or other equipment (that was identified and considered during MACT
development) that could result in significant additional HAP emission
reduction; any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified and considered during MACT development; any process change
or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied that
was not identified and considered during MACT development; or any
significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of
applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during MACT
development).
    For more detailed information on the results of the EPA's
technology review, see the memorandum, Developments in Practices,
Processes, and Control Technologies for the Polycarbonate Production
Source Category, available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0133).

VII. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed changes to the standards described
above, we reviewed the MACT standards to determine whether we should
make additional amendments. From this review we have identified four
additional revisions. First, we are proposing revisions to the SSM
provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent
with the court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the
requirement to comply with otherwise applicable section 112(d) emission
standards during periods of SSM. As part of these SSM revisions, we are
proposing to require monitoring of PRD in organic HAP service that
release to the atmosphere. Second, we are proposing revisions to
require electronic reporting of emissions test results. Third, we are
proposing to add a definition of ``seal'' to all three rules. Finally,
we are seeking comments on the performance of flares in these source
categories. We present details and the rationale for the proposed
changes related to these issues in the following sections.

A. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction

    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010), the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated
portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the
Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40
CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112
standards apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in the rules
regulating each of the three source categories addressed by this rule.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing that the standards
in these rules apply at all times. We are also proposing several
revisions to Subpart YY and Table 1 to Subpart OOO (the General
Provisions applicability table), as is explained in more detail below.
For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the
General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We
also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption, as further
described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in these rules, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and has not proposed alternate
standards for those periods because facilities in these source
categories have not indicated that they will be unable to comply with
the standards during these times. Emission reductions for process vents
and transfer operations are typically achieved by routing vapors to a
control device such as a thermal oxidizer or carbon adsorber. It is
common practice to start a control device prior to startup of the
emissions source it is controlling, so the control device would be
operating before emissions are routed to it. We expect control devices
would be operating during startup and shutdown events in a manner
consistent with normal operating periods, and that these control
devices will be operated to maintain and meet the monitoring parameter
operating limits set during the performance test. We do not expect
startup and shutdown events to affect emissions from equipment leaks,
wastewater sources (e.g., surface impoundments, oil-water separators,
organic-water separators) or storage tanks. Leak detection programs
associated with equipment leaks are in place to detect leaks, and
therefore, it is inconsequential whether the process is operating under
normal operating conditions or is in startup or shutdown. Wastewater
emissions are also not expected to be significantly affected by startup
or shutdown events. Working and breathing losses from storage tanks are
the same regardless of whether the process is operating under normal
operating conditions or if it is in a startup or shutdown event.
    Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner * * * '' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA
section 112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods
of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112
standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources must
be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best-controlled
similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less
stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in
CAA section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best-performing or best-
controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while the
EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards consistent
with the section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the
agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis.

Section 112 of the CAA uses the concept of ``best-controlled'' and
``best-performing'' unit in defining the level of stringency that
section 112 performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of
``best-controlled'' or ``best-performing'' to a unit that is
malfunctioning presents significant difficulties, as malfunctions are
sudden and unexpected events.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably''
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C.
Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the
extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally
defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect
scientific information, rather than to ``invest the resources to
conduct the perfect study.''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590
F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general
limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate
all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of
regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,'
such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification
in advance by regulation.''). In addition, the goal of a best
controlled or best performing source is to operate in such a way as to
avoid malfunctions of the source, and accounting for malfunctions could
lead to standards that are significantly less stringent than levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation.'' See 40 CFR 63.2, definition of
malfunction.
    Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause a violation of an emission standard. See, e.g., State
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of
Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction;
Proposed rule, 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 2013); State Implementation Plans:
Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown (September 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions During
Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (February 15, 1983).
The EPA is therefore proposing to add an affirmative defense to civil
penalties for violations of emission standards in these rules that are
caused by malfunctions. (See proposed 40 CFR 63.1100(h) and 40 CFR
63.1400(l) defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of
an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a
judicial or administrative proceeding).
    We also are proposing other regulatory provisions to specify the
elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative defense; the
source must prove by a preponderance of evidence that it has met all of
the elements set forth in proposed 40 CFR 63.1100(h) and 40 CFR
63.1400(l). (See 40 CFR 22.24). The proposed criteria are designed in
part to ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where the
event that causes a violation of the emission standard meets the narrow
definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and/or
careless operation). For example, to successfully assert the proposed
affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the violation ``[w]as caused by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution control, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner . . . .'' The proposed
criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct
the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with proposed 40
CFR 63.1108(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 63.1400(k)(4) and to prevent future
malfunctions. For example, under the proposed criteria, the source must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when a violation occurred[hellip]'' and that
``[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violation on ambient air quality, the environment and human health . .
. .'' Under the proposal, in any judicial or administrative proceeding,
the Administrator may challenge the assertion of the affirmative
defense and, if the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of
the requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may
be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR
22.27).
    The EPA is proposing to include an affirmative defense in an
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation,
to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that
despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be
violated under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA
must establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.''
CAA section 302(k), 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation''
and ``emission standard''). See, generally, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F.3d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure
that emissions standards are continuous. The affirmative defense for
malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where
there is a malfunction, the emission standard is still enforceable
through injunctive relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit recently upheld the EPA's view that an affirmative
defense provision is consistent with section 113(e) of the CAA.
Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. United States EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th
Cir. Mar. 25, 2013) (upholding the EPA's approval of affirmative
defense provisions in a CAA State Implementation Plan). While
``continuous'' standards are required, there is also case law
indicating that in many situations it is appropriate for the EPA to
account for the practical realities of technology. For example, in
Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the
D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA section
111 ``variant

provisions'' such as provisions allowing for upsets during startup,
shutdown and equipment malfunction ``appear necessary to preserve the
reasonableness of the standards as a whole and that the record does not
support the `never to be exceeded' standard currently in force.'' See
also, Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C.
Cir. 1973). Though these earlier cases may no longer represent binding
precedent in light of the CAA 1977 amendments and intervening case law
such as Sierra Club v. EPA, they nevertheless support the EPA's view
that a system that incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable
and appropriate.
    The affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil
penalties for violations that are proven to be beyond the control of
the source. Through the proposed incorporation of an affirmative
defense, the EPA is proposing to formalize its approach to
malfunctions. In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required
this type of formalized approach when regulating ``upsets beyond the
control of the permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253,
1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). See also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA,
666 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting industry argument that
reliance on the affirmative defense was not adequate). But see,
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
(holding that an informal approach is adequate). The proposed
affirmative defense provisions would give the EPA the flexibility to
both ensure that its emission standards are ``continuous,'' as required
by 42 U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and, thus,
support the reasonableness of the standard as a whole.
    The EPA is proposing the affirmative defense applicable to
malfunctions under the delegation of general regulatory authority set
out in section 301(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1), in order to
balance this tension between provisions of the CAA and the practical
reality, as case law recognizes, that technology sometimes fails. See
generally, Citizens to Save Spencer County v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 873 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (using section
301(a) authority to harmonize inconsistent guidelines related to the
implementation of federal preconstruction review requirements).
1. General Duty
    For the APR MACT standards, we are proposing to revise the General
Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart OOO) entry for 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the explanation in column 3. 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. Similarly, for the AMF
and PC source categories, we are also proposing to remove this
requirement at 40 CFR 63.1108(a)(5). For the AMF, APR and PC MACT
standards, we are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text
at 40 CFR 63.1108(a)(4)(ii) and 63.1400(k)(4) that reflects the general
duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods
covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown,
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore the
language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.1108(a)(4)(ii) and
63.1400(k)(4) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    For the APR MACT standards, we are also proposing to revise the
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart OOO) entry
for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column
to a ``no.'' 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.1400(k)(4).
2. SSM Plan
    For the APR MACT standards, we are proposing to revise the General
Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart OOO) entry for 40
CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a
``no.'' Similarly, for the AMF and PC source categories, we are also
proposing to remove this requirement at 40 CFR 63.1111(a). Generally,
these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As
noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore,
affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such
events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure
that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance
and thus the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
3. Compliance With Standards
    For the APR MACT standards, we are proposing to revise the General
Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart OOO) entry for 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from
non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the
court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision
and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 standard apply
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to
revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
4. Performance Testing
    For the APR MACT standards, we are proposing to revise the General
Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart OOO) entry for 40
CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a
``no.'' 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements.
Similarly, for the AMF and PC source categories, we are also proposing
to revise this requirement at 40 CFR 63.1108(b)(4)(ii).
    For the AMF, APR and PC MACT standards, the EPA is instead
proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
1108(b)(4)(ii) and 63.1413(a)(2). The performance testing requirements
we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance
testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not
include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM
exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from
being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance
testing. The proposed performance testing provisions do not allow
performance testing during periods of startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions
are not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is
proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record
the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Currently, 40
CFR 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the
Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to determine the
condition of the performance test'' available to the Administrator upon
request, but does not specifically require the information to be
recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this

provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement
to record the information.
5. Monitoring
    For the APR MACT standards, we are proposing to revise the General
Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart OOO) entry for 40
CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in the second
column to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
6. Recordkeeping
    For the AMF, APR and PC MACT standards, the EPA is proposing to add
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction to 40 CFR 63.1111(c)(1)
and 63.1416(b). The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR
63.1111(c)(1) and 63.1416(b) a requirement that sources keep records
that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions
taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the volume of each
regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
failed to meet the standard and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-
loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters.
The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable
standard.
7. Reporting
    For the APR MACT standards, we are proposing to revise the General
Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart OOO) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. Similarly, for the AMF and PC
source categories, we are also proposing to remove this requirement at
40 CFR 63.1111(b).
    For the AMF, APR and PC MACT standards, to replace the General
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting
requirements to 40 CFR 63.1111(c)(2) and 63.1417(g). The replacement
language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it
eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are
proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning
such events in the semi-annual periodic report already required under
this rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the number,
date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown
cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an
estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over any
emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments
therefore eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    We note that reporting a failure to meet an applicable standard
could include malfunction events for which a source may choose to
submit documentation to support an assertion of affirmative defense,
consistent with the affirmative defense provisions we are proposing
today. If a source provides all the material proposed in 40 CFR
63.1100(h) and 63.1400(l) to support an affirmative defense, the source
need not submit the same information two times in the same report.
While assertion of an affirmative defense is not mandatory and would
occur only if a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative
defense, the proposed affirmative defense also requires additional
reporting that goes beyond these routine requirements related to a
failure to meet an applicable standard for a reason other than a
malfunction.
    For the APR MACT standards, we are proposing to revise the General
Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart OOO) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a
``no.'' 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for
startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an
applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer
require owners or operators to report when actions taken during a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required.
8. Pressure Relief Devices
    For the AMF, PC and APR MACT standards, we are proposing, as part
of our revisions to address periods of SSM in response to the 2008
Sierra Club ruling, to specify that PRD in organic HAP service may not
release to the atmosphere. To ensure compliance with this requirement,
we are further proposing to require facility owners or operators in
these three source categories to employ monitoring capable of (1)
immediately alerting an operator when there is an atmospheric release
from a PRD in organic HAP service and (2) recording the time and
duration of each pressure release. Owners or operators would be
required to report any pressure release and an estimate of the amount
of organic HAP released to the atmosphere with the next periodic
report.
    We believe that PRD releases that are vented directly to the
atmosphere are caused by malfunctions. Emissions vented to the
atmosphere by PRDs may contain HAP that are otherwise regulated under
the MACT standards. In Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), the court determined that standards under CAA section 112(d)
must provide for compliance at all times. Therefore, the proposed rule
revisions provide that a pressure release from a PRD in organic HAP
service, unless routed to a control device or process, is a violation
of the emission standard. As with any malfunction event, an owner or
operator may assert an affirmative defense against civil penalties for
a malfunction causing a

pressure release from a PRD in organic HAP service to the atmosphere.
    Pressure release events from PRDs in organic HAP service to the
atmosphere have the potential to emit large quantities of HAP. Where a
release occurs, it is important to identify and mitigate it as quickly
as possible. Therefore, we are proposing to require that sources
monitor PRDs in organic HAP service using a device or system that is
capable of identifying and recording the time and duration of each
pressure release and of notifying operators that a release has
occurred. For purposes of estimating the costs of this requirement, we
assumed that operators would install electronic indicators on each PRD
in organic HAP service that vents to the atmosphere to identify and
record the time and duration of each pressure release. However, owners
or operators could use a range of methods to satisfy these
requirements, including the use of a parameter monitoring system that
may already have been in place on the process operating pressure that
is sufficient to notify operators immediately that a pressure release
is occurring, as well as recording the time and duration of that
release.
    Based on our cost assumptions that the most expensive approach
would be used, the nationwide capital cost of installing these monitors
is $37,000, $400,000 and $51,000 for the AMF, APR and PC source
categories, respectively. The total annualized cost of installing and
operating these monitors is $5,300, $56,000 and $7,200 per year for the
AMF, APR and PC source categories, respectively.

B. Electronic Reporting

    In this proposal, the EPA is describing a process to increase the
ease and efficiency of performance test data submittal while improving
data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners or
operators of AMF, APR and PC facilities submit electronic copies of
required performance test and performance evaluation reports by direct
computer-to-computer electronic transfer using EPA-provided software.
These provisions are being proposed in 40 CFR 63.1110(a)(9) (for the
AMF and PC MACT standards) and 40 CFR 63.1417(h)(9) (for the APR MACT
standards). The direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer is
accomplished through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The Central
Data Exchange is EPA's portal for submittal of electronic data. The
EPA-provided software is called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)
which is used to generate electronic reports of performance tests and
evaluations. The ERT generates an electronic report package which will
be submitted using CEDRI. The submitted report package will be stored
in the CDX archive (the official copy of record) and the EPA's public
database called WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have access to all
reports and data in WebFIRE and accessing these reports and data will
be very straightforward and easy (see the WebFIRE Report Search and
Retrieval link at http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSubmission). A description and
instructions for use of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site
(www.epa.gov/cdx). A description of the WebFIRE database is available
at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
    The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the
EPA applies only to those performance tests (and/or performance
evaluations) conducted using test methods that are supported by the
ERT. The ERT supports most of the commonly used EPA reference methods.
A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.
    We believe that industry would benefit from this proposed approach
to electronic data submittal. Specifically, by using this approach,
industry will save time in the performance test submittal process.
Additionally, the standardized format that the ERT uses allows sources
to create a more complete test report resulting in less time spent on
data backfilling if a source failed to include all data elements
required to be submitted. Also, through this proposal, industry may
only need to submit a report once to meet the requirements of the
applicable subpart because stakeholders can readily access these
reports from the WebFIRE database. This also benefits industry by
cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports
that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be
retained in hard copy, thereby reducing staff time needed to coordinate
these records.
    Since the EPA will already have performance test data in hand,
another benefit to industry is that fewer or less substantial data
collection requests in conjunction with prospective required residual
risk assessments or technology reviews will be needed. This would
result in a decrease in staff time needed to respond to data collection
requests.
    State, local and tribal air pollution control agencies (S/L/Ts) may
also benefit from having electronic versions of the reports they are
now receiving. For example, S/L/Ts may be able to conduct a more
streamlined and accurate review of electronic data submitted to them.
For example, the ERT would allow for an electronic review process,
rather than a manual data assessment, therefore, making review and
evaluation of the source provided data and calculations easier and more
efficient. In addition, the public stands to benefit from electronic
reporting of emissions data because the electronic data will be easier
for the public to access. How the air emissions data are collected,
accessed and reviewed will be more transparent for all stakeholders.
    One major advantage of the proposed submittal of performance test
data through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much
of the documentation required to be reported by this rule. The ERT
clearly states what testing information would be required by the test
method and has the ability to house additional data elements that might
be required by a delegated authority.
    In addition, the EPA must have performance test data to conduct
effective reviews of CAA sections 112 standards, as well as for many
other purposes, including compliance determinations, emission factor
development and annual emission rate determinations. In conducting
these required reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time
consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and source
owners or operators, to locate, collect and submit performance test
data. In recent years, stack testing firms have typically collected
performance test data in electronic format, making it possible to move
to an electronic data submittal system that would increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility.
    A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is that
emission factors are outdated or not representative of a particular
source category. With timely receipt and incorporation of data from
most performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure that emission
factors, when updated, represent the most current range of operational
practices. Finally, another benefit of the proposed data submittal to
WebFIRE electronically is that these data would greatly improve the
overall quality of

existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool of
emissions test data for establishing emissions factors.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data would save industry, state, local, and tribal agencies and
the EPA significant time, money and effort while also improving the
quality of emission inventories and air quality regulations.

C. Open-Ended Valves and Lines

    The AMF MACT standards at 40 CFR 63.1103(b)(3) and the PC MACT
standards at 40 CFR 63.1103(d)(3) require an owner or operator to
control emissions from equipment leaks according to the requirements of
either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT or subpart UU. The APR MACT standards
at 40 CFR 63.1410 require that equipment leaks be controlled according
to subpart UU and do not provide an option to comply with subpart TT.
For open-ended valves and lines, both subpart TT and subpart UU require
that the open end be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug or second
valve that ``shall seal the open end at all times.'' However, neither
subpart (nor the AMF, APR or PC MACT standards) define ``seal'' or
explain in practical and enforceable terms what constitutes a sealed
open-ended valve or line. This has led to uncertainty on the part of
the owner or operator as to whether compliance is being achieved.
Inspections under the EPA's Air Toxics LDAR initiative have provided
evidence that while certain open-ended lines may be equipped with a
cap, blind flange, plug or second valve, they are not operating in a
``sealed'' manner as the EPA interprets that term.
    In response to this uncertainty, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR
63.1103(b)(2) (for the AMF MACT standards), 40 CFR 63.1402(b) (for the
APR MACT standards) and 40 CFR 63.1103(d)(2) (for the PC MACT
standards) to add a definition of ``seal.'' This proposed definition
clarifies that, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of
40 CFR 63.1033(b) of subpart UU, open-ended valves and lines are
``sealed'' by the cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve when there
are no detectable emissions from the open-ended valve or line at or
above an instrument reading of 500 ppm. We solicit comments on this
approach to reducing the compliance uncertainty associated with open-
ended valves and lines and our proposed definition of ``seal.''

D. Flare Performance

    In addition to our proposed actions under CAA sections 112(d) and
(f) for the AMF, PC and APR source categories, we are seeking comments
on the performance of flares to control HAP emissions in these source
categories, as governed by the EPA's General Provisions at 40 CFR
63.11(b). This is an issue that the EPA has recently begun studying. In
April 2012, the EPA conducted an external peer review of a draft
technical report, ``Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated
Flares'' (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/flare/2012flaretechreport.pdf)
(``draft flare technical report''). In this report, the EPA evaluated
test data and identified a variety of parameters that may affect flare
performance and that could be monitored to help assure good combustion
efficiency. Based on feedback received from the external ad-hoc peer
review panel, the EPA has since undertaken an initiative to go back and
re-evaluate parameters that may affect overall flare performance at
source categories known to use flares for controlling HAP emissions
(e.g., petroleum refining).
    Currently, AMF, PC and APR sources may choose to use a flare to
reduce emissions from storage vessels and process vents to comply with
the MACT standards, but are not required to do so. Our records indicate
the use of flares in only the APR and PC source categories. However, we
do not have specific flare performance data for the AMF, PC and APR
source categories. Therefore, we are not at this time prepared to
propose any changes to the currently applicable regulations pertaining
to the performance of flares in the AMF, PC and APR source categories,
but we may revisit the issue in future notices. We solicit comments and
additional information on flare performance specifically for the AMF,
PC and APR source categories. Examples of information requested for
these source categories include: Prevalence of flaring; number and
types of flares used; waste gas characteristics such as flow rate,
composition and heat content; assist gas characteristics such as target
assist gas to waste gas ratios and minimum assist gas flow rates; use
of flare gas recovery and other flare minimization practices; and
existing flare monitoring systems.

VIII. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    Under CAA section 112(d), for the three source categories being
addressed in this action, the proposed compliance date for new and
existing sources for the revised SSM requirements (other than PRD
monitoring for existing sources) and electronic reporting requirements
is the effective date of the final amendments. We are proposing these
compliance dates because these requirements should be immediately
implementable by the facilities upon the next occurrence of a
malfunction or the performance of a performance test that is required
to be submitted to the ERT. Available information suggests that the
facilities should already be able to comply with the existing standards
during periods of startup and shutdown.
    Under CAA section 112(i)(3), for existing sources subject to the
AMF, APR and PC MACT standards, the proposed compliance date for PRD
monitoring is 3 years from the effective date of the final amendments.
This time is needed regardless of whether an owner or operator of a
facility chooses to comply with the PRD monitoring provisions by
installing PRD release indicator systems and alarms, employing
parameter monitoring, or by routing releases to a control device. This
time period will allow facilities to research equipment and vendors,
purchase, install, test and properly operate any necessary equipment by
the compliance date. For new sources subject to the AMF, APR and PC
MACT standards, the proposed compliance date for PRD monitoring, along
with the other SSM-related revisions, is the effective date of the
final amendments.
    For both new and existing sources subject to the AMF, APR and PC
MACT standards, the proposed compliance date for the operating and
pressure release management requirements for PRDs, along with the other
SSM-related revisions, is the effective date of the final amendments.
We are proposing these compliance dates because these requirements are
the same as those contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, with which
facilities are already complying as part of the existing MACT
standards.
    For the one existing source subject to the AMF MACT standards, the
proposed compliance date for the new solution polymerization spinning
line requirements is the effective date of the final amendments. We
believe this facility is already complying with these requirements and
no additional time to come into compliance is warranted.
    Under CAA section 112(i)(3), for existing sources subject to the
APR MACT standards, the proposed compliance date for the new MACT
standards applicable to continuous process vents is 3 years from the
effective date of the final amendments. This time period will allow
facilities to purchase, install and test any necessary

equipment. For existing APR sources subject to the new MACT standards
applicable to storage vessels, the proposed compliance date is the
effective date of the final amendments. As we stated previously, our
analysis indicates that all storage vessels are currently controlled to
the proposed level of control and no additional time to come into
compliance is warranted. For new sources subject to the APR MACT
standards, the proposed compliance date for the revised storage vessel
requirements is the effective date of the final amendments.
    Under CAA section 112(i)(3), for existing sources subject to the
AMF and PC MACT standards, the proposed compliance date for the revised
equipment leak standards is 1 year from the effective date of the final
amendments. Our data indicate that the one AMF facility and some of the
PC facilities are currently complying with subpart TT requirements and
will need time to purchase, install and test any necessary equipment
and modify their existing LDAR programs. For new sources subject to AMF
and PC MACT standards, the proposed compliance date for the revised
equipment leak standards is the effective date of the final amendments.

