on the absence of PB-HAP, indicates this source category does not pose
potential for human health multipathway risks or adverse environmental
impacts.
    These risks are based on reported actual emission levels. While we
estimate that MACT allowable emissions could be as high as five times
the actual emission levels, we expect no appreciable differences in
risks between actual emission levels and emissions allowable under the
NESHAP because over 99 percent of the HAP comprising the additional
emissions attributable to MACT allowable emission levels have no cancer
potency estimates and because the noncancer risk contribution from
these additional emissions is minimal.
6. Marine Vessel Loading Operations
    All individual lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions from
the marine vessel loading operations facilities are estimated to be
less than 100-in-1 million. The highest maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk was estimated at 1-in-1 million. The total estimated cancer
incidence from these facilities is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year.
We estimate that 2,400 people exposed to HAP from this source category
may experience an increased individual lifetime cancer risk of greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million. We found no significant risk of
adverse noncancer health effects associated with the modeled acute or
chronic inhalation exposures from the Marine Vessel Loading Operations
source category. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value associated
with emissions from these marine vessel loading operations facilities
is 0.006, and the maximum acute screening HQ value was 0.9 (using the
REL). There were a few reported emissions of small amounts of PB-HAP
including lead and POM. Our screening analysis, based on these low
emission levels of PB-HAP, indicates this source category does not pose
potential for human health multipathway risks or adverse environmental
impacts.
    These risks are based on reported actual emission levels. Our
analysis of potential differences between actual emission levels and
emissions allowable under the NESHAP indicated that MACT allowable
emission levels may be 2 to 10 times greater than actual emissions.
Considering this difference, the highest maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk could be as high as 10-in-1 million, the maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.06, and the maximum acute HQ
value using the REL could be as high as 9. Considering MACT allowable
emissions, we still do not expect

potential for human health multipathway risks or adverse environmental
impacts, based on the very low emissions of PB-HAP.
7. Mineral Wool Production
    All lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions modeled from
the eight mineral wool production facilities are estimated to be less
than 100-in-1 million. The highest maximum lifetime individual cancer
risk was estimated at 30-in-1 million. The total estimated cancer
incidence from these facilities is 0.008 excess cancer cases per year.
We estimate that 110,000 people exposed to HAP from this source
category may experience an increased individual lifetime cancer risk of
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. We found no significant risk
of adverse noncancer health effects associated with the modeled chronic
inhalation exposures. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value
associated with emissions from these mineral wool production facilities
is 0.4. There were a few reported emissions of small amounts of PB-HAP
including cadmium, lead, and mercury. Our screening analysis, based on
these low emission levels of PB-HAP, indicates this source category
does not pose potential for human health multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
    Potential acute impacts of concern were identified in the acute
inhalation screening assessment for facilities emitting formaldehyde
and arsenic. Emissions of each of these pollutants showed the potential
to create maximum offsite exceedances of acute screening HQ values of
40 and 20 for formaldehyde and arsenic, respectively. One potential
exceedance of the AEGL-1 value (HQAGEL-1 = 3.0) was
identified for formaldehyde. No AEGL or ERPG values at any severity
level are available for elemental arsenic, and this makes the
interpretation of any potential exceedances of the arsenic REL more
uncertain than when such values are available. Subsequent discussions
with industry experts indicated that the continuous nature of the
process would not lead to large fluctuations in the hourly emission
rates, and that a more reasonable, yet still health-protective, ratio
of peak-to-mean hourly emission rate is 2, rather than 10. (See
emissions documentation in the ``Residual Risk for 9 Source
Categories'' document in EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0008). Application
of this factor to our assessment still indicates the potential for
acute concerns at two facilities, but reduces the maximum potential
offsite impacts to HQ values of 8 and 4 based on the acute REL for
formaldehyde and arsenic, respectively, and no HQ values exceeding 1
based on the AEGL or ERPG values for formaldehyde (HQAEGL-1
= HQERPG-1 = 0.7). Assuming peak hourly emissions occur
throughout the year, meteorological conditions consistent with
exceedances of the formaldehyde acute REL are estimated to occur 9
percent of the time, and such conditions occur roughly 13 percent of
the time for arsenic exceedances. Details on the refined acute
assessment can be found in Appendix 7 of the ``Residual Risk Assessment
for 9 Source Categories'' document. Further, under certain
meteorological conditions, the potential to exceed the REL values for
formaldehyde and arsenic exists even at average emission levels; this
is estimated to potentially occur 7 percent of the time for
formaldehyde and 4 percent of the time for arsenic. Exceedances of the
formaldehyde REL indicate the potential for eye irritation; exceedances
of the arsenic REL indicate the potential for effects to reproductive
and developmental systems. In addition, the threshold exceedance was of
the REL value only and not of the AEGL or ERPG values. As noted in the
acute REL documentation, ``RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the medical and
toxicological literature. RELs are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of
safety. Since margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps
and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an
adverse health impact.''
    These risks are based on reported actual emission levels. Our
analysis of potential differences between actual emission levels and
emissions allowable under the NESHAP indicated that MACT allowable
emission levels may be up to two times greater than actual emission
levels. Considering this difference, the highest maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk could be as high as 60-in-1 million, the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.8, and the maximum acute
HQ value could be as high as 16. Considering MACT allowable emissions,
we do not expect potential for human health multipathway risks or
adverse environmental impacts, based on the very low emissions of PB-
HAP.
8. Pharmaceuticals Production
    All lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions modeled from
the 27 pharmaceuticals production facilities are estimated to be less
than 100-in-1 million. The highest maximum lifetime individual cancer
risk was estimated at 10-in-1 million. The total estimated cancer
incidence from these facilities is 0.001 excess cancer cases per year.
We estimate that 4,900 people exposed to HAP from this source category
may experience an increased individual lifetime cancer risk of greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million. We found no significant risk of
adverse noncancer health effects associated with the modeled chronic
inhalation exposures. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value
associated with emissions from these pharmaceuticals production
facilities is 0.2. There were a few reported emissions of small amounts
of PB-HAP including lead, mercury, cadmium, and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons. Our screening analysis, based on these low emission
levels of PB-HAP, indicates this source category does not pose
potential for human health multipathway risks or adverse environmental
impacts.
    The acute screening identified three facilities with a potential
maximum HQ value greater than 1 based on REL values for three
pollutants--methylene chloride, methanol, and chloroform--with maximum
HQ values of 4, 3, and 2, respectively. We also estimated a maximum HQ
value of 2 for acetonitrile based on the AEGL-1 level. For the
facilities that exceeded acute thresholds in the screening assessment,
we refined the assessment by plotting receptors on facility aerial
photographs and determining maximum offsite concentrations. Once we
performed these refinements, estimated maximum offsite concentrations
were seen to exceed acute REL values at one facility, and there were no
exceedances of the AEGL-1 levels for acetonitrile (HQAEGL-1
= 0.5). The highest offsite concentration of chloroform exceeds the REL
by a factor of 2 (HQREL = 2, HQAEGL-1 = 0.04). At
this facility, meteorological conditions leading to offsite exceedances
of the REL could occur as frequently as 13 hours per year, or about 0.1
percent of the time. HQ values from the refined assessment did not
exceed 1 for either methylene chloride (HQREL = 1,
HQAEGL-1 = 0.03) or methanol (HQREL = 0.9,
HQAEGL-1 = 0.04). The threshold exceedance was of the REL
value for chloroform only. As noted in the acute REL documentation,
``RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect
reported in the medical and toxicological literature. RELs are designed
to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by the
inclusion of margins of safety. Since margins of safety are
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL
does

