[Federal Register: April 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 76)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20445-20472]
[DOCID:fr20ap06-6]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 63 and 65

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: General
Provisions; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63 and 65

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094; FRL-8055-5]
RIN 2060-AM89

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: General
Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates amendments to certain aspects of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) requirements affecting sources
subject to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) in response to a July 29, 2003 petition to reconsider certain
aspects of amendments to the NESHAP General Provisions published on May
30, 2003.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on April 20, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the

index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard

copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094, EPA
West, Room B-102, 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: Mr. Rick Colyer, U.S. EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Program Design Group (C504-05), Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include sources in all source categories regulated under
40 CFR parts 63 and 65 that must develop a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's final rule amendments will also be
available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's
policy and guidance page for newly promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
 The TTN provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), judicial review of the final rule amendments is available only
by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by June 19, 2006. Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the final rule amendments
that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the final
rule amendments may not be challenged separately in any civil or
criminal proceeding brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. General Information
II. Summary of Final Amendments
III. Responses to Comments
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

II. Summary of Final Amendments

    The NESHAP General Provisions were first promulgated on March 16,
1994 (59 FR 12408). We subsequently proposed a variety of amendments to
the initial rule based in part on settlement negotiations with
industrial trade organizations, which had sought judicial review of the
rule, and in part on our practical experience in developing and
implementing NESHAP, also known as maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards, under the General Provisions (66 FR 16318;
March 23, 2001). We then promulgated final amendments to the General
Provisions pursuant to that proposal (67 FR 16582; April 5, 2002).
    On April 25, 2002, Sierra Club filed a petition seeking judicial
review of those final amendments, Sierra Club v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, No. 02-1135 (DC Circuit). The Sierra Club also filed
a petition seeking administrative reconsideration of certain provisions
in the final amendments, pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section
307(d)(7)(B).
    Shortly after the filing of the petition, EPA commenced discussions
with the Sierra Club concerning a settlement agreement. We reached
initial agreement with the Sierra Club on the terms of a settlement and
lodged the tentative agreement with the court on August 15, 2002, under
which we agreed to propose a rule to make specified amendments to the
General Provisions.
    Following execution of the final settlement agreement, we published
proposed amendments effectuating its terms (67 FR 72875; December 9,
2002). Most of the General Provisions amendments dealt with clarifying
the general duty to minimize emissions and its relationship to the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plans required under 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3).
    We issued final amendments (68 FR 32586; May 30, 2003) that require
that a source must promptly submit a copy of its plan to its permitting
authority if and when the permitting authority requests that the plan
be submitted. The final amendments also require the permitting
authority to obtain a copy of the plan from a facility if a member of
the public makes a specific and reasonable request to examine or
receive a copy. We noted that the permitting authority should work with
the requester to clarify any request if it is overly broad or
insufficiently specific.
    After promulgation of the amendments, the NRDC petitioned EPA on
July 29, 2003, under section 307(d)(7)(D) of the CAA, to reconsider the
public access aspects of the SSM plan provisions. Specifically, NRDC
opposed the criteria for the public to access SSM plans, i.e., that a
plan may be obtained only if the request is ``specific and
reasonable.'' The NRDC concluded that the final amendments

allow the Administrator to block a citizen's access to SSM plans just
by declaring the request not ``specific and reasonable.''
    On July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43992), we announced our reconsideration of
these issues arising from the final amendments of May 30, 2003,
regarding SSM plans, and proposed additional amendments to the General
Provisions and conforming amendments to other parts 63 and 65 subparts.
Today's notice responds to comments on the July 29, 2005 proposal and
promulgates final rule amendments.
    By removing the requirement that the SSM plan must be followed
during periods of SSM, the final amendments allow sources flexibility
to address emissions during periods of SSM. This in no way alters the
obligation and requirement set out at 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) that source
owners or operators ``minimize emissions'' at all times, including
periods of SSM. Root cause analysis of excess emissions events may
generally be the most effective means in many industry sectors to
assist a source in meeting its regulatory obligation to minimize
emissions at all times including during periods of SSM. Appropriately
conducted root cause analysis should determine the fundamental cause of
an excess emissions event, and identify the steps and corrective action
necessary to ensure that the excess emission does not arise again.
Through this process, we have determined that fewer and fewer excess
emission events occur over time. Thus, performing a root cause or
similar analysis and implementing corrective action may often be
relevant in determining whether a source has met the good air pollution
control measures standard. The final amendments do not change the
current approach to minimizing emissions during periods of SSM, and we
fully expect owners or operators to follow their SSM plans during
periods of SSM. Owners or operators are also still required to keep
records of and report actions taken during SSM periods to minimize
emissions whenever there is an exceedance of an emissions limit (or a
potential exceedance in the case of a malfunction). (See discussion of
recordkeeping and recording requirements below.) We expect few owners
or operators to deviate from their plans, and only when necessary due
to unanticipated types of malfunctions, emergencies that are not
amenable to strict adherence to the plan at the time, safety
considerations that preclude following the plan as written, or when
emissions can be better minimized by taking steps that are different
from those set forth in the plan. Even then, the owner or operator must
report such deviations and demonstrate how emissions were minimized
when the plan was not followed. This is consistent with the prior
provisions, except that deviation from the plan is no longer a
violation of the SSM requirements of the General Provisions
regulations. This change has been made in all the parts 63 and 65
subparts that had previously required the plan to be followed.
    We are also removing the requirement that the Administrator obtain
a copy of a source's SSM plan whenever requested by a member of the
public. The public may obtain a copy of any plan obtained by the
Administrator from a source. This includes any permitting authority
(state or local agency) that has been delegated the authority to
enforce standards under parts 63 and 65. Under the amendments, any
permitting authority with delegation will still have the discretion to
obtain plans requested by the public, but will not be required to do
so. EPA's position is that SSM plans should not be viewed as compliance
plans under section 502(b)(8) or 503(c) of the Clean Air Act or under
EPA's Title V regulations at 40 CFR 70.5(c)(8). This is the most
reasonable interpretation of those statutory and regulatory provisions
and is consistent with EPA's position on implementation issues
associated with SSM plan requirements discussed in more detail in the
response to comment section below.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the preamble to the proposal, we suggested that EPA does
not have the authority to treat SSM plans as compliance plans or to
require permitting authorities to make such plans available to the
public. (70 FR 43994-95; July 29, 2005). Upon further consideration,
we believe that the term ``compliance plan'' is somewhat ambiguous.
However, for the reasons set forth below and in the response to
comment section, we believe that an interpretation that SSM plans
are not compliance plans is reasonable and appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition of ``compliance schedule'' in section 501(3) of the
CAA equates ``schedule of compliance'' to ``schedule of remedial
measures.'' Nothing in this definition or in any other provision of the
CAA suggests that SSM plans must be considered ``compliance plans.'' In
fact, the definition of compliance schedule suggests that the primary
purpose of ``compliance schedules'' and ``compliance plans'' is to set
out measures to be taken to remedy noncompliance. EPA's title V
regulations at 40 CFR 70.5(c)(8), which describe what is to be included
in a compliance plan, further support the reasonableness of EPA's view
that SSM plans should not be considered compliance plans. Those
regulations provide that a compliance plan must include a description
of the compliance status of the source, a statement that the source
will continue to comply with applicable requirements and, if the source
is not in compliance with an applicable requirement, a narrative
describing how compliance will be achieved. SSM plans serve a purpose
different from that of compliance plans (see discussion below) and do
not include the components described above that are required in
compliance plans. Thus, EPA's position that SSM plans are not
compliance plans is reasonable.
    Plans available to the public will have confidential business
information removed. Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans are
similar to the risk management plans prepared under section 112(r) to
prevent accidental releases of HAP and may likely contain information
that is protected as CBI or that may be sensitive from a security
standpoint. For these reasons, many facilities are reluctant to provide
the details of their plans and permitting authorities are reluctant to
request them except when necessary. While these plans may be redacted
prior to public release to remove CBI, this imposes additional burden
on both the facilities and the permitting agencies. Thus we believe the
limitation we are imposing in the final rule strikes a reasonable
balance between the public's right to know, protection against acts of
terrorism, and protection of a facility's CBI.
    The amendments also make clarifying edits that reporting and
recordkeeping is only required when a startup or shutdown causes the
applicable emission standards to be exceeded, and for any occurrence of
malfunction which also includes potential exceedances \2\ and that such
recordkeeping and reporting shall include information on actions taken
during such periods of SSM to minimize emissions in conformance with
Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). When such actions are consistent with the plan the
report can include a checklist, as is currently allowed for
recordkeeping. Reports would allow a member of the public to review the
actions taken and whether or not they conform to the general duty to
minimize emissions. We are also revising the definitions for
malfunction

throughout parts 63 and 65 in various subparts for consistency with the
previously revised definition in the General Provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A malfunction is defined as any 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 which causes, or has the potential to
cause, the emission limitations in an applicable standard to be
exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Responses to Comments

General

    Comment: One commenter thought EPA should not have considered
petitions from parties who did not participate in previous rulemakings,
and that EPA should have denied NRDC's petition for reconsideration.
    Response: The EPA granted reconsideration on a narrow issue and has
properly followed Section 307(d) of the CAA.