IX. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    We anticipate that each facility in these three source categories
will be affected by these proposed amendments. We estimate there is one
existing facility subject to the AMF MACT standards, 18 existing
facilities subject to the APR MACT standards and 4 existing facilities
subject to the PC MACT standards. We do not know of any new facilities
that are expected to be constructed in the foreseeable future in any of
these source categories. Therefore, our impact analysis is focused on
the existing sources affected by the MACT standards for these three
source categories.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

1. AMF Source Category
    For equipment leaks, we are proposing to eliminate the option of
complying with subpart TT and allow facilities to comply with only
subpart UU, except for connectors in gas and vapor service and in light
liquid service. We are proposing to retain the option to comply with
subpart TT or subpart UU for these components. We estimate the HAP
emission reductions for the one facility in the AMF source category to
be 0.2 tpy.
    We are proposing an emission rate for spinning lines that use spin
dope produced from a solution polymerization process equal to the MACT
floor for this facility, which will not result in any quantifiable
emission reductions.
    For the proposed revisions to the MACT standards regarding SSM,
including monitoring of PRDs in organic HAP service, while these
changes may result in fewer emissions during these periods or less
frequent periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction, these possible
emission reductions are difficult to quantify and are not included in
our assessment of air quality impacts.
    Therefore, the total HAP emission reductions for the proposed
standards for the AMF source category are 0.2 tpy.
2. APR Source Category
    Two facilities in the APR source category have uncontrolled
continuous process vents. We are proposing standards that will require
85 percent control of HAP emissions from these process vents. The
estimated HAP emission reductions for these two facilities are 20.1
tpy.
    We are proposing to implement emission standards for storage
vessels at existing facilities. However, our data indicate that all
storage vessels subject to the proposed standards are already in
compliance, and no quantifiable emission reductions are expected.
    For the proposed revisions to the MACT standards regarding SSM,
including monitoring of PRDs in organic HAP service, while these
changes may result in fewer emissions during these periods or less
frequent periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction, these possible
emission reductions are difficult to quantify and are not included in
our assessment of air quality impacts.
    Therefore, the total HAP emission reductions for the proposed
standards for the APR source category are 20.1 tpy.
3. PC Source Category
    For equipment leaks, we are proposing to eliminate the option of
complying with subpart TT and allow facilities to comply with only
subpart UU, except for connectors in gas and vapor service and in light
liquid service. We are proposing to retain the option to comply with
subpart TT or subpart UU for these components. We estimated the HAP
emission reductions for the four facilities in the PC source category
to be 2.1 tpy.
    For the proposed revisions to the MACT standards regarding SSM,
including installation and operation of monitors on PRDs, while these
changes may result in fewer emissions during these periods or less
frequent periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction, these possible
emission reductions are difficult to quantify and are not included in
our assessment of air quality impacts.
    Therefore, the total HAP emission reductions for the proposed
standards for the PC source category are 2.1 tpy.

C. What are the cost impacts?

1. AMF Source Category
    For equipment leaks, we are proposing to eliminate the option of
complying with subpart TT and allow facilities to comply with only
subpart UU, except for connectors in gas and vapor service and in light
liquid service. We are proposing to retain the option to comply with
subpart TT or subpart UU for these components. We estimated the capital
costs for the one facility in the AMF source category to be $1,400 and
the annualized costs to be $220.
    We are proposing an emission rate for spinning lines that use spin
dope produced from a solution polymerization process equal to the MACT
floor for this facility. Thus, we do not expect any quantifiable
capital or annual costs for this proposed standard.
    For the proposed requirements to install and operate monitors on
PRDs, we estimate the capital costs to be $37,000 and the annualized
costs to be $5,300.
    Therefore, the total capital costs for the AMF source category are
approximately $38,000, and the total annualized costs are approximately
$6,000.
2. APR Source Category
    Two facilities in the APR source category have uncontrolled
continuous process vents. We are proposing standards that will require
85 percent control of HAP emissions from these process vents. The
estimated capital costs for these two facilities are $1.1 million and
the annualized costs are $340,000.
    We are proposing to implement emission standards for storage
vessels at existing facilities. However, our data indicate that all
storage vessels subject to the proposed standards are already in
compliance, and no capital or annual costs are expected.
    For the proposed requirements to install and operate monitors on
PRDs, we estimate the capital costs to be $400,000 and the annualized
costs to be $56,000.
    Therefore, the total capital costs for the APR source category are

approximately $1.5 million, and the total annualized costs are
approximately $400,000.
3. PC Source Category
    For equipment leaks, we are proposing to eliminate the option of
complying with subpart TT and allow facilities to comply with only
subpart UU, except for connectors in gas and vapor service and in light
liquid service. We are proposing to retain the option to comply with
subpart TT or subpart UU for these components. We estimated the capital
costs to be $16,000 and the annualized costs to be $2,200.
    For the proposed requirements to install and operate monitors on
PRDs, we estimate the capital costs to be $51,000 and the annualized
costs to be $7,200.
    Therefore, the total capital costs for the PC source category are
approximately $67,000, and the total annualized costs are approximately
$9,400.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    We estimate that there will be no more than a 0.5 percent price
change and a similar reduction in output associated with the proposal.
This is based on the costs of the rule and responsiveness of producers
and consumers based on supply and demand elasticities for the
industries affected by this proposal. The impacts to affected firms
will be low because the annual compliance costs are quite small when
compared to the annual revenues for the affected parent firms (much
less than 1 percent for each). The impacts to affected consumers should
also be quite small. Thus, there will not be any significant impacts on
affected firms and their consumers as a result of this proposal.

E. What are the benefits?

    Because this rulemaking is not likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, we have not conducted a regulatory
impact analysis or a benefits analysis. However, the estimated
reductions in HAP emissions that will be achieved by this proposed rule
will provide benefits to public health. The proposed standards will
result in significant reductions in the actual and allowable emissions
of HAP and will reduce the actual and potential cancer risks and non-
cancer health effects due to emissions of HAP from these source
categories. We have not quantified the monetary benefits associated
with these reductions.

X. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also
interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and
other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section XI
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.

XI. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available on the RTR
Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data
files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point
for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR page, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations, etc.).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133 (through one of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility.
We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of
updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are generated by the
Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are provided on the RTR Web
page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) documents
prepared by the EPA for these rules have been assigned EPA ICR number
1871.07 (AMF and PC MACT standards) and 1869.08 (APR MACT standards).
    The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section
114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of
the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense
position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative
adjustments to this ICR to show what the notification, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the
affirmative defense might entail. The EPA's estimate for the required
notification, reports and records for any individual incident,
including the root cause analysis, totals $2,375 annually per MACT
standard and is based on the time and effort required of a source to
review relevant data, interview plant employees and document the events
surrounding a malfunction that has caused a violation