not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.'' Details on the
refined acute assessment can be found in Appendix 7 of the ``Residual
Risk Assessment for 9 Source Categories'' document.
    These risks are based on reported actual emission levels. Our
analysis of potential differences between actual emission levels and
emissions allowable under the NESHAP indicated that MACT allowable
emission levels may be up to 25 percent greater than actual emission
levels. Considering this difference, the highest maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk could be as high as 13-in-1 million, the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.3, and the maximum acute
HQ value could be as high as 3. Considering MACT allowable emission
levels, we do not expect potential for human health multipathway risks
or adverse environmental impacts, based on the very low emissions of
PB-HAP.
9. Printing and Publishing Industry
    All lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions modeled from
the 179 printing and publishing industry facilities are estimated to be
less than 100-in-1 million. The highest maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk was estimated at 0.05-in-1 million. The total estimated
cancer incidence from these facilities is 0.000009 excess cancer cases
per year. We estimate that no one exposed to HAP from this source
category will experience an increased individual lifetime cancer risk
of greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. We found no significant
risk of adverse noncancer health effects associated with the modeled
chronic inhalation exposures. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value
associated with emissions from these printing and publishing facilities
is 0.08. There were a few reported emissions of small amounts of PB-HAP
including cadmium, lead, mercury, and POM. Our screening analysis,
based on these low emission levels of PB-HAP, indicates this source
category does not pose potential for human health multipathway risks or
adverse environmental impacts.
    The screening assessment for acute impacts suggests that short-term
toluene concentrations at seven of the publication rotogravure
facilities modeled could exceed the acute REL thresholds for toluene,
assuming worst-case meteorological conditions are present, using our
default assumption that the maximum hourly emissions of toluene exceed
the average hourly emission rate by a factor of ten, and using a
default source to receptor distance of 100 meters. Emissions of toluene
showed the potential to create maximum hourly concentrations which
could exceed the acute REL by a factor of 20 (HQREL = 20)
and potentially reach the level of the AEGL-1 (HQAEGL-1 =
1). Additionally, because there is no REL, AEGL, or ERPG value
available for ethylene glycol, which was reported as being emitted from
this source category, we used the acute MRL value as an acute reference
value for screening. The results of this additional assessment
indicated that 4 facilities showed the potential to exceed the MRL for
ethylene glycol by as much as a factor of 3 (HQMRL = 3). As
noted in the documentation for MRL values, ``exceeding the MRL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact.'' We also note that,
since MRL values can be applied to exposure durations up to 14 days,
these estimated MRL exceedances are likely to be overestimated.
    For the publication rotogravure facilities that exceeded acute
toluene thresholds in the screening assessment, we refined the
assessment by plotting receptors on facility aerial photographs and
determining maximum offsite concentrations. Once we performed these
refinements, estimated maximum offsite concentrations were seen to
exceed the acute REL at six publication rotogravure facilities. The
highest offsite concentration exceeds the REL by a factor of 10
(HQREL = 10) and is about half of the AEGL-1 value
(HQAEGL-1 = 0.5). This occurs near a public road north of a
facility. At this facility, meteorological conditions leading to
offsite exceedances of the REL could occur as frequently as 90 hours
per year, or about 1 percent of the time. At the facility where we
estimate the REL to be most frequently exceeded, the maximum REL
exceedance is by a factor of 4 (HQREL = 4), and
meteorological conditions leading to offsite exceedances of the REL
could occur as frequently as 138 hours per year, or about 2 percent of
the time.
    Thus, the highest offsite concentration exceeds the REL by a factor
of 10 (HQREL = 10) and the threshold exceedance was of the
REL value only. As noted in the acute REL documentation, ``RELs are
based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported
in the medical and toxicological literature. RELs are designed to
protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by the
inclusion of margins of safety. Since margins of safety are
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL
does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.'' Further,
based on the extensive information we have on this source category and
on engineering judgment, we estimate that a factor of 10 emissions
multiplier is most likely high for publication rotogravure printing.
Instead of 10, we believe a more appropriate multiplier would be 5 or
less. Using a multiplier of 5 (or less) would reduce the estimated
acute impacts by half or more from the values presented. Details on the
refined acute assessment can be found in Appendix 7 of the ``Residual
Risk for 9 Source Categories'' document (See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0008).
    These risks are based on reported actual emission levels. Our
analysis of potential differences between actual emission levels and
emissions allowable under the NESHAP indicated that MACT allowable
emission levels may be up to five times greater than actual emission
levels. Considering this difference, the highest maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk could be as high as 0.3-in-1 million, the
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.4, and the
maximum acute HQ value could be as high as 50. Considering MACT
allowable emission levels, we do not expect potential for human health
multipathway risks or adverse environmental impacts, based on the very
low emissions of PB-HAP.

F. What are our proposed decisions on acceptability and ample margin of
safety?

    Section 112(f) of the CAA requires that EPA promulgate standards
for a category if promulgation of such standards is required to provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent,
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect. In determining whether
standards are required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health, EPA considers both maximum individual cancer risk and
risk of non-cancer health effects posed by emissions from the source
category, as well as any other relevant public health-related
information or factors. With regard to maximum individual cancer risk,
the CAA states that if the MACT standards ``do not reduce lifetime
excess cancer risks [due to HAP emissions] to the individual most
exposed to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to
less than one in one million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk
standards for the source category (or subcategory) as necessary to
provide an ample margin of safety.

