[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49513-49533]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23067]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490; FRL-9969-95-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS85

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Publicly Owned Treatment Works Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) source
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing
revised names and definitions of the subcategories, revisions to the
applicability criteria, revised regulatory provisions pertaining to
emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM),
initial notification requirements for existing Group 1 and Group 2
POTW, revisions to the requirements for new Group 1 POTW, requirements
for electronic reporting, and other miscellaneous edits and technical
corrections. While we do not anticipate any emission reductions as a
result of these revisions, the changes should provide clarity for
sources determining applicability and ensuring compliance.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490. All
documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Katie Hanks, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Terri Hollingsworth, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of
the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (E-19J), Chicago, Illinois 60604;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

    CAA Clean Air Act
    CBI confidential business information
    CDX Central Data Exchange
    CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
    ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
    HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
    HQ hazard quotient
    H2S hydrogen sulfide
    ICR Information Collection Request
    MACT maximum achievable control technology
    MGD million gallons per day
    MIR maximum individual risk
    NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
    NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
    NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    PB-HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
    POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
    RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
    RIN Regulatory Information Number
    RTR Risk and Technology Review
    SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
    TOSHI Target Organ Specific Hazard Index
    UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Background information. On December 27, 2016, the EPA proposed
revisions to the POTW NESHAP based on our RTR. In this action, we are
finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of
the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed
rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those
comments is available in Response to Public Comments on the EPA's
Residual Risk and Technology Review for the Publicly Owned Treatment
Works Source Category in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490. A ``track
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the POTW source category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the POTW source category in
our December 27, 2016, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the POTW source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the POTW source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the POTW source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the POTW Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the POTW Source Category
    C. Applicability Criteria
    D. Emissions From Collection Systems
    E. Pretreatment Requirements

    F. HAP Fraction Emitted for Existing Group 1 and Group 2 Sources
    G. New and Existing Group 1 POTW
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  NAICS
     NESHAP and source category                 NESHAP             \1\
                                                                   code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sewage Treatment Facilities.........  Subpart VVV..............   221320
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. The
standards are directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal,
state, local, and tribal governments are affected as discussed below.
By definition, a POTW is owned by a municipality, state, intermunicipal
or interstate agency, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of
the federal government (see 40 CFR 63.1595 of subpart VVV). To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the POTW NESHAP. Specifically, if a POTW is a
Group 2 POTW \1\ that is a major source of hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emissions or a Group 1 POTW regardless of the HAP emissions, and
the POTW meets the criteria for development and implementation of a
pretreatment program according to 40 CFR 403.8, then the POTW is
affected by these standards. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the
appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As discussed below in section III.D of this preamble, the
terms ``Group 1 POTW'' and ``Group 2 POTW'' are replacing the
previous terms ``industrial POTW'' and ``nonindustrial POTW. The
``Group 1'' and ``Group 2'' subcategories are described in the
regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at http://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/publicly-owned-treatment-works-potw-national-emission-standards.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same Web
site.
    Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites for the RTR
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by December 26, 2017. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including but not limited
to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or

processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point;
are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any
combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\2\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see the proposed rule published on December 27, 2016 (81
FR 95352).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. What is the POTW source category and how does the NESHAP regulate
HAP emissions from the source category?

1. Definition of the POTW Source Category and the Affected Source
    The EPA promulgated the NESHAP for the POTW source category
(henceforth referred to as the ``POTW NESHAP'') on October 26, 1999 (64
FR 57572). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV.
The POTW NESHAP was amended on October 21, 2002 (67 FR 64742). As
amended in 2002, the POTW source category consists of new and existing
POTW treatment plants that are located at a POTW that is a major source
of HAP emissions and that meets the criteria for development and
implementation of a pretreatment program as defined by 40 CFR 403.8
under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additional information about the
National Pretreatment Program can be found in the December 27, 2016,
RTR proposal (81 FR 95374). The source category covered by this MACT
standard currently includes thirteen facilities.
    As used in this regulation, the term POTW refers to both any POTW
that is owned by a state, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate
agency and, therefore, eligible to receive grant assistance under the
Subchapter II of the CWA, and any federally owned treatment works as
that term is described in section 3023 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
For more information see the December 27, 2016, RTR proposal (81 FR
95352). The source category includes any intercepting sewers, outfall
sewers, sewage collection systems, pumping, power, and other equipment.
The wastewater treated by these facilities is generated by industrial,
commercial, and domestic sources.
2. Applicability of the 2002 POTW NESHAP
    The 2002 POTW NESHAP is subcategorized based on whether the POTW is
providing treatment for wastewaters received from an industrial user as
the means by which that industrial user complies with another NESHAP.
The 2002 POTW NESHAP defined an ``industrial POTW'' as ``a POTW that
accepts a waste stream regulated by another NESHAP and provides
treatment and controls as an agent for the industrial discharger. The
industrial discharger complies with its NESHAP by using the treatment
and controls located at the POTW. For example, an industry discharges
its benzene-containing waste stream to the POTW for treatment to comply
with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF--National Emission Standards for
Benzene Waste Operations. This definition does not include POTW
treating waste streams not specifically regulated under another
NESHAP.'' An ``industrial POTW'' is subject to the 2002 POTW NESHAP
regardless of the HAP emissions (i.e., the POTW does not have to be a
major source). In contrast, a ``non-industrial POTW'' was defined in
the 2002 POTW NESHAP as ``a POTW that does not meet the definition of
an industrial POTW as defined above.'' A ``non-industrial POTW'' must
be a major source to be subject to the 2002 POTW NESHAP. For more
information, see the December 27, 2016, RTR proposal (81 FR 95357).
3. HAP Emitted and HAP Emission Points
    The amount and type of HAP emitted from a POTW is dependent on the
composition of the wastewater streams discharged to a POTW by
industrial users. The primary HAP emitted from the POTW that were
identified as subject to the POTW NESHAP include acetaldehyde,
acetonitrile, chloroform, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, methanol,
methylene chloride, tetratchloroethylene, toluene, and xylenes. The HAP
present in the wastewater entering a POTW can biodegrade, adhere to
sewage sludge, volatilize to the air, or pass through (remain in the
wastewater discharge) to receiving waters. Emissions can occur at any
point at the POTW, including collection systems and wastewater
treatment units located at the POTW treatment plant.
4. Regulation of HAP Emissions in the 2002 POTW NESHAP
    The POTW NESHAP specifies requirements for the industial and non-
industrial POTW subcategories. Under the 2002 POTW NESHAP, an existing
``industrial POTW'' must meet the requirements of the industrial user's
NESHAP. A new or reconstructed ``industrial POTW'' must meet the
requirements of the industrial user's

NESHAP or the requirements for new or reconstructed non-industrial
POTW, whichever is more stringent.
    There are no control requirements in the 2002 POTW NESHAP for
existing ``non-industrial POTW.'' However, new or reconstructed ``non-
industrial POTW'' must equip each treatment unit up to, but not
including, the secondary influent pumping station, with a cover. In
addition, all covered units, except the primary clarifier, must route
the air in the headspace above the surface of the wastewater to a
control device that meets the requirements for closed-vent systems and
control devices found in the NESHAP from Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart DD). As an alternative, a new or
reconstructed ``non-industrial POTW'' can demonstrate that all units up
to, but not including, the secondary influent pumping station emit a
HAP fraction of 0.014 or less. The HAP fraction emitted is the fraction
of HAP in the wastewater entering the POTW that is emitted to the
atmosphere. For additional information, see the December 27, 2016, RTR
proposal (81 FR 95357).

C. What changes did we propose for the POTW source category in our
December 27, 2016, RTR proposal?

    On December 27, 2016, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the POTW NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV, that
took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed rule, we
proposed that the risks are acceptable and the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Additionally, we did not identify any developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies for the POTW source category as
part of the technology review. During this rulemaking, we evaluated
other revisions to the 2002 POTW NESHAP outside of the RTR. We proposed
to revise the names and definitions of the industrial and non-
industrial subcategories to be called Group 1 and Group 2 POTW. We also
proposed to include requirements to limit emissions from collection
systems and the POTW treatment plant; requirements for existing, new,
or reconstructed Group 1 POTW to comply with both the requirements in
the POTW NESHAP and those in the applicable NESHAP for which the POTW
acts as a control agent; and HAP emission limits for existing Group 2
POTW. In addition, we proposed to clarify the applicability criteria;
require initial notification for existing Group 1 and Group 2 POTW;
revise regulatory provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of
SSM; add requirements for electronic reporting; and make other
miscellaneous edits and technical corrections.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the POTW source category. This action
also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including revised names and
definitions of the subcategories, clarified applicability criteria,
revised regulatory provisions pertaining to emissions during periods or
SSM, initial notification requirements for existing Group 1 and Group 2
POTW, requirements for new or reconstructed Group 1 POTW to comply with
both the requirements in the POTW NESHAP and those in the applicable
NESHAP for which the POTW acts as a control agent, requirements for
electronic reporting, and other miscellaneous edits and technical
corrections. As explained in section IV of this preamble, we are not
taking final action at this time on several provisions that were
proposed, including standards for pretreatment, the inclusion of
collection systems in the major source determination, and the HAP
fraction emission limit for existing Group 1 and Group 2 POTW.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
POTW source category?