of an emissions limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and
retain the record and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA
provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs
are only incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to
take advantage of the affirmative defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess
emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number
would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition
above), and only a subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions
would result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense.
Thus, we believe the number of instances in which source operators
might be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will
be extremely small. We expect to gather information on such events in
the future and will revise this estimate as better information becomes
available.
1. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production MACT Standards
    The ICR document prepared by the EPA for the amendments to the AMF
MACT standards we are proposing today has been assigned EPA ICR number
1871.07. Burden changes associated with these proposed amendments would
result from new recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated
with requirements for spinning lines that use spin dope produced from a
solution polymerization process, the PRD monitoring requirements and
affirmative defense provisions for all facilities subject to the AMF
MACT standards.
    We estimate 1 regulated facility is currently subject to the AMF
requirements in subpart YY. The annual monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3
years after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments
to subpart YY is estimated to be 54 labor hours at a cost of $3,000 per
year. There is no estimated change in annual burden to the federal
government for these amendments.
2. Amino/Phenolic Resins Production MACT Standards
    The ICR document prepared by the EPA for the amendments to the APR
MACT standards we are proposing today has been assigned EPA ICR number
1869.08. Burden changes associated with these proposed amendments would
result from new recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated
with the PRD monitoring requirements and affirmative defense provisions
for all facilities subject to the APR MACT standards. In addition, we
estimate that two facilities will be subject to recordkeeping,
reporting and monitoring requirements associated with the control of
certain continuous process vents.
    We estimate 18 regulated facilities are currently subject to
subpart OOO. The annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden
for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the standards) for these amendments to subpart OOO is
estimated to be 1,178 labor hours at a cost of $66,500 per year. There
is no estimated change in annual burden to the federal government for
these amendments.
3. Polycarbonate Production MACT Standards
    The ICR document prepared by the EPA for the amendments to the PC
MACT standards we are proposing today has been assigned EPA ICR number
1871.07. Burden changes associated with these proposed amendments would
result from new recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated
with the PRD monitoring requirements and affirmative defense provisions
for all facilities subject to the MACT standards.
    We estimate 4 regulated facilities are currently subject to the PC
requirements in subpart YY. The annual monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3
years after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments
to subpart YY is estimated to be 216 labor hours at a cost of $12,000
per year. There is no estimated change in annual burden to the federal
government for these amendments.
    Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed
in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0133. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and
OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this proposed rule
for where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after January 9, 2014, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by February
10, 2014. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. According to the SBA small business
standards definitions, for the APR source category, which has the NAICS
code of 325211 (i.e., Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing), the
SBA small business size standard is 750 employees. For the PC source
category, which has the NAICS code of 325211 (i.e., Plastics Material
and Resin Manufacturing), the SBA small business size standard is 750
employees. For the AMF source category, which has the

NAICS code of 325222 (i.e., Noncellulosic Organic Fiber Manufacturing),
the SBA small business size standard is 1,000 employees.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. There
are no affected small businesses in the APR, AMF and PC source
categories. All of the companies affected by this rule are generally
large integrated corporations that are not considered to be small
entities per the definitions provided in this section.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal
governments, in aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The
total annualized cost of this rule is estimated to be no more than
$420,000 in any one year. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose
obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on state or local governments, nor
will it preempt state law, and none of the facilities subject to this
action are owned or operated by state or local governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
rule from state and local officials.

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

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). There are no
AMF, PC or APR facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected populations and would not
cause increases in emissions or emissions-related health risks. The
EPA's risk assessments (included in the docket for this proposed rule)
demonstrate that the existing regulations are associated with an
acceptable level of risk and provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects.
    The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to HAP
emitted by AMF, PC or APR production facilities.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low income or indigenous populations because it
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority, low income or indigenous populations.
    To gain a better understanding of the source categories and near
source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis of the
facilities in the APR and PC source categories to identify any
overrepresentation of minority, low income or indigenous populations.
This analysis only gives some indication of the prevalence of sub-
populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources; it
does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly
affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of
risk faced by those individuals or communities. More information on the
source categories' risk can be found in sections V and VI of this
preamble. The complete demographic analysis results and the details
concerning their development are presented in the memorandum entitled
Environmental Justice Review: Amino/Phenolic Resins, Acrylic and
Modacrylic Fibers Production, and Polycarbonate Production, available
in the docket for

this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133).
    For the APR source category, the proximity analysis revealed that
``African American'' and ``Below the Poverty Line'' demographic
categories are above 20 percent of their corresponding national
averages. The ratio of African Americans living within 3 miles of any
source affected by this rule is 62 percent higher than the national
average (21 percent versus 13 percent) and the ratio of people living
below the poverty line living within 3 miles of any source affected by
this rule is 43 percent higher than the national average (20 percent
versus 14 percent). However, as noted previously, risks from this
source category were found to be acceptable for all populations.
    For the PC source category, the proximity analysis revealed that
several demographic categories are above 20 percent of their
corresponding national averages, including ``Other or Multiracial,''
``Hispanic,'' ``Age 0-4,'' ``Age 0-17,'' and ``No High School
Diploma.'' Within 3 miles of any source affected by this rule, the
ratio of Other or Multiracial people living is 21 percent higher than
the national average (17 percent versus 14 percent), the ratio of
Hispanic people is 135 percent higher than the national average (40
percent versus 17 percent), the ratio of people aged 0-4 is 29 percent
higher than the national average (9 percent versus 7 percent), the
ratio of people aged 0-17 is 25 percent higher than the national
average (30 percent versus 24 percent), and the ratio of people with no
high school diploma is 40 percent higher than the national average (14
percent versus 10 percent). However, as noted previously, risks from
this source category were found to be acceptable for all populations.
Additionally, the proposed changes to the standard increase the level
of environmental protection for all affected populations by reducing
emissions from equipment leaks.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: December 11, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to amend Title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart YY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable
Control Technology Standards

0
2. Section 63.1100 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (d) introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1100  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * Paragraphs (d)(3), (4), and (5) of this section discuss
compliance for those process units operated as flexible operation
units.
* * * * *
    (h) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during
malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set
forth in this subpart, the owner or operator of an acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected source or polycarbonate production
affected source may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil
penalties for violations of such standards that are caused by
malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed if the owner or operator fails to meet their burden of proving
all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative
defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, the owner or operator
must timely meet the reporting requirements in paragraph (h)(2) of this
section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a
violation occurred; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment
or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health;
and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event
at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were
the result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator, with all
necessary supporting documentation, that explains how it has met the
requirements set forth in paragraph (h)(1) of this section. This
affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic
compliance report, deviation report, or excess emission report
otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the
relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging
period). If such compliance report, deviation report, or excess
emission report is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence
of the violation, the affirmative defense report may be included in the
second compliance report, deviation report, or excess emission report
due after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant
standard.
0
3. Section 63.1101 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the terms
``Affirmative defense,'' ``Pressure

release,'' and ``Pressure relief device or valve'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1101  Definitions.

    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
    Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from the
system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the pressure
relief device. This release can be one release or a series of releases
over a short time period due to a malfunction in the process.
    Pressure relief device or valve means a safety device used to
prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable
working pressure of the process equipment. A common pressure relief
device is a spring-loaded pressure relief valve. Devices that are
actuated either by a pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per
square inch gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure relief devices.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.1102 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (b).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1102  Compliance schedule.