    As discussed in greater detail below, cancer risks to the
individual most exposed to emissions from the Printing and Publishing
source category are estimated to be below 1-in-1 million. After
considering this information as well as an analysis of non-cancer
health effects and environmental effects, we have determined that the
current MACT standard provides an ample margin of safety to protect
public health and prevents an adverse environmental effect. In reaching
this conclusion, we did not consider costs.
    For each of the other source categories that are the subject of
today's proposed rulemaking, we estimated that risks to the individual
most exposed to emissions from the category are 1-in-1 million or
greater. Following our initial determination that excess lifetime
individual cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from
the category considered exceeds 1-in-1 million, our approach to
developing residual risk standards is based on a two-step determination
of acceptable risk and ample margin of safety. The first step,
determining whether risks are acceptable, is only a starting point for
the analysis that determines a final standard. The second step
determines an ample margin of safety, which is the level at which the
standard is set.
    In the Benzene NESHAP, we explained that we will generally presume
that if the risk to an individual exposed to the maximum level of a
pollutant for a lifetime (the MIR) is no higher than approximately 1 in
10 thousand (100-in-1 million), that risk level is considered
acceptable. However, in determining acceptability we weigh the
magnitude of the MIR with a series of other health measures and
factors, including overall incidence of cancer or other serious health
effects within the exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed
within each individual lifetime risk range and associated incidence
within, typically, a 50 km exposure radius around facilities, the
science policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties associated with
the risk measures, weight of the scientific evidence for human health
effects, and other quantified or unquantified health effects. Based on
the maximum individual cancer risk estimates and other health factors
evaluated for the nine source categories, we have concluded that the
residual risk for these source categories is acceptable.
    EPA must consider health and risk factors, as well as costs and
economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant
to each particular decision, to complete an overall judgment on whether
the public health is protected with an ample margin of safety. Because
our analyses suggest risks to the individual most exposed to emissions
equal or exceed 1-in-1 million after application of the NESHAP for the
source categories other than Printing and Publishing, we considered the
feasibility and costs of additional controls to reduce emissions and
associated risks to address whether additional controls were necessary
to provide an ample margin of safety for these categories. For each
source category (with the exception of the Printing and Publishing), we
identified emissions reduction options for each emission point
contributing significantly to the risks and evaluated the costs and
emission reduction benefits of these options. These analyses can be
found in impacts assessment documents for each NESHAP, which are
available in the docket.
    We did not consider facility-wide risk. Although we believe we can
consider facility-wide risk as a relevant factor in determining an
ample margin of safety, we do not have cost, technical feasibility, and
other data to analyze emission sources at the facility that are outside
the source category for the nine source categories in RTR Group 2A.
    The sections below and the impact memos in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0008 provide more detailed discussions about the emissions reduction
options, the impacts of the emissions reduction options, and our ample
margin of safety decision for each of the nine source categories.
 1. Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production
    For the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production source category, we
identified only one control option to address risks from equipment
leaks, which were shown to drive the maximum individual cancer risks
for this source category. This control option would require sources to
install leakless valves to prevent leaks from those components.
    We estimated HAP reduction resulting from this control option is
about 0.4 tons per year from the baseline actual emissions level. We
estimated that achieving these reductions would involve a capital cost
of about $725,000, a total annualized cost of about $99,000, and a
cost-effectiveness of $244,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced.
    Based on actual emissions, we estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 30-in-1 million, the annual cancer incidence is
0.0004, and the population exposed to individual lifetime cancer risk
of greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 4,000. The additional
control requirement would achieve approximately 10 percent reduction of
all three of these cancer risk metrics at a very high cost. Further,
the analysis based on actual emission levels has shown that both the
chronic and acute noncancer hazards are below the threshold value of 1,
indicating little or no potential for noncancer health effects
resulting from actual emissions from the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production source category. We estimate that the MACT allowable
emissions from this source category are approximately equal to the
reported, actual emissions. Therefore, the estimated emission
reduction, costs, and risk reduction discussed above would also be
applicable to the MACT allowable emissions level. As a result, we
propose that, based on actual and MACT allowable emissions, the
existing MACT standard provides an ample margin of safety (considering
cost, technical feasibility, and other factors) to protect public
health.
    We are also required to consider the potential for adverse impacts
to the environment as part of a residual risk assessment. We believe
that human toxicity values for the inhalation pathway are generally
protective of terrestrial mammals. Because the maximum cancer and
noncancer hazards to humans from inhalation exposure are relatively
low, we expect there to be no potential for significant and widespread
adverse effect to terrestrial mammals from inhalation exposure to HAP
emitted from the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production source category.
As this source category had no reported PB-HAP emissions, no potential
for an adverse environmental effect exists. Because our results showed
no potential for any adverse environmental effect, we also do not
believe there is any potential for an adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical habitat within the meaning of
50 CFR 402.14(a). With these results, we have concluded that a
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is not necessary.
    In summary, we propose that the current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. The additional control
available is not cost-effective in light of the additional health
protection against maximum individual cancer risk and chronic and acute
noncancer hazards that the control would provide. In addition, we
believe that there is no potential for adverse environmental effects.
Thus, we are proposing to re-

adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
2. HypalonTM Production
    For the HypalonTM Production source category, we
identified only one control option to address risks from back-end
operations, which were shown to drive the maximum individual cancer
risks for this source category. This control option would require HAP
emissions reduction through pollution prevention or other measures for
these operations. We estimated HAP reduction resulting from this
control option is about 3.7 tons per year from the baseline actual
emissions level. We estimated that achieving these reductions would
involve a capital cost of about $3,500,000, a total annualized cost of
about $1,900,000, and a cost-effectiveness of $521,000 per ton of HAP
emissions reduced.
    Based on actual emissions, we estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 1-in-1 million, the annual cancer incidence is
0.0004, and the population exposed to individual lifetime cancer risk
of greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 400. The additional
control requirement would achieve approximately 20 percent reduction of
all three of these cancer risk metrics at a very high cost. Further,
the analysis based on actual emission levels has shown that both
chronic and acute noncancer hazards are below the threshold value of 1,
indicating little or no potential for noncancer health effects
resulting from actual emissions from the HypalonTM
Production source category. We estimate that the MACT allowable
emissions from this source category are approximately equal to the
reported, actual emissions. Therefore, the estimated emission
reduction, costs, and risk reduction discussed above would also be
applicable to the MACT allowable emissions level. As a result, we
propose that, based on actual and MACT allowable emissions, the
existing MACT standard provides an ample margin of safety (considering
cost, technical feasibility, and other factors) to protect public
health.
    We are also required to consider the potential for adverse impacts
to the environment as part of a residual risk assessment. As previously
noted, we believe that human toxicity values for the inhalation pathway
are generally protective of terrestrial mammals. Because the maximum
cancer and noncancer hazards to humans from inhalation exposure are
relatively low, we expect there to be no potential for significant and
widespread adverse effect to terrestrial mammals from inhalation
exposure to HAP emitted from the HypalonTM Production source
category. As this source category had no reported PB-HAP emissions, no
potential for an adverse environmental effect exists. Because our
results showed no potential for an adverse environmental effect, we
also do not believe there is any potential for an adverse effect on
threatened or endangered species or on their critical habitat within
the meaning of 50 CFR 402.14(a). With these results, we have concluded
that a consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is not
necessary.
    In summary, we propose that the current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. The additional control
available is not cost effective in light of the additional health
protection against maximum individual cancer risk and chronic and acute
noncancer hazard the control would provide. In addition, we believe
that there is no potential for adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section
112(f) of the CAA.
3. Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production
    For the Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source category, we
identified two control options; one to address risks from front-end
process vent emissions and another to address risks from equipment leak
emissions. Emissions from these sources were shown to drive the maximum
individual cancer risk for this source category. The control option for
front-end process vents would require controls to be placed on more
vents by expanding the applicability of the current control
requirements, and the control option for equipment leaks would involve
a requirement to install leakless valves to prevent leaks from those
components. We estimated HAP reduction resulting from additional front-
end process vent controls is about 14.9 tons per year from the baseline
actual emissions level. We estimated that achieving these reductions
would involve a capital cost of about $310,000, a total annualized cost
of about $750,000, and a cost-effectiveness of $50,000 per ton of HAP
emissions reduced. We estimated HAP reduction resulting from additional
equipment leak controls is about 3.7 tons per year from the baseline
actual emissions level. We estimated that achieving these reductions
would involve a capital cost of about $6,600,000, a total annualized
cost of about $910,000, and a cost-effectiveness of $244,000 per ton of
HAP emissions reduced.
    Based on actual emissions, we estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 60-in-1 million, the annual cancer incidence is
0.004, and the population exposed to individual lifetime cancer risk of
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 47,000. The additional
control requirement would achieve approximately 25 percent reduction of
all three of these cancer risk metrics at a very high cost. Further,
the analysis based on actual emission levels has also shown that both
the chronic and acute noncancer hazards are below the threshold value
of 1, indicating little or no potential for noncancer health effects
resulting from actual emissions from the Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
source category. We estimate that the MACT allowable emissions from
this source category are approximately equal to the reported, actual
emissions. Therefore, the estimated emission reduction, costs, and risk
reduction discussed above would also be applicable to the MACT
allowable emissions level. As a result, we propose that the existing
MACT standard, based on actual and MACT allowable emissions, provides
an ample margin of safety (considering cost, technical feasibility, and
other factors) to protect public health.
    We are also required to consider the potential for adverse impacts
to the environment as part of a residual risk assessment. As previously
noted, we believe that human toxicity values for the inhalation pathway
are generally protective of direct impacts on terrestrial mammals and
plants. Because the maximum cancer and noncancer hazards to humans from
inhalation exposure are relatively low, we expect there to be no
potential for significant and widespread adverse effect to terrestrial
mammals from inhalation exposure to HAP emitted from the Nitrile
Butadiene Rubber Production source category. As this source category
had no reported PB-HAP emissions, no potential for an adverse effect
exists. Because our results showed no potential for an adverse
environmental effect, we also do not believe there is any potential for
an adverse effect on threatened or endangered species or on their
critical habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR 402.14(a). With these
results, we have concluded that a consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service is not necessary.
    In summary, we propose that the current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. The additional control
available is not cost effective in light of the additional health
protection against maximum individual cancer risk and

