facilities contributed less than 1 percent to such risk. The facility-
wide analysis indicates that the maximum chronic non-cancer risks are
unlikely to cause health impacts. Our additional analysis of the
demographics of the exposed population may show disparities in risks
between demographic groups. Based on this low cancer risk level and in
consideration of other health measures and factors, including the low
cancer incidence (one case in every 1,250 years) and the low maximum
non-cancer risk level (TOSHI of 0.2 based on actual emissions and 0.4
based on MACT-allowable emissions), we propose that the risks from the
Pharmaceuticals Production source category are acceptable.
c. Ample Margin of Safety
    Because we are proposing that the risks are acceptable, but still
above 1-in-1 million, we then re-considered our 2008 ample margin of
safety decision.
    We have not identified any additional control options or any
changes to the previously-analyzed control option that would affect
emissions reductions or the costs of control. Therefore, we continue to
propose that the current MACT standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and the environment, and we are
proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standards to satisfy section
112(f) of the CAA.
5. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
    In the October 10, 2008 proposal, we identified no developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies applicable to the
emission sources and thus we did not propose any additional controls as
necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6). In that review, we examined the
regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses for subsequently
promulgated air toxics regulations with similar types of emissions
sources as those in the Pharmaceuticals Production source category, and
we conducted a search of the RBLC for controls for VOC- and HAP-
emitting processes in the Pharmaceuticals Production source category.
We have not identified any additional developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies since the proposal date. Thus, we
are again proposing that it is not necessary to revise the existing
MACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(6).
6. What other actions are we proposing?
a. SSM Provisions
    We propose to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Pharmaceuticals

Production MACT standards. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA
proposes that standards in this rule would apply at all times. We are
proposing several revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG.
Specifically, we are proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate that the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e) of the General Provisions do not apply.
The 40 CFR 63.6(e) requires owner or operators to act according to the
general duty to ``operate and maintain any affected source, including
associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in
a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions.'' We are separately proposing to
incorporate this general duty to minimize into 40 CFR 63.1250(g)(3).
The 40 CFR 63.6(e) also requires the owner or operator of an affected
source to develop a written SSM plan. We are proposing to remove the
SSM plan requirement. We are proposing to remove the exemption
provisions for periods of SSM in 40 CFR 63.1250(g), require that delay
of equipment leak repair plans be contained in a separate document in
40 CFR 63.1255(g)(4), revise 40 CFR 63.1257(a) to specify the
conditions for performance tests, and revise the SSM associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR
63.1258(b)(8), 40 CFR 63.1259(a), and 40 CFR 63.1260(i) to require
reporting and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are also
proposing to revise Table 1 to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), the last sentence of 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3), 40 CFR
63.10(c)(10), (11), and (15), and 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) of the General
Provisions do not apply. In addition, we are proposing to promulgate an
affirmative defense against civil penalties for exceedances of emission
standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing
the affirmative defense. EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not
incorporated into proposed regulatory language any provisions that are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether there are any
such provisions that we have inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.
b. Rule Improvements Review
    We are proposing to correct an editorial error in 40 CFR
63.1257(e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii). That section specifies several criteria
under which the inlet to the equalization tank may be considered as the
inlet to the biological treatment process for the purposes of
performance tests to show compliance with the standards in 40 CFR
63.1256(a)(2)(i). This section incorrectly provides that only one of
the listed criteria must be met for the inlet to the equalization tank
to be considered the inlet to the biological treatment process.
Instead, it should specify that all of the criteria must be met. Thus,
we are proposing to revise this section by changing the ``or'' before
each clause to ``and,'' to clarify that all the criteria of 40 CFR
63.1256(e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii) must be met for the inlet to the
equalization tank to be considered as the inlet to the biological
treatment process.

E. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Printing and
Publishing Industry source category?

1. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standard
    The National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing
Industry were promulgated on May 30, 1996 (61 FR 27132) and codified at
40 CFR part 63, subpart KK. The Printing and Publishing Industry MACT
standards apply to major sources of HAP. We identified 172 facilities
currently subject to the Printing and Publishing Industry MACT
standards.
    Printing and publishing facilities are those facilities that use
rotogravure, flexography, and other methods, such as lithography,
letterpress, and screen printing, to print on a variety of substrates,
including paper, plastic film, metal foil, and vinyl. The Printing and
Publishing Industry MACT standards include two subcategories: (1)
Publication rotogravure printing and (2) product and packaging
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing. Emissions at printing
and publishing facilities result from the evaporation of solvents in
the inks and from cleaning solvents. The emission points include
printing presses and associated dryers and ink and solvent storage.
Control techniques include recovery devices, combustion devices, and
the use of non-HAP/low-HAP inks and cleaning solvents.
2. What data were used in our risk analyses?
    We initially created a preliminary data set for the source category
using data in the 2002 NEI Final Inventory, Version 1 (made publicly
available on February 26, 2006). We reviewed the NEI data and made
changes where necessary to ensure the proper facilities were included
and to ensure the proper processes were allocated to the Printing and
Publishing Industry source category. We also reviewed the emissions and
other data to identify data anomalies that could affect risk estimates.
On March 29, 2007, we published an ANPRM (72 FR 29287) for the express
purpose of requesting comments on and updates to this data set, as well
as to the data sets for the other source categories addressed in that
ANPRM. Comments received in response to the ANPRM were reviewed and
considered, and we made adjustments to the data set where we concluded
the comments supported such adjustment. After making appropriate
changes to the data set based on this public data review process, the
data set on which we based the initial proposal was created. This data
set was used to conduct the risk assessment and other analyses for the
Printing and Publishing Industry source category that formed the basis
for the proposed RTR actions included in the October 2008 proposal.
    We have continued to scrutinize the existing data set and have
evaluated any additional data that became available since the October
2008 proposal. Since the time of the proposal, we identified errors in
some HAP that were reported to be emitted and several facilities that
were included have permanently closed. The data set was updated to
correct the errors and remove the facilities that have closed.
    Toluene accounts for the majority of the HAP emissions from these
facilities (approximately 7,105 TPY, or 83 percent of the total HAP
emissions by mass). These facilities also reported relatively small
emissions of 58 other HAP. These emissions are primarily from the
evaporation of HAP present in the inks and other materials applied with
rotogravure and flexographic processes.
    We estimate that MACT-allowable emissions from emission points
within this source category could be up to five times greater than the
actual emissions because some capture systems and control devices used
on printers at some facilities could achieve greater emission
reductions (in the range of 98 to possibly 100 percent) than what is
required by the MACT standard (92 percent). For more detail about this
estimate of the ratio of actual to MACT-allowable emissions, see the
memo in the docket for this action describing the estimation of MACT-
allowable emission levels and associated risks and impacts.
3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
    We have conducted a revised inhalation risk assessment for the
Printing and Publishing Industry source category. We have also
conducted an assessment of facility-wide risk, and performed a
demographic analysis of

population risks. Table E.1 provides an overall summary of the results
of the revised inhalation risk assessment.

                                Table E.1--Printing and Publishing Industry Revised Inhalation Risk Assessment Results *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Maximum individual cancer                                 Maximum chronic  non-
                          risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual          cancer TOSHI \3\
 Number of facilities  ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ----------------------------
          \1\              Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable     Maximum off-site acute non-cancer HQ \4\
                          emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                            level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
172...................            4            20           300        0.0006          0.08           0.4   HQREL = 10 toluene
                                                                                HQAEGL-1 = 0.6 toluene
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All results are for impacts out to 50 km from every source in the category.
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Printing and Publishing Industry source category is the reproductive system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute threshold. See section IV.A. of this preamble for explanation of acute threshold values.

    The inhalation risk modeling was performed using actual emissions
level data. As shown in Table E.1, the risks based on these actual
emission levels indicate the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk
could be as high as 4-in-1 million, the maximum chronic non-cancer
TOSHI value could be up to 0.08. The total estimated national cancer
incidence from these facilities based on the actual emission levels is
0.0006 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 1,666 years.
The maximum off-facility-site acute HQ value could be as high as 10,
based on the actual emissions level and the REL value for toluene. The
HQ value at this level occurs at a location adjacent to one facility
fenceline for only a few (90) hours per year. This maximum exceedance
of the REL value corresponds to an HQAEGL-1 equal to 0.6.
    Our analysis of potential differences between actual emission
levels and emissions allowable under the MACT standard indicated that
MACT-allowable emission levels may be up to five times greater than
actual emission levels. Assuming this worst case difference occurred at
the highest risk facility, the scaled risk results from the revised
inhalation risk assessment would indicate the maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk could be as high as 20-in-1 million, and the
maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.4.
    Table E.2 displays the results of the facility-wide risk
assessment. This assessment was conducted based on actual emission
levels.

