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements and non-
air quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred
to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
    For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor requirements
and may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3).
For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled
similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less
stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we must
also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor,

under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the
emission reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements. In promulgating MACT standards, CAA
section 112(d)(2) directs us to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems or techniques that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture or treat HAP when released from a
process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point; and/or are design,
equipment, work practice or operational standards.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake two
different analyses, as required by the CAA: Section 112(d)(6) of the
CAA calls for us to review these technology-based standards and to
revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently
than every 8 years; and within 8 years after promulgation of the
technology-based standards, CAA section 112(f) calls for us to evaluate
the risk to public health remaining after application of the
technology-based standards and to revise the standards, if necessary,
to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety and other
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. In doing so, the EPA
may adopt standards equal to existing MACT standards if the EPA
determines that the existing standards are sufficiently protective.
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    On January 9, 2012, the EPA published a proposed rule for the PAI,
PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards that took into consideration the RTR
analyses (77 FR 1268). For these MACT standards, today's action
provides the EPA's final determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions
of CAA section 112. In addition, we are promulgating amendments for
each of these NESHAP as follows:

Group IV Polymers and Resins

     Revisions to address certain emission sources not
previously regulated under the standards.
     Revisions to clarify requirements for Precompliance
Reports.
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during
periods of SSM.
     Revisions to requirements related to performance test
electronic reporting.
     Revisions to allow for alternative compliance
determination methods during periods of startup and shutdown.
     Revisions to the requirements related to PRDs.

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production

     Revisions to the definition of ``pesticide active
ingredient.''
     Revisions to clarify requirements for Precompliance Plans.
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during
periods of SSM.
     Revisions to requirements related to performance test
electronic reporting.
     Clarifications to the provisions for packed-bed scrubbers.
     Revisions to the requirements related to PRDs.

Polyether Polyols Production

     Revisions to clarify requirements for Precompliance
Reports.
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during
periods of SSM.
     Revisions to requirements related to performance test
electronic reporting.
     Revisions to the requirements related to PRDs.
    Section III of this preamble presents a summary of the final rule
amendments for the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards.

III. Summary of the Final Rule Amendments

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Group IV Polymers and
Resins MACT standards?

    The P&R IV MACT standards apply to major sources and regulate HAP
emissions from seven thermoplastics production source categories:
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), styrene acrylonitrile (SAN),
methyl methacrylate acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (MABS), methyl
methacrylate butadiene styrene resin (MBS), polystyrene (PS), poly
(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) and nitrile resin.\1\ Sources of HAP
emissions from thermoplastics production include breathing and
withdrawal losses from chemical storage tanks, venting of process
vessels, leaks from piping and equipment used to transfer HAP compounds
(equipment leaks) and volatilization of HAP from wastewater streams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are no longer any operating facilities in either the
MABS Production or Nitrile Resins Production source categories, and
none are anticipated to begin operation in the future. Therefore,
this final rule does not address these source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only five of the seven P&R IV source categories have facility
operations in the U.S.: ABS, SAN, MBS, PET and PS Production. For these
five source categories, we have determined that the current MACT
standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental
effects. Therefore, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards
pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\2\ We have also determined that there
are no viable developments in HAP emission reduction practices,
processes or control technologies to apply to the emission sources in
these source categories, considering the technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, non-air environmental impacts and
emission reductions of the options identified. Therefore, it is not
necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this approach of
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077,
1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing
technology-based standards provide an 'ample margin of safety,' then
the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual
risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are establishing standards at the MACT floor level of control
for previously unregulated HAP emissions from equipment leaks and
process contact cooling towers (PCCT) in the PET continuous
terephthalic acid (TPA) high viscosity multiple end finisher
subcategory, which has one facility currently in operation. For
equipment leaks, the standards being finalized are work practices that
include performing a 2- to 3-hour leak check upon startup following an
outage where changes have been made to the facility's esterification
equipment. This leak check is conducted by introducing hot ethylene
glycol vapors into the system. Any leaks identified must be repaired by
tightening flange bolts before introducing new materials into the
process. For PCCT, the standard being finalized is a concentration
limit of ethylene glycol in the PCCT at or below 6.0 percent by weight,
averaged on a daily basis over a rolling 14-day period of operating
days.
    We are finalizing changes to the P&R IV MACT standards to eliminate
the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards in
this rule apply at all times. We have also revised Table 1 to subpart
JJJ (the General Provisions applicability table) in several respects.
For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have
also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA has also
made

changes to the rule to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary or
redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. Additionally,
we are adding provisions to provide an affirmative defense to civil
penalties for violations of emission standards caused by malfunctions,
as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense.
    In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and is establishing alternative
compliance demonstration methods for those affected sources subject to
emission limits expressed as mass emissions per mass product produced
for continuous process vents. The final rule amendments (40 CFR
63.1315(a)(19) and (b)(2), 40 CFR 63.1316(b)(1)(i)(A), (b)(1)(ii)(A),
(b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(ii)(A), and (c)(1)(i), and 40 CFR 63.1318(b)(1)
and (c)) allow facilities to demonstrate compliance with the rule by
either: (1) Keeping records that establish the raw material feed rate
and production rate were both zero; (2) meeting the limit by dividing
the emission rate during startup or shutdown by the rate of polymer
produced from the most recent performance test associated with a
production rate greater than zero; or (3) keeping records that
establish the operating parameters of the control device used to comply
with the rule were maintained at the level established to meet the
emission limit at maximum representative operating conditions. See
section VI.B of this preamble for greater detail regarding the
commenters' concerns regarding meeting standards for continuous process
vents during startup and shutdown periods and our response to those
concerns.
    We have also added requirements in 40 CFR 63.1331(a)(9) to require
monitoring of PRDs in organic HAP service that release to the
atmosphere and clarify that pressure releases from such PRDs are
prohibited. We have also added requirements in 40 CFR
63.1335(e)(6)(xiii) to require reporting of any PRD releases to the
atmosphere with the next periodic report.
    We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners or operators of P&R IV
facilities are required to submit electronic copies of applicable
reports of performance tests to the EPA's WebFIRE database through an
electronic emissions test report structure called the Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT). This requirement to submit performance test data
electronically to the EPA does not require any additional performance
testing, and applies only to those performance tests conducted using
test methods that are supported by the ERT.
    We have also clarified in 40 CFR 63.1335(e)(3)(i) the requirements
for Precompliance Reports where an initial Precompliance Report is
needed after the compliance date for the rule.