chronic and acute noncancer hazard the control would provide. In
addition, we believe that there is no potential for adverse
environmental effect. Thus, we are proposing to re-adopt the existing
MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
4. Polybutadiene Rubber Production
    For the Polybutadiene Rubber Production source category, we
identified two control options; one to address risks from front-end
process vent emissions and another to address risks from equipment leak
emissions. Emissions from these sources were shown to drive the maximum
individual cancer risk for this source category. The control option for
front-end process vents would require controls to be placed on more
vents by expanding the applicability of the current control
requirements, and the control option for equipment leaks would involve
a requirement to install leakless valves to prevent leaks from those
components.
    We estimated HAP reduction resulting from additional front-end
process vent controls is about 178 tons per year from the baseline
actual emissions level. We estimated that achieving these reductions
would involve a capital cost of about $310,000, a total annualized cost
of about $750,000, and a cost-effectiveness of $4,000 per ton of HAP
emissions reduced. We estimated HAP reduction resulting from additional
equipment leak controls is about 52 tons per year from the baseline
actual emissions level. We estimated that achieving these reductions
would involve a capital cost of about $93,000,000, a total annualized
cost of about $13,000,000, and a cost-effectiveness of $244,000 per ton
of HAP emissions reduced.
    Based on actual emissions, we estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 10-in-1 million, the annual cancer incidence is
0.002, and the population exposed to individual lifetime cancer risk of
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 16,000. The additional
control requirement would achieve approximately 10 percent reduction of
all three of these cancer risk metrics at a relatively high cost
considering that risks are low under the current MACT standard and that
the reduction in risks is relatively small. Further, the analysis based
on actual emissions has shown that both the chronic and acute noncancer
hazards are below the threshold value of 1.
    We estimate that the MACT allowable emissions from this source
category are as high as five times actual emission levels. However, the
additional emissions represented by the MACT allowable emissions level
are released from a part of the production process that does not
contribute appreciably to the risks and for which the control option
would not affect emission levels. Therefore, we believe that the
estimated emission reductions, costs, and risk reduction discuss above
would also be applicable to the MACT allowable emissions level. As a
result, we propose that, based on actual and MACT allowable emission
levels, the existing MACT standard provides an ample margin of safety
(considering cost, technical feasibility, and other factors) to protect
public health.
    We are also required to consider the potential for adverse impacts
to the environment as part of a residual risk assessment. As previously
noted, we believe that human toxicity values for the inhalation pathway
are generally protective of terrestrial mammals. Because the maximum
cancer and noncancer hazards to humans from inhalation exposure are
relatively low, we expect there to be no potential for significant and
widespread adverse effect to terrestrial mammals from inhalation
exposure to HAP emitted from the Polybutadiene Rubber Production source
category. As this source category had no reported PB-HAP emissions, no
potential for an adverse effect exists. Because our results showed no
potential for an adverse environmental effect, we also do not believe
there is any potential for an adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical habitat within the meaning of
50 CFR 402.14(a). With these results, we have concluded that a
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is not necessary.
    In summary, we propose that the current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. The additional control
available is not cost-effective in light of the additional health
protection against maximum individual cancer risk and chronic and acute
noncancer hazard the control would provide. In addition, we believe
that there is no potential for adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section
112(f) of the CAA.
5. Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production
    For the Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source
category, we identified one available control option to address risks
from equipment leaks, which were shown to drive the maximum individual
cancer risks for this source category. This control option would
involve a requirement to install leakless valves to prevent leaks from
those components.
    We estimated HAP reduction resulting from installing leakless
valves is about 6 tons per year from the baseline actual emissions
level. We estimated that achieving these reductions would involve a
capital cost of about $10,600,000, a total annualized cost of about
$1,500,000, and a cost-effectiveness of $244,000 per ton of HAP
emissions reduced.
    Based on actual emissions, we estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 7-in-1 million, the annual cancer incidence is
0.004, and the population exposed to individual lifetime cancer risk of
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 26,000. The additional
control requirement would achieve approximately 25 percent reduction of
all three of these cancer risk metrics at a relatively high cost.
Further, the analysis based on actual emissions has shown that both the
chronic and acute noncancer hazards are below the threshold value of 1.
    We estimate that the MACT allowable emissions from this source
category are as high as four times actual emission levels. However, the
additional emissions represented by the MACT allowable emissions level
are released from a part of the production process that does not
contribute appreciably to the risks and for which the control option
would not affect emission levels. Therefore, we believe that the
estimated emission reductions, costs, and risk reduction discussed
above would also be applicable to the MACT allowable emissions level.
As a result, we propose that, based on actual and MACT allowable
emission levels, the existing MACT standard provides an ample margin of
safety (considering cost, technical feasibility, and other factors) to
protect public health.
    We are also required to consider the potential for adverse impacts
to the environment (as part of a residual risk assessment. As
previously noted, we believe that human toxicity values for the
inhalation pathway are generally protective of terrestrial mammals.
Because the maximum cancer and noncancer hazards to humans from
inhalation exposure are relatively low, we expect there to be no
potential for significant and widespread adverse effect to terrestrial
mammals from inhalation exposure to HAP emitted from the Styrene
Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source category. As this source
category had no reported PB-HAP emissions, no potential for an adverse
effect was identified. Since our results showed no potential for an