    We determined that risks resulting from emissions from the POTW
source category are acceptable. Specifically, the maximum individual
cancer risk (MIR) is 2-in-1 million based on allowable emissions and 1-
in-1 million based on actual emissions, well below the presumptive
limit of acceptability (100-in-1 million), and other health information
indicates there is no appreciable risk of adverse chronic or acute non-
cancer health effects due to HAP emissions from the source category.
Additionally, emissions of 2-methylnaphthalene, the only HAP emitted
from the POTW source category that is known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), did not exceed the worst-case
Tier I screening emission rate or any ecological benchmarks. Therefore,
revisions to the standards are not necessary to reduce risk to an
acceptable level or to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
Further, considering risk and non-risk factors, we determined that the
2002 POTW NESHAP requirements provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to
the standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the POTW source category?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 552 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times.
We have revised Table 1 to Subpart VVV of Part 63 (the General
Provisions applicability table) in several respects to eliminate the
incorporation of those General Provisions that stated or were tied to
the SSM exemption. These revisions to Table 1 are explained in detail
in the proposed rule preamble at 81 FR 95780-95782. Further, in
conjunction with the elimination of the incorporation of these General
Provisions requirements, we have (1) added a general duty to minimize
emissions in 40 CFR 63.1582(e) and 63.1586(e), see 81 FR at 95380 (col.
2-3); (2) incorporated performance testing requirements for control
devices in 40 CFR 63.694, see 81 FR at 95781 (col. 1); (3) added
language to Table 1 related to monitoring that is identical to 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) (which is no longer incorporated) but with certain revisions
to reflect the ending of the SSM plan requirement, see 81 FR at 95381
(col. 2); (4) made the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.696(h)
and 63.1589(d) applicable to periods that were previously covered by
SSM-related provisions, see 81 FR 95381 (col. 2-3); and (5) amended the
reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.1590 which, in conjunction with the
existing reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.693 and 63.1590(a), will
adequately provide for reporting that was previously governed by SSM-
related provisions, see 81 FR at 95382.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

1. Applicability Criteria
    The EPA is not revising the applicability of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVV as proposed on December 27, 2016. Instead, the EPA is
finalizing minor clarifying changes to the applicability criteria that
are in the 2002 POTW NESHAP. The renaming of the subcategories (from
``industrial'' to ``Group 1'' and from ``non-industrial'' to ``Group 2)
and the definitions of Group

1 and Group 2 POTW are being finalized as proposed, and as discussed
below. However, for clarification, the EPA has removed the statements
regarding ownership and operation of POTW in regards to which POTW are
required to develop and implement a pretreatment program as defined by
40 CFR 403.8. This change clarifies that any Group 1 POTW (regardless
of HAP emissions) or Group 2 POTW that is a major source of HAP is
subject to the POTW NESHAP if the POTW also meets the criteria for
development and implementation of a pretreatment program, regardless of
whether the POTW, state, or other entity implements the pretreatment
program.
2. Names and Definitions of the Subcategories
    As proposed, the EPA is revising the names and definitions for the
subcategories identified in the POTW NESHAP. The EPA is renaming an
``industrial POTW treatment plant'' as a ``Group 1'' POTW treatment
plant and a ``non-industrial POTW treatment plant'' as a ``Group 2''
POTW treatment plant. The EPA expects that this clarification will
address any confusion that could have been caused by the previous
subcategory names ``industrial POTW treatment plant'' and ``non-
industrial treatment plant'' because POTW in both subcategories treat
wastewater from industrial users. The key difference between Group 1
and Group 2 is that a Group 1 POTW acts as an agent for an industrial
user by accepting and controling the industrial user's waste stream
regulated under another NESHAP. By contrast, a Group 2 POTW may treat
the waste stream from an industrial user, but does not act as the
industrial user's agent to comply with another NESHAP.
3. Initial Notification Requirements for Existing Group 1 and Group 2
POTW
    In the final rule (40 CFR 63.1586(a)), existing Group 1 and Group 2
POTW treatment plants must comply with the initial notification
requirements in 40 CFR 63.1591(a) of subpart VVV. This notification
requirement was not required for these existing sources in the 2002
POTW NESHAP, but was proposed in the December 27, 2016, proposal, and
is consistent with notification requirements that were applicable to
new or reconstructed Group 2 sources under the 2002 POTW NESHAP.
4. Requirements for New Group 1 POTW
    The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that new Group
1 POTW comply with both the requirements of the other NESHAP for which
they act as an agent of control for an industrial user and the
requirements for new Group 2 POTW in this final rule. The requirements
for new Group 2 POTW are unchanged from the 2002 POTW NESHAP and
provide the option of complying with either (a) cover all primary
treatment units and route emissions through a closed vent system to a
control device or (b) meet a HAP fraction emission limit of 0.014 for
emissions from all primary treatment units.
5. Requirements for Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is finalizing electronic reporting requirements for new
POTW consistent with the proposed rule. Specifically, new POTW must
electroncally submit all annual reports and certain performance test
reports. The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of these
reports will increase the usefulness of data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will
further assist in the protection of public health and the environment,
and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community.
6. Other Miscellaneous Edits and Technical Corrections
    The EPA is finalizing the following technical corrections as
proposed:
     Revising all references to ``new or reconstructed POTW''
to refer to ``new POTW'' because the definition of ``new'' includes
reconstructed POTW.
     Combining text from 40 CFR 63.1581 and 63.1582 because the
language was redundant and confusing. This includes revising 40 CFR
63.1581 to include all combined text and revising 40 CFR 63.1583(c) to
include the text from the current 40 CR 63.1582(c).
     Revising 40 CFR 63.1586(b)(1) to require covers ``designed
and operated to prevent exposure of the wastewater to the atmosphere''
instead of ``designed and operated to minimize exposure of the
wastewater to the atmosphere.'' This clarification has also been made
to the definition of ``cover'' in 40 CFR 63.1595.
     Revising 40 CFR 63.1587 to include compliance requirements
that are currently found in 40 CFR 64.1584 and 63.1587, and deleting 40
CFR 63.1584.
     Clarifying the method for calculating the HAP fraction
emitted and moving the detailed instructions for calculating the HAP
fraction emitted from 40 CFR 63.1588(c)(4) to 40 CFR 63.1588(c)(3). The
requirements remaining in 40 CFR 63.1588(c)(4) address monitoring for
continuous compliance.
     Revising 40 CFR 63.1588(a)(3) to clarify that a cover
defect must be repaired within 45 ``calendar'' days; currently the
paragraph says ``45 days.''
     Adding definitions of existing source/POTW and new source/
POTW to 40 CFR 63.1595 to clarify the date that determines whether a
POTW is existing or new.
     Renaming the title of 40 CFR 63.1588 to ``How do Group 1
and Group 2 POTW treatment plants demonstrate compliance?'' from ``What
inspections must I conduct?'' The new title better reflects the
contents of this section.
     Removing the details on how to calculate the HAP fraction
emitted from the definition of HAP fraction emitted. The procedure for
how to calculate the HAP fraction emitted is provided within the text
of the rule. Having a summarized version of this procedure in the
definition could cause confusion.
     Revising two references to dates to insert the actual
dates. The phrase ``six months after October 26, 1999'' was replaced
with ``April 26, 2000''; and the phrase ``60 days after October 26,
1999'' was replaced with ``December 27, 1999.'' These changes do not
result in a change in the date, but only clarify the specific dates
being referenced.
     Clarifying that the reports required in 40 CFR
63.1589(b)(1) include the records associated with the HAP loading and
not just the records associated with the HAP emissions determination.
     Removing the definition of ``Reconstruction'' in 40 CFR
63.1595 as ``Reconstruction'' is already defined in the General
Provisions of 40 CFR 63.2.

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

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on October 26, 2017.
    The compliance date for existing Group 1 POTW is found in the
applicable NESHAP for which the industrial user is subject to
wastewater requirements. The compliance date for existing Group 2 POTW
constructed or reconstructed on or before December 1, 1998, remains
April 26, 2000. While we do not expect any additional existing Group 1
or Group 2 POTW beyond the 13 identified, we have chosen to include an
additional compliance date of October 26, 2018 for existing Group 1 and
Group 2 sources to submit their initial notification. We understand
from public comments that POTW are evaluating their potential emissions
and additional POTW may find they are subject to the rule. These POTW
are only required to submit a notification that they are subject to the
rule, and the additional time given for compliance of

this notification submittal will provide time for completion of the
necessary emission calculations. The 13 existing sources that are
subject to the rule and were previously identified have already met
this notification requirement and do not need to resubmit a
notification. New sources constructed or reconstructed after December
27, 2016, must comply with all of the standards immediately upon the
effective date of the standard, October 26, 2017, or upon startup,
whichever is later. While we did not identify any new sources that are
subject to the rule since the original rule was published in 1999, we
are including a transition period until October 26, 2020 for any new
sources constructed or reconstructed between December 1, 1998, and
December 27, 2016, to comply with the revisions in this rule.