     Table E.2--Printing and Publishing Industry Facility-Wide Risk
                           Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million)..         20
    Printing and Publishing Industry source category                < 1%
     contribution to this maximum facility-wide individual
     cancer risk \1\.........................................
Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI...............     \1\ 20
    Printing and Publishing Industry source category            \3\ < 1%
     contribution to this maximum facility-wide chronic non-
     cancer TOSHI \2\........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After risk modeling was complete, EPA received data that identified
  an error in emissions that caused this highest TOSHI value. After
  revising the emissions value, the highest facility-wide TOSHI is 2
  from a different facility.
\2\ Percentage shown reflects Printing and Publishing Industry source
  category contribution to the maximum facility-wide risks at the
  facility with the maximum risk value shown.
\3\ This percentage reflects the Printing and Publishing Industry source
  category contribution to the highest facility-wide TOSHI of 2, as
  noted in footnote 1 to this table.

The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at a facility
that contains sources subject to the Printing and Publishing Industry
MACT standards is estimated to be 20-in-1 million, and the maximum
chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is estimated to be 20. At the facilities
where these maximum risk values occur, the estimated proportion of the
risk attributable to the Printing and Publishing Industry source
category processes is less than one percent for both cancer and non-
cancer risk.
    The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of risks above 1-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions levels for the population living within 5 km of the
facilities, among various demographic groups are provided in a report
available in the docket for this action and summarized in Table E.3
below.

                                      Table E.3--Printing and Publishing Industry Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million
                                              Maximum   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Emissions basis               risk  (in 1                                       Other and    Hispanic                Below the  Over 25 W/
                                              million)      Total    Minority %    African   multiracial   or Latino    Native      poverty     O a HS
                                                         (millions)              American %       %            %      American %    level %    diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide................................          n/a         285          25          12           12          14         0.9          13          13
Source Category...........................            4     0.00005           0           0            0           0           0          11           5

Facility-wide.............................           20        0.05          14           8            5           5         0.3           9          11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Printing and Publishing Industry source category
demographic analysis show that for the 50 people living within 5 km of
a printing and publishing industry facility and with a cancer risk
greater than 1-in-1 million is less than the national averages for the
demographic categories displayed in Table E.3, based on the typical
distribution of these demographic groups across the United States. The
table also shows that the results of the demographic analysis for the
facility-wide emissions are similarly less than the national averages
for these demographic groups. This means the emissions from these
sources do not create any significant disparate risk impacts.
    Details of these assessments and analyses can be found in the
residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this
preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
a. October 2008 Proposed Decision
    In our October 10, 2008 proposal, the risk results indicated that
cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from the
category was 0.05-in-1 million, which is less than 1-in-1 million
(i.e., were ``low risk''). Therefore, we did not conduct an additional
ample margin of safety analysis for the proposed rule.
b. Risk Acceptability
    While at the time of the October 10, 2008 proposal this source
category showed low risks (cancer risks to the individual most exposed
to emissions from the category were less than 1-in-1 million), in our
revised analysis we found that cancer risks to the individual most
exposed to emissions from the category were 4-in-1 million based on
actual emissions and as high as 20-in-1 million based on MACT-allowable
emissions. This change in risk is primarily the result of a cancer
health benchmark value becoming available for ethyl benzene. The cancer
incidence and the number of people exposed to cancer risks of 1-in-1
million or greater are relatively low, based on actual emissions. The
analyses show no potential for an adverse environmental effect or human
health multi-pathway effects, and that chronic non-cancer health
impacts are unlikely. The revised assessment did indicate that an acute
non-cancer HQ as high as 10 could occur, based on the REL value for
toluene at a location adjacent to the facility fenceline for up to 90
hours per year. However, given the fact that this potential impact does
not exceed the AEGL-1 value for toluene (HQAEGL-1 = 0.6) we
do not believe this situation warrants additional control considering
the overall health effects. Our additional analysis of facility-wide
risks showed that the maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 20-in-1
million and the maximum facility-wide non-cancer TOSHI is 20. It also
showed that the printing and publishing processes located at the
facilities with these maximum risk values contribute less than 1
percent to such risks. As previously mentioned, our additional analysis
of the demographics of the exposed population suggests there are not
large disparities in risks between demographic groups.
    Based on this low cancer risk level and in consideration of other
health measures and factors, including the low cancer incidence (one
case in every 1,666 years), the low maximum non-cancer risk level
(TOSHI of 0.08 based on actual emissions and 0.4 based on MACT-
allowable emissions), relatively low facility-wide risks which are not
attributable to the printing and publishing category, and the lack of
disparate impacts in the demographic analysis, we propose that the
risks from the Printing and Publishing Industry source category are
acceptable.
c. Ample Margin of Safety
    Because we are proposing that the risks are acceptable, but still
above 1-in-1 million, we then re-considered our 2008 ample margin of
safety decision. Based on these analyses, we continue to propose that
the current MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health and the environment, and we are proposing to re-adopt the
existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
5. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
    In the October 2008 proposal, we identified no advancements in
practices, processes, and control technologies applicable to the
emission sources in the Printing and Publishing Industry source
category in our technology review, and thus we proposed that it was not
necessary to revise the existing MACT standards pursuant to section
112(d)(6) of the CAA. In that review we examined the regulatory
requirements and/or technical analyses for subsequently promulgated air
toxics regulations with similar types of emissions sources as those in
the Printing and Publishing Industry source category, and we conducted
a search of the RBLC for controls for VOC- and HAP-emitting processes
in the Printing and Publishing Industry source category. We re-examined
these same sources of information to identify any new developments
since the time of the October 2008 proposal. For the purposes of this
proposal, we examined the option of retrofitting permanent total
enclosures onto those controlled presses that do not already have
permanent total enclosures. A permanent total enclosure improves the
capture of solvent HAP from inks and delivers the additional captured
solvent HAP to a control device. We estimate the cost-effectiveness of
this retrofit to be over $50,000 per additional ton of HAP controlled.
We find the cost of this retrofit to be disproportionate to the
emission reduction that would be achieved. Thus, we are proposing that
it is not necessary to revise the existing MACT standards pursuant to
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
6. What other actions are we proposing?
    We propose to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Printing and
Publishing Industry MACT standard. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
EPA proposes that standards in this rule would apply at all times. We
are proposing several revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK regarding
the standards that apply during periods of

SSM. Specifically, we are proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate that
the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e) of the General Provisions do not
apply. Section 63.6(e) requires owners or operators to act according to
the general duty to ``operate and maintain any affected source,
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions.'' We are separately
proposing to incorporate this general duty to minimize emissions into
40 CFR 63.823. The 40 CFR 63.6(e) also requires the owner or operator
of an affected source to develop a written SSM plan. We are proposing
to remove the SSM plan requirement. We are also proposing to revise 40
CFR 63.827 to specify the conditions for performance tests and to
revise 40 CFR 63.829 and 40 CFR 63.830 to require reporting and
recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are proposing to revise
Table 1 to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), the last
sentence of 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3), 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv), and
(v), 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10), (11), and (15), and 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) of the
General Provisions do not apply. In addition, we are proposing to
promulgate an affirmative defense against civil penalties for
exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions, as well as
criteria for establishing the affirmative defense. EPA has attempted to
ensure that we have not incorporated into proposed regulatory language
any provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the
absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on
whether there are any such provisions that we have inadvertently
incorporated or overlooked.

F. What are the results and proposed decisions for Steel Pickling--HCl
Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants source
category?

1. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standard
    The National Emission Standards for Steel Pickling--HCl Process
Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants were promulgated
on June 22, 1999 (64 FR 33202) and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCC. The Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid
Regeneration Plants MACT standards (i.e., Steel Pickling MACT standard)
apply to major sources of HAP. We estimate that there are approximately
80 facilities subject to the MACT standards that are currently
performing steel pickling and/or acid regeneration. Many of these
facilities are located adjacent to integrated iron and steel
manufacturing plants or electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities
(mini-mills) that produce steel from scrap. Facilities that regenerate
HCl may or may not be located at steel pickling operations.
    The Steel Pickling source category consists of facilities that
pickle steel, using HCl as the pickling acid, and facilities that
regenerate the HCl after use, but does not include facilities which
pickle steel using acids other than HCl.
    Steel pickling is a treatment process in which the heavy oxide
crust or mill scale that develops on the steel surface during hot
forming or heat treating is removed chemically in a bath of aqueous
acid solution. Pickling is a process applied to metallic substances
that removes surface impurities, stains, or crusts to prepare the metal
for subsequent plating (e.g., with chromium) or other treatment, such
as galvanization or painting.
    The HAP emission points from the steel pickling and acid
regeneration processes include spray roasters, steel pickling baths,
steel pickling sprays, and tank vents.
    Typical control devices used to reduce HAP emissions from steel
pickling facilities include a packed tower scrubber, sieve tray
scrubber, or horizontal packed bed scrubber. Each type of scrubber is
coupled with a demister. The general trend in scrubber installations at
steel pickling facilities is to replace older scrubbers with sieve tray
scrubbers, which generate less scrubber effluent (blowdown). For acid
regeneration roasters, a cyclone or a Venturi pre-concentrator is
generally used before the emissions are scrubbed in one or two counter-
current packed tower absorbers.
2. What data were used in our risk analyses?
    For the Steel Pickling source category, we compiled preliminary
data sets using data in the 2005 NEI. We reviewed these data and made
changes where necessary. We also contacted several facilities to verify
the emissions and emissions release characteristic data, and we made
updates to the data set based on the information received from these
communications. This updated data set comprises the data set that was
used to conduct the risk assessments and other analyses that form the
basis for this proposed action. Hydrochloric acid and chlorine account
for all of the HAP emissions from the Steel Pickling source category
(approximately 248 and 164 TPY, respectively).
    Our analysis of potential differences between actual emission
levels and emissions allowable under the MACT standards indicate that
actual emissions and allowable emissions are approximately the same as
allowable emissions. The available data indicate that pickling
processes throughout the industry are equipped with controls that
achieve the HCl and chlorine emission limits required by the MACT
standards. For more detail about this estimate of the ratio of actual
to MACT-allowable emissions, see the memo in the docket for this action
describing the estimation of MACT-allowable emission levels and
associated risks and impacts.
3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
    We have conducted an inhalation risk assessment for the Steel
Pickling source category. We have also conducted an assessment of
facility-wide risk and performed a demographic analysis of population
risks. Table F.1 provides an overall summary of the inhalation risk
assessment results.