B. What are the final rule amendments for the Pesticide Active
Ingredient Production MACT standards?

    The PAI manufacturing process consists of the production of active
ingredients in insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and related
products, which are typically then formulated with inert ingredients to
create end-product pesticides for application. The PAI MACT standards
apply only to the active ingredient production. Emissions occur from
breathing and withdrawal losses from chemical storage tanks, venting of
process vessels, leaks from piping and equipment used to transfer HAP
compounds (equipment leaks), volatilization of HAP from wastewater
streams, evaporation from dryers and dust from bag dumps.
    For the PAI source category, we have determined that the current
MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse
environmental effects. Therefore, it is not necessary to revise the
MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\3\ We have also
determined that there are no viable developments in HAP emission
reduction practices, processes or control technologies to apply to the
emission sources in this source category, considering the technical
feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, non-air
environmental impacts and emission reductions of the options
identified. Therefore, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are finalizing changes to the PAI MACT standards to eliminate
the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards in
this rule apply at all times. We have also revised Table 1 of subpart
MMM (the General Provisions applicability table) in several respects.
For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have
also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. We have
determined that facilities in this source category can meet the
applicable emission standards at all times, including periods of
startup and shutdown, in compliance with the current MACT standards,
and no additional standards are needed to address emissions during
these periods. The EPA has also made changes to the rule to remove or
modify inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant language in the absence
of the SSM exemption. Additionally, we are adding provisions to provide
an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission
standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing
the affirmative defense.
    We have added requirements in 40 CFR 63.1363(b)(4) to require
monitoring of PRDs in organic HAP service that release to the
atmosphere and clarify that pressure releases from such PRDs are
prohibited. We have also added requirements in 40 CFR 63.1363(h)(3)(v)
to require reporting of any PRD releases to the atmosphere with the
next periodic report.
    We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners or operators of PAI
facilities are required to submit electronic copies of applicable
reports of performance tests to the EPA's WebFIRE database through an
electronic emissions test report structure called the ERT. This
requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA
does not require any additional performance testing, and applies only
to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are
supported by the ERT.
    We have also clarified in 40 CFR 63.1368(e) that sources may submit
a Precompliance Plan to request alternative compliance options after
the compliance date has passed or construction or preconstruction
applications have already been submitted.
    In addition, we have added clarifications to the provisions for
packed-bed scrubbers in 40 CFR 63.1366(b)(1)(ii). We have also revised
the definition for ``pesticide active ingredient.''

C. What are the final rule amendments for the Polyether Polyols
Production MACT standards?

    The PEPO manufacturing process involves the reaction of ethylene
oxide, propylene oxide or other cyclic ethers with compounds having one
or more reactive hydrogens to form chemical products with repeating
ether linkages (i.e., -R-O-R-). These polyether polyols do not have
significant uses of their own but are used to make a variety of other

products, such as polyurethane foams, microcellular products, surface
coatings, elastomers, fibers, adhesives, sealants, surfactants,
lubricants, degreasing agents, hydraulic fluids, cosmetics and
pharmaceuticals. The HAP emission sources at PEPO facilities include
process vents, storage vessels, equipment leaks and wastewater; and at
some facilities, cooling towers or other heat exchangers.
    For these PEPO facilities, we have determined that the current MACT
standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental
effects. Therefore, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards
pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\4\ We have also determined that there
are no viable developments in HAP emission reduction practices,
processes or control technologies to apply to the emission sources in
this source category, considering the technical feasibility, estimated
costs, energy implications, non-air environmental impacts and emission
reductions of the options identified. Therefore, it is not necessary to
revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are finalizing changes to the PEPO MACT standards to eliminate
the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards in
this rule apply at all times. We have also revised Table 1 of subpart
PPP (the General Provisions applicability table) in several respects.
For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have
also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. We have
determined that facilities in this source category can meet the
applicable emission standards at all times, including periods of
startup and shutdown, in compliance with the current MACT standards,
and no additional standards are needed to address emissions during
these periods. The EPA has also made changes to the rule to remove or
modify inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant language in the absence
of the SSM exemption. Additionally, we are adding provisions to provide
an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission
standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing
the affirmative defense.
    We have added requirements in 40 CFR 63.1434(c) to require
monitoring of PRDs in organic HAP service that release to the
atmosphere, and clarify that pressure releases from such PRDs are
prohibited. We have also added requirements in 40 CFR 63.1439(e)(6)(ix)
for facilities to report when any PRD in organic HAP service releases
to the atmosphere with the next periodic report.
    We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners or operators of PEPO
facilities are required to submit electronic copies of applicable
reports of performance tests to the EPA's WebFIRE database through an
electronic emissions test report structure called the ERT. This
requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA
does not require any additional performance testing, and applies only
to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are
supported by the ERT.
    We have also clarified in 40 CFR 63.1439(e)(4)(i) the requirements
for Precompliance Reports where an initial Precompliance Report is
needed after the compliance date for the rule.

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

    Under CAA section 112(d), for new and existing sources subject to
the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards, the compliance date for the
revised SSM requirements (other than PRD monitoring for existing
sources and new sources that commenced construction or reconstruction
on or before January 12, 2012) and electronic reporting requirements is
the effective date of the promulgated standards, March 27, 2014. We are
finalizing these compliance dates because these requirements should be
immediately implementable by the facilities upon the next occurrence of
a malfunction or a performance test that is required to be submitted to
the ERT. Available information suggests that the facilities should
already be able to comply with the existing standards during periods of
startup and shutdown.
    Under CAA section 112(i)(3), for new sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before January 12, 2012, and
existing sources subject to the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards,
the compliance date for PRD monitoring is 3 years from the effective
date of the promulgated standards, March 27, 2017. This time is needed
regardless of whether an owner or operator of a facility chooses to
comply with the PRD monitoring provisions by installing PRD release
indicator systems and alarms, employing parameter monitoring, or by
routing releases to a control device. This time period will allow
facilities to research equipment and vendors, purchase, install, test
and properly operate any necessary equipment by the compliance date.
    For the existing facility in the PET continuous TPA high viscosity
multiple end finisher subcategory subject to the P&R IV MACT standards,
the compliance date for the new MACT standards applicable to equipment
leaks and PCCTs is the effective date of the promulgated standards,
March 27, 2014. We are finalizing this compliance date because the
existing facility in this subcategory is already complying with the
promulgated standards.

IV. Compliance-Related Issues Common to the NESHAP

A. How do the rules address startup, shutdown and malfunction?

    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010), the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated
portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the
Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40
CFR 63.6(h)(1) holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emission
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112
standards apply continuously.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in these rules. Consistent
with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards in all three NESHAP apply at all
times. We have also revised the General Provisions applicability tables
in all three NESHAP, as applicable, in several respects, as is
explained in more detail below. For example, we have eliminated the
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that sources
develop an SSM plan. We have also eliminated and revised certain NESHAP
recordkeeping and reporting that is related to the eliminated SSM
exemption, as described in detail in the proposed rule and summarized
again here.
    In establishing the standards in these final rule amendments, the
EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the
reasons explained below, has not established alternate standards for
these periods for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards.
    For the P&R IV MACT standards, we received comments from industry
that