F. What are the requirements for submission of annual reports and
performance test data to the EPA?

    As we proposed, the EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners
and operators of POTW to submit electronic copies of certain required
performance test reports and annual reports through the EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI). The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in
this rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in
those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability
and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public
health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
    The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data,
WebFIRE, is easily accessible and provides a user-friendly interface.
By making records, data, and reports addressed in this rulemaking
readily available, the EPA, the regulated community, and the public
will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-required technology reviews.
As a result of having reports readily accessible, our ability to carry
out comprehensive reviews will increase and be achieved within a
shorter period of time.
    We anticipate fewer or less substantial Information Collection
Requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology
reviews may be needed, which results in a decrease in time spent by
industry to respond to data collection requests. We also expect the
ICRs to contain less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will
already have stack test data electronically. Reduced testing
requirements would be a cost savings to industry. The EPA should also
be able to conduct these required reviews more quickly. While the
regulated community may benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the
general public benefits from the agency's ability to provide these
required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased public health and
environmental protection.
    Air agencies, as well as the EPA, can benefit from more streamlined
and automated review of the electronically submitted data.
Standardizing report formats allows air agencies to review reports and
data more quickly. Having reports and associated data in electronic
format facilitates review through the use of software ``search''
options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in
spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies and the EPA can access
reports wherever and whenever they want or need, as long as they have
access to the Internet. The ability to access and review reports
electronically assists air agencies in determining compliance with
applicable regulations more quickly and accurately, potentially
allowing a faster response to violations, which could minimize harmful
air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the general public.
    For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting required by
this rule, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal. In
summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control
strategy development, and other air pollution control activities,
having an electronic database populated with performance test data will
save industry, air agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and
effort while improving the quality of emission inventories and air
quality regulations and enhancing the public's access to this important
information.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the POTW source category?

    For each decision or amendment, this section provides a description
of what we proposed and what we are finalizing, the EPA's rationale for
the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and
responses. Comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries,
and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and
response document available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0490).

A. Residual Risk Review for the POTW Source Category

    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk review
and presented the results of the review, along with our proposed
decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in
the December 27, 2016, RTR proposal (81 FR 95372). The residual risk
review for the POTW source category included assessment of cancer risk,
chronic non-cancer risk, and acute non-cancer risk due to inhalation
exposure, as well as multipathway exposure risk and environmental risk.
The results of the risk assessment are presented briefly in this
preamble and in more detail in the residual risk document, Residual
Risk Assessment for Publicly Owned Treatment Works Source Category in
Support of the October 2017 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule,\3\
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This report is an update to the residual risk report
provided at proposal, Residual Risk Assessment for Publicly Owned
Treatment Works Source Category in Support of the December 2016 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results indicated that maximum inhalation cancer risk to the
individual most exposed is 2-in-1 million based on allowable emissions
and 1-in-1 million based on actual emissions, which is well below the
presumptive limit of acceptability (i.e., 100-in-1 million). In
addition, the maximum chronic noncancer target organ specific hazard
index (TOSHI) due to inhalation exposures is less than 1. The
evaluation of acute noncancer risk, which was conservative, showed a
hazard quotient at or below 1 for all but one POTW. Based on the
results of the screening analyses for human multipathway exposure to,
and environmental impacts from, PB-HAP, we also concluded that the
cancer risk to the individual most exposed through ingestion is below
the level of concern and no ecological benchmarks are exceeded. The
facility-wide cancer and noncancer risks were estimated based on the
actual emissions from all sources at the identified POTW (both MACT and
non-MACT sources). The results indicated the cancer risk to

the individual most exposed is no greater than 10-in-1 million and the
noncancer TOSHI is less than 1. Considering the above information, as
well as other relevant non-health factors under the Benzene NESHAP
analysis codified in CAA 112(f)(2)(B), we proposed that the risk is
acceptable and the requirements in the 2002 POTW NESHAP provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect.
    The risk assessment conducted for the POTW proposal estimated
cancer, chronic noncancer, and acute noncancer risk for six of the 13
facilities in the source category and is summarized and referenced
above. We confirmed the existence of seven additional POTW subject to
the rule that were identified through public comments. For these seven
POTW, we conducted a facility-wide risk assessment of potential cancer
and chronic noncancer health effects. The results of this assessment
indicate that all seven POTW have a facility-wide noncancer TOSHI less
than 1, four of the POTW have a facility-wide cancer risk estimated
less than 1-in-1 million, and three of the POTW have a facility-wide
cancer risk estimated at or above 10-in-1 million. The highest
facility-wide MIR was 60-in-1 million driven by formaldehyde from
internal combustion engines which are covered under the NESHAP for the
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines source category.
For this POTW with the highest facility-wide MIR, the facility-wide
emissions of formaldehyde are 22 tpy while the source category
emissions of formaldehyde are 0.0026 tpy, which indicates that almost
100 percent of the estimated cancer risk is from emissions sources that
are not part of the POTW source category. This ratio of source category
emissions relative to facility-wide emissions of formaldehyde is the
same for the other two POTW with facility-wide cancer risk estimated at
or above 10-in-1 million. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that
all 13 POTW have estimated cancer risk close to or below 1-in-1 million
from source category emissions and we retain our proposed determination
that risk is acceptable. Further, as discussed in the December 27,
2016, RTR proposal (81 FR 95373), we retain our determination that,
considering the costs, economic impacts and technological feasibility
of additional standards to reduce risk further, the 2002 POTW NESHAP
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and
prevents an adverse environmental effect. Details of this risk
assessment are described in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Publicly Owned Treatment Works Source Category in Support of the
October 2017 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule found in the docket
for this rulemaking.
    Most of the commenters on the proposed risk review supported our
risk acceptability and ample margin of safety determinations for the
POTW NESHAP. Some commenters requested that we make changes to our
residual risk review approach. However, we evaluated the comments and
determined that no changes to our risk assessment methods or
conclusions are warranted. A summary of these comments and responses
are in the comment summary and response document, available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490).
    Since proposal, our risk assessment has been broadened to include
additional POTW; however, the conclusions of our risk assessment and
our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of
safety, and adverse environmental effects have not changed. For the
reasons explained in the proposed rule and discussed above, we
determined that the risks from the POTW source category are acceptable,
and that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.

B. Technology Review for the POTW Source Category

    As described in the December 27, 2016, RTR proposal (81 FR 95373),
and as provided by CAA section 112(d)(6), our technology review focused
on identifying developments in the practices, processes, and control
technologies for the POTW source category. We concluded that there are
two different control options that may be used at a POTW to reduce HAP
emissions: pretreatment programs and add-on controls (i.e., covers or
covers vented to a control device). While we proposed specific
revisions to the standards, none of those revisions were the result of
any identified developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies beyond the programs and controls already in use at the
time of the promulgation of the original 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV
rulemaking.
    Comment: We received various comments related to the information
evaluated for the proposal. Two commenters stated that there is no
technical basis that requires the EPA to revise the standards since
there have been no technology advances since 1998 that warrant a change
in the original MACT analysis. Several commenters provided additional
information on specific control technologies, including biofilters,
caustic scrubbers, and carbon absorbers. One of these commenters stated
that biofilters are not reliable control devices in the context of a
POTW because they are designed for stable operating conditions. In
contrast, another commenter provided information that biofilters might
have the ability to reduce HAP in addition to hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Additional
comments on the technology review can be found in section 3 of the
response to comments document in the docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0490).
    Response: The EPA conducted a literature review and evaluated
available studies and publications on the use of add-on controls and
process modifications that are used to reduce emissions from POTW
wastewater collection and treatment operations. As noted by the
commenters, these technologies include biotrickling filters, the use of
covers and ducting of the headspace vent stream to caustic scrubbers
and carbon adsorbers, and biofiltration/biofilters. These types of
technologies have been used historically at POTW where they provide a
relatively high degree of H2S control for the purpose of
preventing odor. As documented in the technology review memorandum and
reflected in the comments received on the proposed rule, the efficacy
of these technologies to reduce HAP emissions is highly variable and
dependent on site-specific operating parameters. Our conclusion is that
the experience with biofilters for controlling organics at POTW is at
the experimental and pilot scale and that this technology has not been
demonstrated to be commercially available and effective for controlling
the range of HAP emitted by POTW. Thus, we do not consider this
technology to be a development in practices, processes, or control
technologies for purposes of this technology review. Scrubbers are
generally not used to control emissions of organic constituents, and
while carbon adsorbers may be effective at HAP control in certain
applications, as used in POTW, they are generally not designed for HAP
control. Nevertheless, 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV allows flexibility
for POTW to develop site-specific control strategies to meet any
applicable requirements, and such strategies could include the use of
biologic filters and carbon adsorbers

that can achieve the required control levels.
    As stated in section III.B of this preamble, we did not identify
any developments in practices, processes, or control technology with
respect to programs and controls already in use when the 2002 POTW
NESHAP was promulgated that warrant revisions to the standards as part
of the technology review of the POTW NESHAP.