                         Table F.1--Steel Pickling Inhalation Risk Assessment Results *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                             TOSHI \2\
                                 --------------------------------  Population at    Maximum off-site acute non-
    Number of facilities \1\          Actual         Allowable    risk from HI >           cancer HQ \3\
                                     emissions       emissions           1
                                       level           level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51 Modeled Facilities...........               2               2              30  HQREL = 0.4 chlorine

80 Major Source Facilities                     2               2              50  HQREL = 0.4 chlorine
 Subject to the MACT Standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All results are for impacts out to 50 km from every source in the category.
\1\ There are 51 facilities in the data set that were modeled. It is believed that these facilities are
  representative of the entire source category and that the maximum risks are characterized. The population
  risks were scaled up based on a linear relationship.
\2\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Steel Pickling source category is the
  neurological system.
\3\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to
  develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most
  cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next lowest available acute
  threshold. See section IV.A of this preamble for explanation of acute threshold values.

    The results of the inhalation risk assessment indicated there are
no cancer risks or incidences attributable to emissions from the Steel
Pickling source category because there were no emissions of any HAP
with cancer dose-response values (i.e., no known carcinogens are
emitted from these sources). As shown in Table F.1, the maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value could be as high as 2. The maximum off-facility-
site acute HQ value could be as high as 0.4, based on the actual
emissions level and the REL value for chlorine. As our analysis of
potential differences between actual emission levels and emissions
allowable under the MACT standards indicate, actual emissions are
approximately the same as MACT-allowable emissions, and the risk
results for actual emissions are approximately the same as those for
MACT-allowable emissions.
    Table F.2 displays the results of the facility-wide risk
assessment. This assessment was conducted based on actual emission
levels for the 51 modeled facilities.

     Table F.2--Steel Pickling Facility-Wide Risk Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Facility-Wide Individual Cancer Risk (in 1 million)..        100
    Steel Pickling source category contribution to this           \1\ NA
     maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk............
Maximum Facility-Wide Chronic Non-cancer TOSHI...............         10
    Steel Pickling source category contribution to this             < 1%
     maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI \2\......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Steel Pickling source category does not contribute to the
  facility-wide cancer risks, as the facilities in this source category
  do not report emissions of any HAP with cancer dose-response values.
\2\ Percentage shown reflects Steel Pickling source category
  contribution to the maximum facility-wide risks at the facility with
  the maximum risk value shown.

    The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at a
facility that contains sources subject to the Steel Pickling--HCl
Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants MACT
standards is estimated to be 100-in-1 million, and the maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value is estimated to be 10. As noted previously,
there were no emissions of any HAP with cancer dose-response values
from the Steel Pickling source category; therefore, this source
category does not contribute to the maximum facility-wide cancer risk
of 100-in-1 million. At the facility where the maximum TOSHI risk value
occurs, the estimated proportion of the risk attributable to the Steel
Pickling source category processes is less than one percent. The
highest facility-wide cancer risk for a facility that includes a steel
pickling or HCL regeneration source is primarily driven by iron and
steel processes and coke oven emissions. The iron and steel processes
will be addressed in a future residual risk review, some coke oven
processes (charging, top side, and door leaks) have been addressed in a
previous rulemaking action (70 FR 19992), and other coke oven processes
(pushing, quenching, and battery stacks) will be addressed in a future
residual risk review.
    The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of TOSHI greater than 1, based on actual emissions
levels for the population living within 5 km of the facilities, among
various demographic groups are provided in a report available in the
docket for this action and summarized in Table F.3 below.

                                               Table F.3--Steel Pickling Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Population with TOSHI greater than 1-in-1 million
                                              Maximum   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Emissions basis               respiratory                                       Other and    Hispanic                Below the  Over 25  W/
                                               hazard       Total    Minority %    African   multiracial   or Latino    Native      poverty     O a HS
                                               index     (millions)              American %       %            %      American %    level %    diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide................................          n/a         175          32          16           15          16         0.6          13          13
Source Category...........................            2    0.000045           0           0            0           9           0           6           9
Facility-wide.............................           10      0.0017          41          34            6           1         0.2          11          13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Steel Pickling source category demographic
analysis show that there are 45 people exposed to an HI of one or
greater from the source category and 1,700 people exposed to an HI of
one or greater for the facility-wide emissions. Of this relatively
small number of people for the source category, none of the groups
shows a disparate impact compared to the national distribution of non-
cancer risk. The facility-wide analysis shows a higher percentage
population with an HI of one or more only for those that could be
classified as a ``Minority'' and for those included in the ``African
American'' demographic group.
    Details of these assessments and analyses can be found in the
residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this
preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
a. Risk Acceptability
    The Steel Pickling source category does not emit HAP that are
known, probable, or possible carcinogens; therefore, based on actual
and MACT-allowable emission levels, cancer risks are less than 1-in-1
million to the individual most exposed. The analyses we performed for
this proposal show no potential for an adverse environmental effect or
human health multi-pathway effects, and that acute non-cancer health
impacts are unlikely. We determined that emissions from the Steel
Pickling source category would result in chronic non-cancer TOSHI
approximately equal to 2 for the individual most exposed based on
either actual emissions or MACT-allowable emissions. This HI value is
for one facility, which has had compliance issues with the MACT
standards. The emissions data used in our analysis include emissions
that are in excess of what is allowed by the MACT standards. Work is
underway between this facility, OECA at EPA, and the State to improve
compliance. The next highest HI from any facility in the source
category is 0.1. Based on this, we do not anticipate that MACT-
allowable emissions for the sources in this category, or actual
emissions when a source is in compliance with the MACT standards, would
result in adverse chronic non-cancer health effects. Our additional
analysis of facility-wide risks showed that the maximum facility-wide
cancer risk is 100-in-1 million and the maximum facility-wide non-
cancer TOSHI is 10. It also showed that the steel pickling processes
located at the facilities with these maximum risk values did not
contribute to the cancer risk and contributed less than 1 percent to
these non-cancer risks. Our additional analysis of the demographics of
the exposed population may show disparities in risks between
demographic groups. Based on this cancer risk level and in
consideration of other health measures and factors, including the
cancer incidence (no cases) and the low maximum non-cancer risk level
(TOSHI of 0.2), the lack of disparate impacts in the demographic
analysis, and the small contribution to the facility-wide risks, we
propose that the risks from the Steel Pickling source category are
acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety
    We are proposing that the risks are acceptable, and while cancer
risks were not above 1-in-1 million (the level at which we generally
perform an ample margin of safety analysis), we decided to consider
other factors before making a decision regarding the need for standards
to reduce risks.
    Based on these analyses, we continue to propose that the current
MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and the environment, and we are proposing to re-adopt the
existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
5. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
    We evaluated developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the Steel Pickling source category. This
included a search of the RBLC and the internet. The only advancement
that we identified was one technology that is being used instead of
steel pickling for some applications which is called the smooth clean
surface (SCS) process. The SCS process uses patented roller brushes to
remove scale from steel sheets and coils. However, this technology
leaves the last layer of scale, resulting in a product that is rust-
resistant, but is not conducive to in-line galvanizing, painting,
enameling or electrolytic plating. Additionally, some types of forming,
including hydroforming, cold reduction and deep draw cannot be used
with SCS treated steel. It is therefore not a viable replacement for
steel pickling operations. Another technology, eco pickled surface
(EPS), could potentially become a low-emission alternative for steel
pickling. EPS blasts steel with an acid-free slurry which, like steel
pickling, removes all layers of scale. However, EPS only became
commercially available in 2009 and it is not yet a proven technology.
Thus, it is premature to consider it as a replacement for steel
pickling operations.
    Because we determined that the only identified development is not
technologically feasible at this time, we are proposing that it is not
necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(6).
6. What other actions are we proposing?
    We propose to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Steel Pickling
MACT standards. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA proposes that
standards in this rule would apply at all times. We are proposing
several revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCC regarding the
standards that apply during periods of SSM. Specifically, we are
proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate that the requirements in 40 CFR
63.6(e) of the General Provisions do not apply. The 40 CFR 63.6(e)
requires owner or operators to act according to the general duty to
``operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air
pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions.'' We are separately proposing to incorporate this
general duty to minimize emissions into 40 CFR 63.1159(c). The 40 CFR
63.6(e) also requires the owner or operator of an affected source to
develop a written SSM plan. We are proposing to remove the SSM plan
requirement. We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.1161 to specify
the conditions for performance tests, to revise the SSM-associated
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.1164 and 40 CFR
63.1165 to require reporting and recordkeeping for periods of
malfunction, and to revise Table 1 to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1),
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), the last sentence of 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3), 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), (vi), and (v), 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10), (11), and
(15), and 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions do not apply. In
addition, we are proposing to promulgate an affirmative defense against
civil penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by
malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative
defense. EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not incorporated into
proposed regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate,
unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are
specifically seeking comment on whether there are any such provisions
that we have inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.