adverse environmental effect, we also do not believe there is any
potential for an adverse effect on threatened or endangered species or
on their critical habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR 402.14(a). With
these results, we have concluded that a consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service is not necessary.
    In summary, we propose that the current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. The additional control
available is not cost-effective in light of the additional health
protection against maximum individual cancer risk and chronic and acute
noncancer hazard the control would provide. In addition, we believe
that there is no potential for adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section
112(f) of the CAA.
6. Marine Vessel Loading Operations
    For the Marine Vessel Loading Operations source category, we
identified one control option to address risks from ethylene dichloride
emissions, which were shown to drive the maximum individual cancer
risks for this source category. This control option would require the
same performance standard specified in the original MACT standard to be
used at more facilities by lowering the applicability limit for
ethylene dichloride emissions from 10 tons per year to approximately
2.6 tons per year. We estimated HAP reduction resulting from this
control option is about 15 tons per year from the baseline actual
emissions level. We estimated that achieving these reductions would
involve a capital cost of about $57,000,000, a total annualized cost of
about $11,000,000, and a cost-effectiveness of over $700,000 per ton of
HAP emissions reduced.
    Based on actual emissions, we estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 1-in-1 million, the annual cancer incidence is
0.01, and the population exposed to individual lifetime cancer risk of
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 2,400. The additional
control requirement would achieve approximately 5 percent reduction of
all three of these cancer risk metrics at a very high cost. The
analysis based on actual emission levels has also shown that both the
chronic and acute noncancer risks are below the threshold value of 1.
    We estimate that the MACT allowable emissions from this source
category could be 10 times the reported actual emissions, which could
potentially result in risk impacts up to 10 times those estimated for
the actual emissions level. Assuming all impacts were proportional to
those predicted for actual emissions, this control option would result
in an emission reduction of around 150 tons per year (based on a factor
of 10). The risk reduction would still be minimal. The cost would not
differ, resulting in a cost effectiveness of around $700,000 per ton
based on MACT allowable emissions.
    As a result, we propose that, based on actual and MACT allowable
emissions, the existing MACT standard provides an ample margin of
safety (considering cost, technical feasibility, and other factors) to
protect public health.
    We are also required to consider the potential for adverse impacts
to the environment as part of a residual risk assessment. As previously
noted, we believe that human toxicity values for the inhalation pathway
are generally protective of terrestrial mammals. Because the maximum
cancer and noncancer hazards to humans from inhalation exposure are
relatively low, we expect there to be no significant and widespread
adverse effect to terrestrial mammals from inhalation exposure to HAP
emitted from the Marine Vessel Loading Operations source category. To
assess the potential for adverse effect to other wildlife, we have
carried out a screening-level assessment of adverse environmental
effects via exposure to PB-HAP emissions. This source category reported
PB-HAP emissions, but, based on our application of the screening
scenario developed for TRIM.FaTE model, no potential for an adverse
environment effect via multipathway exposures was identified. Because
our results showed no potential for an adverse environmental effect, we
also do not believe there is any potential for an adverse effect on
threatened or endangered species or on their critical habitat within
the meaning of 50 CFR 402.14(a). With these results, we have concluded
that a consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is not
necessary.
    In summary, we propose that the current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. The additional control
available is not cost-effective in light of the additional health
protection against maximum individual cancer risk and chronic and acute
noncancer hazard the control would provide. In addition, we believe
that there is no potential for adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section
112(f) of the CAA.
7. Mineral Wool Production
    For the Mineral Wool Production source category, we identified one
available control option to address risks from fiber collection and
cooling chambers, the emission points which were shown to drive the
maximum individual cancer risks for this source category. This control
option would require sources to add thermal incinerators to control
emissions from these areas.
    We estimated HAP reduction resulting from this control option is
about 48 tons per year from the baseline actual emissions level. We
estimated that achieving these reductions would involve a capital cost
of about $65,000,000, a total annualized cost of about $13,000,000, and
a cost-effectiveness of $270,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced.
    Based on actual emissions, we estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 30-in-1 million, the annual cancer incidence is
0.008, and the population exposed to individual lifetime cancer risk of
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 110,000. The additional
control requirement would achieve less than 10 percent reduction of all
three of these cancer risk metrics at a very high cost. The analysis
has also shown that the chronic noncancer hazards are low based on
actual emissions. While the refined assessment for acute impacts using
actual emission suggests that short-term arsenic and formaldehyde
concentrations at five modeled facilities could exceed their acute REL
values by as much as factors of 4 and 8, respectively, if worst-case
meteorological conditions (which occur roughly 10 percent of the time)
are present at the same time that maximum hourly emissions of these
chemicals exceed the average hourly emission rate by a factor of 2.
However, as noted earlier in this preamble, exceedances of these REL
values may occur even at average emission rates for roughly 10 percent
of the hours in a year. In addition, the threshold exceedance was of
the REL value only. As noted in the acute REL documentation, ``RELs are
based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported
in the medical and toxicological literature. RELs are designed to
protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by the
inclusion of margins of safety. Since margins of safety are
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL
does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.''