C. Applicability Criteria

    The 2002 POTW NESHAP established three criteria (40 CFR
63.1580(a)(1), (2), and (3)) for determining what POTW are subject to
the rule. Specifically, the following criteria must all be true: (1)
You own or operate a POTW that includes a POTW treatment plant; (2) the
POTW is a major source of HAP emissions, or an industrial POTW
regardless of the HAP emissions; and (3) the POTW is required to
develop and implement a pretreatment program as defined by 40 CFR
403.8. The EPA proposed to revise the applicability criteria in order
to clarify the original intent of the rule. Specifically, we proposed
to revise the first and second criteria in 40 CFR 63.1580(a)(1) and (2)
to state that your POTW is subject to the POTW NESHAP if ``(1) You own
or operate a POTW that is a major source of HAP emissions; or (2) you
own or operate a Group 1 POTW regardless of whether or not it is a
major source of HAP.'' As stated in the proposal, we proposed this
revision because we found several instances where a POTW might not
realize they are subject to the standards, or where the applicability
criteria could be misinterpreted to exclude facilities that are covered
by the rule. See 81 FR 95377.
    The third applicability criterion in the 2002 POTW NESHAP states
that ``(3) Your POTW is required to develop and implement a
pretreatment program as defined by 40 CFR 403.8 (for a POTW owned or
operated by a municipality, state, or intermunicipal or interstate
agency), or your POTW would meet the general criteria for development
and implementation of a pretreatment program (for a POTW owned or
operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal
government).'' We proposed revising the third criterion in 40 CFR
63.1580(a)(3) to state ``You are subject to this subpart if your POTW
has a design capacity to treat at least 5 million gallons of wastewater
per day (MGD) and treats wastewater from an industrial user, and either
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) is true.'' This proposed revision removed
the requirement that a POTW must already have a pretreatment program in
place in order to be subject to the rule. The proposed revisions were
intended to clarify the intent of the rule, which was to limit
applicability to POTW that treat at least 5 MGD and wastewater from
industrial users.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that raised specific
concerns related to these proposed changes. First, commenters disagreed
that the proposed changes were necessary and stated that the proposed
changes created confusion and changed the scope of affected sources.
One commenter stated that the applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVV has been well-defined for over 17 years, and if sources are
confused, the EPA has methods to correct any confusion without making
rule changes.
    Several commenters specifically objected to the proposed change
that removed pretreatment from the third applicability criterion and
made it a requirement of the rule. These commenters stated that
removing pretreatment as an applicability criterion and making it a
requirement changes the source category that the EPA intended to
control. One state commented that this proposed change would cause an
additional 12 POTW in their state to become subject to the rule. The
commenter explained that because the state (not the POTW) implements
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
pretreatment program, the original rule does not apply to any POTW in
that state.
    Response: As stated in the proposal, the EPA did not intend to
expand the applicability criteria from the 2002 POTW NESHAP. After
consideration of the comments received, we agree that implementing the
proposed changes to rule applicability could have caused confusion
among the regulated community without a demonstrable environmental
benefit. Therefore, at this time, we are not making any substantive
change to the 2002 POTW NESHAP third applicability criterion and are
not adopting the proposed applicability criterion of 5 MGD. However, it
is important to note that the requirements in the National Pretreatment
Program do establish a 5 MGD threshold for applicability.
    In response to the apparent potential for misinterpretation of the
regulatory text that is reflected in the state's comment, we are making
one minor change to clarify our interpretation and the intent of 40 CFR
63.1580(a)(3). In developing the 2002 POTW NESHAP, we wrote the rule to
apply to POTW that receive a significant amount of HAP-containing waste
from industrial or commercial facilities. In developing the rule
language, we sought to define such POTW by using a regulatory criterion
that was already established and well understood in the industry. We
selected the criterion that the POTW be subject to a pretreatment
program under the NPDES program because this criterion would encompass
industrial and commercial wastes with HAP that pass through the POTW
untreated and that could present a safety or health concern to POTW
workers. In adopting this criterion, we did not limit applicability
based on the entity that administers the program. In other words, the
criterion encompasses every POTW that receives a waste stream that is
subject to pretreatment standards, regardless of whether the standards
are prescribed by the POTW itself or by a state or federal regulatory
body. Thus, to make sure that the regulatory text is properly read, we
have revised 40 CFR 63.1581(a)(3) to make clear that a POTW is subject
to this rule if either (1) the POTW is required to develop and
implement a pretreatment program as defined by 40 CFR 403.8, or (2) the
POTW meets the general criteria for development and implementation of a
pretreatment program, even if does not develop and implement the
pretreatment program itself. Specifically, we have removed the
parenthetical text in 40 CFR 63.1580(a)(3) that limited the first part
of the third criterion to POTW owned or operated by a municipality,
state, or intermunicipal or interstate agency and limited the second
part of the third criterion to POTW owned or operated by a department,
agency, or instrumentality of the federal government.

D. Emissions From Collection Systems

    In the 2016 proposal, we stated that HAP emissions from collection
systems should be included when determining whether the POTW is a major
source, and therefore, subject to the rule. Specifically, we stated
that the 2002 applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1580(a)(2) provided
that emissions from the entire POTW source category must be considered
when determining whether the POTW is a major source of HAP emissions,
and not just the emissions from the POTW treatment plant (i.e., the
portion of the POTW designed to provide treatment of municipal sewage
or industrial waste).
    Comment: Several commenters opposed including emissions from
collection systems in the determination of whether a POTW is a major
source. The commenters stated that collection systems/sewers may
include hundreds or thousands of miles of sewers and other equipment,
are not always under

the jurisdiction of the POTW, and are typically owned by another
entity.
    We also received comments that stated the inclusion of emissions
from collection systems for major source determination is inconsistent
with the federal definition of a major source. One commenter stated
that expansion of the major source definition to include collection
sewers as part of the affected source is not authorized under section
112 of the CAA. The commenter also stated that the equipment that
collect and convey wastewater to a POTW treatment plant do not
reasonably constitute a ``building, structure, facility, or
installation'' as specified in the definition of a stationary source in
section 112(a)(3) of the CAA, are clearly not within a contiguous area
under common control, and should not be considered a single source.
Commenters noted that the determination of a major source of HAP
emissions should be limited to emission sources within the fence line
of each treatment plant, which would be consistent with the fact that
the emission fraction requirement of the proposed POTW NESHAP is
limited to emissions within the treatment plant. Further, one commenter
contended that excluding collection system emissions in POTW major
source determinations is also supported by Alabama Power Co. v. Costle
and EPA's response to that decision.
    Commenters also noted that the emission data reviewed by the EPA in
developing the proposed rule represented the HAP emissions from the
POTW treatment plant only. One commenter noted that the risk assessment
did not include emissions from collection systems. Several commenters
disagreed with the EPA's statement in the preamble to the proposed rule
that collection systems may have significant HAP emissions. Some
commenters suggested that emissions from collection systems are
insignificant and in some cases collection systems are operated under a
vacuum to control odors. However, none of the commenters provided data
to demonstrate the level of HAP emissions from collection systems.
    Response: Considering these comments, the EPA is not taking final
action at this time on any changes to the emission sources that must be
considered when determining if a POTW is a major source of HAP
emissions. Specifically, the EPA is not taking action on whether
emissions from collection systems should be included in the total HAP
emissions from a POTW. The determination of source boundaries is a
site-specific and often a complex determination. Facilities work with
their permitting authority to consider factors such as whether
activities and equipment are in a contiguous area and whether they are
under common control. In contemplating the comments, the EPA has
decided that we do not have enough information on individual POTW,
including information on the jurisdiction of the control of collection
system equipment or information on whether this equipment should be
considered contiguous with the POTW treatment plant. Also, data on HAP
emissions from collection systems are not well understood, and we are
not aware of accepted methods for measuring or calculating emissions
from collection systems at this time. In addition, we understand that
these source boundary determinations have already been made for the
approximately 16,000 POTW through Title V applicability assessment. For
these reasons, we are not taking final action at this time to change
these determinations. We may take action in the future if we obtain
additional information on source boundary issues (i.e., common control,
contiguous area), HAP emissions, and other information related to the
issues described above.
    With respect to new sources, we expect new sources to consult their
permitting authorities on these matters as they plan for new
construction. The EPA considers these determinations on source
boundaries to be appropriately under the jurisdiction of the permitting
authority. Accordingly, to avoid regulatory disruption, this final rule
takes no action to change the definition of POTW. The definition of
POTW remains the same as originally promulgated and continues to
include ``. . . any intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, sewage
collection systems, pumping, power and other equipment.'' Likewise, we
are not taking final action at this time to revise the originally
promulgated definition of the affected source. The definition of
affected source continues to mean the ``group of all equipment that
comprise the POTW treatment plant.''