VI. Summary of Proposed Actions

A. What actions are we proposing as a result of the technology reviews?

    For the technology review for the chromium electroplating and
anodizing source categories, we are proposing to amend the rules to
prohibit the addition of PFOS-based WAFS to the electroplating or
anodizing tanks. For these source categories, we are also proposing to
require several housekeeping requirements to minimize emissions of
chromium-laden fugitive dust from chromium electroplating operations
and for owners and operators to incorporate these housekeeping
procedures in the facility operation and maintenance plan. For MTVLO,
we are proposing to lower the existing threshold for control of
emissions from gasoline loading from 10 million bbl/yr to 1 million
bbl/yr.
    For the Group I Polymers and Resins, Pharmaceuticals Production,
and Printing and Publishing Industry MACT standards, which were
addressed in the October 10, 2008 proposal, we have reaffirmed our
previous determinations that there have been no developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies. Thus, we are continuing
to propose that it is not necessary to revise the existing MACT
requirements based on our CAA section 112(d)(6) review.
    For the Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric
Acid Regeneration Plants source category, we have determined that there
have been no developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies since the promulgation of the MACT standards, and we are
proposing that it is not necessary to revise the existing MACT
requirements based on our CAA section 112(d)(6) review.

B. What actions are we proposing as a result of the residual risk
reviews?

    For the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Hypalon\TM\
Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production, Polybutadiene Rubber
Production, Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production, MTVLO,
Pharmaceuticals Production, and Printing and Publishing Industry MACT
standards source categories, which were addressed in the October 10,
2008 proposal, we have reaffirmed our proposed determinations that the
MACT standards for these source categories provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental
effects. Thus, we are continuing to propose to re-adopt each of these
standards for purposes of meeting the requirements of CAA sections
112(f)(2).
    For the Hard Chromium Electroplating, Decorative Chromium
Electroplating, Chromium Anodizing, and Steel Pickling--HCl Process
Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants MACT standards
source categories, we propose that the MACT standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse
environmental effects. Thus, we are proposing to re-adopt these
standards for the purpose of meeting the requirements of CAA section
112(f)(2).

C. What other actions are we proposing?

    We propose to amend the Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating
and Chromium Anodizing Tanks, Group I Polymers and Resins, MTVLO,
Pharmaceuticals Production, Printing and Publishing Industry, and Steel
Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration
Plants MACT standards to remove the language that exempts facilities
from the emissions standards that would otherwise be applicable during
periods of SSM, and to add an affirmative defense against civil
penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions.
These changes are being made to ensure these rules are consistent with
the court's ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, which
addressed similar provisions in the General Provisions that apply to
many MACT standards.
    We are also proposing requirements for two MACT standards under the
authority of section 112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA to address emission
points for which emission standards were previously not developed. For
the MTVLO MACT standard, we are proposing to add the requirement to
perform submerged fill for existing facilities for two subcategories,
those emitting less than 10/25 tons of HAP, and those located more than
0.5 miles from shore. For the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standard
source categories, we propose to add MACT standards limiting emissions
from the back-end process operations from the Butyl Rubber Production
subcategory, the Halobutyl Rubber Production subcategory, the
Epichlorohydrin Rubber Production source category, the Nitrile
Butadiene Rubber Production source category, and the Neoprene Rubber
Production source category. We also propose to revise the MACT
standards for front-end process vents from the Butyl Rubber Production
subcategory, the Halobutyl Rubber Production subcategory, and the
Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production source category by requiring
control of HCl emissions resulting from the combustion of chlorinated
organic compounds.
    In addition, we are proposing minor changes to two MACT standards
to improve compliance and correct errors. For the Chromium
Electroplating MACT standard source categories, we are proposing to
clarify that testing can be performed by either Method 306 or Method
306A, and we are proposing to revise Method 306B to correct
inconsistencies between the amendments made to subpart N in 2004 (69 FR
42885) and Method 306B. In addition, to eliminate a discrepancy between
the Chromium Electroplating MACT standard and the General Provisions to
part 63, we are also proposing to revise the trigger for semiannual
compliance reports to be consistent with General Provisions to part 63.
For the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards, we are proposing to
correct one typographical error.

VII. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed action.
All comments received during the comment period will be considered. In
addition to general comments on the proposed actions, we are also
interested in any additional data that may help to reduce the
uncertainties inherent in the risk assessments. Such data should
include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow
characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or
information. Please see the following section for more information on
submitting data.

VIII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The facility-specific data used in the source category risk
analyses, facility-wide analyses, and demographic analyses for each
source category subject to this action are available for download on
the RTR Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. These
data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release
point at each facility included in the source category and all other
HAP emissions sources at these facilities (facility-wide emissions
sources). However, it is important to note that the source category
risk analysis included only those emissions tagged with the MACT code
associated with the source category subject to the risk analysis.
    If you believe the data are not representative or are inaccurate,
please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern,
and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if

available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR Web page, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information. The data fields that may
be revised include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Data element                          Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Measure..............  Are control measures in place? (yes or
                                no).
Control Measure Comment......  Select control measure from list
                                provided, and briefly describe the
                                control measure.
Delete.......................  Indicate here if the facility or record
                                should be deleted.
Delete Comment...............  Describes the reason for deletion.
Emission Calculation Method    Code description of the method used to
 Code For Revised Emissions.    derive emissions. For example, CEM,
                                material balance, stack test, etc.
Emission Process Group.......  Enter the general type of emission
                                process associated with the specified
                                emission point.
Fugitive Angle...............  Enter release angle (clockwise from true
                                North); orientation of the y-dimension
                                relative to true North, measured
                                positive for clockwise starting at 0
                                degrees (maximum 89 degrees).
Fugitive Length..............  Enter dimension of the source in the east-
                                west (x-) direction, commonly referred
                                to as length (ft).
Fugitive Width...............  Enter dimension of the source in the
                                north-south (y-) direction, commonly
                                referred to as width (ft).
Malfunction Emissions........  Enter total annual emissions due to
                                malfunctions (TPY).
Malfunction Emissions Max      Enter maximum hourly malfunction
 Hourly.                        emissions here (lb/hr).
North American Datum.........  Enter datum for latitude/longitude
                                coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if left
                                blank, NAD83 is assumed.
Process Comment..............  Enter general comments about process
                                sources of emissions.
REVISED Address..............  Enter revised physical street address for
                                MACT facility here.
REVISED City.................  Enter revised city name here.
REVISED County Name..........  Enter revised county name here.
REVISED Emission Release       Enter revised Emission Release Point Type
 Point Type.                    here.
REVISED End Date.............  Enter revised End Date here.
REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate...  Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here
                                (ft\3\/sec).
REVISED Exit Gas Temperature.  Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature here
                                (F).
REVISED Exit Gas Velocity....  Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/
                                sec).
REVISED Facility Category      Enter revised Facility Category Code
 Code.                          here, which indicates whether facility
                                is a major or area source.
REVISED Facility Name........  Enter revised Facility Name here.
REVISED Facility Registry      Enter revised Facility Registry
 Identifier.                    Identifier here, which is an ID assigned
                                by the EPA Facility Registry System.
REVISED HAP Emissions          Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance
 Performance Level Code.        Level here.
REVISED Latitude.............  Enter revised Latitude here (decimal
                                degrees).
REVISED Longitude............  Enter revised Longitude here (decimal
                                degrees).
REVISED MACT Code............  Enter revised MACT Code here.
REVISED Pollutant Code.......  Enter revised Pollutant Code here.
REVISED Routine Emissions....  Enter revised routine emissions value
                                here (TPY).
REVISED SCC Code.............  Enter revised SCC Code here.
REVISED Stack Diameter.......  Enter revised Stack Diameter here (ft).
REVISED Stack Height.........  Enter revised Stack Height here (ft).
REVISED Start Date...........  Enter revised Start Date here.
REVISED State................  Enter revised State here.
REVISED Tribal Code..........  Enter revised Tribal Code here.
REVISED Zip Code.............  Enter revised Zip Code here.
Shutdown Emissions...........  Enter total annual emissions due to
                                shutdown events (TPY).
Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly  Enter maximum hourly shutdown emissions
                                here (lb/hr).
Stack Comment................  Enter general comments about emission
                                release points.
Startup Emissions............  Enter total annual emissions due to
                                startup events (TPY).
Startup Emissions Max Hourly.  Enter maximum hourly startup emissions
                                here (lb/hr).
Year Closed..................  Enter date facility stopped operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter e-
mail address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations, etc.).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600 (through one of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To expedite
review of the revisions, it would also be helpful if you submitted a
copy of your revisions to the 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 request that all data revision comments be submitted in
the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Access files, which are provided
on the http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html Web page.