Enforcement

    Comment: Several commenters were concerned that the amendments
would render the SSM provisions essentially unenforceable. They felt
that removal of the requirement to follow the plan would allow owners
or operators to do anything they want during SSM periods with no
accountability and will lead to increases in emissions if the plan is
not followed. More specifically, Sierra Club asserts that section 304
of the CAA guarantees a citizen's right to enforce CAA requirements and
that section 504(a) of the CAA requires that title V permits contain
enforceable limits and standards and conditions necessary to assure
compliance. Sierra Club alleges that if the requirement that a source
implement its SSM plan is eliminated, there would be no means by which
to measure a source's compliance with the general duty to minimize
emissions. Sierra Club further argues that without the ability to
measure a source's actions during an SSM event against that source's
SSM plans, the public can't enforce the general duty requirement.
    Sierra Club also asserts that proving a violation of the general
duty standard would be virtually impossible given the vagueness of the
standard. Sierra Club argues that EPA's proposed scheme renders the
MACT standard unenforceable because if the SSM plan is not incorporated
into the title V permit as a requirement, there will be no information
in the title V permit indicating when the limit applies. Sierra Club
believes that EPA's seeks to create a system in which adherence to plan
can be used as a defense, but failure to follow a plan is not a
violation.
    Comments submitted by Tulane Environmental Law Clinic on behalf of
St. Benard Citizens for Environmental Quality and Louisiana Bucket
Brigade argue that the requirement to develop an SSM plan is (even
under EPA's proposal) an applicable requirement and that the only way
to assure compliance with this applicable requirement is to require
that it be submitted to the regulatory agency and be available to the
public.
    Response: As summarized in the previous section, we do not believe
the amendments will change anything with respect to how owners and
operators will react during periods of SSM except that they will have
the flexibility to depart from a SSM plan when doing so makes sense
under the circumstances. They are still required to develop SSM plans,
minimize emissions during periods of SSM, and keep records and report
SSM events if there is an exceedance (or could have been, in the case
of malfunctions) of an applicable MACT standard. We expect owners and
operators to continue to follow the SSM plans with respect to most SSM
events because those plans should generally set forth the best way to
minimize emissions. Those who fail to follow their plan will undergo
additional scrutiny, as they do now, to determine if emissions were
minimized during SSM periods. The amendments should have no practical
effects on a source's obligation to minimize emissions during periods
of SSM.
    EPA's intention is that the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements will provide the permitting authority and the public with
information to determine whether the general duty to minimize emissions
has been satisfied any time there is an exceedance (or could have been,
in the case of malfunctions). We have evaluated the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in light of comments on the availability of
information necessary to evaluate compliance with the general duty
requirement and have decided to amend the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to clarify that a source must keep records of and report
actions taken during an SSM event any time there is an exceedance.
Revisions to Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i) and (ii) require that a description
of actions taken to minimize emissions be included in SSM reports
whether or not the SSM plan was followed. In the case where the plan is
followed, a checklist may suffice, and in the case of multiple events,
only one checklist is necessary (e.g., multiple startups of batch
processes where the procedure to minimize emissions is always the
same). With respect to recordkeeping, the rules currently require
sources to keep a record of actions taken during SSM events (40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v)). Where actions were consistent with an SSM
plan, the rules require records of ``all information necessary to
demonstrate conformance'' with the plan and provide that such
information can be recorded in the form of a checklist. (Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(v)) We are amending these rules today to clarify that such
records or checklist must include all actions taken during the SSM
event to minimize emissions. We are also making conforming changes to
40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii).
    With these clarifications, any time there is an exceedance of an
emission limit (or could have been in the case of malfunctions) and
thus a possibility that the general duty requirement was violated,
there will be a report filed that will describe what actions were taken
to minimize emissions that will be available to the public.
    Any member of the public could use the information in these reports
to evaluate whether adequate steps were taken to meet the general duty
requirement. This information is likely to be of as much if not more
use in determining compliance with the general duty requirement than a
facility's general SSM plan because the information will be specific to
the particular SSM event that caused the exceedance. We note that the
public can also request that the permitting authority obtain the SSM
plan if information in the SSM report suggests that the contents of the
SSM plan would help determine if there was a violation of the general
duty requirement. However, even if the permitting authority is not
willing to obtain the SSM plan, the required reports should provide
adequate information to determine whether there is a violation of the
general duty requirement and thus a basis for a citizen suit. In any
such citizen suit, plaintiffs can seek to obtain the SSM plan through
discovery.
    The general duty to minimize emissions is not too vague to be
enforced as suggested by Sierra Club. Though the general duty to
minimize emissions may not provide absolute certainty in all cases,
there will be many circumstances in which compliance or non-compliance
will be clear. A regulation that does not reach constitutionally
protected conduct is not facially vague unless it is impermissibly
vague in all its applications. (Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside,
Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 496(1982); Sweet Home Chapter of
Communities for a Greater Oregon v. Babbit, 1.F.3d. 1, 4 (D.C. Cir.
1994).
    Further, it is not impossible to know when the MACT applies without
knowing how the facility defines startup, shutdown and malfunction in