    We estimate that the MACT allowable emissions from this source
category could be as high as two times the reported actual emissions,
which could potentially result in risk impacts double those estimated
for the actual emissions level. Assuming all impacts were proportional
to those predicted for actual emissions, this incinerator control
option would result in an emission reduction of around 96 tons per year
and a risk reduction of approximately 20 percent. The cost would not
differ, resulting in a cost effectiveness of around $135,000 per ton
based on MACT allowable emissions. Finally, the REL value for arsenic
is designed for a four hour exposure whereas the exposure duration used
in the modeling scenario was one hour, making the use of the REL in
this application more protective of human health than if the exposure
durations were the same. Considering these factors, although we cannot
completely rule out the potential for acute impacts from formaldehyde
or arsenic at these facilities, we believe it to be unlikely any acute
health impacts would actually occur. As a result, we propose that,
based on actual and MACT allowable emissions levels, the existing MACT
standard, provides an ample margin of safety (considering cost,
technical feasibility, and other factors) to protect public health.
    We are also required to consider the potential for adverse impacts
to the environment as part of a residual risk assessment. As previously
noted, we believe that human toxicity values for the inhalation pathway
are generally protective of terrestrial mammals. Because the maximum
cancer and noncancer hazards to humans from inhalation exposure are
relatively low, we expect there to be no potential for significant and
widespread adverse effect to terrestrial mammals from inhalation
exposure to HAP emitted from the Mineral Wool Production source
category. To evaluate the potential for adverse effects to other
wildlife, we carried out a screening-level assessment of adverse
environmental effects via exposure to PB-HAP emissions. This source
category reported PB-HAP emissions, but, based on our application of
the screening scenario developed for TRIM.FaTE model, no potential for
an adverse environment effect via multipathway exposures was
identified. Because our results showed no potential for an adverse
environmental effect, we also do not believe there is any potential for
an adverse effect on threatened or endangered species or on their
critical habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR 402.14(a). With these
results, we have concluded that a consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service is not necessary.
    In summary, we propose that the current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. The additional control
available is not cost-effective in light of the additional health
protection against maximum individual cancer risk and chronic and acute
noncancer hazard the control would provide. In addition, we believe
that there is no potential for adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section
112(f) of the CAA.
8. Pharmaceuticals Production
    For the Pharmaceuticals Production source category, we identified
one available control option to address risks from equipment leaks,
which were shown to drive the maximum individual cancer risks for this
source category. This control option would involve a work practice
requirement to monitor valves monthly until fewer than 0.5 percent of
valves are leaking.
    We estimated HAP reduction resulting from this control option is
about 107 tons per year from the baseline actual emissions level. We
estimated that achieving these reductions would involve no capital
costs, a total annualized cost of about $820,000, and a cost-
effectiveness of $7,600 per ton of HAP emissions reduced.
    Based on actual emissions, we estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 10-in-1 million, the annual cancer incidence is
0.001, and the population exposed to individual lifetime cancer risk of
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 4,900. The application of
the additional control option would reduce all three of these
relatively low cancer risks metrics by less than 10 percent. We propose
that the costs for this option are disproportionate to the limited
cancer health benefit potentially achievable with the controls.
Further, the analysis has also shown that both the chronic and acute
noncancer hazards are low, based on actual emissions. While the
assessment for acute impacts using actual emissions suggests that
short-term chloroform concentrations at one modeled facility could
exceed the acute threshold, this is only if worst-case meteorological
conditions are present (estimated at roughly 0.1 percent of the year)
at the same time that maximum hourly emissions of these chemicals
exceed the average actual hourly emission rate by a factor of 5. In
addition, the threshold exceedance was of the REL value only. As noted
in the acute REL documentation, ``RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the medical and
toxicological literature. RELs are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of
safety. Since margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps
and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an
adverse health impact.'' Finally, the REL value for chloroform (the
only HAP with the potential for acute impacts in the refined analysis)
is designed for a 7-hour exposure, whereas the exposure duration used
in the modeled scenario was 1 hour, making the uses of the REL in this
application more protective of human health than if the exposure
durations were the same. Considering these factors, we believe it to be
unlikely any acute health impacts would actually occur.
    We estimate that the MACT allowable emissions from this source
category could be as much as 25 percent higher than the reported actual
emissions, which could potentially result in risk impacts 25 percent
higher than those estimated for the actual emissions level. Assuming
all impacts are proportional to those predicted for actual emissions,
this equipment leak control option would result in an emission
reduction of around 130 tons per year. The risk reduction would still
be minimal. The cost would not differ, although the cost effectiveness
would be somewhat lower at over $6,000 per ton when based on MACT
allowable emissions. As a result, we propose that, based on actual and
MACT allowable emissions, the existing MACT standard provides an ample
margin of safety (considering cost, technical feasibility, and other
factors) to protect public health.
    We are also required to consider the potential for adverse impacts
to the environment as part of a residual risk assessment. As previously
noted, we believe that human toxicity values for the inhalation pathway
are generally protective of terrestrial mammals. Because the maximum
cancer and noncancer hazards to humans from inhalation exposure are
relatively low, we expect there to be no potential for significant and
widespread adverse effect to terrestrial mammals from inhalation
exposure to HAP emitted from the Pharmaceuticals Production source
category. To evaluate the potential for adverse effect to other
wildlife, we carried out a screening-level assessment of adverse

environmental effects via exposure to PB-HAP emissions. This source
category reported PB-HAP emissions, but, based on our application of
the screening scenario developed for TRIM.FaTE model, no potential for
an adverse environment effect via multipathway exposures was
identified. Since our results showed no potential for an adverse
environmental effect, we also do not believe there is any potential for
an adverse effect on threatened or endangered species or on their
critical habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR 402.14(a). With these
results, we have concluded that a consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service is not necessary.
    In summary, we propose that the current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. The additional control
available is not cost-effective in light of the additional health
protection against maximum individual cancer risk and chronic and acute
noncancer hazard the control would provide. In addition, we believe
that there is no potential for adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section
112(f) of the CAA.
9. Printing and Publishing Industry
    The Printing and Publishing source category emits HAP which are
known, probable, or possible carcinogens. EPA evaluated the emissions
of these HAP and determined that they pose maximum individual cancer
risks less than 1-in-1 million to the individual most exposed. Because
these risks are less than 1-in-1 million, EPA is not required to
promulgate standards under 112(f)(2) for the Printing and Publishing
source category unless promulgation of standards is required to prevent
an adverse environmental effect. Accordingly, EPA undertook further
analysis to assess whether environmental effects might result from
emissions from this source category.
    Our analysis demonstrated that chronic noncancer risks are expected
to be low, based on actual and MACT allowable emissions. We determined
that emissions from the Printing and Publishing category would result
in chronic noncancer target organ-specific HI less than or equal to 1
for the individual most exposed. Thus we do not anticipate that actual
or MACT allowable emissions would result in adverse chronic noncancer
health effects.
    While the refined assessment for acute impacts suggests that short-
term toluene concentrations at six modeled facilities could exceed
acute thresholds, we believe it unlikely that acute impacts would
occur. Acute impacts of policy significance are unlikely because we
based the refined assessment on worst-case meteorological conditions
(estimated to occur up to 2 percent of the time) being present at the
same time that maximum hourly emissions of toluene exceed the average
hourly emission rate by a factor of 10, coincident with individuals
being in the location of maximum impact. This set of assumptions
results in an estimate of a 10-fold exceedance of the toluene REL. As
noted in the acute REL documentation, ``RELs are based on the most
sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the medical and
toxicological literature. RELs are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of
safety. Since margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps
and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an
adverse health impact.''
    We are also required to consider the potential for adverse impacts
to the environment as part of a residual risk assessment. As previously
noted, we believe that human toxicity values for the inhalation pathway
are generally protective of terrestrial mammals. Because the maximum
cancer and noncancer hazards to humans from inhalation exposure are
low, we expect there to be no potential for significant and widespread
adverse effect to terrestrial mammals from inhalation exposure to HAP
emitted from the Printing and Publishing Industry source category. To
evaluate the potential for adverse effect to other wildlife, we carried
out a screening-level assessment of adverse environmental effects via
exposure to PB-HAP emissions. This source category reported PB-HAP
emissions, but, based on our application of the screening scenario
developed for TRIM.FaTE model, no potential for an adverse environment
effect via multipathway exposures was identified. Because our results
showed no potential for an adverse environmental effect, we also do not
believe there is any potential for an adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical habitat within the meaning of
50 CFR 402.14(a). With these results, we have concluded that a
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is not necessary.
    In summary, we propose that the current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health because the maximum
individual cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million, the chronic noncancer
risks are low, and the acute noncancer hazards are below a level of
concern. In addition, we believe that there is no potential for adverse
environmental effect. In reaching this conclusion, we did not consider
costs. Thus, we are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to
satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.