IX. 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 because it raises novel legal
and policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to 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

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
    The proposed revisions to the SSM provisions for all of the
standards being amended with this proposed rule will reduce the
reporting burden associated with having to prepare and submit an SSM
report. We are not proposing any new paperwork requirements to the
Pharmaceuticals Production, Printing and Publishing Industry, and Steel
Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration
Plants MACT standards. Revisions and burden associated with amendments
to the Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium
Anodizing Tanks; Group I Polymers and Resins; and MTVLO MACT standards
are discussed in the following paragraphs. The OMB has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations being amended with this proposed rule (i.e., 40
CFR part 63, subparts N, U, Y, KK, CCC, and GGG) under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
1. Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
Tanks MACT Standard
    The ICR document prepared by EPA for the amendments to the Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks MACT
standards has been assigned EPA ICR number 1611.08. Burden changes
associated with these amendments would result from new recordkeeping
and reporting requirements associated with the new housekeeping
requirements being proposed with today's action. The estimated average
burden per response is 11 hours; the frequency of response is annual
for all respondents that must comply with the rule's reporting
requirements and the estimated average number of likely respondents per
year is 590. The cost burden to respondents resulting from the
collection of information includes the total capital cost annualized
over the equipment's expected useful life (about $171,000), a total
operation and maintenance component (about $534,000 per year), and a
labor cost component (about $500,000 per year).
2. Group I Polymers and Resins MACT Standard
    The ICR document prepared by EPA for the amendments to the Group I
Polymers and Resins MACT standards has been assigned EPA ICR number
2410.01. Burden changes associated with these amendments would result
from new recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the
new back-end process operation emission limits for epichlorohydrin,
neoprene, nitrile butadiene rubber, and butyl rubber and the HCl
emission limits from the front-end process vents for ethylene propylene
rubber and butyl rubber being proposed with this action. The estimated
average burden per response is 237 hours; the frequency of response is
annual for all respondents that must comply with the rule's reporting
requirements and the estimated average number of likely respondents per
year is 19. The cost burden to respondents resulting from the
collection of information includes the total capital cost annualized
over the equipment's expected useful life (averaging $2,800), a total
operation and maintenance component (averaging $1,000 per year), and a
labor cost component (averaging $1.1 million per year).
3. Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations MACT Standard
    The ICR document prepared by EPA for the amendments to the MTVLO
MACT standards has been assigned EPA ICR number 1679.08. Burden changes
associated with these amendments would result from new recordkeeping
and reporting requirements associated with the vapor recovery
requirements being proposed with today's action. The estimated average
burden per response is 46 hours; the frequency of response is annual
for all respondents that must comply with the rule's reporting
requirements and the estimated average number of likely respondents per
year is 18. The cost burden to respondents resulting from the
collection of information includes the total capital cost annualized
over the equipment's expected useful life (averaging $3,780), a total
operation and maintenance component (averaging $108 per year), and a
labor cost component (averaging $165,000 per year).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes these ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0600. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after October 21, 2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by November 22, 2010. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a small industrial
entity 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.
    This proposed rule will not impose emission measurements or
reporting requirements on small entities beyond those specified in
existing regulations, nor does it change the level of any

emission standard for amendments to all of the MACT standards proposed
today, with the exception of the proposed amendments to the hard and
decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks MACT
standard. The new housekeeping requirements and PFOS use restrictions
proposed by these amendments to the hard and decorative chromium
electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks MACT standard may impact
small entities, but those impacts have been estimated to be nominal.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    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 does not contain a Federal mandate under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. The proposed rule would not result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The proposed rule
imposes no enforceable duties on any State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. Thus, 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 UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it
contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it
impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject
to this action 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

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications,
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal
governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary
impact statement. EPA has concluded that this proposed rule will not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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 action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.

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

    This 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 would
not relax the control measures on existing regulated sources, and EPA's
risk assessments (included in the docket for this proposed rule)
demonstrate that the existing regulations are health protective.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined under
EO 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because it is not likely to have significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action will not create any
new requirements for sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use
sectors.

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. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This 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.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with each source category, we evaluated the
distributions of HAP-related cancer and non-cancer risks across
different social, demographic, and economic groups within the
populations living near the facilities where these source categories
are located. The methods used to conduct demographic analyses for this
rule are described in section IV.A of the preamble for this rule. The
development of demographic analyses to inform the consideration of
environmental justice issues in EPA rulemakings is an evolving science.
The EPA offers the demographic analyses in this rulemaking as examples
of how such analyses might be developed to inform such consideration,
and invites public

comment on the approaches used and the interpretations made from the
results, with the hope that this will support the refinement and
improve utility of such analyses for future rulemakings.
    For this analysis, we analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP
in two separate ways. In the first approach, we focus the analysis on
the total populations residing within 5 km of each facility (source
category and facility-wide), regardless of their estimated risks, and
examine the distributions of estimated risk across the various
demographic groups within those 5 km circles. In the other, we focus
the analysis only on the populations within 5 km of any facility who
are estimated to have HAP exposures which result in cancer risks of 1-
in-1 million or greater or non-cancer HI of 1 or greater (based on the
emissions of the source category or the facility, respectively), once
again examining the distributions of those risks across various
demographic groups. In each approach, we compare the percentages of
particular demographic groups to the total number of people in those
demographic groups. In this preamble, we only present the results of
the second approach since it focuses on the significant risks from
either the source category or the facility-wide emissions. The results
of both approaches are documented in memos to the docket for each of
the source categories covered in this proposal.
    As described in the preamble, for the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production, Hypalon \TM\ Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, Styrene-Butadiene Rubber
and Latex Production, MTVLO, Pharmaceuticals Production, and Printing
and Publishing Industry MACT standard source categories, which were
addressed in the October 10, 2008, proposal, we have reaffirmed our
proposed determinations that the MACT standards for these source
categories provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
and prevent adverse environmental effects. For the Hard Chromium
Electroplating, Decorative Chromium Electroplating, Chromium Anodizing,
and Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid
Regeneration Plants MACT standard source categories, we propose the
MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent adverse environmental effects.
    Our analyses also show that, for all the source categories
evaluated, there is no potential for an adverse environmental effect or
human health multipathway effects, and that acute and chronic non-
cancer health impacts are unlikely. Our additional analysis of
facility-wide risks showed that the maximum facility-wide cancer risks
for all source categories are within the range of acceptable risks, and
that the maximum chronic non-cancer risks are unlikely to cause health
impacts. Our additional analysis of the demographics of the exposed
population may show disparities in risks between demographic groups for
all three categories; EPA has determined that, although there may be a
disparity in risks between demographic groups, no group is exposed to
unacceptable level of risk. The proposed rule would not relax the
control measures on sources regulated by the rule, and, therefore,
would not increase risks to any populations exposed to these sources.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 14, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart N--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.341 is amended by:
    a. Adding, in alphabetical order in paragraph (a), definitions for
``affirmative defense,'' ``contains hexavalent chromium,'' and
``perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS)-based fume suppressant''; and
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.341  Definitions and nomenclature.

    (a) * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant,
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
    Contains hexavalent chromium means, the substance consists of, or
contains 0.1 percent or greater by weight, chromium trioxide, chromium
(VI) oxide, chromic acid, or chromic anhydride.
* * * * *
    Perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS)-based fume suppressant means a fume
suppressant that contains 1 percent or greater PFOS by weight.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (10) VRtot = the average total ventilation rate for the
three test runs as determined at the outlet by means of the Method 306
or 306A testing specified in appendix A of this part in dscm/min.
    3. Section 63.342 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a);
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
    c. Adding paragraph (c)(1)(iv);
    d. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(vi);
    e. Adding paragraph (d)(3);
    f. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) as paragraphs (e)(3)
and (e)(4);
    g. Adding new paragraph (e)(2);
    h. Revising newly designated paragraph (e)(4);
    i. Adding paragraph (f)(3)(i)(F); and
    j. Adding Table 2 to read as follows:

Sec.  63.342  Standards.