its SSM plan. EPA regulations define the terms startup shutdown and
malfunction and it is these definitions that apply when determining
whether a facility is legitimately claiming to be experiencing a period
of SSM.
    With respect to the argument that the only way to assure compliance
with the duty to develop a plan is to require that it be submitted to
permitting authority and be available to the public, assuring
compliance does not require that the Agency observe compliance first
hand. It is perfectly appropriate for the Agency to rely on
certifications (title V regulations require sources to certify
compliance with all applicable requirements (40 CFR 70.5(c)(9))) or on
inspection, record keeping and reporting authorities of section 114 of
the CAA to decide on a case by case basis when to inspect or request
copies of documents
    Comment: Two commenters said that emissions during SSM events
should be required to comply with the NESHAP standard. One commenter
said EPA had failed to support a general assumption that sources cannot
meet emission limitations during periods of SSM or that setting
emission limitations during these periods is not feasible.
    Response: These commenters raise issues that are outside of the
scope of this rulemaking. The general duty provision has been in place
since 1994. Moreover, comments concerning whether a particular source
type can meet a particular emission standard during periods of startup,
shutdown or malfunction could be raised when the emissions standards
for that source are developed. As one commenter noted, ``EPA can, and
in some instances has, included requirements for compliance during SSM
in source-specific NESHAP standards.''
    Though these comments raise issues that are outside the scope of
this rulemaking, we note that in the May 8, 2004 Federal Register
notice EPA stated ``EPA believes that it has discretion to make
reasonable distinctions concerning those particular activities to which
the emission limitations in a MACT standard apply'' (68 FR 32586,
32590; May 30, 2003). We also note that the EPA SIP guidance cited by
one commenter is not relevant to the scope of EPA's authority to
consider periods of SSM in promulgating NESHAP standards.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the sources should be
required to provide the permitting authorities with copies of SSM plans
even absent a request because the permitting authorities need to review
SSM plans before problems arise. These commenters also felt that
greater public access to the plans is beneficial because such scrutiny
can help ensure that the plans are adequate and the general duty to
minimize emissions can be met.
    Response: We do not believe that it is necessary to have each owner
or operator automatically submit its SSM plan. Our regulations make it
clear that all a permitting authority has to do is request the SSM plan
and the owner or operator is required to provide it. While the
authority to request the plan is derived from section 114, there is no
special order or document that needs to be issued to obtain the SSM
plan. Thus, the permitting authority may review any plan and may also
make it available to the public. We do not believe prior review and
approval of plans are necessary; rather, in most cases, review of
reports required to be submitted by a facility when emission
limitations are exceeded (or could have been in the case of
malfunctions) will allow the permitting authority and the public to
determine whether emissions were minimized during periods of SSM.
However, if it so chooses, a permitting authority is free to request
SSM plans and review them prior to any SSM events occurring. Typically,
permitting authorities will more often review and assess SSM plan of
sources with numerous and frequent periods of SSM. It may not be
necessary to review plans of sources with few or infrequent SSM events,
allowing the permitting authority to direct its resources to more
productive endeavors. The permitting authority has the discretion to
review as many plans as it wants in order to ensure, that emissions are
minimized during periods of SSM.
    Comment: Several commenters thought it made no sense to require
that plans be developed but not require them to be followed.
    Response: We disagree. Development of SSM plans help sources to
think through and document actions to take during SSM events. Plans
will help sources more expeditiously address SSM events to minimize
emissions during those periods. Once the plans are developed, sources
will have every incentive to follow the plans if appropriate, or face
additional scrutiny if the plans are not followed. In any event,
sources are required to minimize emissions regardless of whether the
plans are followed. By not requiring strict adherence to the SSM plan,
we are allowing the source additional flexibility as to how it will
minimize emissions. Plans also may help permitting authorities
streamline determinations of whether emissions are minimized. If it is
established that emissions are minimized by following the plan during a
particular SSM event, making that determination when a subsequent
similar SSM event occurs should be much less burdensome assuming the
plan has not been revised.
    Comment: Several commenters felt that if an SSM plan is developed
in good faith and is not ``obviously deficient,'' it should be
considered a ``safe harbor.'' Others felt that following the plan
should not be a safe harbor.
    Response: We believe that following the SSM plan should not be a
safe harbor. Where the SSM plan is out of date or deficient or the
circumstances clearly called for other steps to minimize emissions,
blind adherence to the plan should not be sufficient. We leave to the
discretion of the permitting authority the question of how much weight
to give the SSM plan in a particular situation. However, assuming that
the plan was made in good faith and not deficient, we believe that in
most cases following the SSM plan should help establish that the source
was minimizing emissions.
    Comment: Several commenters thought there should be a requirement
that sources periodically review and update their SSM plans. Two
commenters stated that because implementation of SSM plans will no
longer be required, sources will be less likely to periodically review
and update SSM plans.
    Response: Our regulations already require sources to keep their SSM
plans current, i.e., up to date, and to review and change the plans to
ensure that emissions are minimized. ``The owner or operator must
maintain at the affected source a current startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan and must make the plan available upon request for
inspection and copying by the Administrator'' (Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(v)).
Plans are required to address potential expected SSMs to minimize
emissions. Plans should be updated whenever changes are necessary to
address new or different types of SSM events as provided for in
paragraphs 63.6(e)(3)(vii) and (viii). Moreover, the Administrator (or
delegated authority) has the ability under Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(vii) to
require that SSM plans be revised if they are deficient or not current.

Applicable Requirements

    Comment: Numerous commenters agreed with the EPA's position at
proposal that the SSM plan details themselves are not the applicable
requirements under the Act, but the general duty clause (Sec.
63.6(e)(1)) is. They further agreed that the plan

elements should not be incorporated into the title V permits.
    One commenter believed that the SSM plan elements should be
applicable requirements. Another commenter thought that the requirement
to follow the plan should be an applicable requirement in the title V
permit but the individual elements of the SSM plan should not be
considered incorporated into the permit.
    Response: As explained in our proposal (70 FR 43992; July 29,
2005), we believe that the general duty to minimize emissions is the
applicable requirement, not the SSM plan itself. However, we note that
the SSM plan is a useful tool for sources to demonstrate--and for
permitting authorities to confirm--that the general duty to minimize
emissions is met. We do not agree that requiring implementation of the
SSM plan is necessary to assure compliance with general duty
requirement. The SSM plan is a useful tool that may help the permitting
authority determine compliance depending on the circumstances, but it
is not ``necessary.'' As explained above, compliance with the general
duty requirement can be achieved through different means such as
examining SSM reports to determine whether general duty has been
satisfied. The case law cited by Sierra Club is not on point. Both
Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v EPA, 399 F.3d. 486 (2nd Cir. 2005) and
Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. EPA, 344 F.2d. 832 (9th Cir.2003)
involved EPA regulatory schemes under which plans developed by the
regulated entity, which were not reviewed or approved by the regulatory
agency (nutrient development plans and stormwater management plans
under the Clean Water Act, respectively), served to establish binding
requirements, compliance with which would automatically satisfy an
underlying statutory or regulatory requirement. SSM plans are not
binding requirements and, as explained above, adherence with an SSM
plan does not necessarily establish compliance with the general duty
requirement.
    Comment: One commenter wanted clarification on the relationship of
the SSM plan requirements to title V, specifically what language should
be included in the permit regarding the requirement to develop a plan.
The commenter notes that Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(ix) explicitly refers to a
title V requirement whereas other provisions do not; the comment
suggests an edit to the paragraph that would clarify the provision.
    Response: The intent of Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(ix) was to ensure that the
only requirement with respect to the title V permit was that an SSM
plan be developed, that the elements of the plan are not to be
incorporated into the permit, and that changes to the plan would not
trigger a permit modification. The commenter's suggested edits are
helpful and have been incorporated into the paragraph.

Conforming Changes to Other Subparts

    Comment: Several commenters supported the conforming changes to the
other subparts with respect to the requirement to follow the plan. One
commenter stated that EPA failed to explain its reason for changing
specific part 63 subparts and how the changes would affect the specific
source categories.
    Response: Although there was no explicit statement explaining why
the other subparts were being amended, these changes were made merely
to conform to the changes being made in the General Provisions. Many of
the part 63 subparts repeated requirements in the General Provisions
about following the SSM plan and had to be revised to be consistent
with the changes to the General Provisions. Because the changes in the
individual subparts are necessary for conformance with the General
Provisions, we felt that no explanation was required.

Impacts

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA failed to comply with
Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. The commenter asserts
that the amendments will adversely affect minority and low income
communities around the sources.
    Response: Executive Order 12898 establishes a Federal policy for
incorporating environmental justice into Federal agency actions by
directing agencies to identify and address, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority and low-
income populations. The EPA has considered the impact of the proposal
on minority and low income populations. We do not believe that these
amendments will have any adverse effects on emissions during periods of
SSM. Therefore, there should not be any adverse impact on minority and
low income populations as a result of these amendments. The amendments
do not affect the underlying requirement to minimize emissions during
SSM events. Owners or operators are still required to develop SSM plans
to address emissions during these periods. They are required to report
immediately when the plans are not followed and semiannually when the
plans are followed and emission limitations are exceeded (or could have
been in the case of malfunctions) and describe steps taken to minimize
emissions. The only difference from current regulations is that the
source is not required to follow the plan, especially when the
situation may call for other action or when safety considerations
override following the plan as written.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA failed to comply with
Executive Order 13045 on Protection of Children for Environmental
Health and Safety Risk. The commenter disagrees with EPA's position
that the Executive Order only applies to regulations that are based on
health or safety risks.
    Response: Executive Order 13045 does not apply to this proposal
because, as is explained above, it does not change any emission
standard, it is not economically significant and because it is not
based on health and safety risks.

SSM Plan Availability

    Comment: There were numerous comments on SSM plan availability to
permitting authorities and the public. Some governmental commenters
stated that it is difficult to obtain SSM plans using section 114 of
the Act, and that permitting authorities should not be required to
obtain the information through a request made under section 114 of the
Act. One commenter stated that part 63 does not clearly state that
permitting authorities can request and receive copies of the plans and
that the provisions should be amended to make this clear and to require
that the plan be provided within 30 days. The commenter stated that
state laws allowing access to information vary from state to state and
are sometimes vague. Several industry commenters stated that SSM plans
should be available only through CAA section 114 requests.
    Response: The existing part 63 regulations already require a source
to (1) allow the permitting authority to inspect the SSM plan at the
premises or (2) ``promptly'' submit the plan to the permitting
authority if the permitting authority makes a written request for it.
The regulations state that the ``Administrator may at any time request
in writing that the owner or operator submit a copy of any startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan (or portion thereof) * * * [and] the
owner or operator must promptly submit a copy of the requested plan (or
a portion thereof) to the Administrator'' (Sec.  63.6(d)(3)(v)). The
authority for this provision is section 114(a) of the Act.