opine that it may not be possible to comply with emission limits at all
times in the absence of an exemption for SSM periods. Specifically, the
commenters asserted that emission limits expressed as a unit of mass
emitted per unit of mass of product created for process vents or
destruction efficiency standards could be exceeded during times of
startup and shutdown. The commenters asserted this is due to the small
amount of product being produced and/or lower rate of HAP emissions and
higher rate of supplemental fuel sent to control devices during startup
and shutdown periods. The commenters suggested that the EPA establish
alternative startup and shutdown work practice standards, where meeting
operating parameters could be used to comply with the rule in lieu of
the production rate and destruction efficiency standards during startup
and shutdown periods. Per the commenters, these operating parameters
would be representative of the required level of control at continuous
steady-state conditions, or routing to a control device that has been
demonstrated to meet the necessary destruction efficiency standards at
maximum operating conditions.
    The EPA evaluated the commenters' concerns and disagrees that
separate standards to address startup and shutdown periods are
warranted. We agree that demonstrating compliance with a mass of
emissions per mass of product produced limit may be problematic as
production approaches zero, however. Therefore, we are establishing
alternative compliance demonstration methods for those affected sources
subject to emission limits expressed as mass emissions per mass product
produced for continuous process vents. The final rule amendments (40
CFR 63.1315(a)(19) and (b)(2), 40 CFR 63.1316(b)(1)(i)(A),
(b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(ii)(A), and (c)(1)(i), and 40 CFR
63.1318(b)(1) and (c)) allow facilities to demonstrate compliance with
the rule by either: (1) Keeping records that establish the raw material
feed rate and production rate were both zero; (2) meeting the limit by
dividing the emission rate during startup or shutdown by the rate of
polymer produced from the most recent performance test associated with
a production rate greater than zero; or (3) keeping records that
establish the operating parameters of the control device used to comply
with the rule were maintained at the level established to meet the
emission limit at maximum representative operating conditions. See
section VI.B of this preamble for greater detail regarding the
commenters' concerns regarding standards for continuous process vents
during startup and shutdown periods and our response to those concerns.
    Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner . . .'' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA
section 112 does not require that emissions occurring during periods of
malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards.
Under CAA section 112, emission standards for new sources must be no
less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled
similar source and, for existing sources, generally must be no less
stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the
best-performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing
in CAA section 112 that directs the EPA to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing or best
controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while the
EPA accounts for variability in setting emission standards consistent
with CAA section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the
EPA to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. CAA section 112
uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best performing'' unit in
defining the level of stringency that CAA section 112 performance
standards must meet. Applying the concept of ``best controlled'' or
``best performing'' to a unit that is malfunctioning presents
significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and unexpected
events.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the source categories amended with this
action, and the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting
for the frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that
might occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning
is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167
F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``[T]he EPA typically has wide
latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve
a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the
basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the
resources to conduct the perfect study.'''). See also, Weyerhaeuser Co.
v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of
things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset
provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point,
the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts
of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, the goal
of a best-controlled or best-performing source is to operate in such a
way as to avoid malfunctions. Accounting for malfunctions could lead to
standards that are significantly less stringent than levels achieved by
a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. The EPA's approach to
malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable
interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, a result of a ``sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable'' event and was not instead
``caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR
63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause a violation of the relevant emission standard. See,
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Findings of Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction; Proposed rule, 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013); State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (September 20, 1999); Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions (February 15, 1983). The EPA is therefore adding to the
final rules an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of
emission standards that are caused by malfunctions. (See 40 CFR
63.1312,

63.1361 and 63.1423 defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the
context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward
by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof,
and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in
a judicial or administrative proceeding). We also have added other
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to
establish this affirmative defense; a source subject to the PAI, PEPO
or P&R IV MACT standards must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that it has met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.1310(k),
63.1360(k) and 63.1420(i). (See 40 CFR 22.24). The added criteria are
designed in part to ensure that the affirmative defense is available
only where the event that causes a violation of the emission standard
meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor
maintenance and/or careless operation). For example, the final rule
amendments provide that, to successfully assert the proposed
affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that the violation was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and process equipment, or
a process to operate in a normal or usual manner. The added criteria
also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the
malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR
63.1310(j)(4), 63.1360(e)(4) and 63.1420(h)(4); and to prevent future
malfunctions. For example, under the added criteria, the source must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that repairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when a violation occurred and that all
possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the violation on
ambient air quality, the environment and human health. In any judicial
or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the
assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met
its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative
defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with
section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.27).
    The EPA included in the final rule amendments for the PAI, PEPO and
P&R IV source categories an affirmative defense in an attempt to
balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulations, to ensure
adequate compliance, while simultaneously recognizing that, despite the
most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be violated under
circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish
emission standards that ``limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.'' CAA section
302(k), 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation'' and
``emission standard''). See generally, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d
1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that
emission standards are continuous. The affirmative defense for
malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that, even where
there is a malfunction, the emission standard is still enforceable
through injunctive relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit recently upheld the EPA's view that an affirmative
defense provision is consistent with section 113(e) of the CAA.
Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. United States EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th
Cir. March 25, 2013) (upholding the EPA's approval of affirmative
defense provisions in a CAA State Implementation Plan). While
``continuous'' standards are required, there is also case law
indicating, in many situations, it is appropriate for the EPA to
account for the practical realities of technology. For example, in
Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the
DC Circuit acknowledged that, in setting standards under CAA section
111, ``variant provisions'' such as provisions allowing for upsets
during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction ``appear necessary
to preserve the reasonableness of the standards as a whole and that the
record does not support the `never to be exceeded' standard currently
in force.'' See, also, Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d
375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though these earlier cases may no longer
represent binding precedent in light of the CAA 1977 amendments and
intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. EPA, they nevertheless
support the EPA's view that a system that incorporates some level of
flexibility is reasonable and appropriate. The affirmative defense
simply provides for a defense to civil penalties for violations that
are proven to be beyond the control of the source. Through the
incorporation of an affirmative defense, the EPA has formalized its
approach to malfunctions. In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth
Circuit required this type of formalized approach when regulating
``upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v.
EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). See, also, Mont. Sulphur &
Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting industry
argument that reliance on the affirmative defense was not adequate).
But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir.
1978) (holding that an informal approach is adequate). The final
affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both
ensure that its emission standards are ``continuous,'' as required by
CAA section 302(k), 42 U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets
and, thus, support the reasonableness of the standard as a whole. The
EPA is promulgating the affirmative defense applicable to malfunctions
under the delegation of general regulatory authority set out in section
301(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1), in order to balance this
tension between provisions of the CAA and the practical reality, as
case law recognizes, that technology sometimes fails. See generally,
Citizens to Save Spencer County v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 873 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (using section 301(a)
authority to harmonize inconsistent guidelines related to the
implementation of federal preconstruction review requirements).
    Refer to the explanations below and sections V and VI of this
preamble and the Response to Comments document, available in the docket
for this action, for further discussion regarding SSM-related changes
made to the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards.
1. General Duty
    For the PAI MACT standards, we are revising the General Provisions
applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart MMM) entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a ``no.''
Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions.
Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or
appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption.
Similarly, for the P&R IV and PEPO MACT standards, we are also removing
this requirement at 40 CFR 63.1310(j)(4) and 40 CFR 63.1420(h)(4),
respectively. For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are
instead adding general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1310(j)(4),
63.1360(e)(4) and 63.1420(h)(4), respectively, that reflects the
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption,