E. Pretreatment Requirements

    As stated in section IV.C of this preamble, the EPA proposed
removing pretreatment from the applicability criteria and making it a
control requirement for new and existing sources. We proposed adding
pretreatment requirements in the rule because pretreatment would reduce
HAP emissions from the entire source category (i.e., collection systems
and the treatment plant) by limiting the quantity of HAP in the
wastewater before it is discharged to the collection system. The intent
of this requirement was to reduce the pollutant loading into the POTW
in order to reduce emissions throughout all stages of treatment.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the EPA requiring a
pretreatment program for HAP emissions. Commenters disagreed with the
EPA's contention that a pretreatment program will reduce emissions of
HAP by reducing the presence of toxic gases. Specifically, commenters
noted that a ``pretreatment program under CAA Section 112 is not the
same as a pretreatment program under the Clean Water Act (CWA)'', as 40
CFR 403 authorizes POTW to set pretreatment requirements for air
contaminants for worker and plant safety, and to prevent interference
and pass through. One commenter contended that the proposed rule
expands the CAA regulatory framework into the CWA National Pretreatment
Program without a legal basis.
    Additionally, several commenters opposed requiring POTW to develop
local limits and expressed concerns about the way in which local limits
should be determined. Instead, commenters suggested that the EPA
establish wastewater concentration limits for HAP to identify
pollutants that may need local limits. One commenter stated that the
EPA should either ``regulate industrial users directly for HAP or
provide technically-based wastewater concentrations for HAP that POTW
could use for screening (where analytical methods exist under 40 CFR
part 136)'' to determine the need for establishing local limits.
    Commenters also expressed concerns about the costs related to
requiring pretreatment programs wherein POTW evaluate and set local
limits for volatile organic HAP. The commenters stated that developing
local limits to identify pollutants of concern, as well as identify
potential pretreatment controls, would require significant time and
that the significant costs these requirements would impose on POTW have
not been quantified or justified. In contrast, one commenter stated
that categorical limits set by the EPA pursuant to the CWA for certain
industries could merit consideration, but additional analysis is
required.
    Response: In response to these comments, we are not taking final
action at this time to require pretreatment as a control requirement
for the revised NESHAP. As explained in section IV.C of this preamble,
we are not changing the applicability criteria for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVV. The existence of a

pretreatment program under the CWA will continue to be one of the three
rule applicability criteria.
    The EPA Office of Water is responsible for administering the
pretreatment program and updates the requirements of the pretreatment
program based on the best available technology and taking into account
cost effectiveness. As the pretreatment requirements are modified
through future updates, additional HAP reductions may occur. Because
all of the POTW that are subject to the rule already have pretreatment
programs, specifically requiring pretreatment under the NESHAP would
not reduce HAP emissions further, but could cause confusion and
increase compliance costs. Thus, we are not finalizing any revisions at
this time to impose additional pretreatment requirements prior to
discharging a wastewater stream to a receiving POTW. Pretreatment will
continue to be handled under the authority of the CWA. By retaining the
existing regulatory structure of the NESHAP, the EPA avoids redundancy
and confusion in having pretreatment requirements included in both air
and water permits.

F. HAP Fraction Emitted for Existing Group 1 and Group 2 Sources

    In the 2016 proposal, we proposed that existing Group 1 and Group 2
POTW operate with an annual rolling average HAP fraction emitted from
primary treatment units of 0.08 or less. As stated in the proposal, we
believed that the existing POTW we knew about could meet this standard
without the need for additional control.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that opposed the proposed
HAP fraction emission limit, and we received additional data to suggest
the proposed 0.08 HAP fraction limit was not appropriate and did not
accurately account for variability in HAP loading at individual POTW.
    Several commenters objected that merely doubling the single largest
HAP fractions from the two available sources was not a scientifically
or statistically valid method for setting the emission limit and stated
that the EPA had provided no support for using the 2x factor to account
for variability of emissions. For example, the commenters collectively
pointed out that the two POTW on which the proposed standard was based
were operating at half capacity, that the available data represent
merely a snapshot in time, that other potentially regulated POTW might
emit higher HAP fractions, and that the specific combination of HAP
measured by the two POTW might not be representative of HAP emitted by
other POTW. One commenter suggested that due to the uncertainty
associated with such a small data set, the EPA should use a larger
multiplier for setting a standard.
    Additionally, commenters stated that the EPA had underestimated the
cost of achieving compliance with the 0.08 HAP fraction emitted
standard. Specifically, commenters stated that in order to comply, they
would incur capital and operating costs, in addition to the
recordkeeping and reporting costs that the EPA accounted for in the
proposal. One commenter stated that they would potentially need to
install covers and controls in order to meet the HAP fraction emitted
limit, which would be an expense of $20 to $30 million with negligible
emission reductions. Two commenters argued that the compliance cost for
the proposed standard was not warranted given the low public health
risk that the EPA estimated. Commenters further recommended that the
EPA gather more complete data from the universe of affected sources,
conduct statistical analysis of those data, and determine a suitable
standard based on an acceptable level of risk and variability of the
data.
    Response: After reviewing public comments and re-evaluating our
analysis, we are not taking final action to adopt the 0.08 HAP fraction
emitted limit for existing Group 1 and Group 2 POTW at this time. The
proposed HAP fraction emitted limit did not reflect the performance or
application of a specific control technology. At proposal, we
envisioned this limit as an enforceable numerical limit that would
ensure performance consistent with that being achieved by existing
sources. However, after consideration of the information provided in
public comment, we now recognize that we do not have the comprehensive
data on existing POTW that are necessary to conduct a sufficiently
robust analysis. The HAP fraction emitted by different POTW is
influenced by individual HAP vapor pressures, pollutant loadings, HAP
concentrations, sample measurement and analytical techniques, and
ambient conditions, which differ from POTW to POTW. Testing of influent
loadings is limited by applicable test methods, by compounds identified
by dischargers, and by the HAP for which air permits require sampling.
Without sufficient data, we cannot determine an appropriate HAP
fraction emitted limit, considering the variability in operating
conditions that is likely to occur across even well-operated POTW.
Moreover, at this time, we are unable to analyze the control costs for
all affected sources or the emissions reductions that might be
achieved. For all of these reasons, we are not taking final action on
the proposed 0.08 HAP fraction at this time, but we may in the future
consider promulgating a limit if we obtain further information on the
issues discussed above.

G. New and Existing Group 1 POTW

    In addition to proposing a HAP fraction for existing Group 1 POTW,
we also proposed other changes to the requirements for Group 1 POTW.
    The 2002 POTW NESHAP required existing Group 1 POTW to comply only
with the requirements of the other NESHAP for which they are acting as
an agent of control for the industrial user. We proposed that existing
Group 1 POTW must meet both the requirements of the other NESHAP for
which they are acting as an agent of control for an industrial user and
the proposed requirements for existing Group 2 POTW in the POTW NESHAP
(i.e., the proposed 0.08 HAP fraction emitted limit discussed in IV.F,
above).
    The 2002 POTW NESHAP required new and reconstructed (which we are
now referring to as ``new'') Group 1 POTW to comply with the more
stringent of the following: (1) The requirements of the other NESHAP
for which they are acting as an agent of control for the industrial
user; or (2) the requirements applicable to new Group 2 POTW, which
allowed the POTW to choose to meet either a requirement to (a) cover
all equipment and route emissions through a closed vent system to a
control device; or (b) meet a HAP fraction emission limit of 0.014 for
emissions from all primary treatment units. We proposed that new Group
1 POTW comply with the other NESHAP for which they are acting as an
agent of control for an industrial user and the requirements for new
Group 2 POTW in the 2002 POTW NESHAP. (Note that we did not propose,
and are not finalizing, any revisions to the requirements for new Group
2 POTW.)
1. Existing Group 1 POTW
    Comment: We received comments from one of the existing Group 1 POTW
that expressed concern that by imposing the HAP fraction emitted limit
on the existing Group 1 POTW with no alternative compliance option, the
EPA had ignored existing POTW with covers and controls already in
place. The commenter stated that new Group 1 POTW have the option of
either installing covers or complying with the HAP fraction limit.
However, the EPA did not provide that flexibility to

existing Group 1 POTW, thereby imposing an additional HAP fraction
limit without a cover option and more onerous recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. The commenter stated that the EPA should
provide existing Group 1 POTW that already use covers the option of
adding controls in lieu of complying with a HAP fraction limit.
    Response: The EPA is not taking final action on the proposed
changes for existing Group 1 sources at this time. As explained in
section IV.F of this preamble, we are not setting a HAP fraction limit
for existing Group 1 or Group 2 POTW at this time; therefore, no
additional requirements are being added for existing Group 1 POTW in
the POTW NESHAP. Thus, as required by the 2002 POTW NESHAP, an existing
Group 1 POTW must comply with the control requirements as specified in
the appropriate NESHAP for the industrial user(s).
2. New Group 1 POTW
    We did not receive any comment on our proposed revision to the
requirements for new Group 1 POTW. We proposed, and are finalizing,
that new Group 1 POTW must (1) meet the requirements of the other
NESHAP for which they act as an agent of control for an industrial user
and (2) either (a) cover all equipment and route emissions through a
closed vent system to a control device or (b) meet a HAP fraction
emission limit of 0.014 for emissions from all primary treatment units.
See 81 FR 95375 for our rationale for this change. Because we received
no adverse comment on our proposal, we are finalizing these
requirements as proposed.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The EPA estimates, based on the responses to the 2015 ICR, the 2011
and 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and public comments
received, that there are 13 POTW that are engaged in treatment of
industrial wastewater and are currently subject to the POTW NESHAP. Two
of these facilities are considered Group 1 POTW, while the remaining
eleven are considered Group 2 POTW. All 13 currently subject to the
POTW NESHAP have already met the notification requirements for existing
Group 1 and Group 2 POTW. The EPA is not currently aware of any planned
new Group 1 or Group 2 POTW that will be constructed or any existing
Group 1 or Group 2 POTW that will be reconstructed.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual organic HAP emissions from the 13
POTW subject to the rule are approximately 35 tpy. We expect no
emissions of inorganic HAP from this category. The EPA does not
anticipate any additional emission reductions from the final changes to
the rule, and there are no anticipated new or reconstructed facilities.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The 13 entities subject to this proposal will incur only minimal
costs related to familiarizing themselves with this rule--estimated to
be a one-time total cost of $790 for all 13 entities. For further
information on the requirements of this rule, see section IV of this
preamble. For further information on the costs associated with the
requirements of this rule, see the document titled Economic Impact
Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works Risk and Technology Review,
in the docket. The memorandum titled Technology Review Memorandum for
the Publicly Owned Treatment Works Source Category, in the docket for
this action, presents costs estimated associated with the regulatory
options that were not selected for inclusion in this final rule (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490).