However, there is no special procedure or order required; the
Administrator or the permitting authority need only request the SSM
plan in writing. The Administrator or permitting authority may also
inspect and copy the SSM plan at the premises: ``The owner or operator
must maintain at the affected source a current startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan and must make the plan available upon request for
inspection and copying by the Administrator'' (Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(v)).
The authority for this inspection provision is also section 114(a).
Under section 114(b), states may develop and submit to the
Administrator a procedure for carrying out section 114 in the state,
and the Administrator may delegate his/her authority to the state. All
permitting authorities that have obtained delegation of part 63
standards have already demonstrated that they have state authority
equivalent to section 114 to monitor, to inspect, and to obtain
records, including SSM plans. Accordingly, permitting authorities
should have no difficulty in obtaining plans. The underlying authority
for the part 63 provisions allowing permitting authorities to inspect
or obtain copies of SSM plans is based on section 114(a) or its state
equivalent. Because all SSM plans are obtained under section 114(a) or
its state equivalent, any plans so obtained must be available to the
public under section 114(c) of the Act, which provides that any records
obtained under section 114(a) ``shall be available to the public,''
with the exception of portions considered confidential.
    Comment: Several commenters agreed that permitting authorities
should not be required to obtain SSM plans whenever a member of the
public requests one. Other commenters disagreed and believed that any
member of the public should be able to request an SSM plan. Several
commenters thought the public should be able to review the plans to
determine if emissions are minimized and argued that denying public
access makes general duty unenforceable.
    Response: As discussed above, we do not believe that the details of
SSM plans are compliance plans or are required to be available under
title V. As discussed above, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
will provide regulators and the public with adequate information
concerning actions taken during periods of SSM. Permitting authorities
can obtain and review plans as necessary, and all plans that are
obtained will be available to the public subject to limitation on
availability of CBI.
    Comment: Several commenters believed the proposal effectively cut
off public access to plans.
    Response: We disagree. Public access to SSM plans is still
available, in the case where the permitting authority has obtained a
plan. We believe that most permitting authorities will request a plan
from a source when presented with a reasonable request for the plan.
There is no federal requirement to do so, however, and unless otherwise
specified under state statute or regulations, state and local
authorities have the discretion to obtain the plan upon public request.
    Comment: Several commenters argued that companies will not be
responsive to requests for SSM plans from the public.
    Response: We recognize that some companies might choose not to
respond to requests from the public. However, we hope and expect that
other companies would indeed respond to public requests. Moreover, as
explained above, the public may ask the permitting authority to obtain
the SSM plan. Where the public has made a reasonable request, we
believe that the permitting authority would likely be responsive and
obtain the plan from the source. Because the authority to obtain such
plan is based on section 114 of the Act or its state equivalent, any
plan obtained by the permitting authority will be available to the
public.
    Comment: Another commenter noted that the difficulty of
``untangling'' SSM plans from facility operating procedures and CBI are
not good reasons for restricting public access.
    Response: As stated earlier, all SSM plans obtained by the
permitting authority are publicly accessible. We are sensitive to the
effort involved by some sources to create a standalone SSM plan for
submittal, but do not believe requiring all plans to be submitted
automatically for review is justified. However, permitting authorities
will obtain SSM plans as necessary, regardless of the burden imposed on
the source to develop a standalone document.
    Comment: The same commenter maintained that the paperwork burden on
permitting authorities also should not be a reason for not requiring
submittal of SSM plans.
    Response: Permitting authorities may obtain any SSM plan that it
wants. Thousands of sources are required to prepare SSM plans, and we
believe the permitting authority should have the discretion to obtain
those it feels are appropriate. For the reasons discussed above, we do
not think it is necessary to impose a requirement that all plans be
automatically submitted to the permitting authority, especially if this
results in the permitting authority reallocating resources from
enforcement and implementation to handling paper. We think it is best
for the individual permitting authority to make that decision. If they
so choose, they can routinely ask all sources to submit SSM plans.

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

    Comment: Two commenters noted that plans can be sanitized of their
CBI-sensitive information prior to submittal to the permitting
authority, but other commenters insisted that SSM plans not be released
because of sensitive information. One commenter additionally noted that
SSM plans may contain security-sensitive information and provide a
roadmap to terrorists seeking to disrupt a facility.
    Response: Plans may be submitted with CBI identified; such
submittals will be treated in accordance with requirements applicable
to claims of CBI. We also agree that plans can be ``cleansed'' of CBI
and other sensitive information and submitted. The public will have
access to any non-CBI submittal and non-CBI portions of plans with CBI
identified. This is what happens now.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that limiting public access to
plans and removing the requirement to implement the SSM plan makes it
difficult for the public to determine when an emission exceedance
constitutes a violation of a MACT standard. These commenters also
stated that reducing public access to SSM plans hinders citizen
enforcement efforts.
    Response: These amendments do not change the ability of the public
to determine when an emissions exceedance constitutes a violation of a
MACT standard and shouldn't make enforcement of the general duty
requirement more difficult. Plans previously available are still
available for public review. Permitting authorities may obtain any SSM
plan from any source and allow the public to examine it. Sources must
report what procedures and actions it did take during periods of SSM if
there was an exceedance of an emission limit (or could have been in the
case of malfunctions). Such reports are also available to the public.
As explained above, this information can be used by the public and the
permitting authority to support enforcement efforts.

Reporting

    Comment: One commenter stated that without a requirement to
implement SSM plans, the regulation should require reporting of all SSM
events so that the general duty can be evaluated

for each event. Another commenter added that only those SSM events that
exceeded the emission standards be reported.
    Response: We agree that all SSM events that exceed (or could have
exceeded, in the case of malfunctions) the emission limitations be
reported. We also agree that as long as the emission limitations are
being met, SSM events need not be reported (except those malfunctions
that could have exceeded the emission limitations), i.e., as long as
the relevant standards are being met, there is no benefit to a
reporting requirement in terms of assuring compliance with the general
duty standard. We have made clarifying edits in the regulatory
language.
    Comment: One commenter did not think that facilities should have to
report whether or not they followed their SSM plan. Another commenter
did not think sources should have to report immediately if the SSM plan
was not followed.
    Response: We disagree. Information on whether or not an SSM plan
was followed gives the permitting authority and the public information
that can help them determine if further scrutiny of a source is in
order. If the permitting authority has reviewed a source's SSM plan and
determined that it is adequate, information that the source followed
that plan during an SSM event could be helpful to the regulator in
determining whether to investigate the event. Not following the plan
may or may not indicate a problem, but such information would be very
helpful to the permitting authority and the public in order to
determine if additional scrutiny or investigation of the event is
necessary. Immediate reporting if the plan was not followed is
appropriate to alert the permitting authority and the public of a
potential problem.
    Comment: One commenter questioned why SSM events still have to be
reported as deviations if emission limitations do not apply.
    Response: The general duty to minimize emissions is the applicable
requirement during SSM events. In order to effectively enforce this
requirement, it is important to have information about SSM events that
involve exceedances (or potential exceedances in the case of
malfunctions) in order to determine whether further scrutiny is
appropriate. Deviations do not necessarily equate to violations.

Recordkeeping

    Comment: Numerous commenters agreed with the elimination of certain
recordkeeping requirements for startups and shutdowns when relevant
emission standards are not exceeded. One commenter was not clear on how
burden had been relieved; the commenter cites Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) and
asked what documentation was necessary.
    Response: The amendments and the clarifications we are promulgating
today relieve the recordkeeping burden for startups and shutdowns that
do not result in a exceedance of an emissions limitation.