    (a) * * * Affected sources, as defined in Sec.  63.1103(a)(1)(i)
for acetyl resins production, Sec.  63.1103(b)(1)(i) for acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production, Sec.  63.1103(c)(1)(i) for hydrogen
fluoride production, Sec.  63.1103(d)(1)(i) for polycarbonate
production, Sec.  63.1103(e)(1)(i) for ethylene production, Sec.
63.1103(f)(1)(i) for carbon black production, Sec.  63.1103(g)(1)(i)
for cyanide chemicals manufacturing, or Sec.  63.1103(h)(1)(i) for
spandex production shall comply with the appropriate provisions of this
subpart and the subparts referenced by this subpart according to the
schedule in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate,
except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
    (b) All acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources
and polycarbonate production affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before January 9, 2014, shall be
in compliance with the pressure relief device monitoring requirements
of Sec.  63.1107(e)(3) upon initial startup or 3 years after the
effective date of the final amendments, whichever is later, and the
equipment leaks requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU upon initial
startup or 1 year after the effective date of the final amendments,
whichever is later. New acrylic and modacrylic fiber production
affected sources and polycarbonate production affected sources that
commence construction or reconstruction after January 9, 2014, shall be
in compliance with the pressure relief device monitoring requirements
of Sec.  63.1107(e)(3) upon initial startup or by the effective date of
the final amendments, whichever is later.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.1103 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii);
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2), adding in alphabetical order the term ``Seal'';
0
c. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), under Table 2, revising entries 4, 5, 6, and
7 and adding entry 11;
0
d. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), under Table 3, revising entry 3 and adding
entry 4;
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii);
0
f. In paragraph (d)(2), adding in alphabetical order the term ``Seal'';
and
0
g. In paragraph (d)(3), under Table 5, revising entry 6 and adding
entry 10, and under Table 6, revising entry 5 and adding entry 6.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1103  Source category-specific applicability, definitions, and
requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule, for affected
sources as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, is specified
in Sec.  63.1102.
    (2) Definitions.
* * * * *
    Seal means, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of
Sec.  63.1033(b), that instrument monitoring of the open-ended valve or
line conducted according to the method specified in Sec.  63.1023(b)
and, as applicable, Sec.  63.1023(c), indicates no readings of 500
parts per million or greater.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *

Table 2 to Sec.   63.1103(b)(3)(i)--What Are My Requirements If I Own or Operate an Acrylic and Modacrylic Fiber
      Production Existing or New Affected Source and Am Complying With Paragraph (b)(3)(i) of This Section?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       If you own or operate . . .                And if . . .                    Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
4. A fiber spinning line that is a new    The lines use a spin dope    a. Reduce acrylonitrile emissions by 85
 or reconstructed source.                  produced from either a       weight-percent or more. (For example,
                                           suspension polymerization    you may enclose the spinning and washing
                                           process or solution          areas of the spinning line (as specified
                                           polymerization process.      in paragraph (b)(4) of this section) and
                                                                        vent through a closed vent system and
                                                                        use any combination of control devices
                                                                        meeting the requirements of subpart SS,
                                                                        as specified in Sec.   63.982(a), of
                                                                        this part.); or
                                                                       b. Reduce acrylonitrile emissions from
                                                                        the spinning line to less than or equal
                                                                        to 0.25 kilograms of acrylonitrile per
                                                                        megagram (0.5 pounds of acrylonitrile
                                                                        per ton) of acrylic and modacrylic fiber
                                                                        produced; or
                                                                       c. Reduce the acrylonitrile concentration
                                                                        of the spin dope to less than 100 ppmw.
5. A fiber spinning line that is an       The spinning line uses a     Reduce organic HAP emissions from the
 existing source.                          spin dope produced from a    spinning line to less than or equal to
                                           solution polymerization      20 kilograms of organic HAP per megagram
                                           process.                     (40 pounds of organic HAP per ton) of
                                                                        acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced.
6. A fiber spinning line that is an       The spinning line uses a     a. Reduce the acrylonitrile concentration
 existing source.                          spin dope produced from a    of the spin dope to less than 100 ppmw
                                           suspension polymerization    \b\; or
                                           process.

                                                                       b. Reduce acrylonitrile emissions from
                                                                        the spinning line to less than or equal
                                                                        to 0.25 kilograms of acrylonitrile per
                                                                        megagram of acrylic and modacrylic fiber
                                                                        produced.
7. Equipment as defined under Sec.        It contains or contacts      For connectors in gas and vapor service
 63.1101 (with the differences for         >=10 weight-percent          and in light liquid service, comply with
 pressure relief devices described in      acrylonitrile,\c\ and        either Sec.   63.1008 of subpart TT
 item 11 below).                           operates >=300 hours per     (national emission standards for
                                           year.                        equipment leaks (control level 1)) of
                                                                        this part, or Sec.   63.1027 of subpart
                                                                        UU (national emission standards for
                                                                        equipment leaks (control level 2)) of
                                                                        this part. For all other applicable
                                                                        equipment, comply with the requirements
                                                                        of subpart UU of this part, except Sec.
                                                                         63.1030.

                                                  * * * * * * *
11. Pressure relief devices.............  The pressure relief device   Comply with Sec.   63.1107(e).
                                           is in organic HAP service.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (ii) * * *

 Table 3 to Sec.   63.1103(b)(3)(ii)--What Are My Requirements If I Own
  or Operate an Acrylic and Modacrylic Fiber Production Existing or New
   Affected Source and Am Complying With Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of This
                                Section?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Then you must control total
      If you own or operate . . .         organic HAP emissions from the
                                             affected source by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
3. Equipment as defined under Sec.       For connectors in gas and vapor
 63.1101 and it contains or contacts      service and in light liquid
 >10 weight-percent acrylonitrile,\a\     service, comply with either
 and operates >300 hours per year (with   Sec.   63.1008 of subpart TT
 the differences for pressure relief      (national emission standards
 devices described in item 4 below).      for equipment leaks (control
                                          level 1)) of this part, or
                                          Sec.   63.1027 of subpart UU
                                          (national emission standards
                                          for equipment leaks (control
                                          level 2)) of this part. For
                                          all other applicable
                                          equipment, comply with subpart
                                          UU of this part, except Sec.
                                          63.1030.
4. A pressure relief device in organic   Complying with Sec.
 HAP service.                             63.1107(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule, for affected
sources as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, is specified
in Sec.  63.1102.
    (2) * * *
    Seal means, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of
Sec.  63.1033(b), that instrument monitoring of the open-ended valve or
line conducted according to the method specified in Sec.  63.1023(b)
and, as applicable, Sec.  63.1023(c), indicates no readings of 500
parts per million or greater.
* * * * *

 Table 5 to Sec.   63.1103(d)--What Are My Requirements If I Own or Operate a Polycarbonate Production Existing
                                                Affected Source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       If you own or operate . . .                And if . . .                    Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
6. Equipment as defined under Sec.        The equipment contains or    For connectors in gas and vapor service
 63.1101 (with the differences for         contacts >=5 weight-         and in light liquid service, comply with
 pressure relief devices described in      percent total organic        either Sec.   63.1008 of subpart TT
 item 10 below).                           HAP,\e\ and operates >=300   (national emission standards for
                                           hours per year.              equipment leaks (control level 1)) of
                                                                        this part, or Sec.   63.1027 of subpart
                                                                        UU (national emission standards for
                                                                        equipment leaks (control level 2)) of
                                                                        this part. For all other applicable
                                                                        equipment, comply with the requirements
                                                                        of subpart UU of this part, except Sec.
                                                                         63.1030.

                                                  * * * * * * *
10. Pressure relief devices.............  The pressure relief device   Comply with Sec.   63.1107(e).
                                           is in organic HAP service.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Table 6 to Sec.   63.1103(d)--What Are My Requirements If I Own or Operate a Polycarbonate Production New
                                                Affected Source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       If you own or operate . . .                And if . . .                    Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
5. Equipment as defined under Sec.        The equipment contains or    For connectors in gas and vapor service
 63.1101 (with the differences for         contacts >=5 weight-         and in light liquid service, comply with
 pressure relief devices described in      percent total organic        either Sec.   63.1008 of subpart TT
 item 6 below).                            HAP,\e\ and operates >=300   (national emission standards for
                                           hours per year.              equipment leaks (control level 1)) of
                                                                        this part, or Sec.   63.1027 of subpart
                                                                        UU ((national emission standards for
                                                                        equipment leaks (control level 2)) of
                                                                        this part. For all other applicable
                                                                        equipment, comply with the requirements
                                                                        of subpart UU of this part, except Sec.
                                                                         63.1030.
6. Pressure relief devices..............  The pressure relief device   Comply with Sec.   63.1107(e).
                                           is in organic HAP service.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.1104 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1104  Process vents from continuous unit operations:
applicability assessment procedures and methods.