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For
this rule, the EPA estimated the annual cost of recordkeeping and
reporting as a percentage of reported sewage fees received by the
affected POTW. For the revisions promulgated in this final rule, costs
are expected to be less than 0.001 percent of collected sewage fees,
based on publicly available financial reports from the fiscal year
ending in 2015 for the affected entities.
    In addition, the EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on
small businesses by comparing estimated population served by the
affected entities to the population limit set forth by the U.S. Small
Business Administration. The screening analysis found that the
population served for all affected entities is greater than the limit
qualifying a public entity as a small business.
    More information and details of the EPA's analysis of the economic
impacts, including the conclusions stated above, are provided in the
technical document, Final Economic Impact Analysis for the Publicly
Owned Treatment Works National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Risk and Technology Review, which is available in the docket
for this final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490).

E. What are the benefits?

    We do not anticipate any significant reductions in HAP emissions as
a result of these final amendments. However, we think that the
amendments will help to enhance the clarity of the rule, which can
improve compliance and minimize emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    We examined the potential for any environmental justice concerns
that might be associated with this source category by performing a
demographic analysis of the population close to the six POTW that were
modeled for source category risk.\4\ In this analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and non-cancer risks from the POTW
source category across different social, demographic, and economic
groups within the populations living near facilities identified as
having the highest risks. The methodology and the results of the
demographic analyses are included in a technical report, Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations
Living Near POTW Facilities, available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490). The results for various
demographic groups are based on the estimated risks from actual
emissions levels for the population living within 50 kilometers (km) of
the facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See section IV.A of this preamble for an explanation of the
residual risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the POTW source category demographic analysis
indicate that actual emissions from the source category expose no
person to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic non-
cancer TOSHI greater than 1. Therefore, we conclude that this final
rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. However, this final rule may provide additional benefits
to these demographic groups by improving the compliance and
implementation of the NESHAP. The demographics of the population living
within 50 km of POTW can be found in Table 2 of the document titled
Risk and Technology

Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near
Publicly Owned Treatment Works, available in the docket for this final
rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490).

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 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. The results of the POTW source category demographic analysis
indicate that actual emissions from the source category expose no
person to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic non-
cancer TOSHI greater than 1. Therefore, the analysis shows that actual
emissions from the POTW source category are not expected to have an
adverse human health effect on children.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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 and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1891.08. You can find
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information to be collected includes the initial notification
that the POTW is subject to the rule. However, as stated in this
preamble, the 13 sources that we already know about have already met
this initial notification requirement and are not required to submit an
additional notification. The information will be used to identify
sources subject to the standards.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners and operators of POTW. The NAICS
code for the respondents affected by the standard is 221320 (Sewage
Treatment Facilities), which corresponds to the United States Standard
Industrial Classification code 4952 (Sewerage Systems).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Respondents are obligated to
respond in accordance with the notification requirements under 40 CFR
63.1591(a).
    Estimated number of respondents: Zero.
    Frequency of response: One response.
    Total estimated burden: 0 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $0 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital
or operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no
small entities affected in this regulated industry. See the technical
document, Final Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Risk and Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this
final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490) for more detail.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. As discussed in section II.B.1 of this preamble,
we have identified only 13 POTW that are subject to this final rule and
none of those POTW are owned or operated by tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 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's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III.A and B and sections IV.A and B of this preamble and the
Residual Risk Report memorandum contained in the docket for this
rulemaking.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section III.A.6
of this preamble and in the corresponding

technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-
Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, available in the docket for this action. The proximity results
indicate, for eight of the 11 demographic categories, that the
population percentages within 5 km and 50 km of source category
emissions are greater than the corresponding national percentage for
those same demographics. However, the results of the risk analysis
presented in section III.A.6 of this preamble and in the corresponding
technical report indicate that actual emissions from the source
category expose no person to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million
or to a chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: October 16, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations 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.

0
2. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart VVV to read as follows:
Subpart VVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Applicability

Sec.
63.1580 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.1581 Does the subpart distinguish between different types of POTW
treatment plants?

Requirements for Group 1 POTW Treatment Plants

63.1582 [Reserved]
63.1583 What are the emission points and control requirements for a
Group 1 POTW treatment plant?
63.1584 [Reserved]
63.1585 How does a Group 1 POTW treatment plant demonstrate
compliance?

Requirements for Group 1 and Group 2 POTW Treatment Plants

63.1586 What are the emission points and control requirements for a
Group 1 or Group 2 POTW?
63.1587 When do I have to comply?
63.1588 How do Group 1 and Group 2 POTW treatment plants demonstrate
compliance?
63.1589 What records must I keep?
63.1590 What reports must I submit?
63.1591 What are my notification requirements?
63.1592 Which General Provisions apply to my POTW treatment plant?
63.1593 [Reserved]
63.1594 Who enforces this subpart?
63.1595 List of definitions.
Table 1 to Subpart VVV of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR part 63
General Provisions to Subpart VVV
Table 2 to Subpart VVV of Part 63--Compliance Dates and Requirements

Subpart VVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Applicability

Sec.  63.1580   Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if the following are all true:
    (1) You own or operate a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) that
includes an affected source (Sec.  63.1595);
    (2) The affected source is located at a Group 2 POTW which is a
major source of HAP emissions, or at any Group 1 POTW regardless of
whether or not it is a major source of HAP; and
    (3) Your POTW is required to develop and implement a pretreatment
program as defined by 40 CFR 403.8, or your POTW meets the general
criteria for development and implementation of a pretreatment program.
    (b) If your existing POTW treatment plant is not located at a major
source as of October 26, 1999, but thereafter becomes a major source
for any reason other than reconstruction, then, for the purpose of this
subpart, your POTW treatment plant would be considered an existing
source.

    Note to paragraph (b): See Sec.  63.2 of the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) General Provisions
in subpart A of this part for the definitions of major source and
area source.

    (c) If you commence construction or reconstruction of your POTW
treatment plant after December 1, 1998, then the requirements for a new
POTW apply.

Sec.  63.1581   Does the subpart distinguish between different types of
POTW treatment plants?

    Yes, POTW treatment plants are divided into two subcategories:
Group 1 POTW treatment plants and Group 2 POTW treatment plants, as
described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) Your POTW is a Group 1 POTW treatment plant if an industrial
user complies with its NESHAP by using the treatment and controls
located at your POTW treatment plant. Your POTW treatment plant accepts
the regulated waste stream and provides treatment and controls as an
agent for the industrial user. Group 1 POTW treatment plant is defined
in Sec.  63.1595.
    (b) Your POTW is a Group 2 POTW treatment plant if your POTW treats
wastewater that is not subject to control by another NESHAP or the
industrial user does not comply with its NESHAP by using the treatment
and controls located at your POTW treatment plant. ``Group 2 POTW
treatment plant'' is defined in Sec.  63.1595.
    (c) If, in the future, an industrial user complies with its NESHAP
by using the treatment and controls located at your POTW treatment
plant, then your Group 2 POTW treatment plant becomes a Group 1 POTW
treatment plant on the date your POTW begins treating that regulated
industrial wastewater stream.

Requirements for Group 1 POTW Treatment Plants

Sec.  63.1582  [Reserved]

Sec.  63.1583  What are the emission points and control requirements
for a Group 1 POTW treatment plant?

    (a) The emission points and control requirements for an existing
Group 1 POTW treatment plant are specified in the appropriate NESHAP
for the industrial user(s).
    (b) The emission points and control requirements for a new Group 1
POTW treatment plant are both those specified by the appropriate NESHAP
which apply to the industrial user(s) who discharge their waste for
treatment to the POTW, and those emission points and control
requirements set forth in Sec.  63.1586(b) or (c), as applicable.
    (c) If your existing or new Group 1 POTW treatment plant accepts
one or more specific regulated industrial waste streams as part of
compliance with one or more other NESHAP, then you are subject to all
the requirements of each appropriate NESHAP for each waste stream.
    (d) At all times, the POTW 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 POTW 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.