there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup
and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty.
Therefore the language the EPA is promulgating does not include that
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are also revising
the General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ,
Table 1 to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry
for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column
to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.1310(j)(4),
63.1360(e)(4) and 63.1420(h)(4).
2. SSM Plan
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry for 40
CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a
``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan
and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is removing the SSM exemptions. Therefore,
affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such
events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure
that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance
and thus the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
3. Compliance With Standards
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry for 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from
non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the
court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision
and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 standard apply
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is revising
standards in this rule to apply at all times.
4. Performance Testing
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry for 40
CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a
``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements.
The EPA is instead adding a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.1333(a), 63.1365(b) and 63.1437(a). The performance testing
requirements we are adding differ from the General Provisions
performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text
does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the
SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods
from being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance
testing. The revised performance testing provisions do not allow
performance testing during periods of startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is
adding language that requires the owner or operator to record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. 40 CFR 63.7(e)
requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the
performance test'' available to the Administrator upon request, but
does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The
regulatory text the EPA is adding to this provision builds on that
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
5. Monitoring
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entries for
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in the second
column to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    For the PAI MACT standards, we are revising the General Provisions
applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart MMM) entry for 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) by changing the explanation in the third column. The final
sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM
plan requirement, which is no longer applicable. The EPA is adding the
explanation that the program of corrective action should be included in
the plan required under 40 CFR 63.8(d)(2).
6. Recordkeeping
    For the PAI MACT standards, we are revising the General Provisions
applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart MMM) entry for 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a ``no.''
The EPA is promulgating that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When
applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the
affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, specified
in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is eliminating this requirement
because SSM plans will no longer be required, and therefore 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
7. Reporting
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is adding reporting
requirements to 40 CFR 63.1335(b)(1)(ii), 63.1368(i) and
63.1439(b)(1)(ii). The replacement language differs from the General
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
stand-alone report. We are promulgating language that requires sources
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the
information concerning such events in the semi-annual periodic report
already required under these rules. We are promulgating that the report
must contain the number, date, time, duration and cause of such events
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant

emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is promulgating
this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to
determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the
failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may
document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans will no longer be required. The final amendments
therefore eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    We note that reporting a failure to meet an applicable standard
could include malfunction events for which a source may choose to
submit documentation to support an assertion of affirmative defense. If
a source provides all the material required in 40 CFR 63.1310(k),
63.1360(k) or 63.1420(i) to support an affirmative defense, the source
need not submit the same information two times in the same report.
While assertion of an affirmative defense is not mandatory and would
occur only if a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative
defense, the finalized affirmative defense also requires additional
reporting that goes beyond these routine requirements related to a
failure to meet an applicable standard for a reason other than a
malfunction.
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for
startups, shutdown and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an
applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer
require owners or operators to report when actions taken during a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans will no longer be required.
8. Pressure Relief Devices
    The original MACT standards recognized pressure releases from PRDs
to be the result of malfunctions. PRDs are designed to remain closed
during normal operation and only release as the result of unplanned
and/or unpredictable events. A release from a PRD usually occurs during
an over pressurization of the system. However, emissions vented
directly to the atmosphere by PRDs in organic HAP service contain HAP
that are otherwise regulated under the MACT standards that apply to
these source categories.
    The original MACT standards for these source categories regulated
PRDs through equipment leak provisions that applied only during non-
release operations. In addition, the rules followed the EPA's then-
practice of exempting SSM events from otherwise applicable emissions
standards. Consequently, with ``pressure releases'' being defined as
HAP emitting events that occur during malfunctions, the original MACT
standards did not restrict pressure releases from PRDs emitted directly
to the atmosphere but instead treated them the same as all malfunctions
through the SSM exemption provision.
    In Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court
determined that the SSM exemption violated the CAA. See section IV.A of
this preamble for additional discussion. To ensure these standards are
consistent with that decision, the final rule revisions remove the
malfunction exemptions in the prior MACT standards. In addition, in
order for our treatment of malfunction-caused pressure releases
directly to the atmosphere to conform with the reasoning of the Court's
ruling, the final rule adds a provision stating that HAP emissions
releases directly to the atmosphere from PRDs in organic HAP service
are prohibited.
    In the proposal, we proposed to eliminate the SSM exemption from
the standards. In addition, we stated that under the proposed revised
rule releases to the atmosphere from PRDs would constitute violations
of the revised rule. However, although we proposed revised regulatory
text to eliminate the SSM exemptions from the rules, we omitted a
proposed regulatory provision that would have given effect to the
proposed intended prohibition of such PRD releases. In order to give
effect to the proposed prohibition, which we are finalizing in this
action, we are adding express regulatory language in the final rule
revisions that clarifies our intent that pressure releases from PRDs in
organic HAP service to the atmosphere are prohibited. This is a
necessary additional revision to give full effect to our elimination of
the general exemption for malfunctions, in light of the Court's
reasoning in Sierra Club, and is similar to revisions that we have made
in other rules in which the SSM exemption has been eliminated (see,
e.g., NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production (77 FR
22848, April 17, 2012)). As with any malfunction event under the
revised rules, an owner or operator may assert an affirmative defense
against civil penalties for a malfunction causing a prohibited pressure
release from a PRD in organic HAP service to the atmosphere.
    To address potential releases from PRDs, we are further requiring
facility owners or operators subject to these three MACT standards to
employ monitoring capable of: (1) Identifying the pressure release; (2)
recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and (3)
notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is occurring.
Owners or operators are required to keep records and report any
pressure release and the amount of organic HAP released to the
atmosphere with the next periodic report.
    Pressure release events from PRDs in organic HAP service to the
atmosphere have the potential to emit large quantities of HAP. Where a
release occurs, it is important to identify and mitigate it as quickly
as possible. We recognize that industry has stated that they believe
releases from PRDs sometimes occur in order to protect systems from
failures that could endanger worker safety and the systems that the
PRDs are designed to protect. We have provided a balanced approach
designed to minimize emissions while recognizing that these events may
be unavoidable even in a well-designed and maintained system.
Therefore, we are requiring that sources monitor PRDs in organic HAP
service using a device or monitoring system that is capable of
identifying and recording the time and duration of each pressure
release and of notifying operators that a release has occurred. For
purposes of estimating the costs of this requirement, we assumed that
operators would install electronic indicators on each PRD in organic
HAP service that vents to the atmosphere to identify and record the
time and duration of each pressure release. However, owners or
operators could use a range of methods to satisfy these requirements,
including the use of a parameter monitoring system that may

already have been in place (e.g., on the process and that is sufficient
to notify operators immediately that a release is occurring, as well as
recording the time and duration of the release).
    Based on our cost assumptions that the most expensive approach will
be used, the nationwide capital cost of installing these monitors is
$1.5 million, $1.6 million and $3.8 million for the PAI, PEPO and P&R
IV source categories, respectively. The total annualized cost of
installing and operating these monitors is $222,000, $242,000 and
$566,000 for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV source categories, respectively.
For a breakdown of the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV source category costs and
other costing information, see the memorandum, Revised Cost Impacts
Associated with the Final Pressure Relief Device Monitoring
Requirements for the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, Polyether
Polyols Production, and Group IV Polymers and Resins Source Categories,
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435).

B. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?

    As stated in the proposal preamble (77 FR 1285, January 9, 2012),
the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data
submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring
owners or operators of PAI, PEPO and P&R IV facilities to submit
electronic copies of certain required performance test reports.
    As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal, data will be
collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer using EPA-
provided software. As discussed in the proposal, the EPA-provided
software is an electronic performance test report tool called the ERT.
The ERT will generate an electronic report package that will be
submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). A
description and instructions for use of the ERT can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be accessed through
the CDX Web site: (www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site. The EPA
believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the
performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking
benefits industry by cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the
performance test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are
no longer required to be kept in hard copy.
    As mentioned in the proposal preamble, state, local and tribal
agencies may benefit from more streamlined and accurate review of
performance test data that will be available on the EPA WebFIRE
database. Additionally, performance test data will become available to
the public through WebFIRE. Having such data publicly available
enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough
discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct
computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided
software, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal (77 FR
1285-1286, January 9, 2012).
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA
significant time, money and effort while improving the quality of
emission inventories and air quality regulations.

V. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

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

    Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine whether
certain emission standards reduce risk to an acceptable level and, once
we have ensured that the risk is acceptable, whether the standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent
an adverse environmental effect. First, we determine whether there is
an acceptable risk. The EPA generally presumes the risk is acceptable
if the maximum individual risk (MIR) of cancer is no higher than 100-
in-1 million. The EPA bases its overall judgment of acceptability on
the MIR and a series of other health measures and factors. In some
cases, these health measures and factors taken together may provide a
more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the exposed
population than MIR alone. If the risk is unacceptable, the EPA must
require additional controls, without consideration of cost, to ensure
an acceptable level of risk. After determining that the level of risk
is acceptable, the EPA evaluates whether the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health by considering costs and
economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility and other
relevant factors, in addition to those health measures and factors
considered to determine acceptability. Considering all of these
factors, the EPA ensures that the standard is set at a level that
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, as
required by CAA section 112(f).
    At proposal, we conducted risk assessments that provided estimates
of the MIR posed by the allowable and actual HAP emissions from each
source in a category, the distribution of cancer risks within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, hazard index (HI) for chronic
exposures to HAP with noncancer health effects and hazard quotient (HQ)
for acute exposures to HAP with non-cancer health effects. We found
that the residual risks to public health from all source categories
subject to these three MACT standards were acceptable and, further,
that the existing standards provided an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and no adverse environmental effects were
expected as a result of HAP emissions from these source categories.
Thus, we proposed that no additional controls would be required to
address such risks.
    As a result of information received from commenters on the
proposal, two additional facilities have been included in two of the
P&R IV datasets. In addition, after proposal we asked several states to
review the emissions data for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV facilities in
their states. This review resulted in the addition and removal of
several facilities across the three MACT standards, as well as changes
to numerous emission points in the dataset. More information on the
changes made to the dataset as a result of this review can be found in
the memorandum, Emissions Data Used in Residual Risk Modeling:
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, Polyether Polyols Production,
and Group IV Polymers and Resins, available in the docket for the this
action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435). This updated dataset was used in the
revised risk assessment for these source categories. A summary of the
results of the revised risk assessment is provided below.
    For the ABS source category, the MIR decreased from 30- to 20-in-1
million, the annual cancer incidence increased from 0.003 to 0.009
cases per year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value increased
from 0.2 to 0.3, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value decreased from
2 to 0.9, based on the

REL value for acetaldehyde. Table 3 provides an overall summary of the
revised inhalation risk assessment results for the ABS source category.

                                                     Table 3--ABS Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                           risk  (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.......................................           20            20        95,000         0.009           0.3           0.3   HQREL = 0.9 acetaldehyde.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the ABS source category is the spleen.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the SAN source category, the MIR increased from 0.03- to 0.4-
in-1 million, the annual cancer incidence increased from 0.000006 to
0.0003 cases per year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value
increased from 0.0002 to 0.003, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value
increased from 0.007 to 0.05, based on the REL value for methylene
chloride. Table 4 provides an overall summary of the revised inhalation
risk assessment results for the SAN source category.

                                                     Table 4--SAN Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.......................................          0.4           0.4             0        0.0003         0.003         0.003   HQREL = 0.05 methylene
                                                                                chloride.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the SAN source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the MBS source category, the MIR increased from 0.4- to 1-in-1
million, the annual cancer incidence increased from 0.00003 to 0.00009
cases per year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value increased
from 0.007 to 0.02, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value increased
from 9 to 10, based on the ERPG-1 value for ethyl acrylate. Table 5
provides an overall summary of the revised inhalation risk assessment
results for the MBS source category.

                                                     Table 5--MBS Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......................................            1             1           220       0.00009          0.02          0.02   HQERPG	1 = 10 ethyl
                                                                                acrylate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the MBS source category is the reproductive system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the PS source category, the MIR decreased from 2- to 0.08-in-1
million, the annual cancer incidence decreased from 0.00003 to 0.00001
cases per year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value increased
from 0.004 to

0.006, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value stayed the same at 0.3,
based on the REL value for styrene. Table 6 provides an overall summary
of the revised inhalation risk assessment results for the PS source
category.

                                                     Table 6--PS Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10......................................         0.08          0.08             0       0.00001         0.006         0.006   HQREL = 0.3 styrene.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PS source category is the neurological system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the PET source category, the MIR increased from 9- to 10-in-1
million, the annual cancer incidence stayed the same at 0.002 cases per
year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value decreased from 0.5 to
0.4, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value decreased from 8 to 4,
based on the REL value for acetaldehyde. Table 7 provides an overall
summary of the revised inhalation risk assessment results for the PET
source category.

                                                     Table 7--PET Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13......................................           10            10         2,300         0.002           0.4           0.4   HQREL = 4 acetaldehyde.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PET source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the PAI source category, the MIR decreased from 7- to 6-in-1
million, the annual cancer incidence decreased from 0.001 to 0.0006
cases per year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI stayed the same at
0.7, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value decreased from 8, based on
the REL value for ethylene glycol ethyl ether, to 1, based on the REL
value for formaldehyde. Table 8 provides an overall summary of the
revised inhalation risk assessment results for the PAI source category.