* * * * *
    (c) Applicability assessment requirement. The TOC or organic HAP
concentrations, process vent volumetric flow rates, process vent
heating values, process vent TOC or organic HAP emission rates,
halogenated process vent determinations, process vent TRE index values,
and engineering assessments for process vent control applicability
assessment requirements are to be determined during maximum
representative operating conditions for the process, except as provided
in paragraph (d) of this section, or unless the Administrator specifies
or approves alternate operating conditions. For acrylic and modacrylic
fiber production affected sources and polycarbonate production affected
sources, operations during periods of malfunction shall not constitute
representative conditions for the purpose of an applicability test. For
all other affected sources, operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction shall not constitute representative
conditions for the purpose of an applicability test.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.1107 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading; and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (e), (f) and (g).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1107  Equipment leaks.

* * * * *
    (e) Requirements for pressure relief devices. For acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected sources and polycarbonate
production affected sources, except as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of
this section, the owner or operator must comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section for pressure
relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service. Except as specified
in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, the owner or operator of an
acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected source or
polycarbonate production affected source must also comply with the
requirements specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section for all
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service.
    (1) Operating requirements. Except during a pressure release event,
operate each pressure relief device in organic HAP gas or vapor service
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background as
detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (2) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in
organic HAP gas or vapor service, comply with paragraph (e)(2)(i) or
(ii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as detected by Method 21
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar days after the
pressure relief device returns to organic HAP service following a
pressure release to verify that the pressure relief device is operating
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background. After
5 calendar days, an instrument reading of 500 ppm above background or
greater is a violation.
    (ii) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a
rupture disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable after a
pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure
release. The owner or operator must also conduct instrument monitoring,
as detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no later than 5
calendar days after the pressure relief device returns to organic HAP
service following a pressure release to verify that the pressure relief
device is operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background. After 5 calendar days, an instrument reading of 500
ppm above background or greater is a violation.
    (3) Pressure release management. Except as specified in paragraph
(e)(4) of this section, the owner or operator must comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section
for all pressure relief devices in organic HAP service. Any pressure
release from such a pressure relief device is a violation.
    (i) The owner or operator must equip each pressure relief device in
organic HAP service with a device(s) or parameter monitoring system
that is capable of identifying and recording the time and duration of
each pressure release and of notifying operators immediately that a
pressure release is occurring. Examples of these types of devices and
systems include, but are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator,
magnetic sensor, motion detector on the pressure relief valve stem,
flow monitor, or pressure monitor. Regardless of the methodology
chosen, when the device or monitoring system indicates that a pressure
release has occurred, it shall be directly enforceable as a release
from the pressure relief device. If this instrument is capable of
measuring the concentration of leaks through the pressure relief
device, then the owner or operator may use this instrument to meet the
requirements of paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
    (ii) If any pressure relief device in organic HAP service releases
to atmosphere as a result of a pressure release event, the owner or
operator must calculate the quantity of organic HAP released during
each pressure release event and report this quantity as required in
paragraph (g) of this section. Calculations may be based on data from
the pressure relief device monitoring alone or in combination with
process parameter monitoring data and process knowledge.
    (4) Pressure relief devices routed to a control device or process.
If a pressure

relief device in organic HAP service is designed and operated to route
all pressure releases through a closed vent system to a control device
or process, the owner or operator is not required to comply with
paragraphs (e)(1), (2), or (3) (if applicable) of this section. Both
the closed vent system and control device (if applicable) must meet the
requirements of Sec.  63.1034 of this part.
    (f) Recordkeeping requirements. For acrylic and modacrylic fiber
production affected sources and polycarbonate production affected
sources, for pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, keep
records of the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5)
of this section, as applicable.
    (1) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
that the owner or operator elects to equip with a closed-vent system
and control device, under the provisions in paragraph (e)(4) of this
section.
    (2) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
subject to the provisions in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
    (3) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
equipped with rupture disks, under the provisions in paragraph
(e)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (4) The dates and results of the monitoring following a pressure
release for each pressure relief device subject to the provisions in
paragraph (e)(1) and (2) of this section. The results shall include:
    (i) The background level measured during each compliance test.
    (ii) The maximum instrument reading measured at each piece of
equipment during each compliance test.
    (5) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
paragraph (e)(3) of this section, keep records of each pressure release
to the atmosphere, including the following information:
    (i) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (ii) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (iii) An estimate of the quantity of total HAP emitted during the
pressure release and the calculations used for determining this
quantity.
    (iv) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (v) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
    (g) Periodic reports. For owners or operators of an acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected source or polycarbonate production
affected source subject to paragraph (e) of this section, Periodic
Reports must include the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section for pressure relief devices in organic HAP
service.
    (1) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
paragraph (e) of this section, report confirmation that all monitoring
to show compliance was conducted within the reporting period.
    (2) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service
subject to paragraph (e)(2) of this section, report any instrument
reading of 500 ppm above background or greater, more than 5 days after
the relief device returns to organic HAP gas or vapor service after a
pressure release.
    (3) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
paragraph (e)(3) of this section, report each pressure release to the
atmosphere, including the following information:
    (i) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (ii) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (iii) An estimate of the quantity of total HAP emitted during the
pressure release and the method used for determining this quantity.
    (iv) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (v) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.

0
8. Section 63.1108 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
0
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(5);
0
d. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2) introductory text;
and
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

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

    (a) Requirements. The requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and
(5) of this section apply to all affected sources except acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected sources and polycarbonate
production affected sources. The requirements of paragraph (a)(4) of
this section apply only to acrylic and modacrylic fiber production
affected sources and polycarbonate production affected sources. The
requirements of paragraphs (a)(3), (6), and (7) of this section apply
to all affected sources.
* * * * *
    (4)(i) For acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources
and polycarbonate production affected sources, the emission limitations
and established parameter ranges of this part shall apply at all times
except during periods of non-operation of the affected source (or
specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to
which this subpart applies. Equipment leak requirements shall apply at
all times except during periods of non-operation of the affected source
(or specific portion thereof) in which the lines are drained and
depressurized resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the
equipment leak requirements apply.
    (ii) General duty. At all times, the owner or operator must operate
and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the
owner operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source.
    (5) During startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when the emission
standards of this subpart and the subparts referenced by this subpart
do not apply pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section,
the owner or operator shall implement, to the extent reasonably
available, measures to prevent or minimize excess emissions. * * *
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Parameter monitoring: Excursions. An excursion is not a
violation in cases where continuous monitoring is required and the
excursion does not count toward the number of excused excursions (as
described in Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(ii)), if the conditions of paragraph
(b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section are met, except that the conditions
of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section do not apply for acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected sources and polycarbonate
production affected sources. * * *
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Performance test. The Administrator may determine compliance
with emission limitations of this subpart based on, but not limited to,
the results of performance tests conducted according to the procedures

specified in Sec.  63.997, unless otherwise specified in this subpart
or a subpart referenced by this subpart. For acrylic and modacrylic
fiber production affected sources and polycarbonate production affected
sources, performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as
the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on
representative performance of the affected source for the period being
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and
shutdown unless specified by the Administrator or an applicable
subpart. The owner/operator may not conduct performance tests during
periods of malfunction. The owner operator must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or
operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may
be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.1110 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(7);
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(9);
0
d. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (d)(1) introductory text;
and
0
e. Adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1110  Reporting requirements.