Sec.  63.1584  [Reserved]

Sec.  63.1585  How does a Group 1 POTW treatment plant demonstrate
compliance?

    (a) An existing Group 1 POTW treatment plant demonstrates
compliance by operating treatment and control devices which meet all
requirements specified in the appropriate NESHAP. Requirements may
include performance tests, routine monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting.
    (b) A new Group 1 POTW treatment plant demonstrates compliance by
operating treatment and control devices which meet all requirements
specified in the appropriate NESHAP and by meeting the requirements
specified in Sec.  63.1586, as applicable, as well as the applicable
requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.1588 through 63.1595.

Requirements for Group 1 and Group 2 POTW Treatment Plants

Sec.  63.1586  What are the emission points and control requirements
for a Group 1 or Group 2 POTW?

    (a) An existing Group 1 or Group 2 POTW treatment plant must comply
with the initial notification requirements in Sec.  63.1591(a).
    (b) Cover and control standard. Except as provided in paragraph (c)
of this section, new Group 1 and Group 2 POTW treatment plants must
install covers on the emission points up to, but not including, the
secondary influent pumping station or the secondary treatment units.
These emission points are treatment units that include, but are not
limited to, influent waste stream conveyance channels, bar screens,
grit chambers, grinders, pump stations, aerated feeder channels,
primary clarifiers, primary effluent channels, and primary screening
stations. In addition, all covered units, except primary clarifiers,
must have the air in the headspace underneath the cover ducted to a
control device in accordance with the standards for closed-vent systems
and control devices in Sec.  63.693 of subpart DD--National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-site Waste and Recovery
Operations of this part, except you may substitute visual inspections
for leak detection rather than Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60 of
this chapter. Covers must meet the following requirements:
    (1) Covers must be tightly fitted and designed and operated to
prevent exposure of the wastewater to the atmosphere. This includes,
but is not limited to, the absence of visible cracks, holes, or gaps in
the roof sections or between the roof and the supporting wall; broken,
cracked, or otherwise damaged seals or gaskets on closure devices; and
broken or missing hatches, access covers, caps, or other closure
devices.
    (2) If wastewater is in a treatment unit, each opening in the cover
must be maintained in a closed, sealed position, unless plant personnel
are present and conducting wastewater or sludge sampling, or equipment
inspection, maintenance, or repair.
    (c) HAP fraction emitted standard. As an alternative to the
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, a new Group 1 and Group
2 POTW treatment plant may comply by demonstrating, for all emission
points up to, but not including, the secondary influent pumping station
or the secondary treatment units, that the annual rolling average HAP
fraction emitted (calculated as specified in Sec.  63.1588(c)(3)) does
not exceed 0.014. You must demonstrate that for your POTW treatment
plant, the sum of all HAP emissions from these units divided by the sum
of all HAP mass loadings to the POTW treatment plant results in an
annual rolling average of the HAP fraction emitted of no greater than
0.014. You may use any combination of pretreatment, wastewater
treatment plant modifications, and control devices to achieve this
performance standard.
    (d) At all times, the POTW 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 POTW to make any further
efforts to reduce emissions if the requirements of the applicable
standard have been met. 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.

Sec.  63.1587  When do I have to comply?

    Sources subject to this subpart are required to achieve compliance
on or before the dates specified in table 2 of this subpart.

Sec.  63.1588  How do Group 1 and Group 2 POTW treatment plants
demonstrate compliance?

    (a) If you are complying with Sec.  63.1586(b) by using covers, you
must conduct the following inspections:
    (1) You must visually check the cover and its closure devices for
defects that could result in air emissions. Defects include, but are
not limited to, visible cracks, holes, or gaps in the roof sections or
between the roof and the supporting wall; broken, cracked, or otherwise
damaged seals or gaskets on closure devices; and broken or missing
hatches, access covers, caps, or other closure devices.
    (2) You must perform an initial visual inspection within 60
calendar days of becoming subject to this NESHAP and perform follow-up
inspections at least once per year, thereafter.
    (3) In the event that you find a defect on a cover on a treatment
unit in use, you must repair the defect within 45 calendar days. If you
cannot repair within 45 calendar days, you must notify the EPA or the
delegated authority immediately and report the reason for the delay and
the date you expect to complete the repair. If you find a defect on a
cover on a treatment unit that is not in service, you must repair the
defect prior to putting the treatment unit back in wastewater service.
    (b) If you own or operate a control device used to meet the
requirements for Sec.  63.1586(b), you must comply with the inspection
and monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.695(c) of subpart DD of this
part.
    (c) To comply with the HAP fraction emitted standard specified in
Sec.  63.1586(c), you must develop, to the satisfaction of the
Administrator, an Inspection and Monitoring Plan. This Inspection and
Monitoring Plan must include, at a minimum, the following:
    (1) A method to determine the influent HAP mass loading, i.e., the
annual mass quantity for each HAP entering the wastewater treatment
plant.

    (2) A method to determine your POTW treatment plant's annual HAP
emissions for all units up to, but not including, the secondary
influent pumping station or the secondary treatment units. The method
you use to determine your HAP emissions, such as modeling or direct
source measurement, must:
    (i) Be approved by the Administrator for use at your POTW;
    (ii) Account for all factors affecting emissions from your POTW
treatment plant including, but not limited to, emissions from
wastewater treatment units; emissions resulting from inspection,
maintenance, and repair activities; fluctuations (e.g., daily, monthly,
annual, seasonal) in your influent wastewater HAP concentrations;
annual industrial loading; performance of control devices; or any other
factors that could affect your annual HAP emissions; and
    (iii) Include documentation that the values and sources of all
data, operating conditions, assumptions, etc., used in your method
result in an accurate estimation of annual emissions from your POTW
treatment plant.
    (3) A method to demonstrate that your POTW treatment plant meets
the HAP fraction emitted standard specified in Sec.  63.1586(c), i.e.,
the sum of all HAP emissions from paragraph (c)(2) of this section
divided by the sum of all HAP mass loadings from paragraph (c)(1) of
this section results in a fraction emitted of 0.014 or less to
demonstrate compliance with Sec.  63.1586(c). The Inspection and
Monitoring Plan must require, at a minimum, that you perform the
calculations shown in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (viii) of this
section within 90 days of the end of each month. This calculation shall
demonstrate that your annual rolling average of the HAP fraction
emitted is 0.014 or less when demonstrating compliance with Sec.
63.1586(c).
    (i) Determine the average daily flow in million gallons per day
(MGD) of the wastewater entering your POTW treatment plant for the
month;
    (ii) Determine the flow-weighted monthly concentration of each HAP
listed in Table 1 to subpart DD of this part that is reasonably
anticipated to be present in your influent;
    (iii) Using the information in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of
this section, determine a total annual flow-weighted loading in pounds
per day (lbs/day) of each HAP entering your POTW treatment plant;
    (iv) Sum up the values for each individual HAP loading in paragraph
(c)(3)(iii) of this section and determine a total annual flow-weighted
loading value (lbs/day) for all HAP entering your POTW treatment plant
for the current month;
    (v) Based on the current month's information in paragraph
(c)(3)(iii) of this section along with source testing and emission
modeling, for each HAP, determine the annual emissions (lbs/day) from
all wastewater units up to, but not including, secondary treatment
units;
    (vi) Sum up the values in paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this section and
calculate the total annual emissions value for the month for all HAP
from all wastewater treatment units up to, but not including, secondary
treatment units;
    (vii) Calculate the HAP fraction emitted value for the month, using
Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC17.018

Where:

femonthly = HAP fraction emitted for the previous month
[sum]E = Total HAP emissions value from paragraph (c)(3)(vi) of this
section
[sum]L = Total annual loading from paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this
section

    (viii) Average the HAP fraction emitted value for the month
determined in paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section, with the values
determined for the previous 11 months, to calculate an annual rolling
average of the HAP fraction emitted.
    (4) A method to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
Administrator, that your POTW treatment plant is in continuous
compliance with the requirements of Sec.  63.1586(c). Continuous
compliance means that your emissions, when averaged over the course of
a year, do not exceed the level of emissions that allows your POTW to
comply with Sec.  63.1586(c). For example, you may identify a
parameter(s) that you can monitor that assures your emissions, when
averaged over the entire year, will meet the requirements in Sec.
63.1586(c). Some example parameters that may be considered for
monitoring include your wastewater influent HAP concentration and flow,
industrial loading from your permitted industrial users, and your
control device performance criteria. Where emission reductions are due
to proper operation of equipment, work practices, or other operational
procedures, your demonstration must specify the frequency of
inspections and the number of days to completion of repairs.
    (d) Prior to receiving approval on the Inspection and Monitoring
Plan, you must follow the plan submitted to the Administrator as
specified in Sec.  63.1590(f).

Sec.  63.1589  What records must I keep?