Regulatory Language

    Comment: Several commenters pointed out that some subparts have
their own SSM provisions and do not cite subpart A as the applicable
requirements. The proposal should have not referenced subpart A but
instead continued to reference the applicable provisions within their
subparts.
    Response: We agree with the commenters and have made the suggested
edits.
    Comment: Several commenters noted that the reference to Sec.
63.6(e) instead of the requirement to follow the SSM plan was overly
broad, and in fact should have referred more narrowly to the general
duty to minimize emissions since that is the applicable requirement.
    Response: We agree with the commenters and have made the suggested
edit to refer to Sec.  63.6(e)(1).
    Comment: One commenter suggested clarifying changes to ensure
reporting and recordkeeping for startups and shutdowns is required only
when the applicable emission limitation is exceeded.
    Response: We agree and have made the suggested edits. As explained
above, as long as the standards are being attained there is no need to
report.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended revising the definition for
``malfunction'' in other subparts where it occurs to be consistent with
the definition in subpart A. One commenter also suggested revising the
general duty provision where it occurs in other subparts to be
consistent with subpart A.
    Response: We agree this is appropriate for consistency and have
revised the definitions and provisions accordingly.
    Comment: A couple of commenters recommended incorporating paragraph
Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(ix) into the General Provisions applicability table in
all of the applicable subparts.
    Response: We agree that Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(ix) should apply to all
the applicable part 63 subparts. We have revised all of the applicable
General Provisions applicability tables accordingly.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., the OMB must clear any reporting and recordkeeping requirements
that qualify as an information collection request (ICR) under the PRA.
    Approval of an ICR is not required in connection with these final
amendments. This is because the General Provisions do not themselves
require any reporting and recordkeeping activities, and no ICR was
submitted in connection with their original promulgation or their
subsequent amendment. Any recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
imposed only through the incorporation of specific elements of the
General Provisions in the individual MACT standards which are
promulgated for

particular source categories which have their own ICRs. In any case, we
believe that adoption of the amendments will not materially alter the
burden imposed on affected sources through the incorporation of the
General Provisions in individual MACT standards. We anticipate that any
incremental changes in the recordkeeping and reporting burden estimate
for individual MACT standards will be addressed in the context of the
periodic renewal process required by the PRA.
    However, OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations of 40 CFR parts 63
and 65 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq. A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request
(ICR) for any of the existing regulations may be obtained from Susan
Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. EPA (2822T); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 566-
1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the final rule amendments
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201 for each applicable subpart; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule
amendments on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In determining whether a rule has significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives which minimize any significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C.
603-604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    Small entities that are subject to MACT standards would not be
required to take any action under the final rule amendments; the
amendments simply remove the requirement that sources must follow their
SSM plan. However, we do not expect sources will address periods of SSM
any differently than they do now.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' The final rule amendments do not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They will
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to the final rule amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule amendments
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not
``economically significant'' and are based on technology performance
and not on health or safety risks.

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

    The final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they
do not have an economically significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
    The final rule amendments do not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
the final rule and other required information to the United States
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days
after it is published in the Federal Register. The final rule
amendments are not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
final rule amendments are effective on April 20, 2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 63 and 65

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 31, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 63
and 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.6 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (e)(1)(ii);
0
b. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (e)(3)(i) introductory text
and adding two new sentences in its place;
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(3)(ii);
0
d. Revising the first through third sentences in paragraph (e)(3)(iii);
0
e. Removing the sixth sentence in paragraph (e)(3)(v); and
0
f. Revising the first and second sentences in paragraph (e)(3)(ix) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.6  Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Malfunctions must be corrected as soon as practicable after
their occurrence. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The owner or operator of an affected source must develop a
written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes, in
detail, procedures for operating and maintaining the source during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; and a program of
corrective action for malfunctioning process, air pollution control,
and monitoring equipment used to comply with the relevant standard. The
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan does not need to address any
scenario that would not cause the source to exceed an applicable
emission limitation in the relevant standard. * * *
* * * * *
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (iii) When actions taken by the owner or operator during a startup
or shutdown (and the startup or shutdown causes the source to exceed
any applicable emission limitation in the relevant emission standards),
or malfunction (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) are
consistent with the procedures specified in the affected source's
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator must
keep records for that event which demonstrate that the procedures
specified in the plan were followed. These records may take the form of
a ``checklist,'' or other effective form of recordkeeping that confirms
conformance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and
describes the actions taken for that

event. In addition, the owner or operator must keep records of these
events as specified in paragraph 63.10(b), including records of the
occurrence and duration of each startup or shutdown (if the startup or
shutdown causes the source to exceed any applicable emission limitation
in the relevant emission standards), or malfunction of operation and
each malfunction of the air pollution control and monitoring equipment.
* * *
* * * * *
    (ix) The title V permit for an affected source must require that
the owner or operator develop a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan
which conforms to the provisions of this part, but may do so by citing
to the relevant subpart or subparagraphs of paragraph (e) of this
section. However, any revisions made to the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan in accordance with the procedures established by this
part shall not be deemed to constitute permit revisions under part 70
or part 71 of this chapter and the elements of the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan shall not be considered an applicable requirement
as defined in Sec.  70.2 and Sec.  71.2 of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.8 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(iii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.8  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The owner or operator of an affected source must develop a
written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for CMS as specified in
Sec.  63.6(e)(3).
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.10 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv), and the first
sentence in paragraph (b)(2)(v); and
0
b. Revising the first four sentences in paragraph (d)(5)(i) and the
first and second sentences in (d)(5)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.10  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The occurrence and duration of each startup or shutdown when
the startup or shutdown causes the source to exceed any applicable
emission limitation in the relevant emission standards;
    (ii) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation
(i.e., process equipment) or the required air pollution control and
monitoring equipment;
* * * * *
    (iv)(A) Actions taken during periods of startup or shutdown when
the source exceeded applicable emission limitations in a relevant
standard and when the actions taken are different from the procedures
specified in the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan (see Sec.  63.6(e)(3)); or
    (B) Actions taken during periods of malfunction (including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation) when the actions taken are different from the procedures
specified in the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan (see Sec.  63.6(e)(3));
    (v) All information necessary, including actions taken, to
demonstrate conformance with the affected source's startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan (see Sec.  63.6(e)(3)) when all actions taken
during periods of startup or shutdown (and the startup or shutdown
causes the source to exceed any applicable emission limitation in the
relevant emission standards), and malfunction (including corrective
actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control and
monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation) are
consistent with the procedures specified in such plan. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5)(i) * * * If actions taken by an owner or operator during a
startup or shutdown (and the startup or shutdown causes the source to
exceed any applicable emission limitation in the relevant emission
standards), or malfunction of an affected source (including actions
taken to correct a malfunction) are consistent with the procedures
specified in the source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (see
Sec.  63.6(e)(3)), the owner or operator shall state such information
in a startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. Actions taken to
minimize emissions during such startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
shall be summarized in the report and may be done in checklist form; if
actions taken are the same for each event, only one checklist is
necessary. Such a report shall also include the number, duration, and a
brief description for each type of malfunction which occurred during
the reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicable
emission limitation to be exceeded. Reports shall only be required if a
startup or shutdown caused the source to exceed any applicable emission
limitation in the relevant emission standards, or if a malfunction
occurred during the reporting period. * * *
    (ii) * * * Notwithstanding the allowance to reduce the frequency of
reporting for periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports under
paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section, any time an action taken by an
owner or operator during a startup or shutdown that caused the source
to exceed any applicable emission limitation in the relevant emission
standards, or malfunction (including actions taken to correct a
malfunction) is not consistent with the procedures specified in the
affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or
operator shall report the actions taken for that event within 2 working
days after commencing actions inconsistent with the plan followed by a
letter within 7 working days after the end of the event. The immediate
report required under this paragraph (d)(5)(ii) shall consist of a
telephone call (or facsimile (FAX) transmission) to the Administrator
within 2 working days after commencing actions inconsistent with the
plan, and it shall be followed by a letter, delivered or postmarked
within 7 working days after the end of the event, that contains the
name, title, and signature of the owner or operator or other
responsible official who is certifying its accuracy, explaining the
circumstances of the event, the reasons for not following the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, describing all excess emissions and/or
parameter monitoring exceedances which are believed to have occurred
(or could have occurred in the case of malfunctions), and actions taken
to minimize emissions in conformance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). * * *
* * * * *

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
5. Section 63.102 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.102  General standards.

    (a) * * *
    (4) During start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when the
requirements of this subpart F, subparts G and/or H of this part do not
apply pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section, the
owner or operator shall implement, to the extent reasonably available,
measures to prevent or minimize excess emissions to the extent
practical. The general duty to minimize

emissions during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction does not
require the owner or operator to achieve emission levels that would be
required by the applicable standard at other times if this is not
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices, nor
does it require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to
reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have
been achieved. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance
procedures are being used will be based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures (including the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)),
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source. The measures to be taken may include, but are not limited to,
air pollution control technologies, recovery technologies, work
practices, pollution prevention, monitoring, and/or changes in the
manner of operation of the source. Back-up control devices are not
required, but may be used if available.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.105 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.105  Maintenance wastewater requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) The owner or operator shall incorporate the procedures
described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section as part of the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required under Sec.
63.6(e)(3).
* * * * *

0
7. Table 3 to Subpart F is amended by adding in numerical order a new
entry for 63.6(e)(3)(ix) to read as follows:

Table 3 to Subpart F of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subparts F, G, and H to Subpart F

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applies to
            Reference             subparts F, G, and        Comment
                                           H
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
63.6(e)(3)(ix)..................  Yes...............