    (a)(1) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and
maintain any affected source subject to the requirements of this
subpart, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this
standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such operation
and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source.
    (2) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply with these requirements in this
section on and after the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.343(a).
All affected sources are regulated by applying maximum achievable
control technology.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The emission limitations in this section apply during tank
operation as defined in Sec.  63.341, and during periods of startup and
shutdown as these are

routine occurrences for affected sources subject to this subpart. In
response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this
subpart, you may assert a civil defense to a claim for civil penalties
for exceedances of such standards that are caused by a malfunction, as
defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however,
if the respondent fails to meet its burden of proving all the
requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall
not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
    (i) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, the owners or operators of facilities must timely meet
the notification requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section,
and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, short,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, or of a process to operate in a normal an usual
manner; and could not have been prevented through careful planning,
proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and did
not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and
avoided, or planned for; and were not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (B) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs; and
    (C) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions; and
    (D) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human
health; and
    (F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible; and
    (G) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (H) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause
analysis to determine, correct and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using the best
monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess
emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
    (ii) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within
30 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in
this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c)(1) * * *
    (iv) After 3 years from date of publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register, the owner or operator of an
affected open surface hard chromium electroplating tank shall not add
PFOS-based fume suppressants to any affected open surface hard chromium
electroplating tank.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) After 3 years from date of publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register, the owner or operator of an
affected enclosed hard chromium electroplating tank shall not add PFOS-
based fume suppressants to any affected enclosed hard chromium
electroplating tank.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) After 3 years from date of publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register, the owner or operator of an
affected decorative chromium electroplating tank or an affected
chromium anodizing tank shall not add PFOS-based fume suppressants to
any affected decorative chromium electroplating tank or chromium
anodizing tank.
    (e) * * *
    (2) After 3 years from date of publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register, the owner or operator of an
affected decorative chromium electroplating tank using a trivalent
chromium bath shall not add PFOS-based fume suppressants to any
affected decorative chromium electroplating tank.
* * * * *
    (4) Each owner or operator of an existing, new, or reconstructed
decorative chromium electroplating tank that had been using a trivalent
chromium bath that incorporated a wetting agent and ceases using this
type of bath must fulfill the reporting requirements of Sec.
63.347(i)(3) and comply with the applicable emission limitation within
the timeframe specified in Sec.  63.343(a)(7).
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) The plan shall include housekeeping procedures, as specified in
Table 2 of this section.
* * * * *

                                Table 2 to Sec.   63.342--Housekeeping Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 For                                You must:                     At this minimum frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Any substance that contains        (a) Store the substance in a closed   At all times.
 hexavalent chromium.                  container in an enclosed storage
                                       area; AND
                                      (b) Use a closed container when       Whenever transporting substance.
                                       transporting the substance from the
                                       enclosed storage area.
2. Each affected tank, to minimize    (a) Install drip trays that collect   Prior to operating the tank.
 spills of bath solution that result   and return to the tank any bath
 from dragout.                         solution that drips or drains from
                                       parts as the parts are removed from
                                       the tank; OR

                                      (b) Contain and return to the tank    Whenever removing parts from an
                                       all solution that drains or drips     affected tank.
                                       from parts as the parts are removed
                                       from the tank.
3. Each spraying operation for        Install a splash guard to minimize    Prior to any such spraying
 removing excess chromic acid from     overspray and to ensure that any      operation.
 parts removed from an affected        hexavalent chromium laden liquid is
 tank.                                 returned to the electroplating or
                                       anodizing tank.
4. Each operation that involves the   Clean up, or otherwise contain, all   Within 1 hour of the spill.
 handling or use of any substance      spills of the substance.
 that contains hexavalent chromium.
5. All surfaces within the enclosed   (a) Clean the surfaces using one or   At least once every 7 days.
 storage area, open floor area,        more of the following methods:
 walkways around affected tanks, or   (i) HEPA vacuuming;
 any surface potentially              (ii) Hand-wiping with a damp cloth;
 contaminated with hexavalent         (iii) Wet mopping;
 chromium that accumulates or         (iv) Other cleaning method approved
 potentially accumulates dust.         by the permitting agency; OR
                                      (b) Apply a non-toxic chemical dust   According to manufacturer's
                                       suppressant to the surfaces.          recommendations.
6. All buffing, grinding, or          Separate the operation from any       Prior to beginning the buffing,
 polishing operations.                 affected electroplating or            grinding, or polishing operation.
                                       anodizing operation by installing a
                                       physical barrier; the barrier may
                                       take the form of plastic strip
                                       curtains.
7. All chromium or chromium-          Store, dispose, recover, or recycle   At all times.
 containing wastes generated from      the wastes using practices that do
 housekeeping activities.              not lead to fugitive dust and in
                                       accordance with hazardous waste
                                       requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Section 63.343 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.343  Compliance provisions.

    (a) * * *
    (8) No later than 6 months from date of publication of the final
amendments in the Federal Register, the owner or operator of an
affected source that is subject to the standards in paragraphs Sec.
63.342(c) or (d) shall implement the housekeeping procedures specified
in Table 2 of Sec.  63.342.
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.344 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a);
    b. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(iii), (e)(3)(iv), and (e)(3)(v); and
    c. Revising paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) and (e)(4)(iv) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.344  Performance test requirements and test methods.

    (a) Performance test requirements. Performance tests shall be
conducted using the test methods and procedures in this section.
Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on
representative performance of the affected source for the period being
tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests. Performance test results shall be
documented in complete test reports that contain the information
required by paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this section. The test
plan to be followed shall be made available to the Administrator prior
to the testing, if requested.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) Perform Method 306 or 306A testing and calculate an outlet
mass emission rate.
    (iv) Determine the total ventilation rate from the affected sources
(VRinlet) by using equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC10.000

where VRtot is the average total ventilation rate in
dscm/min for the three test runs as determined at the outlet by
means of the Method 306 or 306A testing; IDAi is the
total inlet area for all ducts associated with affected sources;
[sum]IAtotal is the sum of all inlet duct areas from both
affected and nonaffected sources; and VRinlet is the
total ventilation rate from all inlet ducts associated with affected
sources.

    (v) Establish the allowable mass emission rate of the system
(AMRsys) in milligrams of total chromium per hour (mg/hr)
using equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC10.001

where [sum] VRinlet is the total ventilation rate in
dscm/min from the affected sources, and EL is the applicable
emission limitation from Sec.  63.342 in mg/dscm. The allowable mass
emission rate (AMRsys) calculated from equation 2 should
be equal to or

more than the outlet three-run average mass emission rate determined
from Method 306 or 306A testing in order for the source to be in
compliance with the standard.

    (4) * * *
    (ii) Determine the total ventilation rate for each type of affected
source (VRinlet,a) using equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC10.002

where VRtot is the average total ventilation rate in
dscm/min for the three test runs as determined at the outlet by
means of the Method 306 or 306A testing; IDAi,a is the
total inlet duct area for all ducts conveying chromic acid from each
type of affected source performing the same operation, or each type
of affected source subject to the same emission limitation;
[sum]IAtotal is the sum of all duct areas from both
affected and nonaffected sources; and
VRinlet,a is the total ventilation rate from
all inlet ducts conveying chromic acid from each type of affected
source performing the same operation, or each type of affected
source subject to the same emission limitation.

* * * * *
    (iv) Establish the allowable mass emission rate of the system
(AMRsys) in milligrams of total chromium per hour (mg/hr)
using equation 8, including each type of affected source as
appropriate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC10.003

The allowable mass emission rate calculated from equation 8 should be
equal to or more than the outlet three-run average mass emission rate
determined from Method 306 or 306A testing in order for the source to
be in compliance with the standards.
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.346 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and
(b)(13) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.346  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.342(a)(1), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation;
* * * * *
    (13) For sources using fume suppressants to comply with the
standards, records of the date and time that fume suppressants are
added to the electroplating or anodizing bath and records of the fume
suppressant manufacturer and product name;
* * * * *
    7. Section 63.347 is amended by:
    a. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(3)(xii) and (g)(3)(xiii) as
(g)(3)(xiii) and (g)(3)(xiv), respectively, and adding a new paragraph
(g)(3)(xii);
    c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i) introductory text and (h)(2)(i)(A)
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.347  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (xii) The number, duration, and a brief description for each type
of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which
caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be
exceeded. The report must also include a description of actions taken
by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.342(a)(1), including
actions taken to correct a malfunction.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) If either of the following conditions is met, semiannual
reports shall be prepared and submitted to the Administrator:
    (A) The total duration of excess emissions (as indicated by the
monitoring data collected by the owner or operator of the affected
source in accordance with Sec.  63.343(c)) is 1 percent or greater of
the total operating time for the reporting period; or
* * * * *
    8. Table 1 to Subpart N is amended by:
    a. Removing entry 63.7(e);
    b. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.7(e)(2)-(4) to read as follows:

                 Table 1 to Subpart N of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      General provisions reference            Applies to Subpart N                      Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
63.7(e)(1)..............................  No.........................  See Sec.   63.344(a). Any cross reference
                                                                        to Sec.   63.7(e)(1) in any other
                                                                        general provision incorporated by
                                                                        reference shall be treated as a cross-
                                                                        reference to Sec.   63.344(a).
63.7(e)(2)-(4)..........................  Yes........................  Subpart N also contains test methods
                                                                        specific to affected sources covered by
                                                                        that subpart.
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart U--[Amended]