    (a) To comply with the cover and control standard specified in
Sec.  63.1586(b), you must prepare and maintain the records required in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
    (1) A record for each treatment unit inspection required by Sec.
63.1588(a). You must include a treatment unit identification number (or
other unique identification description as selected by you) and the
date of inspection.
    (2) For each defect detected during inspections required by Sec.
63.1588(a), you must record the location of the defect, a description
of the defect, the date of detection, the corrective action taken to
repair the defect, and the date the repair to correct the defect is
completed.
    (3) If repair of the defect is delayed as described in Sec.
63.1588(a)(3), you must also record the reason for the delay and the
date you expect to complete the repair.
    (4) If you own or operate a control device used to meet the
requirements for Sec.  63.1586(b), you must comply with the
recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.696(a), (b), (g), and (h).
    (b) To comply with the HAP fraction emitted standard specified in
Sec.  63.1586(c), you must prepare and maintain the records required in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) A record of the methods and data used to determine your POTW
treatment plant's annual HAP loading and HAP emissions as determined in
Sec.  63.1588(c)(1) and (2) as part of your Inspection and Monitoring
Plan;
    (2) A record of the methods and data used to determine that your
POTW treatment plant meets the HAP fraction emitted standard of 0.014
or less, as determined in Sec.  63.1588(c)(3) as part of your
Inspection and Monitoring Plan; and
    (3) A record of the methods and data that demonstrates that your
POTW treatment plant is in continuous compliance with the requirements
of Sec.  63.1588(c)(4) to calculate annual emissions as specified in
your Inspection and Monitoring Plan.
    (c) The POTW must record the malfunction information specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) 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 the failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment,

an estimate of the tons per year of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any emission limit and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
    (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec.  63.1583(d) or Sec.  63.1586(d) and any corrective actions taken
to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) may be maintained in electronic format.
This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.

Sec.  63.1590   What reports must I submit?

    (a) An existing Group 1 POTW must meet the reporting requirements
specified in the appropriate NESHAP for the industrial user(s).
    (b) A new Group 1 or Group 2 POTW must submit annual reports
containing the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)
of this section, if applicable. You must submit annual reports
following the procedure specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
For new units, the initial annual report is due 15 months after your
POTW becomes subject to the requirements in this subpart and must cover
the first 12 months of operation after your POTW becomes subject to the
requirements of this subpart. Subsequent annual reports are due by the
same date each year as the initial annual report and must contain
information for the 12-month period following the 12-month period
included in the previous annual report.
    (1) The general information specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and
(ii) of this section must be included in all reports.
    (i) The company name, POTW treatment plant name, and POTW treatment
plant address, including county where the POTW is located; and
    (ii) Beginning and ending dates of the reporting period.
    (2) If you use covers to comply with the requirements of Sec.
63.1586(b), you must submit the following:
    (i) The dates of each visual inspection conducted;
    (ii) The defects found during each visual inspection; and
    (iii) For each defect found during a visual inspection, how the
defects were repaired, whether the repair has been completed, and
either the date each repair was completed or the date each repair is
expected to be completed.
    (3) If you comply with the HAP fraction emitted standard in Sec.
63.1586(c), you must submit each value of the annual rolling average
HAP fraction emitted as calculated in Sec.  63.1588(c)(3)(vii) for the
period covered by the annual report. Identify each value by the final
month included in the calculation.
    (4) If a source fails to meet an applicable standard, report such
events in the annual report. Report the number of failures to meet an
applicable standard. For each instance, report the start date, start
time, and duration of each failure, as well as a list of the affected
sources or equipment. If you comply with the cover and control standard
in Sec.  63.1586(b), for each failure, the report must include the
percent control achieved. If you comply with the HAP fraction emitted
standard in Sec.  63.1586(c), for each failure, the report must include
the HAP fraction emitted. You must include an estimate of the tons per
year of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions in the report.
    (5) You must submit the report to the Administrator at the
appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13, unless the Administrator
agrees to or species an alternate reporting method. Beginning on
October 28, 2019 or once the reporting form has been available in CEDRI
for 1 year, whichever is later, you must submit subsequent annual
reports to the EPA via CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX)(https://cdx.epa.gov/)). You must use the
appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI Web site for this
subpart or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI Web site
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). The date report templates
become available in CEDRI will be listed on the CEDRI Web site. The
reports must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. If you
claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI
is confidential business information (CBI), you shall submit a complete
report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the EPA's CEDRI Web site, including information
claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly
used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall
be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
    (c) If you own or operate a control device used to meet the cover
and control standard in Sec.  63.1586(b), you must submit the
notifications and reports required by Sec.  63.697(b), including a
notification of performance tests; a performance test report; a
malfunction report; and a summary report. These notifications and
reports must be submitted to the Administrator, except for performance
test reports. Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each
performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by subpart DD of
this part, you must submit the results of the performance test
following the procedure specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of
this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site
(https://www.epa/gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the
results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI. Performance test
data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of
the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file format consistent with
the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13 of
subpart A of this part, unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies
an alternate reporting method.
    (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information
being submitted under paragraph (b)(1) of this section is CBI, you must
submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/

OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via
the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (d) You must comply with the delay of repair reporting required in
Sec.  63.1588(a)(3).
    (e) You may apply to the Administrator for a waiver of
recordkeeping and reporting requirements by complying with the
requirements of Sec.  63.10(f). Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot
be waived.
    (f) To comply with the HAP fraction emitted standard specified in
Sec.  63.1586(c), you must submit, for approval by the Administrator,
an Inspection and Monitoring Plan explaining your compliance approach
90 calendar days prior to beginning operation of your new POTW or by
April 24, 2018, whichever is later.
    (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of
either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due,
you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting
a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in
writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or
through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or
caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying the date, time and length of the
outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures
taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a
date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you
reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The
decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an
event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to
the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a
claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.

Sec.  63.1591   What are my notification requirements?

    (a) You must submit an initial notification that your POTW
treatment plant is subject to these standards as specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) If you have an existing Group 1 or Group 2 POTW treatment
plant, you must submit an initial notification by October 26, 2018.
    (2) If you have a new Group 1 or Group 2 POTW treatment plant, you
must submit an initial notification upon startup.
    (b) The initial notification must include the information included
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Your name and address;
    (2) The address (i.e., physical location) of your POTW treatment
plant;
    (3) An identification of these standards as the basis of the
notification and your POTW treatment plant's compliance date; and
    (4) A brief description of the nature, size, design, and method of
operation of your POTW treatment plant, including its operating design
capacity and an identification of each point of emission for each HAP,
or if a definitive identification is not yet possible, a preliminary
identification of each point of emission for each HAP.
    (c) You must submit a notification of compliance status as required
in Sec.  63.9(h), as specified below:
    (1) If you comply with Sec.  63.1586(b) and use covers on the
emission points and route air in the headspace underneath the cover to
a control device, you must submit a notification of compliance status
as specified in Sec.  63.9(h) that includes a description of the POTW
treatment units and installed covers, as well as the information
required for control devices including the performance test results.
    (2) If you comply with Sec.  63.1586(c) by meeting the HAP fraction
emitted standard, submission of the Inspection and Monitoring Plan as
required in Sec.  63.1588(c) and Sec.  63.1590(f) meets the requirement
for submitting a notification of compliance status report in Sec.
63.9(h).
    (d) You must notify the Administrator, within 30 calendar days of
discovering that you are out of compliance with an applicable
requirement of this subpart, including the following:
    (1) The requirement to route the air in the headspace underneath
the cover of all units equipped with covers, except primary clarifiers,
to a control device as specified in Sec.  63.1586(b).
    (2) The HAP fraction emitted standard as specified in Sec.
63.1586(c).
    (3) The requirement to operate and maintain the affected source as
specified in Sec.  63.1586(d).
    (4) The requirement to inspect covers annually and repair defects
as specified in Sec.  63.1588(a).
    (5) The requirement to comply with the inspection and monitoring
requirements of Sec.  63.695(c) as specified in Sec.  63.1588(b).
    (6) The procedures specified in an Inspection and Monitoring Plan
prepared as specified in Sec.  63.1588(c).
    (7) The requirements specified in an appropriate NESHAP for which
the Group 1 POTW treatment plan treats regulated industrial waste as
specified in Sec.  63.1583(a) or (b), as applicable.

Sec.  63.1592   Which General Provisions apply to my POTW treatment
plant?

    (a) Table 1 to this subpart lists the General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) which do and do not apply to POTW treatment plants.
    (b) Unless a permit is otherwise required by law, the owner or
operator of a Group 1 POTW treatment plant which is not a major source
is exempt from the permitting requirements established by 40 CFR part
70.

Sec.  63.1593   [Reserved]

Sec.  63.1594   Who enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA,
or a delegated authority such as the applicable state, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a
state, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart.
Contact the applicable U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to a state,
local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of
this section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot
be delegated to the state, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.1580, 63.1583, and 63.1586 through 63.1588.
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in
this subpart.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in this subpart.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec.  63.10(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in
this subpart.
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.

Sec.  63.1595   List of definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    Affected source means the group of all equipment that comprise the
POTW treatment plant.
    Cover means a device that prevents or reduces air pollutant
emissions to the atmosphere by forming a continuous barrier over the
waste material managed in a treatment unit. A cover may have openings
(such as access hatches, sampling ports, gauge wells) that are
necessary for operation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of the