G. What are the results of the technology review?

    Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires us to review and revise MACT
standards, as necessary, every 8 years, taking into account
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred during that time. This authority provides us with broad
discretion to revise the MACT standards as we determine necessary, and
to account for a wide range of relevant factors. We interpret CAA
section 112(d)(6) as requiring us to consider developments in pollution
control in the industry ``taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies,'' and to assess the
costs of potentially stricter standards reflecting those developments
(69 FR 48351). We consider ``developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies'' to be:
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment (e.g.,
floating roofs for storage tanks) that was not identified and
considered during MACT development for the source category,
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that was identified and considered during MACT development
for the source category) that could result in significant additional
emission reduction,
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified and considered during MACT development for the source
category, and
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied that was not identified and considered
during MACT development for the source category.
    For the source categories in RTR Group 2A, our review of
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies has been
on-going since promulgation of the five NESHAP. In the years since the
RTR Group 2A NESHAP were promulgated, EPA has developed air toxics
regulations for a number of source categories that emit HAP from the
same type of emission sources and have evaluated practices, processes,
and control techniques for each rulemaking. Thus, the first source of
information about practices, processes, and control technologies is

our own data and experience with the various industry sectors and
source categories.
    The second source of information is EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER
clearinghouse. The RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse is an EPA-maintained
central data base of case-specific information on the ``Best
Available'' air pollution technologies that have been required to
reduce the emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources (e.g.,
power plants, steel mills, chemical plants, etc.). The third source of
information is information received directly from the industry
regarding any developments in practices, processes, or controls.
    The sections below provide more discussion about the technology
review analyses and results for each of the nine source categories.
More detail about the technology review can be found in the technology
review documents written for each source category. The technology
review documents are in the RTR Group 2A docket.
1. Polymers and Resins I
    In the decade since the Polymers and Resins I NESHAP was
promulgated, EPA has developed 18 air toxics regulations for source
categories that emit organic HAP from the same type of emission sources
that are present in the five Polymers and Resins source categories in
RTR Group 2A. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical
analyses for these 18 regulations for new practices, processes, and
control techniques. We also conducted a search of the BACT/RACT/LAER
clearinghouse for controls for VOC- and HAP-emitting processes in the
Polymers and Resins and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) categories with permits dating back to 1997. In
addition to these two sources of information, we obtained information
directly from the industry regarding any developments in practices,
processes, or controls.
    We identified no advancements in practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the emission sources in the Polymers and
Resins I source categories in our technology review.
2. Marine Vessel Loading Operations
    In the decade since the Marine Vessel Loading NESHAP was
promulgated, EPA has developed eight air toxics regulations for source
categories that emit organic HAP from the same type of emission sources
that are present in the marine vessel loading source category. We
reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses for
these eight regulations for new practices, processes, and control
techniques. We also conducted a search of the BACT/RACT/LAER
clearinghouse for controls for VOC- and HAP-emitting loading processes
in the Organic Liquid Storage and Marketing categories with permits
dating back to 1997. In addition to these two sources of information,
we also obtained information from industries with similar emissions
sources with potentially transferable controls to determine if they
have any developments in practices, processes, or controls that could
be applied here.
    We identified no advancements in practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the emission sources in the Marine Vessel
Loading source category in our technology review.
3. Mineral Wool Production
    Since the Mineral Wool NESHAP was promulgated, EPA has developed
several air toxics regulations for source categories that emit organic
HAP from similar types of emission sources that are present in the
mineral wool source category. These similar types of emissions sources
include both melting furnaces and curing ovens. We reviewed the
regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with each
of the subsequent regulatory actions to identify any practices,
processes, and control techniques considered in these efforts that
could possibly be applied to the Mineral Wool Production source
category. In addition to the review of subsequent regulatory actions
for similar emissions types such as melting furnaces and curing ovens,
EPA conducted a review for other VOC- and organic HAP-emitting
processes that have similar technology-transferable controls.
    We also conducted a search of the BACT/RACT/LAER clearinghouse for
the Mineral Wool Production source category and found the following
processes, practices, and control technologies: wet scrubbers for
particulate matter (PM); baghouse dust collectors for PM; electrostatic
precipitators for PM; and thermal oxidizer for VOC. These practices,
processes, and control technologies are all examples of the types of
emission reduction techniques that were considered in the development
of the Mineral Wool MACT standard. In addition to the search for
similar processes such as cupolas, melting ovens or furnaces, and
curing ovens, we conducted a search for other PM, HAP metals, VOC, and
organic HAP processes that have similar, technology-transferable
controls. No developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies were revealed as a result of that search.
    In addition to these two sources of information, we also obtained
information from industries with technology transferable controls
regarding developments in practices, processes, or controls.
    We identified no advancements in practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the emission sources in the Mineral Wool
Production source category in our technology review.
4. Pharmaceuticals Production
    In the decade since the Pharmaceutical NESHAP was promulgated, EPA
has developed 10 air toxics regulations for source categories that emit
organic HAP from the same type of emission sources that are present in
the pharmaceutical source category. We reviewed the regulatory
requirements and/or technical analyses for these 10 regulations for new
practices, processes, and control techniques. We also conducted a
search of the BACT/RACT/LAER clearinghouse for controls for VOC- and
HAP-emitting processes in the Pharmaceuticals source category.
    We identified no advancements in practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the emission sources in the Pharmaceuticals
Production source categories in our technology review.
5. Printing and Publishing Industry
    In the twelve years since the Printing and Publishing NESHAP was
promulgated, EPA has developed three air toxics regulations that emit
organic HAP from emission sources that are similar to those addressed
in the Printing and Publishing NESHAP. We reviewed the regulatory
requirements and/or technical analyses associated with each of three
subsequent regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and
control techniques considered in these efforts that could possibly be
applied to the Printing and Publishing Industry source category. We
also conducted a search of the BACT/RACT/LAER clearinghouse for permits
dating back to 1990 for controls for VOC- and HAP-emitting processes in
the Printing and Publishing Industry and four additional source
categories with emission sources similar to those in the Printing and
Publishing Industry source category.
    In addition to these two sources of information, we obtained
information directly from the printing and

publishing industry and the closely related paper, film, and foil
coating industry regarding developments in practices, processes, or
controls.
    We identified no advancements in practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the emission sources in the Printing and
Publishing source category in our technology review.

II. Proposed Action

    We propose that each of the five MACT standards for the nine source
categories evaluated in RTR Group 2A--Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production, HypalonTM Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production,
Polybutadiene Rubber Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production, Marine Vessel Loading Operations, Mineral Wool Production,
Pharmaceuticals Production, and the Printing and Publishing Industry--
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and adverse
environmental effect. Thus, we are proposing to re-adopt each of these
standards for purposes of meeting the requirements of CAA section
112(f)(2). In addition, we propose that there are no developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies that support revision of
the five MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

A. What is the rationale for our proposed action under CAA Section
112(f)?

    Section 112(f) of the CAA requires that EPA promulgate standards
for a category if promulgation of such standards is required 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 approach we use to make
this determination is that set forth in the preamble to the Benzene
NESHAP. First, we exclusively evaluate health risk measures and
information in determining whether risks are acceptable. Second, we may
consider costs and other factors in deciding whether further emission
reductions are necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. The EPA is not required to promulgate standards
for a source category under CAA section 112(f) if the emissions
standards protect public health with an ample margin of safety and
prevent an adverse environmental effect.
    We determined for the printing and publishing industry that the
maximum individual cancer risks were less than 1-in-1 million to the
individual most exposed, and that emissions were unlikely to cause
other adverse human health or environmental effects. For the other
eight source categories addressed in this proposal, Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers Production, Hypalon \TM\ Production, Nitrile Butadiene
Rubber Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, Styrene-Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production, Marine Vessel Loading Operations, Mineral
Wool Production, and Pharmaceuticals Production, we determined that
maximum individual cancer risks were between 1-in-1 million and 100-in-
1 million to the individual most exposed. Because the risks to the
individual most exposed are greater than 1-in-1 million for these
source categories, we considered whether the existing NESAHP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public. In doing so, we took into
account chronic non-cancer risks, acute risks, and environmental risks.
For each of these eight source categories, we evaluated one or more
control options and considered the cost of such controls, the emission
reductions that would achieve and the impacts of those options on
public health. We determined that the existing NESHAP for each source
category provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health
and prevents adverse environmental effects. Therefore, we determined
that changes to the NESHAP are not required to satisfy section 112(f)
of the CAA. This finding considers the additional costs of further
control compared with the relatively small reductions in health risks
achieved by the options for further control for each source category.