    9. Section 63.480 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.480  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

* * * * *
    (j) Applicability of this subpart. Paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of
this section shall be followed during periods of non-operation of the
affected source or any part thereof.
    (1) The emission limitations set forth in this subpart and the
emission limitations referred to in this subpart shall apply at all
times except during periods of non-operation of the affected source (or
specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to
which this subpart applies. However, if a period of non-operation of
one portion of an affected source does not affect the ability of a
particular emission point to comply with the emission limitations to
which it is subject, then that emission

point shall still be required to comply with the applicable emission
limitations of this subpart during period of non-operation.
    (2) The emission limitations set forth in subpart H of this part,
as referred to in Sec.  63.502, shall apply at all times except during
periods of non-operation of the affected source (or specific portion
thereof) in which the lines are drained and depressurized resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which Sec.  63.502 applies.
    (3) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment
that are required or utilized for compliance with this subpart during
times when emissions (or, where applicable, wastewater streams or
residuals) are being routed to such items of equipment if the shutdown
would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to such items
of equipment.
    (4) In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
this subpart, you may assert a civil defense to a claim for civil
penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by a
malfunction, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed, however, if the respondent fails to meet its burden of
proving all the requirements in the affirmative defense. The
affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive
relief.
    (i) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, the owners or operators of facilities must timely meet
the notification requirements of paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this section,
and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, short,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, or a process to operate in a normal and usual
manner; and could not have been prevented through careful planning,
proper design, or better operation and maintenance practices; and did
not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and
avoided, or planned for; and were not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (B) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs; and
    (C) The frequency, amount, and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions; and
    (D) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human
health; and
    (F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible; and
    (G) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (H) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause
analysis to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using the best
monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess
emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
    (ii) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within
30 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in
this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph
(j)(4)(i) of this section.
    10. Section 63.481 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.481  Compliance dates and relationship of this subpart to
existing applicable rules.

* * * * *
    (c) With the exceptions provided in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4)
of this section, existing affected sources shall be in compliance with
this subpart no later than June 19, 2001, as provided in Sec.  63.6(c),
unless an extension has been granted as specified in paragraph (e) of
this section.
    (1) Existing affected sources producing epichlorohydrin elastomer,
halobutyl rubber, neoprene rubber, and nitrile butadiene rubber shall
be in compliance with the applicable emission limitation in Sec.
63.494(a)(4) no later than 1 year from date of publication of the final
rule amendments in the Federal Register.
    (2) Existing affected sources producing butyl rubber shall be in
compliance with Sec.  63.494(a)(4)(i) no later than 3 years from date
of publication of the final rule amendments in the Federal Register.
    (3) Existing affected sources producing butyl rubber, halobutyl
rubber, and ethylene propylene rubber shall be in compliance with Sec.
63.485(q)(1) no later than 3 years from date of publication of the
final rule amendments in the Federal Register.
    (4) Compliance with Sec.  63.502 is covered by paragraph (d) of
this section.
* * * * *
    11. Section 63.482 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ``affirmative defense,'' and revising the definition of
``initial start-up'' in paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.482  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant,
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
    Initial start-up means the first time a new or reconstructed
affected source begins production of an elastomer product, or, for
equipment added or changed as described in Sec.  63.480(i), the first
time the equipment is put into operation to produce an elastomer
product. Initial start-up does not include operation solely for testing
equipment. Initial start-up does not include subsequent start-ups of an
affected source or portion thereof following shutdowns or following
changes in product for flexible operation units or following recharging
of equipment in batch operation.
* * * * *
    12. Section 63.483 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.483  Emission standards.

    (a) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and maintain
any affected source subject to the requirements of this subpart,
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment,

in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize
emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further
efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this standard have
been achieved. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance
procedures are being used will be based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. Except
as allowed under paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, the owner
or operator of an existing or new affected source shall comply with the
provisions in:
    (1) Section 63.484 for storage vessels;
    (2) Section 63.485 for continuous front-end process vents;
    (3) Sections 63.486 through 63.492 for batch front-end process
vents;
    (4) Sections 63.493 through 63.500 for back-end process operations;
    (5) Section 63.501 for wastewater;
    (6) Section 63.502 for equipment leaks;
    (7) Section 63.504 for additional test methods and procedures;
    (8) Section 63.505 for monitoring levels and excursions; and
    (9) Section 63.506 for general reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
* * * * *
    13. Section 63.484 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.484  Storage vessel provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Storage vessels located downstream of the stripping operations
at affected sources subject to the back-end residual organic HAP
limitation located in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), that are
complying through the use of stripping technology, as specified in
Sec.  63.495;
* * * * *
    14. Section 63.485 is amended by revising paragraphs (q)
introductory text and (q)(1) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.485  Continuous front-end process vent provisions.

* * * * *
    (q) Group 1 halogenated continuous front-end process vents must
comply with the provisions of Sec.  63.113(a)(1)(ii) and Sec.
63.113(c), with the exceptions noted in paragraphs (q)(1) and (2) of
this section.
    (1) All Group 1 and Group 2 halogenated continuous front-end
process vents at existing affected sources producing butyl rubber,
halobutyl rubber, or ethylene propylene rubber using a solution
process, must comply with Sec.  63.113(a)(1)(ii) and Sec.  63.113(c).
* * * * *
    15. Section 63.489 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C)
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.489  Batch front-end process vents--monitoring equipment.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) The owner or operator may prepare and implement a gas stream
flow determination plan that documents an appropriate method which will
be used to determine the gas stream flow. The plan shall require
determination of gas stream flow by a method which will at least
provide a value for either a representative or the highest gas stream
flow anticipated in the scrubber during representative operating
conditions. The plan shall include a description of the methodology to
be followed and an explanation of how the selected methodology will
reliably determine the gas stream flow, and a description of the
records that will be maintained to document the determination of gas
stream flow. The owner or operator shall maintain the plan as specified
in Sec.  63.506(a).
* * * * *
    16. Section 63.491 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.491  Batch front-end process vents--recordkeeping
requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Monitoring data recorded during periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments shall not be included in computing the batch cycle
daily averages. In addition, monitoring data recorded during periods of
non-operation of the EPPU (or specific portion thereof) resulting in
cessation of organic HAP emissions shall not be included in computing
the batch cycle daily averages.
* * * * *
    17. Section 63.493 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.493  Back-end process provisions.

    Owners and operators of new and existing affected sources shall
comply with the requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.494 through 63.500.
Owners and operators of affected sources whose only elastomer products
are latex products, liquid rubber products, or products produced in a
gas-phased reaction process are not subject to the provisions of
Sec. Sec.  63.494 through 63.500. If latex or liquid rubber products
are produced in an affected source that also produces another elastomer
product, the provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.494 through 63.500 do not
apply to the back-end operations dedicated to the production of one or
more latex products or to the back-end operations during the production
of a latex product.
    18. Section 63.494 is amended by:
    a. Revising the section heading;
    b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
    c. Revising paragraph (a)(4) and the introductory text of paragraph
(a)(5);
    d. Adding paragraph (a)(6);
    e. Revising paragraph (b);
    f. Revising paragraph (c); and
    g. Revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.494  Back-end process provisions--residual organic HAP and
emission limitations.

    (a) The monthly weighted average residual organic HAP content of
all grades of styrene butadiene rubber produced by the emulsion
process, polybutadiene rubber and styrene butadiene rubber produced by
the solution process, and ethylene-propylene rubber produced by the
solution process that is processed, shall be measured after the
stripping operation [or the reactor(s), if the plant has no
stripper(s)] as specified in Sec.  63.495(d), and shall not exceed the
limits provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, as
applicable. Owners or operators of these affected sources shall comply
with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section
using either stripping technology or control or recovery devices. The
organic HAP emissions from all back-end process operations at affected
sources producing butyl rubber, epichlorohydrin elastomer, halobutyl
rubber, neoprene, and nitrile butadiene rubber shall not exceed the
limits determined in accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this section,
as applicable.
* * * * *
    (4) The organic HAP emissions from back-end processes at affected
sources producing butyl rubber, epichlorohydrin elastomer, halobutyl