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

* * * * *

Subpart G--[Amended]

0
8. Section 63.152 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(C)(1)
and (g)(2)(iv)(A) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.152  General reporting and continuous records.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (1) Periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. During periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction when the source is operated during
such periods in accordance with Sec.  63.102(a)(4).
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) The daily average value during any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction shall not be considered an excursion for purposes of this
paragraph (g)(2), if the owner or operator operates the source during
such periods in accordance with Sec.  63.102(a)(4).
* * * * *

Subpart L--[Amended]

0
9. Section 63.301 is amended by revising the first sentence in the
definition of malfunction to read as follows:

Sec.  63.301  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner which
causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations in an
applicable standard to be exceeded. * * *
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.310 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.310  Requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.

* * * * *
    (b) Each owner or operator of a coke oven battery shall develop,
according to paragraph (c) of this section, a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes procedures for operating
the battery, including associated air pollution control equipment,
during a period of a startup, shutdown, or malfunction in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions, and procedures for correcting malfunctioning process and air
pollution control equipment as quickly as practicable.
    (c) Malfunctions shall be corrected as soon as practicable after
their occurrence.
* * * * *

Subpart N--[Amended]

0
11. Section 63.342 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii); and
0
b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (f)(3)(i) introductory text
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.342  Standards.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1)(i) At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, owners or operators shall operate and maintain any
affected source, including associated air pollution control devices and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practices.
    (ii) Malfunctions shall be corrected as soon as practicable after
their occurrence.
* * * * *
    (3) Operation and maintenance plan. (i) The owner or operator of an
affected source subject to paragraph (f) of this section shall prepare
an operation and maintenance plan no later than the compliance date,
except for hard chromium electroplaters and the chromium anodizing
operations in California which have until January 25, 1998. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart U--[Amended]

Sec.  63.480  [Amended]

0
12. Section 63.480 is amended by removing the third sentence in
paragraph (j)(1).

0
13. Section 63.506 is amended by:

0
a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1) introductory text;
and
0
b. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv)(A) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.506  General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.
63.6(e)(3). * * *
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) The daily average or batch cycle daily average value during any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall not be considered an excursion
for purposes of paragraph (h)(2) of this section, if the owner or
operator operates the source during such periods in accordance with
Sec.  63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *

0
14. Table 1 to Subpart U is amended by adding in numerical order a new
entry for 63.6(e)(3)(ix) to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart U of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart U Affected Sources

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applies to subpart
            Reference                      U              Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(ix)...........  Yes...............

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

* * * * *

Subpart W--[Amended]

0
15. Section 63.526 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.526  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Periods of time when monitoring measurements exceed the
parameter values do not constitute a violation if they occur during a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, and the facility is operated in
accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *

Subpart Y--[Amended]

0
16. Section 63.562 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (e)(2) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.562  Standards.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop a
written operation and maintenance plan that describes in detail a
program of corrective action for varying (i.e., exceeding baseline
parameters) air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment,
based on monitoring requirements in Sec.  63.564, used to comply with
these emissions standards. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart AA--[Amended]

0
17. Section 63.600 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.600  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (e) The emission limitations and operating parameter requirements
of this subpart do not apply during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, as those terms are defined in Sec.  63.2, provided that
the source is operated in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).

Subpart BB--[Amended]

0
18. Section 63.620 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.620  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (e) The emission limitations and operating parameter requirements
of this subpart do not apply during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, as those terms are defined in Sec.  63.2, provided that
the source is operated in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).

Subpart DD--[Amended]

0
19. Section 63.695 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(6)(i)(A) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.695  Inspection and monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) During a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when the
affected facility is operated during such period in accordance with
Sec.  63.6(e)(1); or
* * * * *

Subpart GG--[Amended]

0
20. Section 63.743 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (b) introductory text as follows:

Sec.  63.743  Standards: General.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * Each owner or operator that uses an air pollution control
device or equipment to control HAP emissions shall prepare a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan in accordance with Sec.  63.6. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart HH--[Amended]

0
21. Section 63.773 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(8)(i)(A) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.773  Inspection and monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) During a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when the
affected facility is operated during such period in accordance with
Sec.  63.6(e)(1); or
* * * * *

0
22. Table 2 to Subpart HH is amended by adding in numerical order a new
entry for 63.6(e)(3)(ix) to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart HH of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63
General Provisions to Subpart HH

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applies to subpart
  General provisions reference            HH              Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(ix)...........  Yes...............

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

Subpart LL--[Amended]

0
23. Section 63.848 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.848  Emission monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (h) * * * If a monitoring device for a primary control device
measures an operating parameter outside the limit(s) established
pursuant to Sec.  63.847(h), if visible emissions indicating abnormal
operation are observed from the exhaust stack of a control device
during a daily inspection, or if a problem is detected during the daily
inspection of a wet roof scrubber for potline secondary emission
control, the owner or operator shall initiate corrective action
procedures within 1 hour. * * *
* * * * *

0
24. Section 63.850 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.850  Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * The owner or operator shall develop a written plan as
described in Sec.  63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be
followed for operating the source and maintaining the source during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a program of
corrective action for malfunctioning process and control systems used
to comply with the standards. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart MM--[Amended]

0
25. Section 63.864 is amended by revising paragraphs (k)(1)
introductory text and the first sentence in paragraph (k)(2)(v) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.864  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (k) * * * (1) Following the compliance date, owners or operators of
all affected sources or process units are required to implement
corrective action if the monitoring exceedances in paragraphs (k)(1)(i)
through (vi) of this section occur:
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) For the hog fuel dryer at Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's
Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14), when
corrective action is not initiated within 1 hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm and the alarm is engaged for more than 5 percent
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. * * *
* * * * *

0
26. Section 63.866 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.866  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * * The owner or operator must develop a written plan as
described in Sec.  63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures for
operating the source and maintaining the source during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and a program of corrective action
for malfunctioning process and control systems used to comply with the
standards. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart SS--[Amended]

0
27. Section 63.998 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(6)(i)(A); and
0
c. Revising the second sentence in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.998  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, if the owner or
operator operates the source during such periods in accordance with
Sec.  63.1111(a) and maintains the records specified in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6)(i) * * *
    (A) The daily average value during any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction shall not be considered an excursion if the owner or
operator operates the source during such periods in accordance with
Sec.  63.1111(a) and maintains the records specified in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * * If a source has developed a startup, shutdown and
malfunction plan, and a monitored parameter is outside its established
range or monitoring data are not collected during periods of start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction (and the source is operated during such
periods in accordance with Sec.  63.1111(a)) or during periods of
nonoperation of the process unit or portion thereof (resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which monitoring applies), then the
excursion is not a violation and, in cases where continuous monitoring
is required, the excursion does not count as the excused excursion for
determining compliance.
* * * * *

Subpart YY--[Amended]

0
28. Section 63.1101 is amended by revising the first sentence in the
definition of malfunction to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1101  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner which
causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations in an
applicable standard to be exceeded. * * *
* * * * *

0
29. Section 63.1108 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the second sentence in paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(6); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1108  Compliance with standards and operation and maintenance
requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (6) Malfunctions shall be corrected as soon as practical after
their occurrence.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (and the
source is operated during such periods in accordance with Sec.
63.1111(a)), or
* * * * *

0
30. Section 63.1111 is amended by revising the first and fifth
sentences in paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and revising paragraph
(a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1111  Startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

    (a) * * * (1) Description and purpose of plan. The owner or
operator of an affected source shall develop a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes, in detail, procedures
for operating and maintaining the affected source during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. * * * The requirement to develop
this plan shall be incorporated into the source's title V permit. * * *
* * * * *
    (2) Operation of source. During periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, the owner or operator of an affected source subject to
this subpart YY shall operate and maintain such affected source
(including associated air pollution control equipment and CPMS) in a
manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices
for minimizing emissions to the extent practical. The general duty to
minimize emissions during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction
does not require the owner or operator to achieve emission levels that
would be required by the applicable standard at other times if this is
not consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices,
nor does it require the owner or operator to make any further efforts
to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have
been achieved. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance
procedures are being used will be based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures (including the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by this section),
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source.
* * * * *