    (a) * * * Each owner or operator of an acrylic and modacrylic fiber
production affected source or polycarbonate production affected source
subject to this subpart shall submit the reports listed in paragraph
(a)(9) of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *
    (7) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports described in Sec.
63.1111 (except for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected
sources and polycarbonate production affected sources).
* * * * *
    (9) Electronic reporting. Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2), the owner
or operator must submit the results of the performance tests, including
any associated fuel analyses, required by this subpart according to the
methods specified in paragraph (a)(9)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA-
provided software, the owner or operator shall submit the results of
the performance test to the EPA by direct computer-to-computer
electronic transfer via EPA-provided software, unless otherwise
approved by the Administrator. Owners or operators, who claim that some
of the information being submitted for performance tests is
confidential business information (CBI), must submit a complete file
using EPA-provided software that includes information claimed to be CBI
on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked
as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The
same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA by direct
computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software.
    (ii) For any performance test conducted using test methods that are
not compatible with the EPA-provided software, the owner or operator
shall submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator
at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * * For pressure relief devices subject to the requirements
of Sec.  63.1107(e)(3), the owner or operator of an acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected source or polycarbonate production
affected source shall submit the information listed in paragraph
(d)(1)(iii) of this section in the Notification of Compliance Status
within 150 days after the first applicable compliance date for pressure
relief device monitoring.
* * * * *
    (iii) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, a
description of the device or monitoring system to be implemented,
including the pressure relief devices and process parameters to be
monitored (if applicable), and a description of the alarms or other
methods by which operators will be notified of a pressure release.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.1111 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
c. Removing reserved paragraph (b)(3); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (c).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1111  Startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

    (a) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The requirements of
this paragraph (a) apply to all affected sources except for acrylic and
modacrylic fiber production affected sources and polycarbonate
production affected sources.
* * * * *
    (b) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reporting requirements. The
requirements of the paragraph (b) apply to all affected sources except
for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources and
polycarbonate production affected sources.
* * * * *
    (c) Malfunction recordkeeping and reporting. The requirements of
this paragraph (c) apply only to acrylic and modacrylic fiber
production affected sources and polycarbonate production affected
sources.
    (1) Records of malfunctions. The owner or operator shall keep the
records specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
    (i) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the
date, time, and duration of each failure.
    (ii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and
a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec.  63.1108(a)(4)(ii), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (2) Reports of malfunctions. If a source fails to meet an
applicable standard, report such events in the Periodic Report. Report
the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each
instance, report the date, time and duration of each failure. For each
failure the report must include a list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.

Subpart OOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins

0
11. Section 63.1400 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (k); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (l).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1400  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

* * * * *
    (k) Applicability of this subpart. (1) The emission limitations set
forth in this subpart and the emission limitations referred to in this
subpart shall apply at all times except during periods of non-operation
of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
    (2) The emission limitations set forth in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UU, as referred to in Sec.  63.1410, shall apply at all times except
during periods of non-operation of the affected source (or specific
portion thereof) in which the lines are drained and depressurized
resulting in cessation of the emissions to which Sec.  63.1410 applies.
    (3) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment
that are required or utilized for compliance with this subpart during
times when emissions are being routed to such items of equipment if the
shutdown would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to
such items of equipment.
    (4) General duty. At all times, the owner or operator must operate
and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the
owner operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source.
    (l) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during
malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set
forth in this subpart, the owner or operator may assert an affirmative
defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards
that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate
penalties may be assessed if the owner or operator fails to meet their
burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense.
The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for
injunctive relief.
    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, the owner or operator
must timely meet the reporting requirements in paragraph (l)(2) of this
section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a
violation occurred; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment
or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health;
and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event
at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were
the result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator, with all
necessary supporting documentation, that explains how it has met the
requirements set forth in paragraph (l)(1) of this section. This
affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic
compliance report, deviation report, or excess emission report
otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the
relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging
period). If such compliance report, deviation report, or excess
emission report is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence
of the violation, the affirmative defense report may be included in the
second compliance report, deviation report, or excess emission report
due after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant
standard.
0
12. Section 63.1401 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.1401  Compliance schedule.

    (a) New affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after December 14, 1998, shall be in compliance with
this subpart (except Sec.  63.1411(c)) upon initial start-up or January
20, 2000, whichever is later. New affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after December 14, 1998, but on or
before January 9, 2014, shall be in compliance with the pressure relief
device monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.1411(c) by 3 years after the
effective date of the final amendments. New affected sources that
commence construction or reconstruction after January 9, 2014, shall be
in compliance with the pressure relief device monitoring requirements
of Sec.  63.1411(c) upon initial startup or by the effective date of
the final amendments, whichever is later.
    (b) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with this
subpart (except Sec. Sec.  63.1404, 63.1405, and 63.1411(c)) no later
than 3 years after January 20, 2000. Existing affected sources shall be
in compliance with the storage vessel requirements of Sec.  63.1404 by
the effective date of the final amendments. Existing affected sources
shall be in compliance with the continuous process vent requirements of
Sec.  63.1405 and the pressure relief device monitoring requirements of
Sec.  63.1411(c) by 3 years after the effective date of the final
amendments.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.1402 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), adding in alphabetical order the terms ``Pressure
release (Sec.  63.161)'' and ``Pressure relief device or valve (Sec.
63.161)'' and

removing the term ``Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan (Sec.
63.101)'';
0
b. In paragraph (b), adding in alphabetical order the terms
``Affirmative defense'' and ``Seal''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1402  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
    Seal means, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of
Sec.  63.1033(b), that instrument monitoring of the open-ended valve or
line conducted according to the method specified in Sec.  63.1023(b)
and, as applicable, Sec.  63.1023(c), indicates no readings of 500
parts per million or greater.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 63.1404 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1404  Storage vessel provisions.

    (a) Emission standards. For each storage vessel located at a new or
existing affected source that has a capacity of greater than or equal
to 20,000 gallons, but less than 40,000 gallons, and vapor pressure of
1.9 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) or greater; has a capacity
of greater than or equal to 40,000 gallons, but less than 90,000
gallons, and vapor pressure of 0.75 psia or greater; or has a capacity
of 90,000 gallons or greater and vapor pressure of 0.15 psia or
greater, the owner or operator shall comply with either paragraph
(a)(1) or (2) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.1405 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1405  Continuous process vent provisions.

    (a) Emission standards. For each continuous process vent located at
a new or existing affected source with a Total Resource Effectiveness
(TRE) index value, as determined following the procedures specified in
Sec.  63.1412(j), less than or equal to 1.2, the owner or operator
shall comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.1410 is amended by revising the first sentence of the
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1410  Equipment leak provisions.

    The owner or operator of each affected source shall comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU (national emission standards
for equipment leaks (control level 2)) for all equipment, as defined
under Sec.  63.1402, that contains or contacts 5 weight-percent HAP or
greater and operates 300 hours per year or more, except Sec.  63.1030.
* * *
0
17. Add Sec.  63.1411 to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1411  Requirements for pressure relief devices.

    Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner or
operator must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section for pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas
or vapor service. Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section,
the owner or operator must also comply with the requirements specified
in paragraph (c) of this section for all pressure relief devices in
organic HAP service.
    (a) Operating requirements. Except during a pressure release event,
operate each pressure relief device in organic HAP gas or vapor service
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background as
detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (b) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in
organic HAP gas or vapor service, comply with paragraph (b)(1) or (2)
of this section, as applicable.
    (1) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as detected by Method 21
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar days after the
pressure relief device returns to organic HAP service following a
pressure release to verify that the pressure relief device is operating