rubber, neoprene, and nitrile butadiene rubber shall not exceed the
limits determined in accordance with paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (v)
of this section for any consecutive 12-month period. The specific
limitation for each elastomer type shall be determined based on the
emissions level provided in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (v) of this
section divided by the base year production level. The limitation shall
be calculated and submitted in accordance with Sec.  63.499(f)(1).
    (i) For butyl rubber, the organic HAP emission limitation, in units
of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of butyl rubber produced, shall be
calculated by dividing 28 Mg/yr by the mass of butyl rubber produced in
2009, in Mg.
    (ii) For epichlorohydrin elastomer, the organic HAP emission
limitation, in units of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of
epichlorohydrin elastomer produced, shall be calculated by dividing 36
Mg/yr by the mass of epichlorohydrin elastomer produced in 2009, in Mg.
    (iii) For halobutyl rubber, the organic HAP emission limitation, in
units of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of halobutyl rubber produced,
shall be calculated by dividing 53 Mg/yr by the mass of halobutyl
rubber produced in 2006, in Mg.
    (iv) For neoprene, the organic HAP emission limitation, in units of
Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of neoprene produced, shall be
calculated by dividing 23 Mg/yr by the mass of neoprene produced in
2009, in Mg.
    (v) For nitrile butadiene rubber, the organic HAP emission
limitation, in units of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of nitrile
butadiene rubber produced, shall be calculated by dividing 1.7 Mg/yr by
the mass of nitrile butadiene rubber produced in 2009, in Mg.
    (5) For EPPU that produce both an elastomer product with a residual
organic HAP limitation listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section, and a product listed in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of
this section, only the residual HAP content of the elastomer product
with a residual organic HAP limitation shall be used in determining the
monthly average residual organic HAP content.
* * * * *
    (6) There are no back-end process operation residual organic HAP or
emission limitations for HypalonTM and polysulfide rubber
production. There are also no back-end process operation residual
organic HAP limitations for latex products, liquid rubber products,
products produced in a gas-phased reaction process, styrene butadiene
rubber produced by any process other than a solution or emulsion
process, polybutadiene rubber produced by any process other than a
solution process, or ethylene-propylene rubber produced by any process
other than a solution process.
    (b) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this section using
stripping technology, compliance shall be demonstrated in accordance
with Sec.  63.495. The owner or operator shall also comply with the
recordkeeping provisions in Sec.  63.498, and the reporting provisions
in Sec.  63.499.
    (c) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this section using
control or recovery devices, compliance shall be demonstrated using the
procedures in Sec.  63.496. The owner or operator shall also comply
with the monitoring provisions in Sec.  63.497, the recordkeeping
provisions in Sec.  63.498, and the reporting provisions in Sec.
63.499.
    (d) If the owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this section using a
flare, the owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with
the requirements in Sec.  63.504(c).
    19. Section 63.495 is amended by:
    a. Revising the section heading;
    b. Revising paragraph (a);
    c. Revising paragraph (b)(5); and
    d. Adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.495  Back-end process provisions--procedures to determine
compliance with residual organic HAP limitations using stripping
technology and organic HAP emissions limitations.

    (a) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) using stripping
technology, compliance shall be demonstrated using the periodic
sampling procedures in paragraph (b) of this section, or using the
stripper parameter monitoring procedures in paragraph (c) of this
section. The owner or operator shall determine the monthly weighted
average residual organic HAP content for each month in which any
portion of the back-end of an elastomer production process is in
operation. A single monthly weighted average shall be determined for
all back-end process operations at the affected source.
    (b) * * *
    (5) The monthly weighted average shall be determined using the
equation in paragraph (f) of this section. All representative samples
taken and analyzed during the month shall be used in the determination
of the monthly weighted average.
* * * * *
    (g) Compliance with the organic HAP emission limitations determined
in accordance with Sec.  63.494(a)(4) shall be demonstrated in
accordance with paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Calculate your organic HAP emission limitation in accordance
with Sec.  63.494(a)(4)(i) through (v), as applicable, record it, and
submit it in accordance with Sec.  63.499(f)(1).
    (2) Each month, calculate and record the organic HAP emissions from
all back end process operations using engineering assessment.
Engineering assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    (i) Previous test results, provided the test was representative of
current operating practices.
    (ii) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data obtained under conditions
representative of current process operating conditions.
    (iii) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not
limited to:
    (A) Use of material balances;
    (B) Estimation of flow rate based on physical equipment design,
such as pump or blower capacities;
    (C) Estimation of organic HAP concentrations based on saturation
conditions; and
    (D) Estimation of organic HAP concentrations based on grab samples
of the liquid or vapor.
    (3) Each month, record the mass of elastomer product produced.
    (4) Each month, calculate and record the sums of the organic HAP
emissions and the mass of elastomer produced for the month and the
previous 11 months.
    (5) Each month, divide the total mass of organic HAP emitted for
the 12-month period by the total mass of elastomer produced during the
12-month period. This value must be recorded in accordance with Sec.
63.498(e) and reported in accordance with Sec.  63.499(f)(2).
    20. Section 63.496 is amended by:
    a. Revising the section heading;
    b. Revising paragraph (a);
    c. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and
    d. Revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.496  Back-end process provisions--procedures to determine
compliance with residual organic HAP limitations using control or
recovery devices.

    (a) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) using control or recovery
devices, compliance shall be demonstrated using the procedures in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Previous test results conducted
in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section may be
used to determine compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) A facility is in compliance if the average of the organic HAP
contents calculated for all three test runs is below the residual
organic HAP limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3).
    (d) An owner or operator complying with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) using a control or
recovery device, shall redetermine the compliance status through the
requirements described in paragraph (b) of this section whenever
process changes are made. The owner or operator shall report the
results of the redetermination in accordance with Sec.  63.499(d). For
the purposes of this section, a process change is any action that would
reasonably be expected to impair the performance of the control or
recovery device. For the purposes of this section, the production of an
elastomer with a residual organic HAP content greater than the residual
organic HAP content of the elastomer used in the compliance
demonstration constitutes a process change, unless the overall effect
of the change is to reduce organic HAP emissions from the source as a
whole. Other examples of process changes may include changes in
production capacity or production rate, or removal or addition of
equipment. For the purposes of this paragraph, process changes do not
include: Process upsets; unintentional, temporary process changes; or
changes that reduce the residual organic HAP content of the elastomer.
    21. Section 63.497 is amended by:
    a. Revising the section heading to Sec.  63.497;
    b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; and
    c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.497  Back-end process provisions--monitoring provisions for
control and recovery devices used to comply with residual organic HAP
limitations.

    (a) An owner or operator complying with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) using control or recovery
devices, or a combination of stripping and control or recovery devices,
shall install the monitoring equipment specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (6) of this section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (d) The owner or operator of an affected source with a controlled
back-end process vent using a vent system that contains bypass lines
that could divert a vent stream away from the control or recovery
device used to comply with Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) shall comply
with paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section. Equipment such as low leg
drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, open-ended valves or lines,
and pressure relief valves needed for safety purposes are not subject
to this paragraph.
* * * * *
    22. Section 63.498 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
    c. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
    d. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    e. Revising paragraph (b)(3);
    f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
    g. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
    h. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B);
    i. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(E); and
    j. Adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.498  Back-end process provisions--recordkeeping.

    (a) Each owner or operator shall maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (3) If the back-end process operation is subject to a residual
organic HAP limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), whether
compliance will be achieved by stripping technology, or by control or
recovery devices.
    (4) If the back-end process operation is subject to an emission
limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(4), the organic HAP emission limitation
calculated in accordance with Sec.  63.494(a)(4)(i) through (v), as
applicable.
    (b) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using
stripping technology to comply with a residual organic HAP limitation
in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), and demonstrating compliance using
the periodic sampling procedures in Sec.  63.495(b), shall maintain the
records specified in paragraph (b)(1), and in paragraph (b)(2) or
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (3) If the organic HAP contents for all samples analyzed during a
month are below the appropriate level in Sec.  63.494(a), the owner or
operator may record that all samples were in accordance with the
residual organic HAP limitations in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3),
rather than calculating and recording a monthly weighted average.
    (c) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using
stripping technology to comply with a residual organic HAP limitation
in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), and demonstrating compliance using
the stripper parameter monitoring procedures in Sec.  63.495(c), shall
maintain the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (d) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using
control or recovery devices to comply with a residual organic HAP
limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3) shall maintain the records
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. The
recordkeeping requirements contained in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4)
pertain to the results of the testing required by Sec.  63.496(b), for
each of the three required test runs.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Monitoring data recorded during periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments shall not be included in computing the hourly or
daily averages. In addition, monitoring data recorded during periods of
non-operation of the EPPU (or specific portion thereof) resulting in
cessation of organic HAP emissions shall not be included in computing
the hourly or daily averages. Records shall be kept of the times and
durations of all such periods and any other periods of process or
control device operation when monitors are not operating.
* * * * *
    (E) For flares, records of the times and duration of all periods
during which the pilot flame is absent shall be kept rather than daily
averages. The records specified in this paragraph are not required
during periods when emissions are not routed to the flare.
* * * * *
    (e) If the back-end process operation is subject to an organic HAP
emission limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(4), the records

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The applicable organic HAP emission limitation determined in
accordance with Sec.  63.494(a)(4)(i) through (v).
    (2) The organic HAP emissions from all back-end process operations
for each month, along with documentation of all calculations and other
information used in the engineering assessment to estimate these
emissions.
    (3) The mass of elastomer product produced each month.
    (4) The total mass of organic HAP emitted for each 12-month period
divided by the total mass of elastomer produced during the 12-month
period, determined in accordance with Sec.  63.495(g)(5).
    23. Section 63.499 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
    b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
    d. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and
    e. Adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.499  Back-end process provisions--reporting.

    (a) * * *
    (3) If the back-end process operation is subject to a residual
organic HAP limitation in Sec.  63.494(a)(1) through (3), whether