                                                     Table 8--PAI Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18......................................            6             7           370        0.0006           0.7             4   HQREL = 1 formaldehyde.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PAI source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the PEPO source category, the MIR stayed the same at 30-in-1
million, the annual cancer incidence stayed the same at 0.02 cases per
year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value decreased from 0.8 to
0.7, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value decreased from 6 to 4,
based on the REL value for acrolein. Table 9 provides an overall
summary of the revised inhalation risk assessment results for the PEPO
source category.

                                                    Table 9--PEPO Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23......................................           30            30       140,000          0.02           0.7           0.7   HQREL = 4 acrolein.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PEPO source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    The results of the revised risk assessment did not significantly
change the maximum risk levels to the most exposed individual for these
source categories and did not affect our determinations regarding risk
acceptability and ample margin of safety. The full results of the
revised risk assessment for the source categories can be found in the
risk assessment documentation available in the docket for this action
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435).
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for the source categories
addressed in these final rules. Although uncertainty exists, we believe
that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions,
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A discussion of the
uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates and dose-response relationships is
provided in the preamble to the proposed rule. See 77 FR 1280-1282
(January 9, 2012).

B. What changes did we make to the affirmative defense provisions since
proposal?

    We proposed a 2-day notification requirement for asserting an
affirmative defense in 40 CFR 63.1310(k) of subpart JJJ, 40 CFR
63.1360(k) of subpart MMM and 40 CFR 63.1420(i) of subpart PPP.
Consistent with other recent actions by the EPA (e.g., NESHAP for
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production (77 FR 22848, April 17,
2012)), we have revised these sections in the final rules to allow an
owner or operator of the affected source seeking to assert an
affirmative defense, after experiencing an exceedance of its emission
limit(s) or a violation of an emission standard during a malfunction,
to submit a written report to the Administrator. The owner or operator
may submit this report in the first periodic compliance report,
deviation report or excess emissions report otherwise required after
the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.
However, if the next report is due less than 45 days after the
violation, the affirmative defense report may be included in the next
report after that. This change provides sources with sufficient time to
demonstrate that they have met the required affirmative defense
criteria. In addition, we have revised the affirmative defense
provisions to clarify that these provisions are applicable where there
have been ``violations of emission standards,'' rather than ``excess
emissions,'' during malfunctions.

C. What changes did we make to the PRD provisions since proposal?

    We have clarified in each of the three MACT standards that new
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or
before January 12, 2012, and existing affected sources have three years
to comply with the PRD monitoring requirements. We proposed that
facilities subject to these MACT standards would have to install a
release indicator on each PRD in organic HAP service that releases to
the atmosphere. In the final rules, we have revised this requirement so
that facilities may comply with these requirements using existing
parameter monitoring systems that notify operators immediately when a
pressure release occurs. In the proposal, we proposed that a release to
the atmosphere from a PRD was a violation of the rule. In the final
rule, we have clarified that a pressure release to the atmosphere from
a PRD in organic HAP service is prohibited.

D. What changes did we make to the Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT
standards since proposal?

    The final rule P&R IV amendments take into account startup and
shutdown periods by establishing alternative compliance demonstration
methods for meeting standards for continuous process vents during
startup and shutdown periods.
    We are also amending 40 CFR 63.14 to add the test methods
incorporated by reference for the technical standards we are finalizing
for the PCCT at the one Group IV Polymers and Resins facility in the
PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory.

E. What changes did we make to the Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production MACT standards since proposal?

    The final rule PAI amendments provide an alternative monitoring
option for packed-bed scrubbers that allows the measurement of the
liquid-to-gas ratio (according to 40 CFR 63.994(c)) in lieu of the
scrubber liquid flow rate or pressure drop.
    We are also revising the definition of ``pesticide active
ingredient'' to reflect changes made to EPA Form 3540-16, subsequent to
the promulgation of the MACT standards. The revised definition
clarifies that PAI materials are identified by product classification
codes used to represent PAIs, and are the same codes used in block 19
of the 1999 version of EPA Form 3540-16, the Pesticides Report for
Pesticide-Producing Establishment.

F. What changes did we make to the Polyether Polyols Production MACT
standards since proposal?

    The final rule PEPO amendments have not been changed since
proposal.

G. What other changes did we make since proposal?

    We have revised the language of the PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards
to require quarterly reporting only when there have been repeat
excursions for the same equipment in consecutive semiannual reporting
periods. Excursions can result from monitoring parameter levels being
outside established ranges or from a lack of sufficient data to
determine compliance

with the emission limits. These excursions are considered violations of
the standards and must be reported in the semiannual report. While we
proposed to remove the one excursion per semiannual reporting period
allowance from these subparts, this would result in facilities being
required to perform quarterly reporting for the affected source if any
point at that affected source experienced an excursion. This would be
overly burdensome for both the facility and the reviewing agency and
was not the intention of the original MACT standards. To remedy this
situation, we are finalizing the removal of the one-excursion-per-
semiannual-reporting-period allowance, but revising the reporting
requirements to require quarterly reporting only when there have been
repeat excursions for the same equipment in consecutive semiannual
reporting periods. This will ensure enhanced reporting is carried out
only for equipment with potential compliance issues.
    For each NESHAP, we have also clarified the requirements for
Precompliance Reports/Plans where an initial Precompliance Report/Plan
is needed after the compliance date for the rule. Since a Precompliance
Report/Plan is only required where certain compliance options are
chosen or alternative compliance options are being requested, not all
existing sources would have submitted a Precompliance Report/Plan prior
to the compliance date and not all new sources would have submitted one
with the application for construction or reconstruction. The revisions
added today clarify that sources may submit a Precompliance Report/Plan
to request alternative compliance options after the compliance date has
passed or construction or preconstruction applications have already
been submitted.
    In addition, we have also made several technical corrections for
each NESHAP. These amendments are being finalized to correct
inaccuracies and oversights that were previously promulgated.

VI. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes to the
Proposed Rule

    We received written comments from 21 commenters during the comment
period and three comment letters after the close of the comment period.
The following is a summary of the significant comments received and our
responses to these comments. The complete list of comments received and
our responses to those comments can be found in the Response to
Comments document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0435).
    For the purposes of this document, the text within the comment
summaries was provided by the commenter(s) and represents their
opinion(s), regardless of whether the summary specifically indicates
that the statement is from a commenter(s) (e.g., ``The commenter
states'' or ``The commenters assert''). The comment summaries do not
represent the EPA's opinion unless our response to a comment expressly
agrees with all of the comment or the relevant portion of that comment.