B. What is the rationale for our proposed action under CAA Section
112(d)(6)?

    As explained in section I.F. of this preamble, there have been no
significant developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies since promulgation of the NESHAP. Because there have been
no such significant developments and because existing standards provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we conclude that no
further revisions to the standards affected by this proposal are needed
under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.

III. Request for Comments

    We request comment on all aspects of the proposed action. All
significant comments received during the comment period will be
considered. In addition to general comments on the proposed actions, we
are also interested in additional data to reduce the uncertainties of
the risk assessments. Comments must provide supporting documentation in
sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or information.
    The facility-specific data for each source category are available
for download on the RTR Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/
rtrpg.html. The nine source categories affected by this proposal are
referred to as Group 2A of RTR Phase 2. These data files include
detailed information for each emissions release point at each facility
in the source category. For large integrated facilities with multiple
processes representing multiple source categories, it is often
difficult to clearly distinguish the source category to which each
emission point belongs. For this reason, the data available for
download for each source category include all emission points for each
facility in the source category, though only the emission points marked
as belonging to the specific source category in question were included
in the analysis for that source category.
    The data files for each source category must be downloaded from the
RTR Web page to be viewed (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/
rtrpg.html). These are Microsoft[supreg] Access files, which require
Microsoft[supreg] Access to be viewed (if you do not have
Microsoft[supreg] Access, contact us by e-mail at RTR@epa.gov). Each
file contains the following information from the NEI for each facility
in the source category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Facility data                        Emissions data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Region.............................  Pollutant Code.
Tribal Code............................  Pollutant Code Description.
Tribe Name.............................  HAP Category Name.
State Abbreviation.....................  Emissions (TPY).
                                         Control Measure in Place (Y/N).
County Name............................  MACT Code.
State County FIPS......................  MACT Source Category Name.

NEI Site ID............................  MACT Flag.
Facility Name..........................  MACT Compliance Status Code.
Location Address.......................  SCC Code.
City Name..............................  SCC Code Description.
State Name.............................  Emission Unit ID.
Zip Code...............................  Process ID.
Facility Registry Identifier...........  Emission Release Point ID.
State Facility Identifier..............  Emission Release Point Type
                                          Code.
SIC Code...............................  Emission Release Point Type.
SIC Code Description...................  Stack Default Flag.
NAICS Code.............................  Stack Default Flag Description.
Facility Category Code.................  Stack height.
Facility Category......................  Exit Gas Temperature.
                                         Stack Diameter.
                                         Exit Gas Velocity.
                                         Exit Gas Flow Rate.
                                         Fugitive Length.
                                         Fugitive Width.
                                         Fugitive Angle.
                                         Longitude.
                                         Latitude.
                                         Location Default Flag.
                                         Data Source Code.
                                         Data Source Description.
                                         HAP Emissions Performance Level
                                          Code.
                                         HAP Emissions Performance Level
                                          Description.
                                         Start Date.
                                         End Date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More information on these NEI data fields can be found in the NEI
documentation at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/
2002inventory.html#documentation.

IV. How do I submit suggested data corrections?

    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide improved data, if available. When submitting
data, we ask that you provide documentation of the basis for the
revised values to support any suggested changes.
    To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR Web page,
complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions in the
data fields appropriate for that information. The data fields that may
be revised include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Facility data                        Emissions data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REVISED Tribal Code....................  REVISED Emissions (TPY).
REVISED County Name....................  Emissions Calculation Method
                                          Code.
REVISED Facility Name..................  REVISED MACT Code.
REVISED Location Address...............  REVISED SCC Code.
REVISED City Name......................  REVISED Emission Release Point
                                          Type.
REVISED State Name.....................  REVISED Start Date.
REVISED Zip Code.......................  REVISED End Date.
REVISED Facility Registry Identifier...  REVISED Pollutant Code.
                                         REVISED Control Measure in
                                          Place (Y/N).
                                         Control Measure.
REVISED Facility Category Code.........  REVISED Stack height.
                                         REVISED Exit Gas Temperature.
                                         REVISED Stack Diameter.
                                         REVISED Exit Gas Velocity.
                                         REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate.
                                         REVISED Longitude.
                                         REVISED Latitude.
                                         North American Datum.
                                         REVISED HAP Emissions
                                          Performance Level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Fill in the following commenter information fields for each
suggested revision:
     Commenter Name
     Commenter Organization
     Commenter E-Mail Address
     Commenter Phone Number
     Revision Comments
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations, etc.).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[reg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0008 (through one of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To answer
questions on navigating through the

data and to help expedite review of the revisions, it would also be
helpful to submit revisions to EPA directly at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>in addition
to submitting them to the docket.
    5. If you are providing comments on a facility with multiple source
categories, you need only submit one file for that facility, which
should contain all suggested changes for all source categories at that
facility.
    We strongly urge that all data revision comments be submitted in
the form of updated Microsoft[reg] Access files, which are provided on
the http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html Web page. Data in the
form of written descriptions or other electronic file formats will be
difficult for EPA to translate into the necessary format in a timely
manner.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a significant regulatory action. This action is a significant
regulatory action because it raises novel legal and policy issues.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This action is proposing no changes to the existing regulations
affecting the nine source categories affected by this proposal and will
impose no additional information collection burden.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impact of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. EPA
is proposing no further action at this time to revise the NESHAP.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this proposed rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because
it contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it
impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities in the
RTR Group 1 source categories are owned or operated by State
governments, and, because no new requirements are being promulgated,
nothing in this proposal will supersede State regulations. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not
have substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.

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

    The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency 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 section I.D., E., and F.
of this preamble.

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

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. It does not impose any new energy
requirements. Further, we have concluded that this rule will not have
any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed 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. This proposed rule would not relax the control measures on
sources regulated by the rule and, therefore, would not cause emissions
increases from these sources.

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: September 29, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-23373 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request USEPA/ Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance/ Office of Compliance 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0420 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR Number 1871.04 9. Keywords Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) rule, hazardous air pollutant emission sources; polycarbonates ( PC) production, acrylic and modacrylic fibers ( AMF) production; acetal resins ( AR) production; hydrogen fluoride ( HF) production.

10. Abstract The rule addresses air pollution from Polycarbonates ( PC) Production, Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers ( AMF) Production; Acetal Resins ( AR) Production; and Hydrogen Fluoride ( HF) Production. In general, all sources subject to NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 10 b. Total annual responses 30 _ _ 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10 % ____ c. Total hours requested 4,004 d. Current OMB inventory 4,077 e. Difference ( 73) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment ( 73) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 107 c. Total annualized cost requested 107 d. Current OMB inventory 107 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Initially 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Learia A. Williams Phone: ( 202) 564 4113 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3):

( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95