Subpart CCC--[Amended]

0
31. Section 63.1164 is amended by revising the last sentence in
paragraph (c) introductory text and revising paragraph (c)(1) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.1164  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * Malfunctions must be corrected as soon as practicable
after their occurrence.
    (1) Plan. As required by Sec.  63.6(e)(3) of subpart A of this
part, the owner or operator shall develop a written startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan that describes, in detail, procedures for
operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, and a program of corrective action for
malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to
comply with the relevant standards.
* * * * *

Subpart EEE--[Amended]

0
32. Section 63.1206 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(v)(A)(2)
and (c)(2)(v)(B)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1206  When and how must you comply with the standards and
operating requirements?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Although the automatic waste feed cutoff requirements continue
to apply during a malfunction, an exceedance of an emission standard
monitored by a CEMS or COMS or operating limit specified under Sec.
63.1209 is not a violation of this subpart EEE if you operate in
accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *
    (B) * * *
    (4) Although the automatic waste feed cutoff requirements of this
paragraph (c)(2)(v)(B)(4) apply during startup and shutdown, an
exceedance of an emission standard or operating limit is not a
violation of this subpart EEE if you operate in accordance with Sec.
63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *

Subpart GGG--[Amended]

0
33. Section 63.1251 is amended by revising the first sentence in the
definition of malfunction to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1251  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, emissions
monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a
normal or usual manner which causes, or has the potential to cause, the
emission limitations in an applicable standard to be exceeded. * * *
* * * * *

0
34. Section 63.1256 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(iii) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.1256  Standards: wastewater.

    (a) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) The owner or operator shall incorporate the procedures
described in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section as part of
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required under Sec.
63.6(e)(3).
* * * * *

0
35. Section 63.1258 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8)(iv) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.1258  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iv) Periods of time when monitoring measurements exceed the
parameter values as well as periods of inadequate monitoring data do
not constitute a violation if they occur during a start-up, shutdown,
or malfunction, and the facility operates in accordance with Sec.
63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *

0
36. Section 63.1259 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (a)(3) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1259  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.
63.6(e)(3). * * *
* * * * *

Subpart HHH--[Amended]

0
37. Section 63.1283 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(8)(i)(A) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.1283  Inspection and monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) During a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when the
affected facility is operated during such period in accordance with
Sec.  63.6(e)(1); or
* * * * *

0
38. Table 2 to Subpart HHH is amended by adding in numerical order a
new entry for 63.6(e)(3)(ix) to read as follows:

Appendix: Table 2 to Subpart HHH of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR
Part 63 General Provisions to Subpart HHH

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applies to subpart
  General provisions reference            HHH             Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(ix)...........  Yes...............

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

Subpart JJJ--[Amended]

Sec.  63.1310  [Amended]

0
39. Section 63.1310 is amended by removing the third sentence in
paragraph (j)(1).

0
40. Section 63.1335 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1) introductory text;
and
0
b. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv)(A) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1335  General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.
63.6(e)(3). * * *
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) The daily average or (batch cycle daily average) value during
any startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall not be considered an
excursion for purposes of paragraph (h)(2) of this section, if the
owner or operator follows the applicable provisions of Sec.
63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *

0
41. Table 1 to Subpart JJJ is amended by adding in numerical order a
new entry for 63.6(e)(3)(ix) to read as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applies to subpart
            Reference                     JJJ             Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(ix)...........  Yes...............

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

Subpart MMM--[Amended]

0
42. Section 63.1361 is amended by revising the first sentence in the
definition of malfunction to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1361  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, emissions
monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a
normal or usual manner which causes, or has the potential to cause, the
emission limitations in an applicable standard to be exceeded. * * *
* * * * *

0
43. Section 63.1366 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8)(iv) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.1366  Monitoring and inspection requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iv) Periods of time when monitoring measurements exceed the
parameter values as well as periods of inadequate monitoring data do
not constitute a violation if they occur during a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, and the facility operates in accordance with Sec.
63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *

0
44. Section 63.1367 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (a)(3) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1367  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.
63.6(e)(3). * * *
* * * * *

Subpart NNN--[Amended]

0
45. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (c)(1) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1386  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator shall develop a written plan as described
in Sec.  63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be followed
for operating the source and maintaining the source during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a program of corrective action
for malfunctioning process modifications and control systems used to
comply with the standards. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart OOO--[Amended]

Sec.  63.1400  [Amended]

0
46. Section 63.1400 is amended by removing the third sentence in
paragraph (k)(1) and by removing the last sentence in paragraph (k)(2).

0
47. Section 63.1402 is amended by revising the first sentence in the
definition of malfunction in paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1402  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment or process
equipment, or failure of a process to operate in a normal or usual
manner, or opening of a safety device which causes, or has the
potential to cause, the emission limitations in an applicable standard
to be exceeded. * * *
* * * * *

0
48. Section 63.1413 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (h)(4) introductory text and paragraph (h)(5) introductory
text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1413  Compliance demonstration procedures.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) Deviation from the emission standard. If an affected source is
not operated during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction in
accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1), there has been a deviation from the
emission standard. * * *
* * * * *
    (5) Situations that are not deviations. If an affected source is
operated during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction in
accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1), and any of the situations listed in
paragraphs (h)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section occur, such
situations shall not be considered to be deviations.
* * * * *

0
49. Section 63.1416 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b) introductory text; and
0
b. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1416  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop
a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.
63.6(e)(3) and shall keep the plan on-site. * * *
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) For purposes of paragraph (h)(2) of this section, a deviation
means that the daily average, batch cycle daily average, or block
average value of monitoring data for a parameter is greater than the
maximum, or less than the minimum established value, except that the
daily average, batch cycle daily average, or block average value during
any startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall not be considered a
deviation, if the owner or operator operates the source during such
periods in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1).

0
50. Table 1 to Subpart OOO is amended by adding in numerical order a
new entry for 63.6(e)(3)(ix) to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart OOO of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart OOO Affected Sources

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applies to subpart
            Reference                     OOO             Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
63.6(e)(3)(ix)..................  Yes...............

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

* * * * *

Subpart PPP--[Amended]

Sec.  63.1420  [Amended]

0
51. Section 63.1420 is amended by removing the third sentence in
paragraph (h)(1).
0
52. Section 63.1439 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1) introductory text;
and
0
b. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv)(A) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1439  General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.
63.6(e)(3). * * *
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) The daily average value during any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction shall not be considered an excursion for purposes of
paragraph (h)(2) of this section, if the owner or operator operates the
source during such periods in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *

0
53. Table 1 to Subpart PPP is amended by adding in numerical order a
new entry for 63.6(e)(3)(ix) to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart PPP of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart PPP Affected Sources

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applies to subpart
            Reference                     PPP             Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
63.6(e)(3)(ix)..................  Yes...............

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

* * * * *

Subpart QQQ--[Amended]

0
54. Section 63.1448 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1448  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3).

0
55. Section 63.1453 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.1453  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation and
maintenance requirements that apply to me?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
not included in the calculation if the condition is described in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, and you operated the source
during such periods in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *

Subpart RRR--[Amended]

0
56. Section 63.1516 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (a) introductory text as follows:

Sec.  63.1516  Reports.

    (a) * * * The owner or operator must develop a written plan as
described in

Sec.  63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be followed for
operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction, and a program of corrective action for
malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to
comply with the standard. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart TTT--[Amended]

    57. Section 63.1542 is amended by revising the first sentence in
the definition of malfunction to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1542  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner which
causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations in an
applicable standard to be exceeded. * * *
* * * * *

0
58. Section 63.1547 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1547  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) Alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, or malfunction
shall not be included in the calculation if the condition is described
in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and the owner or
operator operates the source during such periods in accordance with
Sec.  63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *

Subpart UUU--[Amended]

0
59. Section 63.1570 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (e); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1570  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

* * * * *
    (d) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3).
    (e) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (g) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1). The SSMP must
include elements designed to minimize the frequency of such periods
(i.e., root cause analysis). The Administrator will determine whether
deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e).
0
60. Table 44 to Subpart UUU is amended by adding in numerical order a
new entry for 63.6(e)(3)(ix) to read as follows:

Table 44 to Subpart UUU of Part 63--Applicability of NESHAP General
Provisions to Subpart UUU

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Citation                        Subject           Applies to subpart UUU        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(ix)................  .......................  Yes....................