A. Pressure Relief Device Monitoring Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters stated that the EPA had not provided
factual evidence or adequate justification for requiring control of
emissions from PRDs. One commenter argued that the EPA provided no data
to support the claim that a large number of releases occur and may emit
large quantities of HAP, or to support the contention that releases are
not being identified. Other commenters stated that the EPA had not
conducted this portion of the rulemaking according to the procedures
set out by the CAA for the establishment of MACT standards. Commenters
added that they did not believe that the EPA has a legal obligation nor
the discretion to promulgate the proposed PRD provisions because the
PRD monitoring and reporting requirements were not derived from the
technology reviews, in response to any residual risks detected, or the
D.C. Circuit's invalidation of the SSM provisions in the 40 CFR Part 63
General Provisions. Some commenters opined that since the MACT
standards were established without consideration of PRD emissions, it
is inappropriate for the EPA to state that emissions from PRDs violate
the MACT standards.
    Response: Under CAA section 112(d)(2), the EPA must promulgate
technology-based standards that reflect the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts),
and such standards must contain compliance assurance provisions to make
sure that they are practicably enforceable. Nothing in the CAA or its
legislative history suggests that the EPA is prohibited from reviewing
and revising MACT standards and their compliance assurance provisions,
except as part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) or CAA section 112(f)
reviews or an action taken in response to a ruling by a court. The
amendments being finalized for PRD releases do not impose new emission
standards for which a MACT analysis is required by the CAA. Instead,
they prohibit releases to the atmosphere from PRDs in organic HAP
service that are no longer appropriate following the 2008 Sierra Club
v. EPA ruling, and impose additional monitoring requirements to address
potential releases.
    As noted in a report prepared by the SCAQMD, releases from PRDs
occur randomly and the emissions can only be approximated. Based on
their analysis of refinery PRD reports of PRD releases from 9
facilities in their district, there were 8 PRD releases from 2003 to
2006 that were estimated to release greater than 2,000 lbs of emissions
to the atmosphere, and 8 PRD releases from 2003 to 2006 that were
estimated to release between 500 and 2,000 lbs of emissions to the
atmosphere.\5\ The SCAQMD analysis focuses on volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions (which would also include organic HAP emissions).
Additionally, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Emission
Event Reporting Database is populated with Emission Event Reports from
both the refinery and chemical sectors where the reason for the report
was due to a PRD release.\6\ These final amendments simply prohibit PRD
releases to the atmosphere and require that these devices now be
monitored to indicate when these releases occur and be reported, so
that HAP emissions that may potentially occur from releases can be
mitigated as soon as possible. Additionally, the final rule requirement
to report PRD releases ensures that these releases will be reported
nationally and not just in some states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1173--
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from
Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants.'' Planning,
Rule Development and Area Sources, South Coast Air Quality
Management District. May 15, 2007.
    \6\ See http://www11.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agency generally remains free to revise previously promulgated
rules to correct newly identified problems, even in the absence of a
remand from a Court. United Gas Improvement Co. v. Callery Props.,
Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 229 (1966). In light of, and consistent with, the
2008 Sierra Club v. EPA ruling, the EPA is eliminating the SSM
exemption in the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards and requiring that
the standards in these rules apply at all times, including during
periods of SSM. In addition, in order for our treatment of malfunction-
caused pressure releases to the atmosphere to conform with the
reasoning of the Court's ruling, the final rule adds a provision
stating that HAP

emissions releases to the atmosphere from PRDs in organic HAP service
are prohibited. To prohibit these malfunction-caused releases, it is
not necessary for us to set an emission standard that is based on a
MACT floor or beyond-floor analysis (see section IV.A of this
preamble); indeed, the EPA has consistently explained that we are not
required to take malfunctions into account in setting standards or to
devise standards that apply specifically to malfunction-caused
emissions, such as PRD releases that cause HAP emissions only during
malfunctions. However, based on comments received, we have modified the
PRD monitoring provisions in the final rule. The final rule includes
detection and pressure release management requirements that can be used
by facilities to mitigate emissions during pressure release events from
PRDs while allowing owners or operators greater flexibility based on
their current equipment and operations. The final rule requires that
sources monitor PRDs using a system that is capable of identifying and
recording the time and duration of each pressure release and of
immediately notifying operators that a release is occurring. As with
any malfunction event, an affirmative defense against civil penalties
would be available for a PRD release to the atmosphere if the facility
can prove the elements of that defense.
    Comment: Several commenters reported that there are other
approaches for monitoring PRDs, including continuous monitoring of
process parameters, noting that many companies have process control
computer systems that already have alarms to notify the operator of
deviations from normal operations and automatically adjust process
operations to prevent upsets. One commenter suggested that pressure
relief valves with an upstream rupture disc should be considered to
have adequate monitoring already because there is pressure monitoring
of the space between the two. The commenter also suggested that
monitoring of ambient air within the vicinity of a process for leaks be
considered a valid alternative, as this would provide reasonable
assurance that the opening of a relief device would be noticed.
    Another commenter opined that the EPA had not provided any
information about the reliability or suitability of the wireless
indicators on which the EPA based its PRD monitoring cost estimates.
The commenter stated that the wireless indicators assumed in the cost
analysis are similar to the ``Burst Alert Sensors'' used at one of the
commenter's facilities. The commenter notes these devices have limited
applicability, such as an 8-inch maximum pipe diameter, and -
40[emsp14][deg]F to 185[emsp14][deg]F temperature range, and the EPA
has not provided any data or information on the use or reliability of
these devices in chemical plants or the more specific types of
facilities in the source categories addressed by the proposed rule. The
commenter noted these monitors exhibit a high false alarm rate and
issues in areas where freezing occurs.
    Commenters also expressed that the EPA provided no information in
the proposed rule about which devices and types of data are acceptable
for determining the duration of a PRD opening.
    Response: Based on technological and cost concerns expressed by
industry, we have reassessed the proposed requirement to prescribe the
use of release indicators and alarms for each PRD. We acknowledge that
there are other valid and potentially less costly approaches for
monitoring PRDs and determining when a pressure release from a PRD has
occurred for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV source categories. As there are
other approaches we believe to be equally effective (and potentially
more reliable under certain circumstances for these source categories)
as the proposed indicators and alarms, we have added flexibility in the
rules. The final rules allow each PRD in organic HAP service to be
equipped with a device or system that is capable of identifying and
recording the time and duration of each pressure release (e.g., rupture
disk indicators, magnetic sensors, motion detectors on the pressure
relief valve stem, flow monitors, and pressure monitors) in lieu of
prescribing that PRDs be equipped with release indicators and alarms.
    Comment: Several industry commenters stated that the EPA did not
consider the burden of data collection from PRD monitors, operation and
maintenance costs or the costs of installing electronic indicators for
every pressure relief valve. Commenters also opined that the cost
estimates that the EPA used ($5,000 to $10,000) for the cost of the
proposed PRD monitoring units at proposal were low and provided PRD
monitoring unit cost estimates ranging from $14,000 to $30,000 per
unit. One commenter stated that the costs cited by the EPA are for
wireless monitors only and that there may be cases where more expensive
wired connections would be necessary. One commenter opined that the
EPA's estimate of $1,409 per PRD monitoring unit was lower than the
SCAQMD document cited by the EPA (which includes costs ranging from
$5,000 to $10,000 per PRD monitoring unit).
    A few commenters asserted that the EPA underestimated the number of
PRDs that would be subject to PRD monitoring requirements for some
facilities and companies. One commenter estimated that one of their
facilities had 122 PRDs and one company reported an estimated 300 PRDs
for their 2 facilities that would be subject to the proposed MACT
standards.
    One commenter stated that, based on historical PRD emissions
release data from 2009 to 2011 at the facilities of the commenter's
company, there was one release event of 25 pounds. The commenter
asserted that, considering these emissions data, their estimated cost
of the proposed PRD monitoring requirements would be approximately
$73,000/pound emissions released.
    Response: As noted above, based on comments received at proposal we
reassessed both our cost analysis and PRD monitoring requirements. The
final rules have been amended to allow each PRD in organic HAP service
to be equipped with a device or system that is capable of identifying
and recording the time and duration of each pressure release (e.g.,
rupture disk indicators, magnetic sensors, motion detectors on the
pressure relief valve stem, flow monitors, and pressure monitors) in
lieu of prescribing that PRDs be equipped with release indicators and
alarms.
    Although we are adding flexibility to the monitoring options an
owner or operator has for PRD releases for these source categories in
the final rule amendments, we maintained, for the purposes of costing,
that owners and operators would install electronic indicators on each
relief device that vents to the atmosphere to identify releases when
they occur. We recognize that facility operations and configurations
will vary for differing facilities based on the number of PRDs in
operation at a given facility and have attempted to address those
variances in our revised costs.\7\ This would amount to approximately
$1,409 per PRD. We have revised the estimate of PRD system costs based
on an estimated cost per PRD monitoring device combined with source-
category specific estimates of the number of PRDs. Based on a report
prepared by the SCAQMD, the total cost of a PRD monitoring device is
estimated

to be in the range of $5,000 to $10,000 (2007 dollars).\8\ For our
analysis, we assumed the PRD monitoring device to cost in the midpoint
of the range ($7,500 [2007 dollars]), and we adjusted that cost to 2012
dollars ($8,345). Assuming a 10 year equipment life and 7% interest,
the annualized PRD monitoring device cost is estimated to be
approximately $1,185. At proposal, as one commenter acknowledges, we
adopted an average facility cost of a PRD monitoring system, assuming
134 PRDs, to be $188,913 based on analyses performed for the proposed
standards for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers source category.\9\
Based on PRD data and models that we have developed for the PAI, PEPO
and P&R IV source categories, most facility operations subject to these
source categories are anticipated to have less than 76 PRDs. Based on
this information, we have adjusted our PRD monitoring system costs to
range from an estimated $69,233 to $112,180 for these source
categories, and the annualized monitoring system capital cost estimates
per facility range from $9,800 to $15,900 for these source
categories.\10\ Although our proposed and revised costs may be low for
some facilities, the costs will likely be an overestimate for other
facilities. Additionally, by allowing facilities the option to monitor
parameters in order to detect PRD releases, we believe that our revised
costs are conservative in that they reflect the upper range of our
estimated PRD monitoring system costs per source category and presume
that sources will choose to install electronic indicators and alarms
versus complying with the rule by using parameter monitoring. However,
it is highly likely that many sources will choose to install or use
existing parameter monitoring systems (and not electronic indicators
and alarms), and the cost of such a system would likely be less than
the costs estimated for the use of electronic indicators and alarms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``Revised Cost Impacts Associated with the Final
Pressure Relief Device Monitoring Requirements for the Pesticide
Active Ingredient Production, Polyether Polyols Production, and
Group IV Polymers and Resins Source Categories.'' Memorandum from
EC/R Incorporated to Nick Parsons, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. January 31, 2014. (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435.)
    \8\ See footnote 5.
    \9\ See ``Costs and Emission Reductions of the Proposed
Standards for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production
Source Category.'' Memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc. to
Jodi Howard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 13, 2011.
(Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-1002.)
    \10\ See footnote 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost-effectiveness numbers are estimated to evaluate the benefit of
implementing a control measure; the final PRD monitoring requirements,
although likely to result in a reduction in HAP emissions from the
affected facilities, are being required to ensure continuous compliance
with existing emission standards. Therefore, while we consider the
costs of this monitoring technology to be reasonable, a cost-
effectiveness analysis that would be appropriate for a new emission
standard imposing new control requirements to reduce HAP emissions by
an estimable amount was not considered for this monitoring requirement.
We have prohibited releases from PRDs because we believe it is
inconsistent with the Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008) ruling. We consider PRD releases to be malfunctions and
acknowledge these releases do not occur frequently and in specific
cases may or may not result in significant releases to the atmosphere.

B. Startup and Shutdown Periods

    Comment: Two commenters requested that the EPA provide a means to
demonstrate compliance during startup and shutdown periods, including
the establishment of work practices for subpart JJJ. The commenters
stated that while emissions during startup and shutdown may not be
higher than during normal operations, it may not be possible to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for these specific
periods. The commenters argued that, for units complying with a unit of
mass emitted per unit of product produced or destruction efficiency
standard, demonstrating compliance is problematic as production
approaches zero. One commenter suggested a long averaging time, such as
30 days, be incorporated to resolve this problem. Commenters also
suggested that a work practice standard could be established for these
periods to require emissions during startup and shutdown be routed to
an operating control device that has been demonstrated to achieve the
required destruction efficiency or that facilities be allowed to
demonstrate compliance by showing that control device operating
parameters are maintained at a level that has been demonstrated to meet
standards during continuous steady-state conditions.
    One commenter asserted that the EPA cannot speculate that
facilities can meet the normal operations emissions limitation during
periods of startup and shutdown and must conduct a thorough analysis of
emissions from the best performing sources during startup and shutdown
and base the standards on the results of that analysis.
    Response: We do not agree with commenters that alternative work
practice standards should be established for P&R IV continuous process
vents during startup and shutdown periods. The existing rule includes
flexible continuous process vent control compliance options. Current
regulations allow owners or operators to comply by meeting a production
based limit, reducing emissions by 98 percent in a combustion device or
to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) on a dry
basis (whichever is less stringent); combust the emissions in a boiler
or process heater with a specified design heat input capacity or by
introducing emissions into the flame zone; or combust emissions in a
flare meeting specification requirements. Nonetheless, alternative
compliance demonstration method options for meeting production-based
limits are included in the final rule to address commenters' concerns
regarding meeting production-based limits as production approaches
zero. The final rule allows owners or operators to demonstrate
compliance with continuous process vent production-based limits during
startup and shutdown periods by either: (1) Keeping records that
establish the raw material feed rate and production rate were both
zero; (2) meeting the limit by dividing the emission rate during
startup or shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the most
recent performance test associated with a production rate greater than
zero; or (3) keeping records that establish the operating parameters of
the control device used to comply with the rule were maintained at the
level established to meet the emission limit at maximum representative
operating conditions. We believe the addition of the alternative
compliance demonstration method options for startup and shutdown
periods addresses commenters' concerns while meeting the intended
emission reduction requirements.
    We disagree with the commenter that claimed the EPA should have
performed a more thorough analysis of emissions during periods of
startup and shutdown prior to proposal, as at that time we did not have
information to suggest that sources could not meet the emission