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

Subpart XXX--[Amended]

0
61. Section 63.1651 is amended by revising the first sentence in the
definition of malfunction to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1651  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner which
causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations in an
applicable standard to be exceeded. * * *
* * * * *

0
62. Section 63.1656 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.1656  Performance testing, test methods, and compliance
demonstrations.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Do not include alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction in the calculation if the condition is described in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and the owner or operator
operates the source during such periods in accordance with Sec.
63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *

Subpart AAAA--[Amended]

0
63. Section 63.1960 is amended by revising the fourth and sixth
sentences to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1960  How is compliance determined?

    * * * Finally, you must develop a written SSM plan according to the
provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). * * * Failure to write or maintain a
copy of the SSM plan is a deviation from the requirements of this
subpart.
* * * * *

0
64. Section 63.1965 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1965  What is a deviation?

* * * * *
    (c) A deviation occurs when a SSM plan is not developed or
maintained on site.

Subpart CCCC--[Amended]

0
65. Section 63.2150 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.2150  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) You must develop a written malfunction plan. * * *

0
66. Section 63.2164 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.2164  If I monitor brew ethanol, what are my monitoring
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?

    (a) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according
to manufacturer's specifications and in accordance with Sec.
63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *

Sec.  63.2171  [Amended]

0
67. Section 63.2171 is amended by removing paragraph (d).

Subpart DDDD--[Amended]

0
68. Section 63.2250 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.2250  What are the general requirements?

* * * * *
    (c) You must develop a written SSMP according to the provisions in
Sec.  63.6(e)(3).
* * * * *

0
69. Section 63.2271 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(1) and revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.2271  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice
requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) [Reserved]
    (2) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the EPA Administrator's satisfaction
that you were operating in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1). * * *
* * * * *

Subpart EEEE--[Amended]

0
70. Section 63.2350 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.2350  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM) plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3).

Sec.  63.2378  [Amended]

0
71. Section 63.2378 is amended by removing the third sentence of
paragraph (b)(1).

0
72. Table 12 to subpart EEEE is amended by revising the citation to
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(i)-(iii) to read as follows:

Table 12 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart EEEE

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Applies to subpart
              Citation                       Subject              Brief description                EEEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(c) (1)(i)--(iii).......  Routine and             Keep parts for routine       Yes.
                                      Predictable SSM.        repairs readily available;
                                                              reporting requirements for
                                                              SSM when action is
                                                              described in SSM plan..

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

Subpart FFFF--[Amended]

0
73. Table 12 to Subpart FFFF is amended by adding in numerical order a
new entry for 63.6(e)(3)(ix) to read as follows:

Table 12 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart FFFF

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Citation                    Subject           Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(ix)...........  SSMP incorporation  Yes.
                                   into title V
                                   permit.

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

Subpart GGGG--[Amended]

0
74. Table 1 to Sec.  63.2850 is amended by revising the paragraph (a)
entries to read as follows:

Sec.  63.2850  How do I comply with the hazardous air pollutant
emission standards?

* * * * *

Table 1 to Sec.  63.2850--Requirements for Compliance With HAP Emission
Standards

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  For initial startup
                                        For periods of normal   periods subject to Sec.  For malfunction periods
      Are you required to . . .               operation?             63.2850(c)(2) or        subject to Sec.
                                                                        (d)(2)?               63.2850(e)(2)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Operate and maintain your source   Yes. Additionally, the   Yes, you are required    Yes, you are required
 in accordance with general duty        HAP emission limits      to minimize emissions    to minimizwe emissions
 provisions of Sec.   63.6(e)?          will apply.              to the extent            to the extent
                                                                 practible throughout     practible throughout
                                                                 the initial startup      the initial startup
                                                                 period. Such measures    period. Such measures
                                                                 should be described in   should be described in
                                                                 the SSM plan.            the SSM plan.

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

* * * * *

0
75. Section 63.2852 is amended by revising the first sentence to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.2852  What is a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan?

    You must develop a written SSM plan in accordance with Sec.
63.6(e)(3). * * *

0
76. Table 1 to Sec.  63.2870 is amended by revising the entry for
``Sec.  63.6(e)(1) through (e)(3)(ii) and Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(v) through
(vii)''; by removing the entry

``Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(v)(iii)'' and adding in it's place a new entry for
``Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii)''; and by adding in numerical order a new entry
for ``Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(ix)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.2870  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

* * * * *

Table 1 to Sec.  63.2870--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A,
to 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart GGGG

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Subject of       Brief description
   General provisions citation         citation         of requirement    Applies to subpart      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1) through         Operation and       ..................  Yes...............  Minimize emissions
 (e)(3)(ii) and Sec.               maintenance                                                 to the extent
 63.6(e)(3)(v) through (vii).      requirements.                                               practical.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(iii)..........  Operation and       ..................  No................  Minimize emissions
                                   maintenance                                                 to the extent
                                   requirements.                                               practical

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(ix)...........  Title V permit....  ..................  Yes...............

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

0
77. Section 63.2872(c) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the second sentence in the definition of initial startup
period; and
0
b. Revising the third sentence in the definition of malfunction period
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.2872  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    Initial startup period means * * * During an initial startup
period, a source complies with the standards by minimizing HAP
emissions to the extent practical. * * *
* * * * *
    Malfunction period means * * * During a malfunction period, a
source complies with the standards by minimizing HAP emissions to the
extent practical. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart HHHH--[Amended]

0
78. Section 63.2984 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.2984  What operating limits must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) When during a period of normal operations you detect that an
operating parameter deviates from the limit or range established in
paragraph (a) of this section, you must initiate corrective actions
within 1 hour according to the provisions of your OMM plan. The
corrective actions must be completed in an expeditious manner as
specified in the OMM plan.
* * * * *

0
79. Section 63.2986 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (g)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.2986  How do I comply with the standards?

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) You must develop a written SSMP according to the provisions in
Sec.  63.6(e)(3). * * *

Subpart IIII--[Amended]

0
80. Section 63.3100 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3100  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

* * * * *
    (f) If your affected source uses emission capture systems and add-
on control devices, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(3). * * *

0
81. Section 63.3163 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (g); and
0
b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3163  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (g) [Reserved]
    (h) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the
emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation
that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1). * * *
* * * * *

Subpart KKKK--[Amended]

0
82. Section 63.3500 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3500  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) If your affected source uses an emission capture system and
add-on control device for purposes of complying with this subpart, you
must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP)
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). * * *

0
83. Section 63.3542 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (g); and
0
b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3542  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (g) [Reserved]
    (h) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the
emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation
that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1). * * *
* * * * *

0
84. Section 63.3552 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (f); and
0
b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3552  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (f) [Reserved]
    (g) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the
emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation
that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1). * * *
* * * * *

Subpart MMMM--[Amended]

0
85. Section 63.3900 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3900  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) If your affected source uses an emission capture system and
add-on control device, you must develop a written startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). *
* *

Sec.  63.3963  [Amended]

0
86. Section 63.3963 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (g).

Subpart NNNN--[Amended]

0
87. Section 63.4100 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.4100  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

* * * * *
    (d) If your affected source uses an emission capture system and
add-on control device, you must develop a written startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). *
* *

0
88. Section 63.4110 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9)(v) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.4110  What notifications must I submit?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (v) A statement of whether or not you developed the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan required by Sec.  63.4100(d).
* * * * *

0
89. Section 63.4163 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (g); and
0
b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.4163  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (g) [Reserved]
    (h) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the
emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation
that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e). * * *
* * * * *

Subpart OOOO--[Amended]

0
90. Section 63.4300 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(i); and
0
b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.4300  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The web coating/printing or dyeing/finishing operation(s) must
be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in Table 1 to this
subpart or minimize emissions at all times as required by Sec.
63.6(e)(1).
* * * * *
    (c) If your affected source uses an emission capture system and
add-on control device, you must develop a written startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). *
* *

0
91. Section 63.4310 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(9)(iv) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.4310  What notifications must I submit?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iv) A statement of whether or not you developed and implemented
the work practice plan required by Sec.  63.4293 and developed the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by Sec.  63.4300.

0
92. Section 63.4342 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (g); and
0
b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.4342  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (g) [Reserved]
    (h) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the
emission capture system, add-on control device, or web coating/printing
or dyeing/finishing operation that may affect emission capture or
control device efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
Sec.  63.6(e)(1). * * *
* * * * *

0
93. Section 63.4352 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (g); and
0
b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.4352  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (g) [Reserved]
    (h) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations