Monday, July 16, 2007

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving; Final Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38864 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION form. Publicly available docket V. Summary of Comments and Responses AGENCY materials are available either A. Basis for Area Source Standards electronically through B. Proposed NESHAP for Acrylic and 40 CFR Part 63 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources [EPA–HQ–AR–2006–0897; FRL–8330–1] the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 C. Proposed NESHAP for Carbon Black RIN 2060–AN44 Production Area Sources Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, D. Proposed NESHAP for Chemical DC. The Public Reading Room is open National Emission Standards for Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Compounds through Friday, excluding legal Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic E. Proposed NESHAP for Flexible holidays. The telephone number for the Fibers Production, Carbon Black Polyurethane Foam Production and Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, Fabrication Area Sources Chromium Compounds, Flexible and the telephone number for the Air F. Proposed NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Polyurethane Foam Production and Docket is (202) 566–1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. G. Proposed NESHAP for Wood Preserving Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery Area Sources Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality H. Proposed Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title V AGENCY: Environmental Protection Planning and Standards (D243–02), Agency (EPA). Permitting Requirements Environmental Protection Agency, I. Compliance with Executive Order 13045: ACTION: Final rule. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Protection of Children from 27711, telephone number: (919) 541– SUMMARY: EPA is issuing six national Environmental Health and Safety Risks 2825; fax number: (919) 541–3207; e- J. Compliance with Executive Order 12898: emissions standards for hazardous air mail address: [email protected]. pollutants for seven area source Federal Actions to Address SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. Environmental Justice in Minority categories. The final emissions Populations and Low-Income standards and associated requirements The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: Populations for two area source categories (Flexible VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Polyurethane Foam Production and I. General Information A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Flexible Polyurethane Foam A. Does this action apply to me? Planning and Review B. Where can I get a copy of this Fabrication) are combined in one B. Paperwork Reduction Act document? C. Regulatory Flexibility Act subpart. These final rules include C. Judicial Review emission standards that reflect the II. Background Information for Final Area D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act generally available control technologies Source Standards E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism or management practices in each of III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation these area source categories. Since Proposal and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments DATES: A. NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic These final rules are effective on G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of July 16, 2007. The incorporation by Fibers Production Area Sources Children from Environmental Health and reference of certain publications listed B. NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Safety Risks in these rules is approved by the Area Sources H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Director of the Federal Register as of C. NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Concerning Regulations That July 16, 2007. Area Sources: Chromium Compounds Significantly Affect Energy Supply, ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a D. NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Distribution, or Use docket for this action under Docket ID Foam Production and Fabrication Area I. National Technology Transfer Sources Advancement Act No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0897. All E. NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery documents in the docket are listed in J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions Manufacturing Area Sources to Address Environmental Justice in the Federal Docket Management System F. NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Minority Populations and Low-Income index at http://www.regulations.gov. Sources Populations Although listed in the index, some IV. Exemption of Certain Area Source K. Congressional Review Act information is not publicly available, Categories from Title V Permitting e.g., confidential business information Requirements I. General Information or other information whose disclosure is A. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production A. Does this action apply to me? restricted by statute. Certain other B. Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production material, such as copyrighted material, and Fabrication The regulated categories and entities is not placed on the Internet and will be C. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing potentially affected by these final publicly available only in hard copy D. Wood Preserving standards include:

Category NAICS Examples of regulated entities code 1

Industry: Acrylic and modacrylic 325222 ...... Area source facilities that manufacture polymeric organic fibers using acrylonitrile as a pri- fibers production. mary monomer. Carbon black produc- 325182 ...... Area source facilities that manufacture carbon black using the furnace, thermal, or acetylene tion. decomposition process. Chemical manufac- 325188 ...... Area source facilities that produce chromium compounds, principally sodium dichromate, turing: chromium chromic acid, and chromic oxide, from chromite ore. compounds. Flexible polyurethane 326150 ...... Area source facilities that manufacture foam made from a polyurethane polymer. foam production.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:15 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38865

NAICS Category Examples of regulated entities code 1

Flexible polyurethane 326150 ...... Area source facilities that cut or bond flexible polyurethane foam pieces together or to other foam fabrication op- substrates. erations. Lead acid battery man- 335911 ...... Area source facilities that manufacture lead acid storage batteries made from lead alloy ufacturing. ingots and lead oxide. Wood preserving ...... 321114 ...... Area source facilities that treat wood such as lumber, ties, poles, posts, or pilings with a pre- servative. 1 North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be raised with reasonable specificity categories. On April 4, 2007, we exhaustive, but rather provides a guide during the period for public comment proposed NESHAP for the following for readers regarding entities likely to be can be raised during judicial review. seven listed area source categories that affected by this action. To determine Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the we have selected to meet the June 15, whether your facility is regulated by this CAA, the requirements established by 2007 deadline: (1) Acrylic and action, you should examine the these final rules may not be challenged Modacrylic Fibers Production; (2) applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11393 separately in any civil or criminal Carbon Black Production; (3) Chemical of subpart LLLLLL (NESHAP for Acrylic proceedings brought by EPA to enforce Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds; and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area these requirements. (4) Flexible Polyurethane Foam Sources), 40 CFR 63.11400 of subpart II. Background Information for Final Production; (5) Flexible Polyurethane MMMMMM (NESHAP for Carbon Black Area Source Standards Foam Fabrication Operations; (6) Lead Production Area Sources), 40 CFR Acid Battery Manufacturing; and (7) 63.11407 of subpart NNNNNN Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA Wood Preserving. See 72 FR 16632. (NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing requires EPA to identify at least 30 These final NESHAP complete the Area Sources: Chromium Compounds), hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, 40 CFR 63.11414 of subpart OOOOOO as the result of emissions of area required regulatory action for seven area 1 (NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane sources, pose the greatest threat to source categories. Foam Production and Fabrication Area public health in urban areas. Consistent Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Sources), 40 CFR 63.11421 of subpart with this provision, in 1999, in the Administrator may, in lieu of standards PPPPPP (NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, requiring maximum achievable control Manufacturing Area Sources), or 40 CFR EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the technology (MACT) under section greatest potential health threat in urban 63.11428 of subpart QQQQQQ 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards areas, and these HAP are referred to as (NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area or requirements for area sources ‘‘which the ‘‘Urban HAP.’’ See 64 FR 38715, July Sources). If you have any questions provide for the use of generally regarding the applicability of this action 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or available control technologies or to a particular entity, consult either the management practices by such sources air permit authority for the entity or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 to reduce emissions of hazardous air your EPA regional representative as pollutants.’’ As explained in the listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A percent of the emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject to regulation. EPA proposed NESHAP, we are setting (General Provisions). listed the source categories that account standards for these seven area source B. Where can I get a copy of this for 90 percent of the Urban HAP categories pursuant to section 112(d)(5). document? emissions in the Integrated Urban Air See 72 FR 16638, April 7, 2007. 2 In addition to being available in the Toxics Strategy. Sierra Club sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards III. Summary of Final Rules and docket, an electronic copy of this final Changes Since Proposal action will also be available on the for the area source categories listed Worldwide Web (WWW) through the pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and This section summarizes the final Technology Transfer Network (TTN). (k)(3)(B) within the time frame specified rules and identifies and discusses Following signature, a copy of this final by the statute. See Sierra Club v. changes since proposal. For changes action will be posted on the TTN’s Johnston, No. 01–1537 (D.D.C.). On that were made as a result of public March 31, 2006, the court issued an policy and guidance page for newly comments, we have provided detailed order requiring EPA to promulgate proposed or promulgated rules at the explanations of the changes and the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ standards under CAA section 112(d) for those area source categories listed rationale in the responses to comments ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides in section V of this preamble. information and technology exchange in pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). Among other things, the order various areas of air pollution control. A. NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic requires that, by June 15, 2007, EPA Fibers Production Area Sources C. Judicial Review complete standards for six area source 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 1 An area source is a stationary source of Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions that is not This final rule applies to any existing final rules is available only by filing a a major source. A major source is a stationary or new acrylic or modacrylic fibers petition for review in the U.S. Court of source that emits or has the potential to emit 10 production plant that is an area source Appeals for the District of Columbia tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. of HAP. The owner or operator of an Circuit by September 14, 2007. Under 2 Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air existing area source must comply with section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an Toxics Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area all the requirements of this area source objection to these final rules that was source category list several times.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:15 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38866 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

NESHAP by January 16, 2008. The a performance test. These procedures For all AN storage vessels at a new owner or operator of a new area source are contained in § 63.11395(k). area source, the owner or operator must: must comply with this area source As explained in the proposed rule, (1) Reduce AN emissions by 98 weight- NESHAP by July 16, 2007 or upon this rule does not include requirements percent by venting emissions through a initial startup, whichever is later. for spinning lines for existing sources closed vent system to any combination that remove residual AN using a of control devices as specified in 2. Emissions Standards monomer recovery process prior to § 63.982(a)(1) of subpart SS or reduce The Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers spinning. As proposed, existing sources AN emissions by 95 weight-percent or Production area source category was that do not have a monomer recovery greater by venting emissions through a listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for process prior to spinning must meet the closed system to a recovery device as its contribution of the Urban HAP requirements for spinning lines in 40 specified in § 63.993 of subpart SS; or acrylonitrile (AN). In response to CFR part 63, subpart YY. (2) comply with the equipment comments, we have revised the Acrylonitrile storage tanks meeting standards for internal or external proposed AN requirements for existing certain capacity/vapor pressure floating roofs in 40 CFR part 63, subpart area sources to include a new conditions must comply with one of WW. compliance alternative. We have also three control options: (1) A fixed roof in Process wastewater and maintenance revised the compliance provisions for combination with an internal floating wastewater at new sources are subject to existing area sources to allow facilities roof, (2) an external floating roof, or (3) the requirements in § 63.1106(a) and (b) to change the operating limits for a wet a closed vent system and control device. of subpart YY. We are clarifying that scrubber control device. In response to comments, we are wastewater that contains AN but which Existing area sources. The final clarifying in the final rule that process is below the thresholds for control in standards for existing area sources apply and maintenance wastewater containing subpart YY must be treated in a AN must be treated in a wastewater to emissions from the control devices wastewater treatment system. The treatment system. We are deleting the for polymerization and monomer owner or operator is also required to definition of ‘‘wastewater’’ because we recovery process equipment, spinning comply with the equipment leak have specifically defined ‘‘process lines at plants that do not have a requirements in subpart YY. Subpart YY wastewater’’ and ‘‘maintenance monomer recovery process, and AN applies the requirements in either wastewater.’’ storage tanks. As proposed, we are subpart TT or UU to equipment that New area sources. No changes have contains or contacts 10 percent by adopting the State permit requirements been made to the proposed emissions applicable to the one existing area weight or greater of AN and that standards for new area sources. The operates at least 300 hours per year. source as the NESHAP for existing final standards apply to process vents, acrylic and modacrylic fibers fiber spinning lines, AN storage tanks, 3. Compliance Requirements production area sources. process wastewater, maintenance No significant changes have been No changes have been made since wastewater, and equipment leaks. The made to the compliance provisions for proposal to the AN emissions limits for process vent requirements apply to each existing sources. As proposed, we are control devices for polymerization and vent stream with an AN concentration including in this final NESHAP the monomer recovery process equipment. of 50 parts per million by volume monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and The AN emissions limit for the control (ppmv) or greater and a flow rate of reporting requirements in the State device for polymerization process 0.005 cubic meters per minute or operating permit for the one existing equipment is 0.2 pound per hour (lb/hr). greater. The owner or operator must area source. The only change since The AN emissions limit for the control control AN emissions from process proposal is the addition of records of device for monomer recovery process vents meeting this threshold by process and maintenance wastewater equipment is 0.05 lb/hr. reducing uncontrolled emissions by 98 streams that are treated in a wastewater In response to comments, we have weight percent or meeting an emissions treatment system. Specifically, for revised the proposed rule to include an limit of 20 ppmv by venting vapors existing sources, continuous parameter alternative compliance option for through a closed vent system to a monitoring systems (CPMS) are required existing area sources. The new recovery device, control device, or flare. to measure and record the scrubber compliance option in § 63.11395(b)(3) The owner or operator must determine water flow rates at least every 15 allows an existing area source to comply which process vents meet the threshold minutes. The owner or operator of an with the same requirements that apply noted above by using the procedures existing source must determine to process vents for new area sources. and methods in § 63.1104 of subpart YY. compliance with the daily average Although the two requirements are The emissions limits for fiber operating limits for the scrubber water expressed in different units, they spinning lines require the owner or flow rates on a monthly basis and provide an equivalent level of control. operator to: (1) Reduce AN emissions by submit quarterly compliance reports to No changes have been made since 85 weight-percent (e.g., by venting EPA or the delegated authority. proposal to the control device parameter emissions from a total enclosure Compliance with the operating limits is operating limits for wet scrubbers. The through a closed vent system to a to be determined on a monthly basis; daily average water flow rate to the wet control device that meets the quarterly compliance reports also are scrubber control device for requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart required. The owner or operator must polymerization process equipment must SS), (2) reduce AN emissions from the keep records of each monthly not drop below 50 liters per minute spinning line to 0.5 pounds of AN per compliance determination and retain (l/min). For the wet scrubber control ton (lb/ton) of acrylic and modacrylic the records for at least 2 years following device for monomer recovery process fiber produced, or (3) reduce the AN the date of each compliance equipment, the daily average water flow concentration of the spin dope to less determination. If the daily average water rate must not drop below 30 l/min. We than 100 parts per million by weight flow rate falls below the required have revised the proposed standard to (ppmw). The requirements in operating limit, the owner or operator include procedures for changing the § 63.1103(b)(4) of subpart YY apply to must submit a report to EPA or the operating limits based on the results of an enclosure for a fiber spinning line. delegated authority that identifies the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38867

exceedance; the owner or operator perform assessments 3 to identify requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart would be required to submit the report affected process vents, equipment, and SS; or (2) reduce total HAP emissions by within 10 days of the exceedance. wastewater streams; conduct initial 98 weight-percent or to a concentration The owner or operator of an existing performance tests and/or compliance of 20 ppmv, whichever is less, by source must conduct a performance test demonstrations; and comply with the venting emissions through a closed vent for each control device for monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, system to any combination of control polymerization process equipment and and reporting requirements in each devices meeting the requirements 40 monomer recovery process equipment. applicable subpart. For process vents, CFR 63.982(a)(2). A performance test is not required for an the owner or operator must comply with 3. Compliance Requirements existing source if a prior performance all testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, test has been conducted using the and reporting requirements in 40 CFR We have made no changes to the methods required by this rule, which part 63, subpart SS. For other emissions proposed compliance provisions for are the requirements contained in sources, the owner or operator must carbon black production area sources. § 63.1104 of subpart YY, and either no comply with all testing, monitoring, For existing and new area sources, we process changes have been made since recordkeeping, and reporting are adopting in this final NESHAP the the test, or the owner or operator can requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and demonstrate that the results of the SS or WW for AN tanks, and subpart TT reporting requirements in subpart YY. performance test, with or without or UU for equipment leaks. Only The owner or operator must adjustments, reliably demonstrate specified provisions in subpart G apply demonstrate compliance with the compliance despite process changes. for process wastewater and maintenance emissions limit for existing and new For AN storage tanks at existing wastewater. area sources by monitoring the sources, the owner or operator must The owner or operator of a new area operating parameters of the control comply with the applicable testing, source is also required to comply with device or devices selected to comply inspection, and notification procedures the NESHAP General Provisions (40 with the requirements of the NESHAP. in 40 CFR 60.113b(a) and the CFR part 63, subpart A), including The owner or operator of an existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements for notifications; or new area source must comply with requirements in 40 CFR 60.115b and performance tests and reports; SSM the subpart YY notification 60.116b of subpart Kb. The testing, plans and reports; recordkeeping, and requirements in 40 CFR 63.1110. In the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. We have identified in the notification of compliance status reporting requirements in 40 CFR part final NESHAP the General Provisions of required in 40 CFR 63.1110(d), the 65, subpart C apply if the owner or 40 CFR part 63 applicable to existing owner or operator of an existing source operator elected to comply with the part and new sources. may demonstrate initial compliance 65 control option for AN storage tanks. B. NESHAP for Carbon Black with the emissions standards based on See 40 CFR 60.110b(e). Production Area Sources the results of a performance test that has The owner or operator of an existing been previously conducted provided area source must comply with certain 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates certain conditions are met (e.g., using notification requirements in § 63.9 of The final NESHAP applies to each the same methods as the test methods in the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, new or existing carbon black production the final rule). subpart A). These requirements include facility that is an area source of HAP. As proposed, we are requiring that the a notification of applicability and a The owner or operator of an existing owner or operator of an existing area notification of compliance status. In the affected source must comply with all source comply with the SSM notification of compliance status the requirements of this area source requirements in 40 CFR 63.1111. required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), the owner NESHAP by July 16, 2007. The owner or Section 63.1111(a)(1) of subpart YY or operator of an existing source may operator of a new affected source must requires that the source include certify initial compliance with the comply by July 16, 2007 or upon initial provisions for an SSM plan. startup, whichever is later. emissions limits based on a previous C. NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing performance test if applicable. We have 2. Emissions Standards Area Sources: Chromium Compounds revised the proposed certification of compliance for the emissions limit to The Carbon Black Production area 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates source category was listed pursuant to include a certification for the new The final rule applies to the owner or alternative compliance option for section 112(c)(3) for regulation for its contribution of the Urban HAP POM operator of a new or existing area source process vents. The owner or operator that manufactures chromium must also certify initial compliance with (polycyclic organic matter). We have made no changes since proposal to the compounds. The owner or operator of the NSPS requirements in 40 CFR part an existing area source must comply 60, subpart Kb. emissions standards for this source category. with all the requirements of this area We are also requiring that the owner source NESHAP by January 16, 2008. or operator of an existing source comply This final NESHAP requires the owner or operator of an existing or new The owner or operator of a new affected with the requirements for startup, source must comply by July 16, 2007 or shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) source to control HAP emissions from each carbon black production main unit upon initial startup, whichever is later. plans, reports, and records in 40 CFR In response to comments, we have also 63.6(e)(3). As proposed, we are allowing filter process vent that has a HAP concentration equal to or greater than added a definition of ‘‘chromium additional time (6 months after compounds manufacturing facility.’’ promulgation) to allow for preparation 260 ppmv. The specific control of the plan. requirements are: (1) Reduce emissions 2. Emissions Standards of HAP by using a flare meeting all the No changes have been made since The Chemical Manufacturing: proposal to the compliance provisions 3 These assessments are used to determine which Chromium Compounds area source for new area sources. The owner or process vents and wastewater streams must be category was listed for regulation operator of a new area source must controlled. pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38868 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

contribution of the Urban HAP compliance date must be conducted recorded action. The results of chromium. We have not revised the prior to startup. In addition, we have inspections and maintenance of control emissions standards for this area source revised the requirements for initial equipment must be recorded in a category since proposal. However, we inspections of the internal components logbook (written or electronic). The have revised Table 1 of subpart of control devices to state that an initial logbook must be kept onsite and made NNNNNN to clarify the regulated inspection is not required if an available to the permitting authority process equipment. These changes inspection has been performed within upon request. The owner or operator of include revising the title of Table 1 to the past 24 months (for an electrostatic an existing plant is required to report refer to emissions sources instead of precipitator) or within the past 12 any deviations from the emissions limits emissions points, changing the ‘‘filter months (for a baghouse or wet scrubber). or monitoring requirements in a for sodium chromate slurry’’ to ‘‘residue The proposed requirements for initial semiannual report submitted to the dryer system’’, changing the ‘‘reactor inspections that do not require shutting permitting authority. used to produce chromic acid’’ to the down the process and control device, The owner or operator of an existing ‘‘melter used to produce chromic acid’’, such as inspecting baghouses and area source must submit an initial and removing the ‘‘sodium evaporation ductwork for leaks and verifying proper notification of applicability and a unit’’ from the table. These changes do operation of electrostatic precipitators notification of compliance status not affect the estimated level of and wet scrubbers, have not been according to the requirements in 40 CFR emissions control or reduction for the revised. We have also clarified the 63.9 of the General Provisions (40 CFR rule. timing for periodic inspections by part 63, subpart A). In the notification The final NESHAP requires new and requiring subsequent inspections 12 or of compliance status required by 40 CFR existing facilities to operate a capture 24 months after the last inspections and 63.9(h), the owner or operator must system that collects gases and fumes then annual or biennial inspections certify that equipment has been from each emissions source and conveys thereafter. We have also revised the installed and is operating for each the gases to a PM control device that final rule to clarify that the regulated emissions point and that the controls emissions to the levels required requirements for internal inspections of plant will comply with the inspection in the rule. Emissions limits for PM, in control devices do not apply to cyclonic and maintenance requirements. A lb/hr format, are established based on scrubbers installed upstream of performance test is not required if a the process rate of the emissions source. electrostatic precipitators. performance test has been conducted The PM emissions limits apply to more For a baghouse, this final NESHAP within the past 5 years using the than 20 emissions sources in the requires monthly visual inspections of specified test methods, and either no production of chromium compounds, the system ductwork and baghouse process changes have been made since including sodium chromate, sodium units for leaks. The plant owner or the test, or the owner or operator can dichromate, chromic acid, chromic operator must conduct an annual demonstrate that the results of the oxide, and chromium dehydrate at new inspection of the interior of each performance test, with or without and existing sources. baghouse for structural integrity and adjustments, reliably demonstrate condition of the filter fabric. For compliance despite process changes. 3. Compliance Requirements for electrostatic precipitators, plants are The final rule also requires that the Existing Area Sources required to conduct: (1) A daily check owner or operator comply with either As proposed, the compliance to verify that the electronic controls for the requirements for SSM plans and requirements for existing area sources corona power and rapper operation are reports in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) or with the are based on the operation and functioning, that the corona wires are requirements in this final rule. The maintenance, recordkeeping, and energized, and that adequate air owner or operator is required to submit reporting requirements in the title V pressure is present on the rapper a report if an event occurs that results permit of the area source located in manifold; (2) a monthly visual in emissions in excess of a PM limit and North Carolina. The title V permit inspection of the system ductwork, lasts for more than 4 hours. includes requirements for inspections cyclones (if applicable), housing unit, 4. Compliance Requirements for New and maintenance of each type of control and hopper for leaks; and (3) a biennial Area Sources device, semiannual reports of any internal inspection to determine the deviation, and records of control device condition and integrity of corona wires, No changes have been made to the inspections and maintenance. The collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, compliance requirements for new area control devices used by the existing area and air diffuser plates. For wet sources. The owner or operator of a new sources in this source category include electrostatic precipitators, plants also source must install and operate a bag baghouses, dry electrostatic must conduct a daily check to verify leak detection system for each baghouse precipitators, wet electrostatic water flow and a biennial internal used to comply with a PM emissions precipitators, and wet scrubbers. The inspection to determine the condition limit. For additional information on bag monitoring requirements for existing and integrity of plate wash spray heads. leak detection systems that operate on area sources consist of inspection and For wet scrubbers, plants are required to the triboelectric effect, see ‘‘Fabric Filter maintenance requirements specific to conduct: (1) A daily check to verify Bag Leak Detection Guidance’’, U.S. the type of control device. water flow to the scrubber; (2) a Environmental Protection Agency, In response to comments, we have monthly visual inspection of the system Office of Air Quality Planning and revised the proposed requirements for ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks; Standards, September 1997, EPA–454/ initial and periodic inspections of and (3) an annual internal inspection for R–98–015, NTIS publication number control devices in several respects. The structural integrity and condition of the PB98164676. This document is available final rule requires an initial inspection demister and spray nozzle. from the National Technical Information for each installed control device which The owner or operator of an existing Service (NTIS), 5385 Port Royal Road, has operated within 60 days of the plant must record the results of each Springfield, VA 22161. compliance date. An initial inspection inspection, the results of any The owner or operator of a new for an installed control device which maintenance performed on the control source that uses a control device other has not operated within 60 days of the device, and the date and time of each than a baghouse must submit a

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38869

monitoring plan to the permitting D. NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane 2. Emissions Standards and authority for approval. The plan must Foam Production and Fabrication Area Management Practices describe the control device, the Sources The Flexible Polyurethane Foam parameters to be monitored, and the 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates Production and Flexible Polyurethane operating limits for the parameters Foam Fabrication area source categories established during a performance test. This final NESHAP applies to both new and existing flexible foam were listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) The owner or operator of a new production and flexible foam fabrication for their contribution of the Urban HAP source is required to demonstrate initial plants that are area sources. In response methylene chloride. No changes have compliance with each applicable PM to comments, we have revised the been made since proposal to the emissions limit by conducting a compliance dates to allow more time for required emissions standards and performance test according to the certain existing area sources to comply management practices. Table 1 of this requirements in 40 CFR 63.7. EPA with the NESHAP. The owner or preamble summarizes the various types Method 5 or 5D (40 CFR part 60, operator of an existing slabstock flexible of foam production and fabrication area appendix A), as applicable, is to be used polyurethane foam production-affected sources covered by this final rule and to determine the PM emissions. All of source must comply with all of the the corresponding regulatory strategies. the testing, monitoring, operation and requirements of this area source As shown in the table below, slabstock maintenance, recordkeeping, and NESHAP by July 16, 2008 instead of foam producers may still use limited reporting requirements of the part 63 July 16, 2007. As proposed, the owner amounts of methylene chloride as an General Provisions apply to a new area or operator of an existing molded auxiliary blowing agent (ABA). The technologies determined to be GACT for source. We have identified in the final flexible polyurethane foam production, an existing rebond foam production, or slabstock foam production area sources NESHAP the General Provisions of 40 an existing flexible polyurethane foam significantly reduce, but do not always CFR part 63 applicable to existing and fabrication affected source must comply eliminate the use of methylene chloride new sources. by July 16, 2007. The owner or operator as an ABA. Methylene chloride use is of a new area source must comply by prohibited for other uses at foam July 16, 2007 or at startup, whichever is production and foam fabrication later. facilities.

TABLE 1.—FOAM PRODUCTION AND FABRICATION PROCESSES AND CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS

Area source types Final regulation

1. Slabstock polyurethane foam production ...... a. Emission limits for methylene chloride used as an auxiliary blowing agent (ABA); b. Controls on storage vessels; c. Management practices for equipment leaks; and d. Prohibition on use of methylene chloride as an equipment cleaner; or Eliminate use of methylene chloride in slabstock foam production processes. 2. Molded polyurethane foam production ...... Prohibit use of methylene chloride as mold release agent or equipment cleaner. 3. Rebond foam production ...... Prohibit use of methylene chloride as mold release agent. 4. Foam fabrication adhesive use ...... Prohibit use of methylene chloride adhesives.

For slabstock foam production area corrected within 15 days of when they methylene chloride added at slabstock sources, we are requiring emissions are detected. The use of methylene production mixheads and the methylene limits and management practices to chloride to clean mix heads and other chloride contained in and added to reduce methylene chloride emissions equipment is prohibited. methylene chloride storage tanks. Plants from the production line, storage tanks, Slabstock foam facilities that do not using carbon adsorber systems to leaking equipment, and equipment use any methylene chloride at the control emissions from methylene cleaning. Emissions limits for facility are not subject to these chloride storage tanks must monitor the methylene chloride used as an ABA are emissions limitations and management methylene chloride content of exhaust based on a formula which varies practices. Such facilities are, however, streams from outlet vents. Plants using depending on the grades of foam being required to submit a one-time report. a recovery device to reduce methylene produced. Vapor balance systems or This final rule prohibits the use of chloride emissions are required to carbon beds are required for methylene methylene chloride-based mold release comply with a recovered methylene chloride storage vessels. The agents at molded and rebond foam chloride monitoring and recordkeeping management practices require plants to facilities, methylene chloride-based program. identify and correct leaking pumps and equipment cleaners at molded foam The owner or operator of a slabstock other equipment in methylene chloride facilities, and methylene chloride-based foam production area source that service. Specifically, owners or adhesives for foam fabrication. continues to use methylene chloride as operators must check periodically for an ABA must submit semiannual equipment leaks (from quarterly for 3. Compliance Requirements reports containing information on pumps and valves to annual for No changes have been made since allowable and actual methylene connectors) using EPA Method 21 (40 proposal to the compliance chloride emissions, carbon adsorbers on CFR part 60, appendix A). Leaks, which requirements. Slabstock foam area storage tanks, and equipment leaks. are defined as a reading of 10,000 parts sources continuing to use methylene Owners and operators are also required per million (ppm) or greater, must be chloride are required to monitor to submit annual compliance

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38870 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

certifications. Records are required to 2. Emissions Standards and batteries. These provisions include the demonstrate compliance, including a Management Practices requirement to conduct a performance daily operating log of foam runs The Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing test and opacity measurement for each containing the grades of foam produced area source category was listed for source. They also require continuous and related data, and records related to regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3) monitoring of the pressure drop for storage tanks and equipment leaks. for its contribution of the Urban HAP sources controlled by scrubbing Slabstock foam plants that do not use lead and cadmium. As proposed, we are systems. In addition to these any methylene chloride must submit a adopting as the NESHAP for the Lead requirements, we added to the final rule one-time certification as part of their Acid Battery Manufacturing area source daily recordkeeping and semiannual notification of compliance status. category the numerical emissions limits reporting requirements for emissions Molded foam, rebond foam, and foam for grid casting, paste mixing, three- units that are controlled by scrubbing fabrication area source facilities which process operations, lead oxide systems. We added to the final rule monitoring, operate loop slitters must prepare, and manufacturing, lead reclamation, and recordkeeping, and reporting keep on file, compliance certifications other lead emitting processes in 40 CFR requirements for emissions units that which certify that the facility is not 60.372 of the new source performance are controlled by fabric filters. These using the prohibited methylene-chloride standards (NSPS) for lead acid batteries. requirements direct facilities to conduct based products. The area source plants These lead discharge limits are: semiannual inspections of fabric filter must also maintain records • 0.40 milligram of lead per dry structure and bags, and to either: (1) documenting that the products they are standard cubic meter of exhaust (mg/ Measure and record the pressure drop using do not contain any methylene m3) from grid casting facilities, across the fabric filter once per day, or chloride. These can be records that • 1.00 mg/m3 from paste mixing facilities, (2) conduct daily visible emission would be kept in the absence of this observations. If visible emissions are final rule such as adhesive usage • 1.00 mg/m3 from three-process operation facilities, detected, the final rule requires that an information and Material Safety Data opacity measurement be made. A Sheets. Foam fabrication area source • 5.0 mg per kilogram of lead feed from lead oxide manufacturing weekly rather than daily alternative plants which do not operate loop slitters monitoring frequency is also available have no compliance certification or facilities, • 3 for emissions units that utilize high recordkeeping requirements. 4.50 mg/m from lead reclamation facilities, and efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters The owner or operator of each • 1.0 mg/m3 from any other lead- in combination with fabric filters. slabstock foam affected source that emitting operations. We are also adopting the testing, continues to use methylene chloride We are also adopting the opacity monitoring, recordkeeping, and and, therefore, is subject to the limits from the lead acid battery NSPS. reporting requirements and the initial methylene chloride emissions limits, is The opacity of emissions must be no notification and notification of required to comply with several greater than 5 percent from lead compliance requirements in the part 63 requirements of the General Provisions reclamation facilities and no greater General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. We have than 0 percent from any affected facility subpart A). We concluded that the part identified in the final NESHAP the except lead reclamation facilities. 63 General Provisions are more General Provisions that apply to existing appropriate for this NESHAP than the and new sources. 3. Compliance Requirements part 60 General Provisions that were For slabstock foam production At proposal, we stated that we would proposed. facilities that have eliminated the use of adopt in this NESHAP the compliance We have clarified the deadline for methylene chloride and are not subject requirements in the NSPS for lead acid submission of initial notifications to the emissions limitations in this final batteries. We incorrectly stated in the required by § 63.9 of the General rule, we are requiring that owners or proposal that title V would not add Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). operators submit a notification monitoring to the proposed NESHAP. The initial notification of applicability certifying that they do not use any While that statement was accurate for required for existing facilities is due by methylene chloride. Slabstock foam emissions units controlled by scrubbing November 13, 2007. The notification of facilities that choose to use methylene systems, it was not accurate for compliance status is due 60 days after chloride in the future will be subject to emissions units controlled by fabric the 1 year deadline for compliance the emission limits and other filters. We recognized our error during September 15, 2008. We have identified requirements discussed above. our consideration of comments in the final NESHAP the applicable submitted on the proposal. We have General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. E. NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery incorporated the part 63 monitoring, The final NESHAP allows existing Manufacturing Area Sources recordkeeping, and reporting plants to utilize previously conducted performance tests, when they are 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates requirements for all emissions units instead of those in part 60. We representative of current conditions, to This final NESHAP applies to new concluded that the part 63 General demonstrate compliance. Plants without and existing lead acid battery Provisions are more appropriate for this representative prior performance tests manufacturing plants that are area NESHAP than are the part 60 General are required to conduct performance sources. The owner or operator of an Provisions that were proposed. We have tests by 180 days after the compliance existing source must comply with all also added periodic monitoring, date. the requirements of this area source recordkeeping, and reporting F. NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area NESHAP by July 16, 2008. The owner or requirements for emissions units Sources operator of a new source must comply controlled by fabric filters. with this area source NESHAP by July We are adopting in this NESHAP the 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates 16, 2007 or at startup, whichever is testing and monitoring and This final NESHAP applies to new later. requirements in the NSPS for lead acid and existing wood preserving plants

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38871

that are area sources. The owner or • For the thermal treatment process, IV. Exemption of Certain Area Source operator of an existing source must maintaining records that an air Categories From Title V Permitting comply with all the requirements of this scavenging system is installed and Requirements area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007. operated properly during the treatment Section 502(a) of the CAA provides The owner or operator of a new source process; that the Administrator may exempt an must comply by July 16, 2007 or at • For the pressure treatment process, area source category from title V if he startup, whichever is later. we proposed a requirement for facilities determines that compliance with title V 2. Emissions Standards and to fully drain the retort prior to opening requirements is ‘‘impracticable, Management Practices the retort door. In the final rule, we have infeasible, or unnecessarily The Wood Preserving area source clarified this provision to require burdensome’’ on an area source category was listed for regulation under facilities to fully drain the retort to the category. See CAA section 502(a). In section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of extent practicable, prior to opening the December 2005, in a national the following Urban HAP: arsenic, retort door; rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA chromium, methylene chloride, and • Storing treated wood product on section 502 and developed a four-factor dioxin. The only changes to the rule drip pads or in a primary containment made since proposal are clarifications of balancing test for determining whether area to convey preservative drippage to applicability and the required title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a collection system until drippage has management practices. a particular area source category, such We are adopting as the NESHAP for ceased; that an exemption from title V is the Wood Preserving area source • Promptly collecting any spills; and appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December category the control technologies and • 19, 2005 (‘‘Exemption Rule’’). Performing relevant corrective The four factors that EPA identified in management practices that we have actions or preventative measures in the determined are generally available, the Exemption Rule for determining event of a malfunction before resuming whether title V is ‘‘unnecessarily considering cost, for the wood operations. preserving industry. We have revised burdensome’’ on a particular area source the rule since proposal to clarify that the Existing written standard operating category include: (1) Whether title V management practices and other procedures may be used as the would result in significant recordkeeping and notification management practices plan if those improvements to the compliance requirements in the NESHAP apply to procedures include the minimum requirements, including monitoring, those facilities that are using a wood activities required for a management recordkeeping, and reporting, that are preservative containing arsenic, practices plan. proposed for an area source category (70 chromium, dioxins, or methylene FR 75323); (2) whether title V 3. Compliance Requirements chloride. permitting would impose significant The NESHAP requires that facilities burdens on the area source category and No changes have been made since whether the burdens would be using a pressure treatment process use proposal to the compliance a retort or similarly enclosed vessel for aggravated by any difficulty the sources requirements for wood preserving may have in obtaining assistance from the preservative treatment of wood facilities. Plants that use any wood involving any wood preservative permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) preservative containing chromium, containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, whether the costs of title V permitting arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride or methylene chloride. Facilities using a for the area source category would be are required to comply with the thermal treatment process involving any justified, taking into consideration any wood preservative containing notification requirements in the part 63 potential gains in compliance likely to chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); methylene chloride are required to use subpart A). This final rule establishes and (4) whether there are process treatment tanks equipped with the content and deadlines for implementation and enforcement air scavenging systems to capture and submission of the notifications. We have programs in place that are sufficient to control air emissions. explicitly identified in this final assure compliance with the NESHAP for This final rule also requires facility NESHAP the applicable General the area source category, without relying owners or operators using any wood Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. on title V permits (70 FR 75326). In discussing the above factors in the preservative containing chromium, The final standards require Exemption Rule, we explained that we arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride recordkeeping to serve as monitoring considered on ‘‘a case-by-case basis the to minimize emissions from process and deviation reporting to demonstrate tanks and equipment (e.g., retorts, other extent to which one or more of the four compliance. The compliance factors supported title V exemptions for enclosed vessels, and thermal treatment requirements for new and existing area tanks), as well as storage, handling, and a given source category, and then we sources are based on certain notification assessed whether considered together transfer operations. These standards are requirements in the part 63 General to be documented in a management those factors demonstrated that Provisions. The initial notification of practices plan that must include, but not compliance with title V requirements applicability required by 40 CFR be limited to, the following activities: would be ‘unnecessarily burdensome’ • Minimizing preservative usage; 63.9(b)(2) requires the owner or operator on the category, consistent with section • Maintaining records on the type of to identify the plant as an area source 502(a) of the Act.’’ See 70 FR 75323. treatment process and types and subject to the standards. The Thus, in the Exemption Rule, we amounts of wood preservatives used at notification of compliance status explained that not all of the four factors the facility; requires the owner or operator to certify must weigh in favor of exemption for • For the pressure treatment process, compliance with the standards. No EPA to determine that title V is maintaining charge records identifying other recordkeeping or reporting unnecessarily burdensome for a pressure reading(s) inside the retort (or requirements in the General Provisions particular area source category. Instead, similarly enclosed vessel, if applicable); are applicable. the factors are to be considered in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38872 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

combination, and EPA determines subpart Kb. This final rule, therefore, This final rule does not require an whether the factors, taken together, contains both continuous and annual compliance certification report, support an exemption from title V for a noncontinuous monitoring which is a requirement of a title V particular source category. requirements, which constitute periodic permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(c)(9)(iii) and 40 In response to the proposed rule, we monitoring. Under EPA’s Final Rule CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). The EPA believes that received a comment concerning the Interpreting the Scope of Certain the annual certification reporting proposed title V exemptions. In Monitoring Requirements for State and requirement is not necessary because response to this comment, we re- Federal Operating Permits Programs (71 the initial compliance certification and examined the four factors for each of the FR 75422, December 15, 2006) subsequent quarterly reports are more area source categories for which we had (‘‘Interpretive Rule’’), if an applicable than adequate to determine compliance proposed an exemption. As explained requirement, such as a NESHAP, for existing sources. New sources must below, after evaluating the relevant contains periodic testing or submit notifications and reports factors, we again conclude that the instrumental or non-instrumental required by the part 63 General requirements of title V would be monitoring (i.e., periodic monitoring), Provisions. Moreover, the certifications unnecessarily burdensome on the area permitting authorities are not that new and existing sources must source categories for which we authorized to assess the sufficiency of or submit under the part 63 General proposed an exemption from title V. impose new monitoring requirements Provisions and the final rule include In the Exemption Rule, in addition to on a case-by-case basis; therefore, title V initial notification of compliance status; determining whether compliance with would not impose additional periodic and immediate reports under title V requirements would be monitoring requirements on sources in the SSM provisions; and reports of unnecessarily burdensome on an area this category. excess emissions and monitoring system source category, we considered, We also considered the extent to performance. consistent with the guidance provided which title V could enhance compliance The monitoring, recordkeeping, and by the legislative history of section through recordkeeping or reporting reporting requirements in the final rule 502(a), whether exempting the area requirements, including title V for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers source category would adversely affect requirements for a 6-month monitoring Production area source category are public health, welfare or the report, deviation reports, and an annual substantially equivalent to such environment. See 70 FR 15254–15255, compliance certification in 40 CFR 70.6 requirements under title V. Therefore, March 25, 2005. As discussed below in and 71.6. The final rule for acrylic and we conclude that title V would not sections IV.A through IV.D of this modacrylic fibers production requires result in significant improvements to preamble, we have determined that the the owner or operator to submit an the compliance requirements we are proposed exemptions from title V would initial certification of compliance that promulgating for this area source not adversely affect public health, must be signed by a responsible official. category. welfare and the environment. We In addition, the owner or operator must We evaluated factor two to determine therefore finalize the proposed determine compliance with daily whether title V permitting would exemptions in this rule. average operating limits for the water impose a significant burden on the area source category and whether that A. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers flow rates to each control device on a burden would be aggravated by any Production monthly basis and submit compliance reports to EPA or the delegated difficulty the source may have in In sections IV.A through IV.D of this authority on a quarterly basis. Should obtaining assistance from the permitting preamble, we apply the four-factor the daily average water flow rate to a agency. Subjecting any source to title V balancing test to determine whether title wet scrubber control device fall below permitting imposes certain burdens and V is unnecessarily burdensome on the the operating limits, the plant must costs that do not exist outside of the title area source category. Starting with the notify the delegated authority in writing V program. The EPA estimated that the first factor, which is to determine within 10 days of the identification of average annual cost of obtaining and whether title V permits would result in the exceedance. Reports of performance complying with a title V permit was significant improvements to the test results are required. New and $7,700 per year per source, including compliance requirements for the Acrylic existing sources are also required to fees, or $38,000 per source for a 5-year and Modacrylic Fibers Production area comply with the requirements for SSM permit period. See Information source category, we compared the plans, reports, and records in 40 CFR Collection Request (ICR) for Part 70 monitoring, recordkeeping, and 63.6(e)(3). When an SSM report must be Operating Permit Regulations, January reporting requirements of title V submitted, it must consist of a letter, 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. There permitting to those requirements in the containing the name, title, and signature are certain activities associated with the final NESHAP. As noted above (see of the owner or operator or other part 70 and 71 rules that are mandatory section III.A of this preamble), the final responsible official who is certifying its and impose burdens on the source. They NESHAP adopts the compliance accuracy. include reading and understanding requirements in the State-issued permit Records are required to demonstrate permit program guidance and for the one area source plant currently compliance with the NSPS inspection regulations; obtaining and in operation. and repair requirements for storage understanding permit application forms; Specifically, this final rule requires tanks in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. answering follow-up questions from CPMS to measure and record the water Records are also required for the permitting authorities after the flow rate to the control device (wet monthly compliance determination for application is submitted; reviewing and scrubber) every 15 minutes and to scrubber operating limits. The understanding the permit; collecting determine the daily average flow rate. information required in the final rule is records; preparing and submitting Periodic visual inspections of AN similar to the information that must be monitoring reports on a 6-month or storage tanks equipped with a fixed roof provided in the deviation reports and more frequent basis; preparing and in combination with an internal floating semiannual monitoring reports required submitting prompt deviation reports, as roof must be conducted according to the under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR defined by the State, which may include NSPS requirements in 40 CFR part 60, 71.6(a)(3). a combination of written, verbal, and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38873

other communications methods; think the costs for the one existing area these NESHAP without relying on title collecting information, preparing, and source are justified because we do not V permitting. submitting the annual compliance think title V permitting would lead to In applying the fourth factor in the certification; preparing applications for gains in compliance by the source. As Exemption Rule, where EPA had permit revisions every 5 years; and, as discussed above for factor one, we deferred action on the title V exemption needed, preparing and submitting determined that the compliance for several years, we had enforcement applications for permit revisions. In requirements of this NESHAP are data available to demonstrate that States addition, although not required by the substantially equivalent to the were not only enforcing the provisions permit rules, many sources obtain the requirements of title V. Furthermore, as of the area source NESHAP that we contractual services of professional discussed below for factor four, there exempted, but that the States were also scientists and engineers (consultants) to are adequate implementation and providing compliance assistance to help them understand and meet the enforcement programs in place that are ensure that the area sources were in the permitting program’s requirements. The sufficient to assure compliance with the best position to comply with the NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325–75326. We ICR for part 70 may help to understand NESHAP. We conclude, therefore, that do not have similar data for this rule the overall burdens and costs, as well as the costs of title V are not justified for because we are issuing this final the relative burdens, of each activity the one existing area source in this described here. Also, for a more NESHAP today. In the Exemption Rule, category, even though we concluded the comprehensive list of requirements EPA exempted the categories from the costs would not be burdensome on the imposed on part 70 sources (hence, requirements of title V after the existing area source in this category. burden on sources), see the NESHAP was issued. Although we do requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, Furthermore, for new sources, the not have the type of enforcement data and 70.7. requirements of title V may be a we had in the Exemption Rule, we have In considering the second factor for significant burden and, since we have no reason to think that States will be the one existing area source acrylic and determined consistent with the first less diligent in enforcing this NESHAP. modacrylic fibers plant, we examined factor that there would not be See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must the potential economic resources of the significant improvements in compliance have adequate programs to enforce parent company and whether the source under title V, we likewise conclude that section 112 regulations and provide would have any difficulty in obtaining the cost would not be justified. assurances that it will enforce all assistance from the permitting authority. The fourth factor we considered is NESHAP before EPA will delegate the Although this area source plant is small whether there are implementation and program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. (i.e., it is the smallest of the four known enforcement programs in place that are There are State programs in place to plants in the source category), the sufficient to assure compliance with this enforce this area source NESHAP and parent company is a multi-national NESHAP without relying on title V assure compliance with the NESHAP. In corporation and is not a small business. permits. In the proposal, we considered light of the above, we conclude that In addition, the plant has worked whether there are State programs in there are implementation and closely with the State permitting place to enforce these area source enforcement programs in place that are authority to obtain State operating NESHAP. We stated that we believe that sufficient to assure compliance with the permits and a designation as a synthetic the State programs are sufficient to final rule without relying on title V minor source, which means the plant assure compliance with these NESHAP. permitting. Considering the factors in must keep HAP emissions below the We also noted that EPA retains combination supports the finding in the major source threshold. The State authority to enforce these NESHAP proposal that title V is unnecessarily agency has assigned a staff person who anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 burdensome on this area source is specifically responsible for the and 114. We concluded that title V permitting of sources at the plant. This category. We found in the proposal and permitting is ‘‘unnecessary’’ to assure staff person is familiar with the again here that title V would not result compliance with these NESHAP production processes, emissions in significant improvements to the because the statutory requirements for sources, and permitting requirements compliance requirements applicable to implementation and enforcement of for the plant; therefore, the staff person this area source category and that there these NESHAP by the delegated States can provide permitting assistance as are adequate implementation and needed. Consequently, we have no and EPA are sufficient to assure enforcement programs in place to assure evidence that obtaining a title V permit compliance with these area source compliance with the NESHAP. would impose a significant burden on NESHAP without title V permits. We Although we concluded that the cost of this particular area source or that the also noted that small business assistance title V permitting would not be burden would be aggravated by any programs required by CAA section 507 burdensome on the one known existing difficulty in obtaining assistance from may be used to assist area sources that area source, we cannot conclude that permitting authorities. However, we do have been exempted from title V title V would not be a significant burden not know what circumstances would permitting. Also, States and EPA often on new sources in the category. We also exist for new sources in this category. conduct voluntary compliance found that the cost is not justified The third factor, which is closely assistance, outreach, and education because we could not identify any related to the second factor, is whether programs (compliance assistance potential gains in compliance within the the costs of title V permitting for these programs), which are not required by category if title V were required for this area sources would be justified, taking statute. We determined that these category. Thus, we conclude that title V into consideration any potential gains in additional programs will supplement permitting is ‘‘unnecessarily compliance likely to occur for such and enhance the success of compliance burdensome’’ for the Acrylic and sources. While we concluded that the with these area source NESHAP and Modacrylic Fibers Production area one existing area source could sustain concluded that in light of all of the source category. the cost of title V permit requirements above, that there are implementation In addition to evaluating whether without a significant economic impact and enforcement programs in place that compliance with title V requirements is on the company as a whole, we do not are sufficient to assure compliance with ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’, EPA also

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38874 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

considered, consistent with guidance requirements in the final NESHAP for require an annual compliance provided by the legislative history of flexible polyurethane foam production certification report for slabstock section 502(a), whether exempting these and fabrication area source categories facilities that continue to use methylene area source categories from title V (factor one in determining whether title chloride, as would be required under a requirements would adversely affect V permitting is ‘‘unnecessarily title V permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(c)(9)(iii) public health, welfare, or the burdensome’’), we compared the title V and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA believes environment. We stated at proposal that monitoring, recordkeeping, and that the annual certification reporting exemption of this area source category reporting requirements to those requirement is not necessary because from title V requirements would not requirements in the final NESHAP for the deviation reports are adequate to adversely affect public health, welfare, these source categories. ensure compliance for new and existing or the environment because the level of This final NESHAP does not contain sources. Furthermore, even absent the control would remain the same even if monitoring or periodic reporting requirement to submit annual a title V permit were required. We requirements for molded foam compliance certifications, sources must continue to believe that there would be production, rebond foam production, comply with all emission standards in no adverse effects for all of the reasons and foam fabrication facilities that must the NESHAP. In conclusion, we do not supporting the exemptions as discussed eliminate the use of methylene chloride, believe that title V would lead to above. or for slabstock foam production significant improvements in the Importantly, the title V permit facilities that elect to totally eliminate compliance requirements for these program does not impose new the use of methylene chloride. Since categories. substantive air quality control these facilities have discontinued the The second factor considered in requirements on sources, but instead use of methylene chloride entirely, determining whether title V is requires that certain procedural Urban HAP emissions would be reduced ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ is whether measures be followed, particularly with without the need for continuous or title V permitting would impose respect to determining compliance with periodic monitoring of equipment or significant burdens on the flexible applicable requirements. As stated in operations. polyurethane foam production and our consideration of factor one for this For slabstock foam production fabrication area sources and whether category, title V would not lead to facilities still using methylene chloride these burdens would be aggravated by significant improvements in the as an ABA, the final NESHAP requires difficulty they may have in obtaining compliance requirements applicable to the same periodic monitoring in the assistance from permitting agencies. existing or new area sources. We form of quantifying methylene chloride Subjecting any source to title V conclude, therefore, that exempting this usage that must be performed by major permitting imposes certain burdens and area source category from title V sources. Therefore, title V would not costs that do not exist outside of the title permitting requirements in the final rule add any monitoring to the final V program. The EPA estimated that the would not adversely affect public NESHAP. See the Interpretive Rule (71 true average annual cost of obtaining health, welfare, or the environment. FR 75422, December 15, 2006). and complying with a title V permit was Moreover, one of the primary We also considered the extent to $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit purposes of the title V permitting which title V could enhance compliance period, including fees. See Information program is to clarify, in a single for area sources through recordkeeping Collection Request for Part 70 Operating document, the various and sometimes or reporting requirements, including Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA complex regulations that apply to title V requirements for a 6-month Number 1587.05. sources in order to improve monitoring report, deviation reports, The EPA does not have specific understanding of these requirements and an annual compliance certification estimates for the burdens and costs of and to help sources to achieve in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. The final permitting flexible polyurethane foam compliance with the requirements. In NESHAP requires area source foam production and fabrication area sources; this case, placing all requirements for plants that have discontinued the use of however, there are certain source the one existing area source in a title V methylene chloride to certify activities associated with the part 70 permit would do little to clarify the compliance with the prohibition on and 71 rules. These activities are requirements applicable to that source methylene chloride in their Notification mandatory and impose burdens on the or assist it in compliance with those of Compliance Status reports. For source. They include reading and requirements because of the simplicity slabstock foam plants still using understanding permit program guidance of the source and the NESHAP, and the methylene chloride, the final NESHAP and regulations; obtaining and fact that this source is not subject to requires the same recordkeeping or understanding permit application forms; other NESHAP or to other requirements reporting that must be performed by answering follow-up questions from under the CAA. Given that the major sources. The information required permitting authorities after the emissions profile for new sources in the final reports and records is application is submitted; reviewing and should be similar to the existing source, similar to the information that must be understanding the permit; collecting we believe that new sources would be provided in the deviation reports and records; preparing and submitting subject to similar CAA requirements. required for title V permitting under 40 monitoring reports on a 6-month or For the foregoing reasons, we are CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). more frequent basis; preparing and exempting the Acrylic and Modacrylic The final NESHAP requires a report if submitting prompt deviation reports, as Fibers Production area source category a deviation occurs, but does not require defined by the State, which may include from title V permitting requirements. periodic compliance reports. The a combination of written, verbal, and addition of periodic reports for sources other communications methods; B. Flexible Polyurethane Foam and that are subject to monitoring collecting information, preparing, and Fabrication requirements would not result in submitting the annual compliance As discussed in the proposal, to significant improvements to the certification; preparing applications for determine whether title V permits compliance requirements in the final permit revisions every 5 years; and, as would result in significant NESHAP for these area source needed, preparing and submitting improvements to the compliance categories. The final NESHAP does not applications for permit revisions. In

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38875

addition, although not required by the would be a significant burden on the of the area source NESHAP that we permit rules, many sources obtain the facilities and that the burden was exempted, but that the States were also contractual services of professional associated with both the financial cost providing compliance assistance to scientists and engineers (consultants) to of compliance as well as the time and ensure that the area sources were in the help them understand and meet the effort that these small facilities would best position to comply with the permitting programs’ requirements. have to devote to compliance with title NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325–75326. In The ICR for part 70 further explains V. Furthermore, as discussed in our proposing this rule, we did not have the overall burdens and costs, as well as consideration of the fourth factor below, similar data available on the specific the relative burdens of each activity there are adequate implementation and enforcement as in the Exemption rule, described here. Also, for a more enforcement programs in place but we have no reason to think that comprehensive list of requirements sufficient to ensure compliance with the States will be less diligent in enforcing imposed on part 70 sources (hence, NESHAP. Because the costs, both this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, burden on sources), see the economic and non-economic, are States must have adequate programs to requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, burdensome on these sources, and title enforce the HAP regulations and and 70.7. V would not lead to significant provide assurances that it will enforce In the proposal, we stated that we improvements in compliance with the all NESHAP before EPA will delegate believed the cost of a title V program NESHAP, we conclude that requiring the program. See 40 CFR part 63, would be a significant burden for the title V permitting is not justified for the subpart E. area sources in all the categories that we Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production In light of all of the above, we proposed to exempt. For flexible and Flexible Polyurethane Foam conclude that there are implementation polyurethane foam production and Fabrication area source categories. and enforcement programs in place that fabrication, that conclusion was based The fourth factor we considered is are sufficient to assure compliance with on the types of smaller establishments whether there are implementation and the flexible polyurethane foam that make up these categories. We enforcement programs in place that are production and fabrication NESHAP estimate that over 90 percent of the sufficient to assure compliance with this without relying on title V permitting. firms in the NAICS code for these NESHAP without relying on title V Balancing the four factors for these categories are small businesses, with permits. In the proposal, we considered area source categories strongly supports over half the firms having less than 20 whether there are State programs in the proposed finding that title V is employees. We believe that these small place to enforce these area source unnecessarily burdensome. We sources will likely lack the technical NESHAP. We stated that we believe that determined in the proposal and above resources needed to comprehend and the State programs are sufficient to that title V would not significantly comply with the permitting assure compliance with these NESHAP. improve the compliance requirements of requirements and the financial We also noted that EPA retains the NESHAP and that the requirements resources needed to hire the necessary authority to enforce these NESHAP of title V would be a significant burden staff or outside consultants. anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 on the facilities. We also determined Accordingly, we conclude that title V and 114. We concluded that title V that the costs of compliance with title V would be a significant burden for these permitting is ‘‘unnecessary’’ to assure would not be justified because it would categories because almost all the sources compliance with these NESHAP not likely lead to gains in compliance are small businesses with limited because the statutory requirements for with the NESHAP and that there are resources, and that it would be difficult implementation and enforcement of sufficient implementation and for them to meet the numerous these NESHAP by the delegated States enforcement programs in place to assure requirements applicable to sources and EPA are sufficient to assure compliance without reliance on title V. under part 70 or 71, whether they have compliance with these area source All four factors weigh in favor of a standard or general permit. Also, we NESHAP without title V permits. We exemption, and we conclude that title V are not sure what level of title V related also noted that small business assistance permitting is ‘‘unnecessarily assistance permitting authorities would programs required by CAA section 507 burdensome’’ for the Flexible be able to provide such small sources. may be used to assist area sources that Polyurethane Foam Production and Thus, for the final rule, we believe have been exempted from title V Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication factor two supports title V exemption permitting. Also, States and EPA often area source categories. for flexible polyurethane foam conduct voluntary compliance In addition to evaluating whether production and fabrication sources assistance, outreach, and education compliance with title V requirements is because title V compliance would programs (compliance assistance ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’, EPA also impose a significant economic and non- programs), which are not required by considered, consistent with guidance economic burden on sources in these statute. We determined that these provided by the legislative history of categories. additional programs will supplement section 502(a), whether exempting the The third factor is whether the costs and enhance the success of compliance Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production of title V permitting for these area with these area source NESHAP and and Flexible Polyurethane Foam sources would be justified, taking into concluded that in light of all of the Fabrication area source categories from consideration any potential gains in above, that there are implementation title V requirements would adversely compliance likely to occur for such and enforcement programs in place that affect public health, welfare, or the sources. We concluded after are sufficient to assure compliance with environment. Exemption of the Flexible consideration of the first factor that title this NESHAP without relying on title V Polyurethane Foam Production and V would not result in significant permitting. Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication improvements to the compliance In applying the fourth factor in the area source categories from title V requirements in the final rule for Exemption Rule, where EPA had requirements would not adversely affect flexible polyurethane foam production deferred action on the title V exemption public health, welfare, or the and fabrication source categories. We for several years, we had enforcement environment because the level of also concluded in our consideration of data available to demonstrate that States control would remain the same if a title the second factor that title V permitting were not only enforcing the provisions V permit were required.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38876 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

The title V permit program does not Specifically, the final rule requires that CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA believes that the impose new substantive air quality a facility using a scrubbing system title V annual certification reporting control requirements on sources, but install, calibrate, maintain, and operate requirement is not necessary because instead requires that certain procedural a monitoring device that measures and the semiannual reports are adequate to measures be followed, particularly with records the pressure drop across the ensure compliance for new and existing respect to determining compliance with scrubbing system at least once every 15 sources. Furthermore, even absent the applicable requirements. As stated in minutes. Opacity requirements are zero requirement to submit annual our consideration of factor one for this percent for five of the six emission compliance certifications, sources must category, title V would not lead to sources and five percent for the sixth. In comply with all emission standards in significant improvements in the addition to these requirements, we are the NESHAP. Therefore, the monitoring, compliance requirements applicable to adding in the final rule monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting existing or new area sources. Therefore, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the final NESHAP for we conclude that exempting the flexible requirements for emissions units the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing polyurethane foam production and controlled by fabric filters. These area source category are substantially fabrication area sources from title V requirements direct facilities to perform equivalent to requirements under title permitting requirements in these rules and keep records of semiannual fabric V. We conclude that title V would not will not adversely affect public health, filter inspections and to either: (1) result in significant improvements to welfare, or the environment. Measure and record the pressure drop the compliance requirements for this Moreover, one of the primary across the fabric filter once per day or area source category. purposes of the title V permitting (2) conduct daily visible emission The second factor considered in program is to clarify, in a single observations. If visible emissions are determining whether title V permitting document, the various and sometimes detected, the final rule requires that an is ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ is complex regulations that apply to opacity measurement be made. The whether title V permitting would sources in order to improve alternative of weekly monitoring is also impose a significant burden for the Lead understanding of these requirements available for emissions units that utilize Acid Battery Manufacturing area source and to help sources to achieve HEPA filters in combination with fabric category and whether that burden compliance with the requirements. In filters. would be aggravated by any difficulty this case, however, we do not believe Each facility must demonstrate these sources may have in obtaining that a title V permit is necessary to compliance by either conducting a assistance from permitting agencies. understand the requirements applicable performance test or submitting the Subjecting any source to title V to these area sources, as the results of a recent performance test permitting imposes certain burdens and requirements are not complicated to conducted using the methods and costs that do not exist outside of the title understand or implement. Furthermore, procedures in the final NESHAP. V program. EPA previously estimated the sources in this category are not Because both the continuous and that the true average annual cost of subject to any other NESHAP or CAA noncontinuous monitoring methods obtaining and complying with a title V requirements to combine into one title required by the final NESHAP constitute permit was $38,500 per source for a 5- V permit. For these reasons, we do not periodic monitoring, title V would not year permit period, including fees. See find that title V permitting is necessary result in significant improvements to Information Collection Request for Part to improve understanding of and monitoring in the final NESHAP. See 70 Operating Permit Regulations, achieve compliance with these the Interpretive Rule (71 FR 75422, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. standards. December 15, 2006). EPA does not have specific estimates For the foregoing reasons, we are We also considered the extent to for the burdens and costs of permitting exempting the Flexible Polyurethane which title V could enhance compliance lead acid battery manufacturing area Foam Production and Flexible through recordkeeping or reporting sources; however, there are certain Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area requirements, including title V source activities associated with the part source categories from title V permitting requirements for a 6-month monitoring 70 and 71 rules. These activities are requirements. report, deviation reports, and an annual mandatory and impose burdens on the compliance certification in 40 CFR 70.6 source. They include reading and C. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing and 71.6. Records are required to understanding permit program guidance In the proposal, we discussed whether demonstrate compliance. Plants are and regulations; obtaining and title V permitting was ‘‘unnecessarily required to comply with the testing, understanding permit application forms; burdensome’’ for the Lead Acid Battery monitoring, recordkeeping, and answering follow-up questions from Manufacturing area source category. reporting requirements in the part 63 permitting authorities after the Factor one in determining whether title General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, application is submitted; reviewing and V permitting is ‘‘unnecessarily subpart A). The information required in understanding the permit; collecting burdensome’’ is to determine whether the NESHAP is similar to the records; preparing and submitting title V permits would result in information that must be provided in monitoring reports on a 6-month or significant improvements to the the deviation reports and semiannual more frequent basis; preparing and compliance requirements in the final monitoring reports required under 40 submitting prompt deviation reports, as NESHAP. In this NESHAP, we proposed CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). defined by the State, which may include adopting the compliance requirements The NESHAP for lead acid battery a combination of written, verbal, and in the NSPS for lead acid battery manufacturing requires the owner or other communications methods; manufacturing as the compliance operator to submit an initial collecting information, preparing, and requirements for this area source certification of compliance that must be submitting the annual compliance category. The final rule includes the signed by a responsible official. The certification; preparing applications for same provisions and requires NESHAP does not require an annual permit revisions every 5 years; and, as monitoring, recordkeeping and compliance certification report, as needed, preparing and submitting deviation reporting to ensure would be required under a title V applications for permit revisions. In compliance with the NESHAP. permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(c 9)(iii) and 40 addition, although not required by the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38877

permit rules, many sources obtain the economic burdens of title V on the small programs (compliance assistance contractual services of professional facilities with limited resources. programs), which are not required by scientists and engineers (consultants) to The third factor is whether the costs statute. We determined that these help them understand and meet the of title V permitting for these area additional programs will supplement permitting programs’ requirements. sources would be justified, taking into and enhance the success of compliance The ICR for part 70 may help to consideration any potential gains in with these area source NESHAP and understand the overall burdens and compliance likely to occur for such concluded that in light of all of the costs, as well as the relative burdens of sources. We evaluated the monitoring, above, that there are implementation each activity described here. Also, for a recordkeeping, reporting requirements and enforcement programs in place that more comprehensive list of of the proposed NESHAP when are sufficient to assure compliance with requirements imposed on part 70 considering the first factor and these NESHAP without relying on title sources (hence, burden on sources), see concluded above that title V would not V permitting. the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, lead to significant improvements to the In applying the fourth factor in the 70.6, and 70.7. compliance requirements for this Exemption Rule, where EPA had In considering the second factor for category. In considering the second deferred action on the title V exemption lead acid battery manufacturing, we factor, we concluded that some of the for several years, we had enforcement examined the potential economic existing area sources could comply with data available to demonstrate that States resources of the plants and their parent the title V permit requirements without were not only enforcing the provisions companies and whether they would a significant economic impact on the of the area source NESHAP that we have any difficulty in obtaining company as a whole. But, we also exempted, but that the States were also assistance from the permitting authority. concluded that the costs would be a providing compliance assistance to There are a few multi-national significant burden for small facilities, ensure that the area sources were in the corporations that own several lead acid particularly those not currently covered best position to comply with the battery manufacturing plants that would by the NSPS because they would have NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325–75326. In be subject to this NESHAP, and those to comply with the NESHAP and title V proposing this rule, we did not have facilities would have resources adequate simultaneously. In addition, under the similar data available on the specific to absorb the economic and non- fourth factor below, we find that there enforcement as in the Exemption Rule, economic burdens associated with are adequate implementation and but we have no reason to think that complying with the title V permitting enforcement programs in place to States will be less diligent in enforcing requirements. However, there are many enforce the provisions of the NESHAP. this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, plants that are small businesses for We believe that the costs of compliance States must have adequate programs to which the title V permitting with title V are, therefore, not justified enforce the section 112 regulations and requirements would be a significant for this area source category given the provide assurances that it will enforce burden, both economic and non- little potential for gain in compliance all NESHAP before EPA will delegate economic. In addition to the small benefits. the program. See 40 CFR part 63, businesses currently subject to the The fourth factor we considered is subpart E. NSPS, there are some small plants 4 that whether there are implementation and In light of all of the above, we are not subject to the NSPS that will be enforcement programs in place that are conclude that there are implementation subject to the NESHAP. These small sufficient to assure compliance with this and enforcement programs in place that businesses will be burdened complying NESHAP without relying on title V are sufficient to assure compliance with with the NESHAP, even if title V permits. In the proposal, we considered these NESHAP without relying on title compliance is not required. whether there are State programs in V permitting. Through discussions with the place to enforce these area source Balancing the four factors for this area industry trade organization, we have NESHAP. While we did not state this in source category supports the proposed learned that very few lead acid battery the proposal, we know that States have finding that title V is unnecessarily manufacturing facilities currently are been enforcing the NSPS on which the burdensome. In considering the first subject to a title V permit for either lead NESHAP is based for this source factor, we concluded that title V would or other criteria pollutants. Some plants category for some time and that the not lead to significant improvements in have synthetic minor permits to remain State programs are sufficient to assure the compliance requirements. We below the threshold for title V compliance with these NESHAP. concluded after consideration of the permitting for criteria pollutants. As We noted at proposal that EPA retains second factor that title V would impose such, if title V permits were required the authority to enforce these NESHAP a significant burden on the small sources would have difficulty obtaining anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 facilities, particularly those not subject assistance from the permitting and 114. We concluded that title V to the NSPS, but that the burden would authorities as they developed and permitting is ‘‘unnecessary’’ to assure not be significant for sources owned by applied for title V permits. This compliance with these NESHAP larger companies. We concluded that difficulty stems from the fact that there because the statutory requirements for the costs would not be justified given are about 60 plants in this area source implementation and enforcement of the little potential gain in the category, and permitting authorities’’ these NESHAP by the delegated States compliance likely to occur. We also resources are limited. Thus, the and EPA are sufficient to assure determined that there are adequate difficulty sources would have obtaining compliance with these area source implementation and enforcement appropriate guidance from permitting NESHAP without title V permits. We programs in place to enforce the authorities would only increase the also noted that small business assistance NESHAP and, furthermore, States have already significant economic and non- programs required by CAA section 507 in fact been enforcing the provisions of may be used to assist area sources that the NSPS. All four factors individually 4 The new source performance standard (NSPD) have been exempted from title V support exemption, and collectively applied only to plants that produced or had the permitting. Also, States and EPA often they support the finding in the proposal. design capacity to produce in one day batteries containing an amount of lead equal to or greater conduct voluntary compliance Therefore, we conclude that title V than 5.9 megagrams (6.5 tons). assistance, outreach, and education permitting is ‘‘unnecessarily

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38878 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

burdensome’’ for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category compliance requirements on this Manufacturing area source category. from title V permitting requirements. category, but, as stated in the proposal, In addition to evaluating whether we conclude that the monitoring, D. Wood Preserving compliance with title V requirements is recordkeeping and reporting ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’, EPA also As discussed in the proposal, we requirements of the NESHAP for wood considered, consistent with guidance compared the title V monitoring, preserving are sufficient to ensure provided by the legislative history of recordkeeping, and reporting compliance with the provisions of the section 502(a), whether exempting the requirements (factor one) to the NESHAP, and title V would not Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area requirements in the NESHAP for the significantly improve those compliance source category from title V Wood Preserving area source category. requirements. EPA determined that the management requirements would adversely affect Under the second factor, we practices currently used at most public health, welfare, or the determine whether title V permitting facilities is GACT and the rule requires environment. Exemption of the Lead would impose a significant burden on recordkeeping that serves as monitoring Acid Battery Manufacturing area source the area sources in the category and and deviation reporting to ensure category from title V requirements whether that burden would be compliance with the NESHAP. The would not adversely affect public aggravated by any difficulty the source monitoring component of the first factor health, welfare, or the environment may have in obtaining assistance from favors title V exemption because title V because the level of control would the permitting agency. Subjecting any is unnecessary to provide adequate remain the same if a permit were source to title V permitting imposes required. The title V permit program monitoring for wood preserving area certain burdens and costs that do not does not impose new substantive air sources. Because the NESHAP requires exist outside of the title V program. The quality control requirements on sources, management practices for certain EPA estimated that the average cost of but instead requires that certain treatment processes and requires obtaining and complying with a title V procedural measures be followed, recordkeeping designed to serve as permit was $38,500 per source for a 5- particularly with respect to determining monitoring, additional monitoring year permit period, including fees. See compliance with applicable requirements that might be added under Information Collection Request for Part requirements. As stated in our title V would be unnecessary to assure 70 Operating Permit Regulations, consideration of factor one for this compliance. Monitoring other than January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. category, title V would not lead to recordkeeping is not practical or significant improvements in the appropriate in this case because the The EPA does not have specific compliance requirements applicable to requirements are management practices. estimates for the burdens and costs of existing or new area sources. There is no Records are required to ensure that the permitting wood preserving area evidence in the record that leads us to management practices are followed, sources; however, there are certain question these conclusions. Therefore, including records of the type of source activities associated with the part we conclude that exempting the lead preservative treatment process used, the 70 and 71 rules. These activities are acid battery manufacturing area sources types and quantities of preservatives mandatory and impose burdens on the from title V permitting requirements in used, and charge records of retort source. They include reading and this rule will not adversely affect public pressure. understanding permit program guidance health, welfare, or the environment. As part of the first factor, we have and regulations; obtaining and Furthermore, one of the primary considered the extent to which title V understanding permit application forms; purposes of the title V permitting could potentially enhance compliance answering follow-up questions from program is to clarify, in a single for area sources covered by this final permitting authorities after the document, the various and sometimes rule through recordkeeping or reporting application is submitted; reviewing and complex regulations that apply to requirements. For any affected wood understanding the permit; collecting sources in order to improve preserving area source facility, the records; preparing and submitting understanding of these requirements NESHAP requires an initial notification, monitoring reports on a 6-month or and to help sources to achieve a compliance status report, and more frequent basis; preparing and compliance with the requirements. In deviations must be reported within 30 submitting prompt deviation reports, as this case, however, we do not believe days. We considered the various title V defined by the State, which may include that a title V permit is necessary to recordkeeping and reporting a combination of written, verbal, and understand the requirements applicable requirements, including requirements other communications methods; to the lead acid battery manufacturing for a 6-month monitoring report, collecting information, preparing, and area sources. These plants are deviation reports, and an annual submitting the annual compliance straightforward in design and are not certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. certification; preparing applications for covered by regulations with The wood preserving NESHAP also permit revisions every 5 years; and, as requirements that are very complicated requires affected facilities to certify needed, preparing and submitting to understand or implement. The compliance with the management applications for permit revisions. In permits we have examined for the Lead practices required by the rule. In addition, although not required by the Acid Battery Manufacturing area source addition, wood preserving facilities permit rules, many sources obtain the category currently consist of a single must maintain records showing contractual services of professional document that applies to all sources and compliance with the required scientists and engineers (consultants) to to lead and the other criteria pollutants management practices and report help them understand and meet the emitted. For these reasons, we do not deviations. The information required in permitting program’s requirements. The find that title V permitting is necessary the deviation reports and records is ICR for part 70 provides additional to improve understanding of and similar to the information that must be information on the overall burdens and achieve compliance with these provided in the deviation reports costs, as well as the relative burdens of standards. required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 each activity described here. Also, for a For the foregoing reasons, we are CFR 71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that more comprehensive list of exempting the Lead Acid Battery title V might impose additional requirements imposed on part 70

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38879

sources (hence, burden on sources), see programs in place that are sufficient to Balancing the four factors for this area the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, assure compliance with the NESHAP source category strongly supports the 70.6, and 70.7. without relying on title V permits. In the proposed finding that title V is In assessing the second factor for proposal, we considered whether there unnecessarily burdensome. While title wood preserving facilities, we found are State programs in place to enforce V might add additional compliance that over 90 percent of the 393 plants these area source NESHAP. We stated requirements if imposed, we concluded are small businesses, most with only a that we believe that the State programs that there would not be significant few employees. These small sources are sufficient to assure compliance with improvements to the compliance lack the technical resources needed to these NESHAP. We also noted that EPA requirements in the NESHAP because comprehend and comply with retains authority to enforce these the requirements in this final rule are permitting requirements and the NESHAP anytime under CAA sections specifically designed to assure financial resources needed to hire the 112, 113, and 114. We concluded that compliance with the standards and necessary staff or outside consultants. title V permitting is ‘‘unnecessary’’ to management practices imposed on this As discussed above, title V permitting assure compliance with these NESHAP area source category. We also concluded would impose significant economic and because the statutory requirements for that the economic and non-economic non-economic costs on these area implementation and enforcement of costs of compliance with title V, in sources, and, accordingly, we conclude these NESHAP by the delegated States conjunction with the likely difficulty that title V is a significant burden for and EPA are sufficient to assure this large number of small sources sources in this category. Most are small compliance with these area source would have obtaining assistance from businesses with limited resources, and NESHAP without title V permits. We the permitting authority, would impose under title V they would be subject to also noted that small business assistance a significant burden on the sources. We numerous mandatory activities with programs required by CAA section 507 determined that the high relative costs which they would have difficulty may be used to assist area sources that would not be justified given that there complying, whether they were issued a have been exempted from title V is likely to be little or no potential gain standard or a general permit. permitting. Also, States and EPA often in compliance if title V were required. Furthermore, given the large number of conduct voluntary compliance And, finally, there are adequate sources in the category and the assistance, outreach, and education implementation and enforcement relatively small size, it would likely be programs (compliance assistance programs in place to assure compliance difficult for them to obtain assistance programs), which are not required by with the NESHAP. Thus, we conclude from the permitting authority. Thus, we statute. We determined that these that title V permitting is ‘‘unnecessarily find that factor two strongly supports additional programs will supplement burdensome’’ for the Wood Preserving title V exemption for wood preserving and enhance the success of compliance area source category. facilities. with these area source NESHAP and In addition to evaluating whether The third factor, which is closely concluded that in light of all of the compliance with title V requirements is related to the second factor, is whether above, there are implementation and ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’, EPA also the costs of title V permitting for these enforcement programs in place that are considered at proposal, consistent with area sources would be justified, taking sufficient to assure compliance with guidance provided by the legislative into consideration any potential gains in these NESHAP without relying on title history of section 502(a), whether compliance likely to occur for such V permitting. exempting the Wood Preserving area sources. We explained above under the In applying the fourth factor in the source category from title V second factor that the economic and Exemption Rule, where EPA had requirements would adversely affect non-economic costs of compliance with deferred action on the title V exemption public health, welfare, or the title V would impose a significant for several years, we had enforcement environment. Exemption of the Wood burden on most of the 393 wood data available to demonstrate that States Preserving area source category from preserving facilities. We also concluded were not only enforcing the provisions title V requirements would not in considering the first factor that, while of the area source NESHAP that we adversely affect public health, welfare, title V might impose additional exempted, but that the States were also or the environment because the level of requirements, the monitoring, providing compliance assistance to control would remain the same if a recordkeeping and reporting ensure that the area sources were in the permit were required. The title V permit requirements in the NESHAP assure best position to comply with the program does not impose new compliance with the management NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325–75326. In substantive air quality control practices imposed in the NESHAP. In proposing this rule, we did not have requirements on sources, but instead addition, below in our consideration of similar data available on the specific requires that certain procedural the fourth factor we find that there are enforcement as in the Exemption rule, measures be followed, particularly with adequate implementation and but we have no reason to think that respect to determining compliance with enforcement programs in place to assure States will be less diligent in enforcing applicable requirements. As stated in compliance with the NESHAP. Because this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, our consideration of factor one for this the costs, both economic and non- States must have adequate programs to category, title V would not lead to economic, of compliance with title V are enforce the section 112 regulations and significant improvements in the so high, and the potential for gains in provide assurances that it will enforce compliance requirements applicable to compliance is low, title V permitting is all NESHAP before EPA will delegate existing or new area sources. not justified for this source category. the program. See 40 CFR part 63, Furthermore, one of the primary Accordingly, the third factor supports subpart E. purposes of the title V permitting title V exemptions for wood preserving In light of all of the above, we program is to clarify, in a single area sources. conclude that there are implementation document, the various and sometimes The fourth factor we considered in and enforcement programs in place that complex regulations that apply to determining if title V is unnecessarily are sufficient to assure compliance with sources in order to improve burdensome is whether there are the Wood Preserving NESHAP without understanding of these requirements implementation and enforcement relying on title V permitting. and to help sources to achieve

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38880 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

compliance with the requirements. In Response: As the commenter itself precedent for issuing standards under this case, however, placing all recognizes, in section 112(d)(5), section 112(d)(5) other than that the area requirements for the sources in a title V Congress gave EPA explicit authority to source category or subcategory at issue permit would do little to clarify the issue alternative emission standards for must be one that EPA listed pursuant to requirements applicable to the sources area sources. Specifically, section section 112(c), which is the case here.6 or assist them in compliance with those 112(d)(5), which is entitled ‘‘Alternative The commenter argues that EPA must requirements because of the simplicity standard for area sources,’’ provides: provide a rationale for issuing GACT of the sources and the NESHAP, and the With respect only to categories and standards under section 112(d)(5), fact that these sources are not subject to subcategories of area sources listed pursuant instead of MACT standards. The other NESHAP or to other requirements to subsection (c) of this section, the commenter is incorrect, however. Had under the CAA. We have no reason to Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities Congress intended that EPA first think that new sources would be provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (f) conduct a MACT analysis for each area substantially different from the existing of this section, elect to promulgate standards source category and only if cost or some or requirements applicable to sources in such sources. In addition, we explained in categories or subcategories which provide for other reason made applying the MACT the Exemption Rule that requiring the use of generally available control standard inappropriate for the category permits for the large number of area technologies or management practices by would EPA be able to issue a standard sources could, at least in the first few such sources to reduce emissions of under section 112(d)(5), Congress would years of implementation, potentially hazardous air pollutants. (Emphasis added). have stated so expressly in section adversely affect public health, welfare, There are two critical aspects to 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA or the environment by shifting State section 112(d)(5). First, section 112(d)(5) to conduct any MACT analysis, floor agency resources away from assuring applies only to those categories and analysis or beyond-the-floor analysis, compliance for major sources with subcategories of area sources listed before the Agency could issue a section existing permits to issuing new permits pursuant to section 112(c). The 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress for these area sources, potentially commenter does not dispute that EPA authorized EPA to issue GACT reducing overall air program listed the six area source categories standards for area source categories effectiveness. For the final rule, we noted above pursuant to section listed under section 112(c)(3), and that conclude that title V exemptions for the 112(c)(3). Second, section 112(d)(5) is precisely what EPA has done in this wood preserving area sources will not provides that for area sources listed rulemaking. adversely affect public health, welfare, pursuant to section 112(c), EPA ‘‘may, Although EPA has no obligation to or the environment for all of the reasons in lieu of’’ the authorities provided in justify why it is issuing a GACT explained above. section 112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to standard for an area source category as For the foregoing reasons, we are promulgate standards pursuant to opposed to a MACT standard, EPA must exempting the Wood Preserving area section 112(d)(5). Section 112(d)(2) set a GACT standard that is consistent source category from title V permitting provides that emission standards with the requirements of section requirements. established under that provision 112(d)(5) and have a reasoned basis for ‘‘require the maximum degree of its GACT determination. As explained V. Summary of Comments and in the proposed rule and below, in Responses reduction in emissions’’ of HAP (also known as MACT). Section 112(d)(3), in determining what constitutes GACT for We received a total of 18 comments turn, defines what constitutes the a particular area source category, EPA on the proposed NESHAP from seven ‘‘maximum degree of reduction in evaluates the control technologies and industry trade associations, emissions’’ for new and existing management practices that reduce HAP representatives of eight affected sources. See section 112(d)(3). 5 emissions that are generally available facilities, one environmental group, and Webster’s dictionary defines the phrase for the area source category. See 72 FR two State agencies during the public ‘‘in lieu of’’ to mean ‘‘in the place of’’ 116638. The legislative history comment period. Sections V.A through or ‘‘instead of.’’ See Webster’s II New supporting section 112(d)(5) provides V.J of this preamble provide responses Riverside University (1994). Thus, that EPA may consider costs in to the significant public comments section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to determining what constitutes generally received on the proposed NESHAP. promulgate standards under section available control technologies or management practices for the area A. Basis for Area Source Standards 112(d)(5) that provide for the use of generally available control technologies source category (GACT).7 EPA cannot Comment: One commenter stated that or management practices (GACT), consider cost in setting MACT floors, EPA’s decision to issue GACT standards instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(5), instead of pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). 6 Section 112(d)(5) also references section 112(f). See CAA section 112(f)(5) (entitled ‘‘Area Sources’’ MACT standards pursuant to section The statute does not set any condition and providing that EPA is not required to conduct 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), for six of the seven a review or promulgate standards under section area source categories at issue in the 5 Specifically, section 112(d)(3) sets the minimum 112(f) for any area source category or subcategory proposed rule is arbitrary and degree of emission reduction that MACT standards listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and for which must achieve, which is known as the MACT floor. an emission standard is issued pursuant to section capricious because EPA provided no For new sources, the degree of emission reduction 112(d)(5)). rationale for its decision to issue GACT shall not be less stringent than the emission control 7 Additional information on the definition of standards. The commenter makes this that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled ‘‘generally available control technology or argument for the following six source similar source, and for existing sources, the degree management practices’’ (GACT) is found in the of emission reduction shall not be less stringent Senate report on the 1990 amendments to the Clean categories: Acrylic and modacrylic than the average emission limitation achieved by Air Act (S. Rep. No. 101–228, 101st Cong. 1st fibers production, carbon black the best-performing 12 percent of the existing session. 171–172). That report states that GACT is production, chemical manufacturing: sources for which the Administrator has emissions to encompass: . . . methods, practices and Chromium compounds, flexible information. Section 112(d)(2) directs EPA to techniques which are commercially available and consider whether more stringent—so called beyond- appropriate for application by the sources in the polyurethane foam production/flexible the-floor limits—are technologically achievable category considering economic impacts and the polyurethane foam fabrication, and lead considering, among other things, the cost of technical capabilities of the firms to operate and acid battery manufacturing. achieving the emission reduction. maintain the emissions control systems.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38881

pursuant to section 112(d)(3). Congress reduce their emissions of HAP at least Determining what constitutes GACT plainly recognized that area sources to the levels EPA has identified as involves considering the control technologies differ from major sources, which is why GACT. and management practices that are generally Congress permitted EPA to consider available to the area sources in the source Response: In the preamble to the category. We also consider the standards costs in setting GACT standards for area proposed rule for the Acrylic and applicable to major sources in the same sources under section 112(d)(5), but did Modacrylic Fibers Production area industrial sector to determine if the control not permit that consideration in setting source category, we solicited comments technologies and management practices are MACT floors for major sources. This as follows: transferable and generally available to area important dichotomy between section sources. In appropriate circumstances, we We are alternatively proposing that GACT 112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) provides may also consider technologies and practices for this existing area source is no further at area and major sources in similar further evidence that Congress sought to emission reduction. We request comment on do precisely what the title of section categories to determine whether such the basis, consistent with section 112(d)(5), technologies and practices could be 112(d)(5) states—provide EPA the for asserting that GACT is no further control considered generally available for the area authority to issue ‘‘[a]lternative for the existing source. We request comment source category at issue. Finally, as noted standards for area sources.’’ EPA on this issue because the standard proposed above, in determining GACT for a particular properly issued standards for the area above will not result in any emission area source category, we consider the costs source categories at issue here under reductions beyond what is already required and economic impacts of available control section 112(d)(5), and as demonstrated by the State permit to which the existing technologies and management practices on below, EPA has a reasoned basis for facility is already subject. that category. each of its GACT determinations. We included the same request for Prior to proposal, we reviewed the Finally, even accepting, for arguments comments in the preamble for the generally available control technologies sake, the commenter’s assertion that Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium and management practices that have EPA must provide a rationale basis for Compounds area source category and been applied to wastewater at the one setting a GACT standard as opposed to the Carbon Black Production area source existing acrylic and modacrylic fibers a MACT standard, we did so in the category. We are not finalizing this area source plant. This plant has a proposed rule. In the proposal, we approach in the final rule. Rather, we wastewater stream with a low explained that we can and do consider are finalizing the proposed emissions concentration of AN, and the costs and economic impacts in standards with minor changes. wastewater is processed in a wastewater determining GACT. We also explained treatment system to remove organic that the facilities in the source B. Proposed NESHAP for Acrylic and compounds and degrade the AN. We categories at issue here are already well Modacrylic Fibers Production Area also considered the control technologies controlled for the Urban HAP for which Sources and management practices employed at the source category was listed pursuant Comment: One commenter stated that major sources in this category for to section 112(c)(3). See 72 FR 16638. EPA’s decision to reject steam stripping treating wastewater streams and We believe the consideration of costs of wastewater streams as GACT for the determined that the major sources were and economic impacts is especially one existing area source plant on cost treating similar low-HAP concentration important for the well-controlled area effectiveness grounds is unlawful and wastewater streams in the same manner sources at issue in this final action arbitrary. The commenter asserted that as the area sources in this category. We because, given current well-controlled in the proposed rule, EPA did not also evaluated the feasibility of steam levels, a MACT floor determination, dispute that steam stripping was stripping to remove the AN even though where costs cannot be considered, could commercially available and appropriate it was not employed in the category for result in only marginal reductions in and did not claim that the economic low-HAP concentration wastewater emissions at very high costs for modest impact was too great. The commenter streams. We stated at proposal that incremental improvement in control for further asserted that EPA presented only steam stripping the wastewater stream the area source category. its own subjective views on cost would require a capital expenditure of Comment: One commenter stated that $700,000 with a recurring total EPA’s alternative proposal (72 FR effectiveness, which are not relevant 8 annualized cost of $630,000 per year. 16647) that GACT is no further under section 112(d)(5). According to We stated that, assuming a 90 percent emissions reduction for existing area the commenter, EPA’s decision to reject removal rate, the emissions reduction sources in three source categories steam stripping is arbitrary because the from steam stripping for the existing (chromium compounds manufacturing, Agency did not consider the relevant area source facility would be 7 tpy. The carbon black production, and acrylic factors (availability, appropriateness, cost effectiveness would be $90,000 per and modacrylic fibers production) is and cost) in determining what ton of AN.9 We determined that steam unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter constitutes GACT. The commenter stripping of the wastewater stream at the stated that the Agency provided no basis further stated that EPA failed to explain only known existing area source was not whatsoever for concluding that GACT is why it based its rejection of steam appropriate for application for the no further emission reduction. In stripping on its claims about cost particular, the commenter claimed that effectiveness or to explain why it did source because it was not cost effective. EPA provided no basis for concluding not consider the reductions cost See e.g., Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 349 U.S. that: (1) Chromium compounds effective. App. DC 118, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (DC Cir. manufacturers cannot reduce their Response: As stated in the preamble 2001) (Finding EPA’s decision to emissions of such pollutants through to the proposed rule (72 FR 16638, April consider costs on a per ton of emissions the use of generally available control 4, 2007): removed basis reasonable because CAA measures, (2) carbon black section 213 did not mandate a specific manufacturers cannot reduce all their 8 The commenter cites legislative history, noting method of cost analysis). Consequently, emissions of HAP at least to the 98 that GACT must reflect the ‘‘methods, practices and techniques that are commercially available and 9 We recognize that in other contexts the weight percent reduction or 20 ppmv appropriate for application by the sources in the effectiveness of steam stripping is 96 percent, standards, and (3) acrylic and category considering economic impacts’’ (72 FR which results in a cost effectiveness of $85,000 per modacrylic fibers manufacturers cannot 16638, quoting S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 171–172). ton of AN.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38882 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

we concluded that GACT was the existing sources are expressed in Response: The identification of the plant’s current management practice of different formats, both standards require Degussa plant in Belpre, OH as an area processing the water in a wastewater the same level of emission control, and source was due in part to the treatment system. both ensure that the technology information in the NEI and TRI as In response to comments, we identified as GACT is in place. Thus, suggested by the commenters. We also evaluated plants in similar industrial the compliance alternative we are reviewed the plant’s title V permit, categories (e.g., the synthetic organic adopting in the final rule provides an which expires in December 2007. The chemical manufacturing industry equivalent level of control and permit indicated that the plant was a subject to subpart G in 40 CFR part 63) additional flexibility for existing sources major source of criteria pollutants and and found that the general management to demonstrate compliance with the not a major source of HAP emissions. practice for low-HAP concentration NESHAP. The permit also did not indicate that the wastewater streams is to process the We also agree with the commenter’s plant was subject to the MACT standard water in a wastewater treatment system suggestion about establishing operating in subpart YY (40 CFR part 63). While similar to that employed by the existing limits for the scrubbers during a we were aware of the plant’s recent acrylic and modacrylic area source. We performance test and have revised the permit renewal application that conclude here that the current practice rule accordingly. The scrubber water incorporated the provisions of subpart employed at the existing facility is flow must be monitored during the YY, it was still unclear whether the GACT and, consistent with our finding performance test, and the test must plant was a major source of HAP. at proposal, stream stripping is not demonstrate compliance with the However, since one of the commenters GACT for this area source category. emission limit. The operating limit for is the plant itself, we accept that we Comment: One commenter stated that scrubber water flow is determined from made an error in considering this the proposed rule for existing sources the lowest average flow rate during any facility to be an area source. was very specific to the one area source test run that shows compliance with the In light of this new information, we plant that EPA identified and stated that emissions limit. reevaluated our GACT determination for it should more appropriately be based existing carbon black area sources. As on efficiencies or concentrations to C. Proposed NESHAP for Carbon Black stated in the proposal preamble (72 FR allow some operating flexibility. While Production Area Sources 16638, April 4, 2007): the commenter acknowledged that this Comment: Two commenters stated facility is the only acrylic fiber Determining what constitutes GACT that there are no area sources in the involves considering the control technologies manufacturer currently known to be an source category producing carbon black and management practices that are generally area source, the commenter believed by the furnace or thermal processes. The available to the area sources in the source that future facilities may struggle to commenters believed that the 2002 category. We also consider the standards comply with such site-specific applicable to major sources in the same National Emissions Inventory (NEI) requirements. Specifically, the industrial sector to determine if the control commenter suggested that the proposed incorrectly designated the Degussa technologies and management practices are emissions limit for polymerization Engineered Carbon facility in Belpre, transferable and generally available to area process equipment, which is expressed Ohio, as an area source. Both sources. In appropriate circumstances, we in terms of pounds per hour (lb/hr), commenters claimed that the emissions may also consider technologies and practices reported in the NEI and the 2005 Toxics at area and major sources in similar should be written more generally for categories to determine whether such different types of processes and control Release Inventory (TRI) from this facility, which are below the major technologies and practices could be equipment that might be used and considered generally available for the area should require a control efficiency or source thresholds, represent levels after source category at issue. Finally, as noted outlet concentration. According to the control but that the uncontrolled above, in determining GACT for a particular commenter, this would more closely ‘‘potential to emit’’ emissions are area source category, we consider the costs match the approach provided for new considerably above the major source and economic impacts of available control sources which used efficiency and thresholds. technologies and management practices on concentration limits. The commenters asserted that this that category. The commenter also noted that the facility was identified as the only Given that there are no current area control device parameter operating limit existing area source in the category and sources, we examined all existing for existing sources specifies the water was used to form the basis for GACT. carbon black plants, which happen to be flow rate of the scrubbers. The The commenters stated that EPA all major sources. Those sources have commenter stated that the standard determined GACT based on this applied technologies to reduce organic should require the operating parameters mistaken identification of the Belpre, HAP emissions from main unit process to be established based on performance Ohio facility as an area source. The vent streams with concentrations of 260 testing. The commenter asserted if past commenters requested that EPA ppmv or greater. The control testing is used and parameters were reconsider its GACT determination in technologies typically used for this previously set, this should still be light of the fact that the source source category are flares and acceptable. According to the considered in making such a incinerators. These control technologies commenter, this approach would allow determination is a major source and that have also been widely applied to many the existing facility flexibility to change GACT determinations require emission sources in other similar these parameters based on performance considerations of economics and a industrial source categories, such as testing should it become necessary. technical feasibility for the smaller process vents at petroleum refineries Response: We agree that the proposed sources outside of the major source and chemical plants. These control emission limit for process vents is very category. The commenters stated that technologies are therefore generally site-specific to the one known area GACT for area sources should be less available. source plant. We are providing existing stringent than MACT for major sources Even if by some mechanism an sources with the option of complying due to the financial and technical existing major source becomes an with the standards for new sources. considerations that would apply to a existing area source, that facility would Although the standards for new and smaller area source. already have the necessary controls in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38883

place and the facility would incur no arbitrary and that EPA’s complete fuels, this increases the costs. Therefore, additional costs in response to this final failure to explain why it would base its we believe that the use of concentration NESHAP. The facility would not be able GACT decision on such information or is an appropriate consideration in to remove or discontinue use of any of why it believed that such information is determining GACT for this source the controls because they would likely even relevant to the determination of category. exceed the major source thresholds (i.e., GACT is also arbitrary. Flares and incinerators are established the commenters pointed out that their The commenter stated that to the control technologies that are generally potential to emit based on emissions extent EPA based its decision on the fact available for this source category for before control exceeds major source that the single source currently in the POM, which is the Urban HAP for thresholds). Further, the controls were area source carbon black category does which this source category was listed. installed to meet permit limits for not currently control vent emissions Therefore, we analyzed the potential criteria pollutants, and these streams below the 260 ppmv level, its impacts associated with a requirement requirements would not change just decision is unlawful. The commenter to control process vent streams with because a source became an area source asserted that EPA’s obligation under organic HAP concentrations of 260 of HAP emissions. section 112(d)(5) is to base standards on ppmv or less. We estimate that the cost Accordingly, after considering the control measures that are commercially effectiveness of controlling a 260 ppmv availability of the above-identified available and appropriate for the stream with a flare would be around $19 control technologies, which provide the category. According to the commenter, million per ton of POM emission most effective control of HAP emissions the fact that a source has not already reduction (carbon black production was from these processes, their voluntarily controlled its emission listed as an area source category based demonstrated applicability to carbon streams below a given level does not on emissions of POM). The cost black facilities and similar emission mean that control technology is not effectiveness of an incinerator was sources, and their reasonable costs for commercially available for use on such estimated to be almost $25 million per vent streams with concentrations above streams or that the use of such ton of POM reduction. We believe that 260 ppmv, we are finalizing the technology is not appropriate. The the costs of requiring the control of standard for carbon black area sources commenter stated that EPA did not even process vent streams with organic HAP set forth in the proposal. suggest that using a flare or incinerator concentrations less than 260 ppmv are Comment: One commenter stated that to control emissions from vent streams cost prohibitive and therefore do not EPA’s decision to provide a 260 ppmv with concentrations below 260 ppmv is represent methods, practices, and applicability cutoff in the proposed rule either technically or economically techniques which are generally for carbon black producers is based on infeasible. available for application by the sources factors that are irrelevant to the Response: As noted above, other in this category. Therefore, the final rule establishment of GACT standards under commenters reported that the facility retains the 260 ppmv applicability section 112(d)(5) and devoid of any originally identified as the only existing threshold. rational explanation. According to the area source in this category (upon which commenter, EPA determined that GACT the proposed GACT requirements were D. Proposed NESHAP for Chemical for carbon black manufacturing is either based) is in fact a major source. Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium a 98 weight-percent reduction in HAP Therefore, as we stated in the previous Compounds emissions or a 20 ppmv concentration response, we reevaluated GACT for this Comment: One commenter objected to standard. The commenter claimed that category and determined that for the proposed standard requiring plants EPA proposed to allow sources to meet sources with process vent stream to operate a capture system that collects an alternative 260 ppmv standard. emissions of 260 ppmv or greater, the gases and fumes from each emissions According to the commenter, EPA’s technology that applies at major sources source and conveys the gases to a PM only explanation for allowing sources to (i.e., flares or incinerators) is control device because, according to the emit 13 times as much HAP as its own transferable to area sources. We have no commenter, EPA did not say how GACT standard would allow is that emissions data for process vent streams efficient either the capture system or the ‘‘this cutoff represents the lowest below 260 ppmv, as the major sources PM control device must be. The control device inlet concentration are not required to control below this commenter also stated that EPA appears reported at one of the best-controlled level. to indicate that any capture system and facilities’’ and ‘‘we do not have As an initial matter, we reject the control device will do, but the available information to indicate that commenter’s statement that control commenter acknowledged that EPA did the single existing area source controls device inlet concentration is not provide equations that appear to process vent emissions with relevant. The inlet concentration and establish numerical limits on PM concentrations below this level.’’ The other stream characteristics (i.e., the emissions on a pounds per hour basis. commenter asserted that EPA did not characteristics of the uncontrolled The commenter stated that EPA’s explain the relevance of either of those emission stream) are directly related to apparent assumption that all PM control claims to its determination of GACT. both the effectiveness and the cost of a is the same and equally sufficient for According to the commenter, the control control device. For example, the heating controlling emissions from this source is device inlet concentration at any given value of components of the inlet stream at odds with the record evidence and is source is in no way indicative of the is a key component in the effectiveness arbitrary. emissions level that can be achieved by and cost of a flare. Therefore, the According to the commenter, not all the technology that EPA itself has concentration affects flame stability, PM controls are equally effective. The recognized as GACT and therefore, it is emissions, and flame structure. A lower commenter stated that ‘‘it is plain from irrelevant to the GACT determination. concentration (and thus lower heating the discussion of PM controls provided The commenter also claimed that value) produces a cooler flame that does by both EPA itself and ICAC that PM because control device inlet information not favor combustion kinetics and is controls vary widely in effectiveness, is irrelevant under section 112(d)(5), also more easily extinguished. While and is plain that chromium compound EPA’s decision to base an alternative these limitations can sometimes be manufacturers could reduce their GACT decision on such information is overcome through the use of auxiliary emissions of hexavalent chromium and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38884 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

other HAP by using more effective PM manufacturing area source facilities. authority. According to the commenter, controls.’’ Examples given by the The two processes with the greatest the two affected plants that produce commenter include more effective fabric emissions potential are the high chromium compounds from chromite filters such as filters with better fabric temperature operations of the rotary ore are currently performing adequate or better baghouse design and more kilns used for roasting the chromite ore monitoring, recordkeeping, and effective scrubbers. and the processes used for quenching reporting to demonstrate compliance According to the commenter, EPA did the hot kiln roast. Both plants use a with the proposed emissions limits, and not consider the possibility of requiring combination of wet scrubbers and any decision to require performance any controls other than those that are electrostatic precipitators in series for tests should be at the discretion of the currently in use and did not discuss one or both of these processes. This permitting agency. which technologies are currently combination of wet scrubbers and Response: We acknowledge that the available, their effectiveness, or how electrostatic precipitators has been current title V permits for the affected much they cost. The commenter demonstrated as effective for this source plants require performance testing only asserted that EPA’s rejection of more category and is generally available.10 at the request of the permitting effective controls without even Thus, we established GACT based on authority. However, the final rule considering them is arbitrary and the current controls employed at the requires performance testing if a valid capricious. two area sources in this category. We performance test has not been Response: We disagree with the did not find that the costs and economic conducted within the 5 years prior to commenter’s statement that EPA impacts of compliance would be the effective date of the final rule. We concluded that any capture system or significant because the controls that we found that performance tests have not any control device is, as the commenter determined were generally available in been conducted within the past 5 years implies, sufficient in the abstract to the category were being employed at the at the two existing plants, and a few comply with the NESHAP. EPA existing facilities, and nothing in the minor emissions sources have never established numerical emissions limits record indicated that the costs would be been tested. An initial performance test for chromium, using PM as a surrogate, prohibitive for new sources. or a recent performance test is very and the emissions limits are established There are no major sources in this important to ensure that the control by equations set forth in the rule. The category, and we did not consider devices are operating as designed and commenter stated that the equations similar source categories at proposal. In can be shown to meet the applicable ‘‘appear’’ to establish numerical response to comments, however, we emissions limit. Although the plants emission limits, and, in fact, the have evaluated similar primary metal have performed the monitoring, equations do establish such limits on a industries. We have found that reporting, and recordkeeping required pounds per hour basis, and the electrostatic precipitators, often in by their permits, we cannot correlate the commenter’s implication that they do combination with scrubbers, the same monitoring results to the performance of not is unsupported. controls employed by the emissions the control devices to ensure the Further, we disagree with the sources in this category, are the emissions limits are met unless a commenter that we assumed that all PM commonly used control devices for the performance test has been conducted to control devices are equally effective. We smelting or roasting operations in other demonstrate this. Once a performance proposed an emissions standard for the primary metal industries, including test has demonstrated compliance, we metal HAP at issue using PM as a primary steel, primary copper, and will have assurance that subsequent surrogate. The PM emissions standard primary zinc production. We affirm our monitoring will ensure that the identified as GACT was based on conclusion that the proposed controls emissions sources continue to operate as control technologies that are generally are GACT for this area source category. designed and as demonstrated by the available, considering cost, and The proposed standard, with minor performance test. represent a level of control that has been changes discussed elsewhere, is The commenter is correct in that there achieved at the two existing chromium finalized in this rulemaking. were conflicting entries in the General compound manufacturing facilities. Comment: One commenter requested Provisions table of the proposed rule for As we discussed earlier, in clarification of the performance test performance test requirements. We have determining GACT for area sources, we requirements. The commenter pointed corrected the table in the final rule to examine the demonstrated and generally out that for an existing facility, the clarify the performance test available controls at area sources in the proposed rule allows certification of requirements as discussed above. source category. See 72 FR 16638, April compliance with the emission limits Comment: One commenter requested 4, 2007. We also consider the standards based on a previous performance test that EPA clarify the definition of a applicable to major sources in the conducted within the past 5 years; ‘‘new’’ affected source. The commenter category and determine if those controls otherwise, a facility must conduct tests asked if a new affected source includes are generally available and transferable to demonstrate initial compliance. The new or reconstructed equipment at an to area sources. See 72 FR 16638, April commenter noted that the proposed rule existing site, or is a new affected source 4, 2007. In addition, in appropriate conflicted with the General Provisions a new or reconstructed chromium circumstances, we may consider table which indicates that performance chemical manufacturing facility. The technologies employed at similar test requirements apply to an existing commenter suggested that EPA add a industrial source categories. See 72 FR source only if the permitting authority definition of ‘‘chromium compounds 16638, April 4, 2007. We also consider requests the tests. The commenter stated manufacturing facility.’’ cost and economic impacts of generally that he initially understood that EPA Response: The proposed rule stated available control technologies or would require initial performance tests that the ‘‘affected source’’ is ‘‘each management practices on a source only if requested by the permitting chromium compounds manufacturing category in determining GACT. See 72 facility.’’ We have added a definition of FR 16638, April 4, 2007. 10 The effectiveness of these controls is shown by ‘‘chromium compounds manufacturing In this case, at proposal, we evaluated the TRI reporting for the North Carolina plant with facility’’ to further clarify what the a 95 percent reduction in chromium emissions the control technologies that are used by since the control technology identified as GACT affected source is. A new affected source the existing chromium compound was installed. is one for which construction or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38885

reconstruction commenced after April 4, performed within 24 months of the last Comment: One commenter requested 2007. The definitions of ‘‘construction’’ inspection, and subsequent inspections changes to the process description in and ‘‘reconstruction’’ are given in the of the internal components must be the preamble to the proposed rule and General Provisions (40 CFR 63.2). performed for each following 24-month corresponding revisions and Comment: One commenter objected to period. Similarly, an initial inspection clarifications to Table 1 of the proposed the proposed requirements for initial of the internal components of baghouses rule which identifies the regulated control device inspections for plants and wet scrubbers does not have to be process equipment. The commenter that are already implementing the performed if an inspection has been stated that the table should be titled inspection requirements according to an performed within the past 12 months. ‘‘Emissions Sources’’ instead of established schedule in an approved The next inspection must be performed ‘‘Emissions Points’’; the ‘‘filter for title V permit. The commenter claimed within 12 months of the last inspection, sodium chromate slurry’’ should be that the proposed requirement for initial and subsequent inspections of the changed to ‘‘residue dryer system’’; the inspections will result in increased internal components must be performed ‘‘reactor used to produce chromic acid’’ costs and result in shutdown of key for each following 12-month period. should be changed to the ‘‘melter used emissions sources and control devices However, we continue to require initial to produce chromic acid’’; and the that are not due for inspection until inspections that do not require shutting ‘‘sodium dichromate evaporation unit’’ 2008 and 2009. The commenter down the process and control device, should be removed from the table provided an example of kilns that must such as inspecting baghouses and because there are no chromium be shutdown and cooled before the ductwork for leaks, verifying the proper emissions from this unit at either plant. internal components of the electrostatic operation of electrostatic precipitator Response: We agree that the table is precipitators can be inspected. parameters, and water flow to wet a listing of emission ‘‘sources’’, and we According to the commenter, the scrubbers. will clarify that the production of shutdown and cooling period for the We agree with the commenter’s chromic acid occurs in a ‘‘melter.’’ We kilns takes several days and results in suggestion that we require an initial also agree that we inadvertently significant cost in terms of lost inspection prior to startup for installed included the filter for sodium chromate production and other expenses. As an control devices which have not operated slurry, which is not an emissions alternative, the commenter suggested within 60 days of the compliance date. source, and should have included that EPA require an initial inspection This inspection can be performed before instead the residue dryer system, which prior to startup for installed control process operations resume and thus is an emissions source. We identified devices which have not operated within would not require a disruptive the sodium dichromate evaporation unit 60 days of the compliance date. shutdown. as a process at the chromium compound Response: Our intent at proposal was manufacturing plants. However, this Comment: One commenter asked if to codify the control device inspection process operates under a vacuum to annual inspection requirements for wet requirements currently in the permit of reduce the water content at the North Carolina plant because we scrubbers apply to cyclonic scrubbers temperatures far below the temperatures determined that these requirements prior to wet electrostatic precipitators. that would be needed to volatilize represent what is generally available, According to the commenter, this is not chromium compounds in the wet slurry and this plant had inspection a requirement in the current title V into PM. This process is not an requirements that were more permit and would not be consistent emissions source for PM and was comprehensive than those at the other with EPA’s approach of codifying the therefore not identified in the title V area source plant. The proposed monitoring requirements currently permit as an emission source. inspection requirements included daily, applicable to the North Carolina plant. Consequently, we are deleting the monthly, annual, and biennial Response: Our intent at proposal was sodium dichromate evaporation unit inspections for various control devices to be consistent with the established from the table of emissions sources. and their components. To perform the inspection requirements in the title V Comment: One commenter noted that internal inspection, it is necessary to permit of the North Carolina plant. The the General Provisions table in the shut down the process (the high permit requires internal inspections of NESHAP should be revised to eliminate temperature kilns) and allow the system electrostatic precipitators, wet duplication of entries for § 63.10(e)(1) to cool down. We agree that the 24- scrubbers, and baghouses that are used and (e)(2). month period as stated in the permit is as primary control devices. Internal Response: We agree and have reasonable for this particular type of inspections of cyclonic scrubbers that corrected the table to eliminate the inspection. It provides flexibility to the are installed upstream of the duplication. facility to perform the inspection during electrostatic precipitators are not E. Proposed NESHAP for Flexible periods of regularly scheduled kiln required by the permit, nor do we maintenance, which minimizes the believe they are needed. Unlike Polyurethane Foam Production and disruption to production and the large electrostatic precipitators, cyclonic Fabrication Area Sources expense that would result from a scrubbers do not have complex internal Comment: One commenter stated that mandatory initial inspection and components subject to failure that one HAP emitted by flexible subsequent annual inspections. The would affect emissions control polyurethane foam production and operating processes also have to be shut performance. Consequently, we are fabrication facilities is methylene down for the annual internal clarifying that annual internal chloride. According to the commenter, inspections of baghouses and wet inspections of cyclonic scrubbers EPA indicated in the preamble that scrubbers. Consequently, we have installed upstream of electrostatic methylene chloride is used by stabstock revised the rule to state that an initial precipitators are not required. However, foam plants as an ABA and an inspection of the internal components of we continue to require monitoring for equipment cleaner, and that molded and electrostatic precipitators does not have the cyclonic scrubbers, including the rebond foam plants use methylene to be performed if an inspection has presence of water flow and visual chloride as a mold release agent and an been performed within the past 24 inspections of the system ductwork and equipment cleaner. The commenter months. The next inspection must be scrubber unit for leaks. noted that for slabstock foam plants EPA

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38886 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

proposed either to prohibit the use of See 72 FR 16649, April 4, 2007. such adhesives for loop slitter methylene chloride or to establish As explained in the proposal, we operations. At this time, we are not certain requirements for its use. determined that some of the aware of any specific applications The commenter asserted that EPA technologies listed could result in the where methylene chloride adhesives must prohibit the use of methylene complete elimination of the use of provide performance that cannot be chloride at slabstock facilities based on methylene chloride as an ABA. achieved by alternative adhesives and the following statement from the However, we also discussed alternative where they can be used in compliance proposal preamble: ‘‘[b]ased on recent formulations that reduce, but do not with OSHA worker exposure limits. contacts with the industry, we have eliminate, the amount of methylene Consequently, the final rule retains the verified that every known slabstock chloride ABA needed in the list of prohibition of the use of methylene facility has converted their process to generally available control measures. chloride adhesives in flexible use a non-HAP technology (72 FR Alternative formulations can include, polyurethane foam fabrication 16649).’’ The commenter stated that among other things, chemical additives operations. EPA’s failure to require the use of non- and alternative polyols. These measures Comment: One commenter indicated HAP technology it acknowledges to be ‘‘reduce’’ the use of methylene chloride that a less burdensome program should GACT is unlawful and arbitrary. Also as an ABA without eliminating it. In be provided for flexible polyurethane arbitrary, according to the commenter, is fact, a specific relevant example of these foam producers that utilize methylene the Agency’s failure to explain its technologies was provided by a chloride as an ABA. This commenter’s decision to allow facilities to continue slabstock flexible polyurethane foam company is a small business that to use methylene chloride with various production facility that commented on employs less than 100 people. They control requirements, given its own the proposal. This commenter reports operate one facility that produces and conclusion that a ban on the use of that their facility has reduced methylene fabricates flexible polyurethane foam. methylene chloride is GACT. chloride emissions by 77 percent The commenter pointed out that their Response: The proposed regulation through the reformulation of foam facility produces thousands of pounds addressed eight different types of grades and marketing to encourage of flexible polyurethane foam per situations where methylene chloride customers to switch to foam grades that month, while typical facilities could potentially be used at flexible the commenter’s company can produce throughout the country produce polyurethane foam production and without methylene chloride. This is a millions of pounds per month. The commenter provided information flexible polyurethane foam fabrication clear example of the ‘‘alternative on the numerous improvements that facilities. For seven of these potential formulations’’ referred to in the have been made at this facility to reduce use situations, the proposed rule proposal preamble as one of the methylene chloride usage and prohibited the use of methylene technologies we determined to be GACT. Therefore, we reject the emissions. They have eliminated all chloride. The lone situation where the commenter’s assertion that we uses of methylene chloride except as an proposed rule did not prohibit the use concluded that GACT was a ban on the ABA, and have made significant of methylene chloride was as an ABA in use of methylene chloride as an ABA reductions (over 75 percent) in its usage the production of slabstock flexible and did not make any revisions in the as an ABA. polyurethane foam. final rule as a result of this comment. The commenter indicated that this By only selecting a portion of the Comment: One commenter opposed facility has a federally enforceable language from the preamble related to the proposal to prohibit all use of synthetic minor permit which caps the determination of GACT for methylene chloride-based adhesives. methylene chloride emissions on a methylene chloride usage as an ABA at The commenter stated that there may be monthly and 12-month rolling basis. slabstock facilities and presenting it out certain applications where adhesives The permit also incorporates many of of context, the commenter has based on methylene chloride provide the monitoring and recordkeeping misrepresented EPA’s rationale in the superior performance and can be used requirements of the foam production proposal preamble. The entire in compliance with Occupational Safety MACT rule. discussion, from which the commenter and Health Administration (OSHA) The commenter suggested that, for quoted selectively, is as follows: worker exposure limits. The commenter this facility, the proposed rule is The NESHAP requirements, along with the only mentions loop slitter operations. unnecessarily complicated in view of revisions to the Occupational Safety and Response: In our proposal, we the environmental benefits realized by Health Administration (OSHA) permissible specifically requested comments on the programs already in place. The exposure and short-term exposure limits for ‘‘whether and under what commenter suggested several methylene chloride (63 FR 50711, September circumstances methylene-chloride amendments to the rule to reduce the 22, 1998), caused slabstock foam facilities to based adhesives (e.g., in small specialty burden. In general, the commenter investigate, evaluate, and install technologies applications) are being used or might be to reduce or eliminate the use of methylene requested that the methylene chloride chloride as an ABA at their facilities. These used by the foam fabrication industry, ABA emissions caps and the monitoring technologies include alternative formulations and what quantities are or might be and reporting provisions in their permit to reduce the amount of methylene chloride involved in such applications’’ (72 FR be provided as an acceptable option for ABA needed, alternative non-HAP ABAs 16649) (emphasis added). The meeting the requirements of the area (acetone, liquid carbon dioxide), controlled commenter’s general assertion that there source rule for slabstock foam or variable pressure foaming, and forced may be applications where methylene production. cooling. Based on recent contacts with the chloride-based adhesives provide The commenter cited numerous areas industry, we have verified that every known superior performance is not responsive where capital expenditures would be slabstock facility has converted their process to our request for comments. As for loop necessary to comply with the proposed to utilize one of these technologies * * *. Consequently, we propose to conclude that slitters, we found at proposal that the rule including the purchase of control emissions limitations based on the industry has discontinued the use of equipment (storage tank vapor balance application of these technologies are methylene chloride-based adhesives, line), computer software, IFD and generally available (GACT) for new and and we concluded at proposal that density testing equipment, and meter existing sources. GACT was the prohibition of the use of calibration equipment. The commenter

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38887

noted that the initial investment would production and fabrication. In support, that EPA’s rule contravenes section also include costs for computer program the commenter recited the definition of 112(d)(5). development and operator training. The an area source as ‘‘any stationary source The commenter also stated that EPA’s commenter estimated that the total of hazardous air pollutants that is not a rule is arbitrary and that EPA provided initial capital costs would range from major source * * *.’’ The commenter no rationale for failing to consider $25,000 to $35,000. The commenter also believed the proposed rule conflicts methods, practices and techniques that stated that the proposed rule would with the definition of an area source are commercially available and would result in increased annual costs of because the proposed NESHAP has reduce battery manufacturers’ emissions between $28,000 and $45,000 for specific requirements for facilities that significantly. The commenter stated that testing, training, calibrations, do not release any HAP. The commenter EPA does not claim that more efficient maintenance, tracking, recordkeeping asked how this is possible. control measures are not commercially and data entry, and reporting. Response: The first paragraph of the available for any of the relevant Response: The proposed rule proposed rule, § 63.11414(a), states processes, nor does the Agency claim included an emissions limitation format ‘‘You are subject to this subpart if you that they are too costly. In particular, for the use of methylene chloride as an own or operate an area source of according to the commenter, EPA does ABA, along with associated monitoring, hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions not even say what the cost for more recordkeeping, and reporting that meets the criteria in paragraph efficient technologies would be or why provisions, that allows flexibility in (a)(1) or (2) of this section.’’ Facilities it thinks they might be too costly. The how sources choose to comply (for that are not sources of any hazardous air commenter stated that EPA failed to example, individual emissions point pollutants, including methylene consider any approach other than using requirements versus a source-wide chloride, are not subject to the rule. the 1982 NSPS without providing any overall limit, monthly compliance Therefore, the comment that ‘‘the explanation for its choice. The versus 12-month rolling average). We proposed NESHAP has specific commenter stated that it appears EPA’s only consideration was whether the believe that this flexibility outweighs requirements for facilities that do not any perceived complexity of the format 1982 NSPS might be too stringent to be release any HAP’’ is incorrect. of the emissions limitation and the GACT, and EPA did not entertain the monitoring and recordkeeping F. Proposed NESHAP for Lead Acid possibility that more protective requirements, and we do not believe Battery Manufacturing Area Sources standards might be achievable through that the costs of these requirements are the use of generally available measures. inappropriate for this category. Comment: One commenter stated that According to the commenter, EPA’s rule Therefore, we did not make any changes EPA’s proposed GACT determination is not only arbitrary but unlawful in that to the proposed rule in response to these for battery manufacturers does not it reflects a complete abrogation of the comments. satisfy section 112(d)(5). The EPA’s statutory duty to evaluate Comment: This same commenter commenter claimed that rather than currently available control measures stated that the compliance date of the evaluating the potential reduction and set standards that reflect them. proposed rule for slabstock flexible measures that are commercially Response: Section 112(d)(5) polyurethane foam production sources available and appropriate for authorizes the Administrator to ‘‘elect to (the date of publication of the final rule) application by battery manufacturers, promulgate standards or requirements is not reasonable since the final rule EPA considered only one option: applicable to sources in such [area will result in the need for equipment, requiring all sources to comply with the source] categories or subcategories operating, monitoring, and 1982 NSPS for PM, with which 53 out which provide for the use of generally administrative changes. of 58 sources are already in compliance available control technologies or Response: The commenter cited anyway. The commenter stated that management practices [GACT] by such numerous areas where capital section 112(d)(5) requires the use of sources to reduce emissions of expenditures would be necessary to ‘‘methods, practices and techniques’’ hazardous air pollutants.’’ As we comply with the proposed rule which are commercially available and discussed earlier, in determining GACT including the purchase of control appropriate for application by the for area sources, we examine the equipment (storage tank vapor balance sources in the category considering demonstrated and generally available line), computer software, IFD and economic impacts.’’ The commenter controls at area sources in the source density testing equipment, and meter said that there are ‘‘methods, practices, category. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, calibration equipment. The commenter and techniques’’ that are commercially 2007. We also consider the standards also indicated that computer program available and appropriate for applicable to major sources in the development will be necessary and application by battery manufacturers. category and determine if those controls operators will need to be trained. Given The commenter specifically cited a 1998 are generally available and transferable the changes that will be necessary to EPA report that specifies a 2:1 air to to area sources. See 72 FR 16638, April comply with the final rule, we agree that cloth ratio as the ‘‘[g]enerally safe 4, 2007. In addition, in appropriate it is reasonable to extend the design level’’ for lead oxide in ordinary circumstances, we may consider compliance date for existing sources. baghouses. With respect to processes technologies employed by sources in Therefore, the final rule has a currently controlled with fabric filters, similar industrial categories. See 72 FR compliance date for slabstock foam the commenter stated that there are 16638, April 4, 2007. We also consider affected sources electing to continue to more effective fabric filters, and with cost and economic impacts of generally utilize methylene chloride as an ABA to respect to processes currently controlled available control technologies or 1 year from the date of publication of by impingement scrubbers, there are management practices on a source the final rule. fabric filters or more effective scrubbers category in determining GACT. See 72 Comment: One commenter did not (e.g. venturi scrubbers). According to FR 16638, April 4, 2007. understand how facilities that do not the commenter, EPA has not required For the lead acid battery area sources, release a HAP, specifically methylene GACT standards that reflect the use of at proposal, we considered the controls chloride, could be subject to the these technologies, nor even considered and technologies employed by the area NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam doing so. The commenter concluded sources in the category. We found that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38888 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

the smallest sources in this category that achieve 99.9 percent lead emission control devices, and the failure to do so were not subject to the lead acid battery reduction were required by this area was unlawful. The commenter also NSPS. We also found that there are source NESHAP, the reductions would stated that the failure to consider the approximately 60 known area sources in not be as substantial as predicted by the HAP that are not emitted as PM and to this category and no known major commenter. explain why they were not addressed is sources. We concluded that the We did not discuss the costs of arbitrary and capricious. requirements of the NSPS represented imposing additional control Response: Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the generally available control technologies requirements on this category at CAA requires EPA to identify at least 30 or management practices for this source proposal, but we do so here in response HAP emitted from area sources that category. Moreover, although not stated to this comment. We estimate that the pose the greatest threat to public health in the proposal, because of the large total capital investment for a typical in the largest number of urban areas (the number of area sources in this category, plant to upgrade to 99.9 percent controls ‘‘Urban HAP’’) and identify the area we concluded that we did not need to could range from more than $600,000 to source categories that will be listed look at sources in similar industrial almost $1.7 million, depending on the pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Section categories for determining what is technologies selected. We estimate 112(c)(3), in relevant part, provides: annual costs of this additional control generally available to the lead acid The Administrator shall, * * * , and battery manufacturing category. for a typical plant would be around $1.2 pursuant to subsection (k)(3)(B) of this At proposal, we found that the NSPS million per year due to increased section, list, based on actual or estimated addressed lead (not PM) emissions from operator labor costs, maintenance labor aggregate emissions of a listed pollutant or six types of processes at lead acid and material costs, electricity and other pollutants, sufficient categories or battery manufacturing plants: (1) Grid utility costs, taxes and insurance, and subcategories of area sources to ensure that casting, (2) paste mixing, (3) three- capital recovery costs. This cost area sources representing 90 percent of the process operations, (4) lead oxide represents almost 5 percent of the total area source emissions of the 30 hazardous air manufacturing, (5) lead reclamation, shipments for an average lead acid pollutants that present the greatest threat to and (6) other lead emitting processes. battery establishment. We do not believe public health in the largest number of urban areas are subject to regulation under this The commenter stated that more that these costs and potential economic section. effective ‘‘methods, practices, and impacts are appropriate for application techniques’’ including fabric filters with by the area sources in this category. The Thus, section 112(c)(3) requires EPA air to cloth ratios between 2:1 and 3.5:1 costs incurred per ton of lead emissions to list sufficient categories or (and specifically 2:1 for lead oxide) are reduced would be around $450,000 to subcategories of area sources to ensure available, and cited this as evidence that $500,000 based on replacing existing that area sources representing 90 significant advancements in technology control devices or installing additional percent of the emissions of the 30 Urban have occurred since the NSPS was devices to increase control efficiency up HAP are subject to regulation. promulgated in 1982. The 1998 EPA to 99.9 percent. Section 112(d)(1) requires the report that the commenter cited In conclusion, we believe that the Administrator to promulgate regulations indicates that the generally safe design technologies upon which the proposed establishing emissions standards for level for lead oxide in ordinary standards were based are generally each area source of HAP listed for baghouses is, in fact, the same 2:1 air to available to this industry. Moreover, we regulation pursuant to section 112(c). cloth ratio required in the NSPS believe that the costs of requiring every EPA identified the 30 Urban HAP that standard for lead oxide manufacturing, area source lead acid battery facility to pose the greatest threat to public health which is incorporated into this rule. install technologies that achieve in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Thus, contrary to the commenter’s additional incremental emission Strategy. In that same document, EPA assertion, the emission limitations in reductions, beyond those established in listed the source categories that account the NSPS were in this case based on the these NESHAP, would be prohibitive. for 90 percent of the Urban HAP specific technology addressed by the Thus, we have not revised the emission emissions. commenter and that technology is standards in the rule in response to this We have interpreted the above considered state-of-the-art today. comment. provisions of section 112 to require EPA The commenter assumed that the Comment: One commenter stated that to regulate only those Urban HAP category’s current lead emissions reflect in addition to emitting more than 26 tpy emissions for which an area source a 98 percent reduction from of lead, lead acid battery manufacturers category is listed pursuant to section uncontrolled emissions, and suggested emit more than 47 tpy of other HAP; 112(c)(3). As stated elsewhere in this that substantial emissions reductions among these are HAP that are not preamble, Congress chose to treat areas would be obtained through setting new metals, do not behave like PM in the sources differently from major sources standards that reflect a 99.9 percent stack gas, and therefore cannot be under section 112 and other sections of reduction. We are unsure on what the captured or reduced through the use of the CAA, such as title V. Under section commenter based this assertion. For PM control devices. According to the 112, Congress determined that the fabric filters with a 6:1 air to cloth ratio commenter, section 112(d) requires Agency should identify 30 HAP emitted in the NSPS, which is the control basis emission standards for each HAP listed from area sources that posed the greatest for the standards for paste mixing, three- in section 112(b). Assuming that the threat to public health in the largest process operations, and other lead Agency does not have to set separate number of urban areas. The statute then emitting processes in this rule, we standards for each HAP when issuing directs the Agency to list sufficient area attributed 99 percent lead emissions standards under section 112(d)(5), the source categories to account for 90 reduction. We attributed a 90 percent commenter stated that EPA still has an percent of the emissions of each Urban lead removal efficiency for impingement obligation to address all of the HAP that HAP and to subject those listed source scrubbers, the control basis for the a category emits when setting GACT categories to regulation. Section standards for the grid casting and lead standards. The commenter claimed that 112(d)(1) requires emissions standards reclamation processes. Therefore, while EPA has an obligation to address the for area sources of HAP ‘‘listed pursuant there would be an incremental HAP emitted by battery manufacturing to subsection (c)’’. Area sources listed reduction in emissions if technologies plants that are not captured by PM pursuant to subsection (c)(3) are listed

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38889

only because they emit one of the 30 Note: Initial notification by existing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or listed Urban HAP and the Agency has facilities, required by § 63.9(b), is due within methylene chloride. The commenters identified the category as one that will 120 calendar days after the date of understood that EPA did not intend to ensure that we satisfy the requirement publication of the final rule in the Federal regulate wood preservatives that do not to subject area sources representing 90 Register. Notices of compliance by existing contain the Urban HAPs for which the facilities, required by § 63.9(h), is due on the percent of the area source emissions of 60th day following the 1 year deadline for wood preserving category was listed. the 30 Urban HAP to regulation. compliance with the new standard. Accordingly, the commenters requested Moreover, section 112(c)(3) explicitly that EPA revise § 63.11428(a) to clarify, refers to section 112(k)(3)(B). Section Response: We agree that the timing for as it does in § 63.11430 and in the 112(k)(3)(B) addresses the national notifications should be clarified, and we preamble to the proposed rule, that the strategy to control HAP from area have made the suggested clarifications wood preserving area source standard sources in urban areas. The focus of the in the final rule. applies only to facilities ‘‘using a strategy is on the 30 HAP that pose the G. Proposed NESHAP for Wood treatment process with any wood greatest threat to public health in the Preserving Area Sources preservatives containing chromium, largest number of urban areas. As noted arsenic, dioxins, or methylene Comment: Eight commenters above, in 1999, EPA issued the chloride.’’ Integrated Air Toxics Strategy in questioned the need for the standards Response: The applicability of the response to section 112(k)(3)(B). In that and stated there is no need to regulate wood preserving area source rule (as strategy, we identified the 30 Urban wood preserving area sources. The described in § 63.11428(a)) includes any HAP, which are the HAP that pose the commenters further stated that the wood wood preserving operation located at an greatest threat to public health in the preserving industry is an insignificant area source. However, only those largest number of urban areas, and we source of the four HAP to be regulated facilities that are using a wood identified, consistent with section by this proposed standard. According to preservative containing chromium, 112(c)(3), the area source categories that the commenters, the industry has not arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride account for 90 percent of those Urban used methylene chloride in the wood are subject to the management practice HAP. treating process since 1992, and requirements in § 63.11430 and the Pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and emissions of the three other HAP other requirements in § 63.11432. 112(k)(3)(B), the Lead Acid Battery covered in this rule are negligible Additional language was added to Manufacturing area source category was according to the commenters. Moreover, § 63.11430(c) and § 63.11432 to clarify listed due to emissions of two specific the commenters claimed that EPA was that only those area source facilities pollutants: lead and cadmium. We unable to identify ‘‘any other using any wood preservative containing recognize that other HAP, including management practices or control chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or Urban HAP which did not form the technologies that would provide methylene chloride have to prepare and basis of the section 112(c)(3) listing additional emissions reductions in a operate according to a management decision, may be emitted from lead acid cost effective manner.’’ practice plan to minimize air emissions, battery manufacturing facilities. To the Response: The emission levels used and comply with the initial notification extent that the other HAP are Urban for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics and reporting requirements. If your area HAP, we identified other area source Strategy were based on the section source wood preserving facility is only categories that emit those Urban HAP in 112(k) 1990 inventory. Following using preservatives such as ACQ or CA, higher amounts and have determined issuance of the Integrated Urban Air then you are not subject to the that subjecting other area source Toxics Strategy in 1999, EPA revised the requirements in §§ 63.11430 and categories to regulation for these HAP area source category listing in the 63.11432. will achieve the 90 percent requirement Strategy to also include the wood Comment: Several commenters in the CAA. In conclusion, consistent preserving area source category (67 FR requested that EPA provide flexibility in with section 112, we are not obligated 70428, November 22, 2002). We also the interpretation of the term ‘‘fully to address HAP other than Urban HAP recognize that the wood preserving drain’’ as that term is used in for which this area source category was industry has changed over the past 15 § 63.11430(c)(6): ‘‘For the pressure listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), years and Urban HAP emissions have treatment process, fully drain the retort which, as noted above, are lead and been reduced. The regulations being prior to opening the retort door.’’ The cadmium. finalized today will ensure that future commenters stated that as a practical Comment: One commenter requested emissions from wood preserving matter, it is not possible to ‘‘fully drain’’ clarification of the dates for compliance operations will be limited to the same 100 percent of all residual preservative compared to the key NESHAP General level that is being generally achieved before a retort door is opened and that Provisions for existing sources. The today and was determined to be GACT. the quantity of material involved is commenter explained that in § 63.9(b) of Without such regulations, there is small. The commenters requested the General Provisions and based on nothing that would limit future Urban confirmation that the trace amount of communications with EPA, initial HAP emissions from a new process or residual preservative which may remain notification by existing facilities is due wood preservative. in the cylinder when the retort door is 120 calendar days after final rule Comment: Eight commenters opened does not violate the publication. According to the requested clarification regarding non- § 63.11430(c)(6) requirement to ‘‘fully commenter, the proposed compliance applicable preservative chemistries. The drain’’ the retort before opening the date provision in § 63.11422 could be commenters asserted that as currently door, and that the language in read to suggest notification is not due worded, the provision in § 63.11428(a) § 63.11430(c)(6) be amended to read for a year. The commenter found similar would seem to encompass any wood ‘‘For the pressure treatment process, confusion between § 63.9(h) and preserving operation, including those fully drain the retort to the extent § 63.11422 pertaining to notices of that treat household commodities with practical, prior to opening the retort compliance from existing sources. The ammoniacal copper quat (ACQ) or door.’’ commenter suggested the following copper azole (CA)—waterborne, copper- Response: We agree with the clarification language: based preservatives that do not contain commenters and have made the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38890 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

following change to § 63.11430(c)(6) in all three criteria in CAA section 502 are would result in significant the final standards: ‘‘For the pressure met before an area source category can improvements to the compliance treatment process, fully drain the retort be exempted from title V, the requirements, including monitoring, to the extent practicable, prior to commenter misreads the statute. The recordkeeping, and reporting, that are opening the retort door.’’ An example of statute expressly provides that EPA may proposed for an area source category (70 what is practicable for fully draining the exempt an area source category from FR 75323); (2) whether title V retort would be a retort operation where title V requirements if EPA determines permitting would impose significant any residual preservative drips into the that the requirements are burdens on the area source category and door pit sump. ‘‘impracticable, infeasible or whether the burdens would be unnecessarily burdensome.’’ See CAA aggravated by any difficulty the sources H. Proposed Exemption of Certain Area section 502 (emphasis added). If may have in obtaining assistance from Source Categories from Title V Congress had wanted to require that all permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) Permitting Requirements three criteria be met before a category whether the costs of title V permitting Comment: One commenter believed could be exempted from title V, it for the area source category would be that EPA’s proposal to exempt four of would have stated so by using the word justified, taking into consideration any the five area source categories addressed ‘‘and,’’ in place of ‘‘or’’. potential gains in compliance likely to in its proposal (acrylic and modacrylic Comment: One commenter stated that occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); fibers production, flexible polyurethane in order to demonstrate that compliance and (4) whether there are foam production and fabrication, lead with title V would be ‘‘unnecessarily implementation and enforcement acid battery manufacturing, and wood burdensome,’’ EPA must show, among programs in place that are sufficient to preserving) from title V permitting other things, that the ‘‘burden’’ of assure compliance with the NESHAP for requirements is unlawful and arbitrary. compliance is unnecessary. According the area source category, without relying In support of this assertion, the to the commenter, by promulgating title on title V permits (70 FR 75326). commenter cited CAA section 502(a), V, Congress indicated that it viewed the In discussing the above factors in the which provides that EPA may exempt burden imposed by its requirements as Exemption Rule, we explained that we area source categories from title V necessary as a general rule. The considered on ‘‘a case-by-case basis the permitting requirements if compliance commenter maintained that the title V extent to which one or more of the four with such requirements is requirements provide many benefits that factors supported title V exemptions for ‘‘impracticable, infeasible or Congress viewed as necessary. Thus, in a given source category, and then we unnecessarily burdensome.’’ See 42 the commenter’s view, EPA must show assessed whether considered together U.S.C. 7661a(a). The commenter stated why for any given category, special those factors demonstrated that that EPA does not claim that such circumstances make compliance compliance with title V requirements requirements are impracticable or unnecessary. The commenter believed would be ‘unnecessarily burdensome’ infeasible for any of the four area source that EPA has not made that showing for on the category, consistent with section categories it proposes to exempt, but any of the categories it proposes to 502(a) of the Act.’’ See 70 FR 75323. rather relies entirely on its claim that exempt. Thus, we concluded that not all of the they would be ‘‘unnecessarily Response: EPA does not agree with four factors must weigh in favor of burdensome.’’ the commenter’s characterization of the exemption for EPA to determine that Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA demonstration required for determining title V is unnecessarily burdensome for states, in relevant part, that: that title V is unnecessarily burdensome a particular area source category. for an area source category. As stated Instead, the factors are to be considered * * * [t]he Administrator may, in the above, the CAA provides the in combination and EPA determines Administrator’s discretion and consistent Administrator discretion to exempt an with the applicable provisions of this whether the factors, taken together, chapter, promulgate regulations to exempt area source category from title V if he support an exemption from title V for a one or more source categories (in whole or determines that compliance with title V particular source category. in part) from the requirements of this requirements is ‘‘impracticable, The commenter asserts that ‘‘EPA subsection if the Administrator finds that infeasible, or unnecessarily must show * * * that the ‘‘burden’’ of compliance with such requirements is burdensome’’ on an area source compliance is unnecessary.’’ This is not, impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily category. See CAA section 502(a). In however, one of the four factors that we burdensome on such categories, except that December 2005, in a national developed in the Exemption Rule in the Administrator may not exempt any major rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term interpreting the term ‘‘unnecessarily source from such regulations. 42 U.S.C. ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA burdensome’’ in CAA section 502, but 7661a(a). section 502 and developed a four-factor rather a new test that the commenter The statute plainly vests the balancing test for determining whether maintains EPA ‘‘must’’ meet in Administrator with discretion to title V is unnecessarily burdensome for determining what is ‘‘unnecessarily determine when it is appropriate to a particular area source category, such burdensome’’ under CAA section 502. exempt non-major (i.e. area) sources of that an exemption from title V is EPA did not re-open its interpretation of air pollution from the requirements of appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ title V. The commenter correctly notes 19, 2005 (‘‘Exemption Rule’’). In in CAA section 502 in the April 6, 2007 that EPA based the proposed addition to interpreting the term proposed rule for the categories at issue exemptions solely on a determination ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ and in this rule. Rather, we applied the four- that title V is ‘‘unnecessarily developing the four-factor balancing test factor balancing test articulated in the burdensome,’’ and did not rely on in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the Exemption Rule to the source categories whether the requirements of title V are test to certain area source categories. for which we proposed title V ‘‘impracticable’’ or ‘‘infeasible’’, which The four factors that EPA identified in exemptions. Had we sought to re-open are alternative bases for exempting area the Exemption Rule for determining our interpretation of the term sources from title V. whether title V is unnecessarily ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA To the extent the commenter is burdensome on a particular area source section 502 and modify it from what asserting that EPA must determine that category include: (1) Whether title V was articulated in the Exemption Rule,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38891

we would have stated so in the April 6, 502, as set forth in the Exemption Rule, stated that likewise, it is difficult or 2007 proposed rule and solicited is reasonable. impossible for citizens to bring comments on a revised interpretation, Finally, in this rule, we appropriately enforcement actions. The commenter which we did not do. Accordingly, we applied the four-factor balancing test set continued that EPA does not claim—far reject the commenter’s attempt to create forth in the Exemption Rule to the less demonstrate with substantial a new test for determining what particular area source categories at issue evidence, as would be required—that constitutes ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in this rule. In response to comments, citizens would have the same ability to under CAA section 502, as that issue we provide above a more detailed obtain compliance and emissions falls outside the purview of this discussion of our consideration of the information about sources in the rulemaking.11 four factors for the source categories at categories it proposes to exempt without issue. Based on our consideration of the title V permits. The commenter also said Moreover, even were the comment four factors, we are taking final action framed as a request to re-open our that likewise, EPA does not claim—far to finalize the exemptions from title V less demonstrate with substantial interpretation of the term for the acrylic and modacrylic fibers ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA evidence—that citizens would have the production, flexible polyurethane foam same enforcement ability. Thus, section 502, which it is not, we would production and fabrication, lead acid according to the commenter, the deny such request because we have a battery manufacturing, and wood exemptions EPA proposes plainly court-ordered deadline to complete this 13 preserving categories. eliminate benefits that Congress thought rulemaking by June 15, 2007, and we are Comment: One commenter stated that necessary. The commenter claimed that not in a position to expand the scope of exempting a source category from title V to justify its exemptions, EPA would the rulemaking at this juncture. In any permitting requirements deprives both have to show that the informational and event, we believe that the commenter’s the public generally and individual enforcement benefits that Congress position that ‘‘EPA must show * * * members of the public who would intended title V to confer—benefits that the ‘‘burden’’ of compliance is obtain and use permitting information which the commenter argues are unnecessary’’ is unreasonable and from the benefit of citizen oversight and eliminated by the exemptions—are for contrary to Congressional intent enforcement that Congress plainly some reason unnecessary with respect concerning the applicability of title V to viewed as necessary. According to the to the categories it proposes to exempt. area sources. Congress intended to treat commenter, the text and legislative The commenter concluded that EPA area sources differently under title V as history of the CAA provide that does not acknowledge these benefits or it expressly authorized the EPA Congress intended ordinary citizens to explain why they are unnecessary, and Administrator to exempt such sources be able to get emissions and compliance that for this reason alone, EPA’s from the requirements of title V at his information about air toxics sources and proposed exemptions are unlawful and to be able to use that information in discretion. There are several instances arbitrary. throughout the CAA where Congress enforcement actions and in public chose to treat major sources differently policy decisions on a State and local Response: Once again, the commenter than non-major sources, as it did in level. The commenter stated that attempts to create a new test for determining whether the requirements section 502.12 In addition, it is worth Congress did not think that enforcement of title V are ‘‘unnecessarily noting that although the commenter by States or other government entities burdensome’’ on an area source espouses a new interpretation of the was enough; if it had, Congress would category. Specifically, the commenter term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in not have enacted the citizen suit argues that EPA does not claim or CAA section 502 and attempts to create provisions, and the legislative history of demonstrate with substantial evidence a new test for determining whether the the CAA would not show that Congress that citizens would have the same requirements of title V are viewed citizens’ access to information access to information and the same ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ for an area and ability to enforce CAA requirements ability to enforce under these NESHAP, source category, the commenter does as highly important both as an individual right and as a crucial means absent title V. The commenter’s position not explain why EPA’s interpretation of represents a significant revision of the the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ is to ensuring compliance. According to the commenter, if a source does not fourth factor that EPA developed in the arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in Exemption Rule in interpreting the term accordance with law. We maintain that have a title V permit, it is difficult or impossible—depending on the laws, ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA our interpretation of the term section 502. For all of the reasons ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in section regulations and practices of the State in which the source operates—for a explained above, the commenter’s member of the public to obtain relevant attempt to create a new test for EPA to 11 If the commenter objected to our interpretation meet in determining whether title V is of the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in the information about its emissions and Exemption Rule, it should have commented on, and compliance status. The commenter ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ on an area challenged, that rule. Any challenge to the source category cannot be sustained. Exemption Rule is now time barred by CAA section 13 In the Exemption Rule, in addition to This rulemaking did not re-open EPA’s 307(b). Although we received comments on the title determining whether compliance with title V interpretation of the term V Exemption Rule during the rulemaking process, requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA no one sought judicial review of that rule. on an area source category, we considered, 12 See, e.g., section 112(d)(5) (authorizing consistent with the guidance provided by the section 502. Because the commenter’s generally available control technologies or legislative history of section 502(a), whether statements do not demonstrate a flaw in management practices in lieu of maximum exempting the area source category would adversely EPA’s application of the four-factor achievable control technology standards for area affect public health, welfare or the environment. sources); section 112(f)(5) (exempting area sources See 72 FR 15254–15255, March 25, 2005. As shown balancing test to the specific facts of the regulated under section 112(d)(5) from the 8-year above, after conducting the four-factor balancing source categories at issue here, which is residual risk review requirement); Compare, section test and determining that title V requirements the sole title V issue in this rulemaking, 110(a)(2)(c) (requiring minor source permitting would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area the comments provide no basis for the program without a detailed statutory structure) with source categories at issue here, we examined section 165 (providing detailed permitting whether the exemption from title V would Agency to reconsider its proposal to requirements for major sources locating in adversely affect public health, welfare and the exempt the area source categories from prevention of significant deterioration areas). environment, and found that it would not. title V. Today, we finalize the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38892 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

exemptions proposed in the April 6, a title V permit, in evaluating the fourth ‘‘assure’’ compliance. The commenter 2007 rule. factor in EPA’s balancing test, EPA stated that for this reason as well, its Moreover, as explained in the concluded that there are adequate claim that title V requirements are proposal and above, we considered implementation and enforcement ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ is arbitrary implementation and enforcement issues programs in place to enforce the and capricious, and its exemption is in the fourth factor of the four-factor NESHAP. The commenter has provided unlawful and arbitrary and capricious. balancing test. Specifically, the fourth no information to the contrary or Response: The commenter asserts that factor of EPA’s unnecessarily explained how the absence of title V ‘‘EPA admits [that] title V does not burdensome analysis provides that EPA actually impairs the ability of citizens to merely require periodic monitoring; it will consider whether there are enforce the provisions of these requires monitoring to ‘‘assure implementation and enforcement NESHAP. Furthermore, the fourth factor compliance.’’ The commenter does not programs in place that are sufficient to is one factor that we evaluated. As accurately characterize the Agency’s assure compliance with the NESHAP explained above, we considered that statements in the proposal. We stated: without relying on title V permits. See factor together with the other factors One way that title V may improve 70 FR 75326. In applying the fourth and determined that it was appropriate compliance is by requiring monitoring factor in the Exemption Rule, where to finalize the proposed exemptions for (including recordkeeping designed to serve EPA had deferred action on the title V the area source categories at issue in this as monitoring) to assure compliance with the exemption for several years, we had rule. emissions limitations and control technology enforcement data available to Comment: One commenter explained requirements imposed in the standard. The demonstrate that States were not only authority for adding new monitoring in the that title V provides important enforcing the provisions of the area permit is in the ‘‘periodic monitoring’’ monitoring benefits and stated that EPA source NESHAP that we exempted, but provisions of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 40 admits that ‘‘[o]ne way that title V may that the States were also providing CFR 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), which allow new improve compliance is by requiring compliance assistance to ensure that the monitoring to be added to the permit when monitoring (including recordkeeping the underlying standard does not already area sources were in the best position to designed to serve as monitoring) to require ‘‘periodic testing or instrumental or comply with the NESHAP. See 70 FR assure compliance with emission noninstrumental monitoring (which may 75325–75326. Nowhere in the limitations and control technology consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as Exemption Rule did the Agency state requirements imposed in the standard’’ monitoring).’’ that we had to demonstrate that citizen enforcement would be identical absent (72 FR 16654). According to the See 72 FR 16654 (emphasis added). title V before an area source category commenter, EPA assumes that title V We nowhere state or imply that could be exempted from title V. monitoring would not add any periodic monitoring is not sufficient to In applying the fourth factor here, monitoring requirements beyond those assure compliance. Moreover, the EPA determined that there are adequate required by the regulations for each commenter’s position that the Agency enforcement programs in place to assure category. The commenter said that with must make a specific finding that the compliance with the CAA. We do not respect to acrylic and modacrylic fibers monitoring in the proposed NESHAP have enforcement data available because production, EPA states ‘‘[b]ecause both assures compliance with the NESHAP is we are only today finalizing the the continuous and noncontinuous inconsistent with EPA’s Final Rule NESHAP at issue here. As stated in the monitoring methods required by the Interpreting the Scope of Certain proposal, however, States with proposed NESHAP would provide Monitoring Requirements for State and delegated programs have enforcement periodic monitoring, title V would not Federal Operating Permits Programs (71 and compliance assistance and add any monitoring to the proposed FR 75422, December 15, 2006) implementation programs in place to NESHAP.’’ Id. The commenter stated (‘‘Interpretive Rule’’). That rule enforce the provisions of these that EPA makes a similar claim with interprets title V of the Clean Air Act NESHAP. See 72 FR 16656. In fact, a respect to lead acid battery and its implementing regulations at 40 State must have adequate programs to manufacturing (72 FR 16655), and that CFR 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) and the enforce the HAP regulations and such claims miss the point. As EPA Clean Air Act requirements which they provide assurances that it will enforce admits, according to the commenter, implement. Under the Interpretive Rule, all NESHAP before EPA will delegate title V does not merely require periodic if an applicable requirement, such as a the program. See 40 CFR part 63, monitoring; it requires monitoring to NESHAP, contains periodic testing or subpart E. The commenter does not ‘‘assure compliance.’’ The commenter instrumental or noninstrumental challenge the conclusion that there are continued by stating that if additional monitoring (i.e., periodic monitoring), adequate State and Federal programs in monitoring is necessary to assure permitting authorities are not place to enforce the NESHAP. Instead, compliance, it must be required to authorized to assess the sufficiency of or the commenter provides an satisfy title V, regardless of whether the impose new monitoring requirements unsubstantiated assertion that underlying NESHAP provides for on a case-by-case basis. Federal information about compliance by the periodic monitoring. The commenter standards promulgated pursuant to the area sources with these NESHAP will concludes that the ‘‘burden’’ imposed 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are not be as accessible to the public as on a category by title V is not presumed to obtain monitoring information provided to a State unnecessary unless EPA shows that, in sufficient to assure compliance. Thus, pursuant to title V. In fact, the all instances, the periodic monitoring consistent with this interpretation and commenter does not provide any requirements established in the as demonstrated in the proposed rule information that States will treat underlying NESHAP for that category and above, title V would not add any information submitted under these ‘‘assure’’ compliance. According to the monitoring requirements to the NESHAP differently than information commenter, EPA does not even claim— NESHAP because the NESHAP contains submitted pursuant to a title V permit. far less demonstrate with substantial periodic monitoring. Even accepting the commenter’s evidence—that the monitoring The commenter also attempts to assertions that it is more difficult for requirements in the NESHAP for any of create a new test for consideration in citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent the categories it proposes to exempt determining what is ‘‘unnecessarily

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38893

burdensome’’ under CAA section 502. because continuous monitoring is not the generic claim that it thinks quarterly Specifically, the commenter argues that necessary to ensure a reduction in HAP reports are enough. Thus, the EPA must demonstrate with substantial emissions for this category. We also commenter believes that EPA has evidence that, in all instances, the concluded that the recordkeeping and essentially taken the position that periodic monitoring requirements reporting requirements in the rule are compliance certification is never assure compliance. As explained above, sufficient to assure compliance and that necessary. The commenter also stated this rulemaking did not re-open EPA’s additional monitoring is not practical or that EPA contravenes the CAA by interpretation of the term necessary. The commenter did not take excusing sources from a compliance ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA issue in its comment with the adequacy obligation without meeting the section 502. For all the reasons of the recordkeeping that serves as requirement of showing that explained above, we reject the monitoring or the reporting requirement to be unnecessary. Further, commenter’s attempt to create a new requirements for the Wood Preserving according to the commenter, EPA acts test for determining whether title V is area source category. arbitrarily by finding the compliance unnecessarily burdensome on an area For the reasons described above, the certification is unnecessary without source category. Moreover, EPA first factor supports an exemption, and providing a rational basis for that claim. considered monitoring in the first factor even if it did not, the four-factor The commenter concluded that the of the four-factor balancing test that it balancing test requires EPA to examine recording requirements that exist under developed in the Exemption Rule. EPA the factors, in combination, and the individual NESHAP are no appropriately applied that factor to the determine whether the factors, viewed replacement for the recording area source categories at issue in this together, weigh in favor of exemption. requirements under title V, which rule. See 70 FR 75326. As explained above, require prompt reporting of all As noted above, under the first factor, we determined that the factors, weighed ‘‘deviations’’ from any applicable EPA considers whether title V would together, supported exemption of the requirements, not just reporting of result in significant improvements to area source categories from title V. exceedances of EPA-selected operating the compliance requirements that are Comment: One commenter argued requirements. According to the proposed for the area source categories. that title V provides important reporting commenter, because EPA has not shown See 70 FR 75323. It is in the context of certification benefits and that, that reporting of selected operating this first factor that EPA evaluates the specifically, plants must report requirements renders reporting of all monitoring, recordkeeping and deviations from emission standards and deviations from any applicable reporting requirements of the proposed must certify at least annually whether requirements unnecessary, the EPA’s NESHAP to determine the extent to they are in compliance with ‘‘any exemptions are unlawful and arbitrary. which those requirements are consistent applicable requirements.’’ See 42 U.S.C. Response: In this comment, the with the requirements of title V. See 70 7661b(b)(2). The commenter stated that commenter again argues that EPA must FR 75323. As noted above, and in the EPA fails to point to any requirement in specifically demonstrate that all title V proposed rule, we considered whether the NESHAP for any of the categories it requirements, deviation reporting and title V monitoring requirements would proposes to exempt that requires plants annual compliance certifications in this lead to significant improvements in the to report each deviation from instance, are unnecessary in isolation monitoring requirements in the requirements, as title V does. The before EPA can lawfully exempt an area proposed NESHAP and determined that commenter disagrees with EPA that source category from title V. We do not they would not. reporting requirements for certain agree. As explained above, we Specifically, EPA included in the operating requirements, such as the interpreted the term ‘‘unnecessarily NESHAP periodic monitoring it daily average water flow to a wet burdensome’’ in CAA section 502 and determined to be necessary to assure scrubber, are sufficient and states that developed the four-factor balancing test compliance. See 72 FR 16654–16655. In none of the NESHAP contain in the Exemption Rule, and that addition, for the Acrylic and Modacrylic certification requirements. The balancing test does not require a Fibers Production area source category, commenter also stated that the determination that every title V the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing compliance certification requirement requirement is unnecessary. Instead, in area source category, the Flexible obliges plant operators to certify— the first factor we consider ‘‘whether Polyurethane Foam Production area subject to criminal penalties—whether title V would result in significant source category, and the Flexible their sources were in or out of improvements to the compliance Polyurethane Fabrication area source compliance with emission standards. requirement, including monitoring, category, EPA found that title V would According to the commenter, Congress recordkeeping, and reporting.’’ As not add additional monitoring, and that determined that this requirement was explained in the proposal preamble and determination is consistent with the necessary in addition to reporting noted above, we have determined that title V Interpretive rule. See 72 FR requirements, and that is why it enacted for these source categories title V would 16654–16655. The commenter does not the compliance certification not result in significant improvements provide any evidence to support a claim requirement. The commenter stated that in compliance requirements. that title V would add monitoring, it is not up to EPA to declare that it The commenter argued that these consistent with our interpretation of disagrees with Congress and find that NESHAP do not contain adequate title V in the Interpretive Rule, for any compliance certification requirements deviation reporting requirements of these area source categories. For the are not necessary. The commenter because the deviation reporting is Wood Preserving area source category, acknowledged that it might be possible limited to reporting on exceedances or we imposed recordkeeping to serve as for EPA to show that compliance variances of the operating requirements monitoring that was designed to certification requirements are not set forth in the standards. We are not document compliance with the necessary for some specific area source clear what aspects of the deviation management practices imposed on the category based on that specific reporting contained in the NESHAP the industry. See 72 FR 16655. We category’s characteristics. The commenter considers insufficient or concluded that title V would not add commenter said that EPA has not done what additional deviation reporting the additional monitoring for this category that here, however, and instead offers commenter believes would be included

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38894 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

if title V applied. The proposed also stated that the Agency does not categories it proposes to exempt—that NESHAP contain deviation reporting show that the compliance burden is the additional informational, requirements for each of the source especially great for any of the sources it monitoring, reporting, certification, and categories that we are exempting from proposes to exempt, and thus does not enforcement requirements that exist in title V. In response to this comment, the demonstrate that the alleged burden title V but not in these NESHAP would Agency has re-evaluated the deviation necessitates treating them differently not provide additional compliance requirements for these NESHAP and from other categories by exempting benefits. The commenter also stated that determined that any additional, them from compliance with title V the only basis for EPA’s claim is, unspecified, deviation reporting that requirements. apparently, its beliefs that those title V might add would not lead to Response: The commenter appears to additional requirements never confer significant improvements in the take issue with the formulation of the additional compliance benefits. compliance requirements finalized in second factor of the four-factor According to the commenter, by this rulemaking. balancing test. Specifically, the advancing such argument, EPA merely The commenter also takes issue with commenter states that EPA must seeks to elevate its own policy judgment EPA’s conclusion that annual determine that title V compliance is over Congress’ decisions reflected in the compliance certifications are not ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ and not a CAA’s text and legislative history. necessary for certain categories because ‘‘significant burden’’ as expressed in the Response: The commenter of quarterly reporting requirements. The second factor of the four factor mischaracterizes the first and third commenter implies that enforcement of balancing test. We note that the factors of the four-factor balancing test the NESHAP is undermined without an commenter in other parts of its and takes out of context certain annual compliance certification and comments on the title V exemptions statements in the proposed rule states that EPA admitted that there are argues that EPA must demonstrate that concerning those factors. no certification requirements in the every title V requirement is First, the commenter incorrectly NESHAP. First, even absent the ‘‘unnecessary’’ for a particular source characterizes our statements in the requirement to submit annual category before an exemption can be proposed rule in applying the third compliance certifications under the granted but makes no mention of the factor. Under the third factor, EPA NESHAP, sources must nevertheless ‘‘burden’’ of those requirements on area evaluates ‘‘whether the costs of title V comply with all emission standards and sources, but here the commenter argues permitting for the area source category requirements in the NESHAP. In that ‘‘significant burden’’ is not would be justified, taking into addition, the Agency did not conclude appropriate for the second factor. consideration any potential gains in that annual compliance certification is Notwithstanding the commenter’s compliance likely to occur for such never necessary, but only that the inconsistency, as explained above, the sources.’’ Contrary to what the annual compliance certification would four-factor balancing test was commenter alleges, EPA did not state in not lead to significant improvements in established in the Exemption Rule and the proposed rule that compliance with the compliance requirements in the we did not re-open EPA’s interpretation title V would not yield any gains in NESHAP because some of the NESHAP of the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ compliance with the underlying require quarterly reports. Furthermore, in this rule. requirements in the relevant NESHAP, contrary to what the commenter states, Contrary to the commenter’s nor does factor three require such a and as discussed above in section IV of assertions, we properly analyzed the determination. this preamble, there are certification second factor of the four-factor Instead, consistent with the third requirements contained in the NESHAP balancing test. See 70 FR 75320. Under factor, we considered whether the costs (e.g., initial certification of compliance that factor, EPA considers whether title of title V are justified in light of any status). V permitting would impose a significant potential gains in compliance. In Moreover, we determined in our burden on the area source categories considering the third factor, we stated consideration of the fourth factor that and whether the burden would be that, ‘‘[b]ased on our consideration of there are adequate enforcement and aggravated by any difficulty the sources factor 1 (described above) and factor 4 implementation programs in place to may have in obtaining assistance from (described below), we did not identify assure compliance with the NESHAP permitting agencies. See 70 FR 75324. potential gains in compliance from title and the commenter has provided no The commenter appears to assert that V permitting. Therefore, we conclude evidence that the lack of annual the second factor must be satisfied for that the costs of title V permitting for compliance certifications will EPA to exempt an area source category these area source categories are not undermine enforcement and from title V, but, as explained above, the justified.’’ (72 FR 16656) (emphasis implementation of the NESHAP. four factors are considered in added). Comment: One commenter believed combination. We have concluded that Second, the commenter EPA argued that its own belief that title the second factor, in combination with mischaracterizes the first factor by V is a ‘‘significant burden’’ on area the other factors, supports an exemption asserting that EPA must demonstrate sources further justifies its exemption for the area source categories at issue. that title V will provide no additional (72 FR 16655–16656). According to the Comment: According to one compliance benefits. But the first factor commenter, regardless of whether EPA commenter, EPA argued that calls for a consideration of ‘‘whether regards the burden as ‘‘significant,’’ the compliance with title V would not yield title V would result in significant Agency may not exempt a category from any gains in compliance with improvements to the compliance compliance with title V requirements underlying requirements in the relevant requirements, including monitoring, unless compliance is ‘‘unnecessarily NESHAP (72 FR 16656). The commenter recordkeeping, and reporting, that are burdensome.’’ The commenter stated stated that EPA’s conclusory claim proposed for an area source category.’’ that in any event, EPA’s claims about could be made equally with respect to Thus, contrary to the commenter’s the alleged significance of the burden of any major or area source category. assertion, the inquiry under the first compliance is entirely conclusory and According to the commenter, the factor is not whether title V will provide could be applied equally to any major Agency provides no specific reasons to any compliance benefit, but rather or area source category. The commenter believe—with respect to any of the whether it will provide significant

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38895

improvements in compliance proposal preamble and above, we therefore EPA’s claims about public requirements. considered the fourth factor and health, welfare and the environment are EPA applied the four-factor balancing determined that there are adequate wrong too. The commenter also stated test in determining whether title V was implementation and enforcement that Congress enacted title V for a unnecessarily burdensome on the area programs in place to assure compliance reason: to assure compliance with all source categories we are exempting from with the CAA, consistent with the applicable requirements and to title V in this rule. This rulemaking did fourth factor. As stated above, we do not empower citizens to get information and not re-open EPA’s interpretation of the have data available on the enforcement enforce the CAA. The commenter said term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in of these NESHAPs as in the Exemption that those benefits—of which EPA’s CAA section 502. Because the Rule because, unlike in that rule, we are proposed rule deprives the public— commenter’s statements do not exempting the categories at the same would improve compliance with the demonstrate a flaw in EPA’s application time we are promulgating these underlying standards and thus have of the four-factor balancing test to the NESHAPs. In the proposed rule, we did, benefits for public health, welfare and specific facts of the source categories at however, explain that States with the environment. According to the issue here, which is the sole title V issue delegated programs have enforcement commenter, EPA has not demonstrated in this rulemaking, the comments and compliance assistance programs in that these benefits are unnecessary with provide no basis for the Agency to place to enforce the provisions of these respect to any specific source category, reconsider its proposal to exempt the NESHAPs (72 FR 16656). In addition, but again simply rests on its own area source categories from title V. States must have adequate programs to apparent belief that they are never Furthermore, EPA nowhere states, nor enforce the HAP regulations and necessary. The commenter concluded does it believe, that title V never confers provide assurances that it will enforce that for the reasons given above, that additional compliance benefits as the all NESHAPs before EPA will delegate attempt to substitute EPA’s judgment for commenter asserts. a program to the States. See 40 CFR part Congress’ is unlawful and arbitrary. Comment: According to one 63, subpart E. The commenter argues Response: Congress gave the commenter, EPA argued that alternative that the exemptions must fail because Administrator the authority to exempt State implementation and enforcement ‘‘[t]he agency does not identify any area sources from compliance with title programs assure compliance with the aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP V if, in his discretion, the Administrator underlying NESHAP without relying on showing that with respect to these ‘‘finds that compliance with [title v] is title V permits (72 FR 16656). The specific NESHAP—unlike all the other impracticable, infeasible, or commenter stated that again, however, major and area source NESHAP it has unnecessarily burdensome.’’ See CAA EPA’s claim is entirely conclusory and issued without title V exemptions—title section 502(a). EPA has interpreted one generic. The commenter also stated that V compliance is unnecessary’’ the Agency does not identify any aspect of the three justifications for exempting (emphasis added). The standard that the of any of the underlying NESHAP area sources, ‘‘unnecessarily commenter proposes is not consistent showing that with respect to these burdensome’’, as requiring with the standard the Agency specific NESHAPs—unlike all the other consideration of the four factors established in the Exemption Rule and major and area source NESHAP it has discussed above. EPA applied these four applied in the proposed rule in issued without title V exemptions—title factors to the Acrylic and Modacrylic determining if title V is unnecessarily V compliance is unnecessary. Instead, Fibers Production area source category, burdensome for the source categories at according to the commenter, EPA the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing issue. Furthermore, the standard the merely pointed to existing State area source category, the Flexible commenter suggests is an impossible requirements and the potential for Polyurethane Foam Production and actions by States and EPA that are standard to meet. Fabrication area source categories, and generally applicable to all categories Comment: One commenter stated that, the Wood Preserving area source (along with some small business and as EPA concedes, the legislative history category and concluded that requiring voluntary programs). The commenter the CAA shows that Congress did not title V for these area source categories said that absent a showing by EPA that intend EPA to exempt source categories would be unnecessarily burdensome. distinguishes the sources it proposes to from compliance with title V unless In addition to determining that title V exempt from other sources, however, doing so would not adversely affect would be unnecessarily burdensome on the Agency’s argument boils down to public health, welfare, or the the area source categories for which we the claim that it generally views title V environment. See 72 FR 16654; 16656. proposed exemptions, as in the requirements as unnecessary. The Nonetheless, according to the Exemption Rule, EPA also considered, commenter stated that may be EPA’s commenter, EPA does not make any consistent with our interpretation of the view, but it was not Congress’s view showing that its exemptions would not legislative history, whether exempting when Congress enacted title V and it have adverse impacts on health, welfare the area source categories would does not suffice to show that title V and the environment. The commenter adversely affect public health, welfare compliance is unnecessarily stated that instead, EPA offered only the or the environment. As explained in the burdensome. conclusory assertion that ‘‘the level of proposal preamble and above, we Response: The commenter again takes control would remain the same’’ concluded that exempting the area issue with the Agency’s test for whether title V permits are required are source categories at issue in this rule determining whether title V is not (72 FR 16656). The commenter would not adversely affect public unnecessarily burdensome, as continued by stating that EPA relied health, welfare or the environment developed in the Exemption Rule. Our entirely on the conclusory arguments because the level of control would be interpretation of the term advanced elsewhere in its proposal that the same even if title V applied. The ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ is not the compliance with title V would not yield commenter has not provided any subject of this rulemaking. To the extent additional compliance with the information that exemption of these area the commenter asserts that our underlying NESHAP. The commenter source categories from title V will application of the fourth factor is stated that those arguments are wrong adversely affect public health, welfare flawed, we disagree. As explained in the for the reasons given above, and or the environment.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38896 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

I. Compliance with Executive Order J. Compliance With Executive Order information submitted to EPA pursuant 13045: Protection of Children From 12898: Federal Actions To Address to the information collection Environmental Health and Safety Risks Environmental Justice in Minority requirements for which a claim of Populations and Low-Income confidentiality is made is safeguarded Comment: One commenter disagreed Populations according to CAA section 114(c) and the with EPA’s conclusion that this Comment: One commenter alleged Agency’s implementing regulations at Executive Order does not apply to this that minority and low income 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. action because it is not economically populations are located The information collection significant and does not present a disproportionately near the source requirements for acrylic and modacrylic disproportionate risk to children. categories covered by the proposal. fibers production are the same as the requirements that are in the current According to the commenter, nothing in According to the commenter, these State operating permit for the one the language of the Executive Order minority and low income populations existing source. The only new limits EPA’s obligation to consider risks will be adversely affected by any information collection requirements that to instances when it thinks the standard that is less protective than apply to this area source consist of underlying regulatory action is required by the CAA and also by any initial notifications, records of process economically significant. The exemption from title V permitting and maintenance wastewater treated in commenter also claimed that the toxic requirements. The commenter claimed a wastewater treatment systems, and an that EPA failed to consider these effects emissions from the source categories SSM plan. Any new acrylic and of its proposal. included in the proposal have a modacrylic fibers production area Response: As we stated at proposal, disproportionate risk on children, who source is subject to all information we have determined that these final are especially at risk to all toxins and collection requirements in the part 63 rules will not have disproportionately inhaled pollution. The commenter General Provisions. alleged that EPA has ample reason to high and adverse human health or The annual burden for this believe that failing to require the degree environmental effects on minority or information collection averaged over the of reduction required by the CAA and low-income populations because they first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to its exemption of source categories from increase the level of environmental total 9 labor hours per year at a cost of protection for all affected populations title V requirements will have a $780 for the one existing acrylic and without having any disproportionately disproportionate effect on children. modacrylic fibers area source. No high and adverse human health or capital/startup costs or operation and Response: We disagree with the environmental effects on any maintenance costs are associated with commenter. Section 2–202 of Executive population, including any minority or the final requirements. No costs or Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children low-income population. The commenter burden hours are estimated for new from Environmental Health Risks and provided no information to support the acrylic and modacrylic fibers Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, commenter’s conclusion. production area sources because no new 1997) defines the actions subject to its VI. Statutory and Executive Order area sources are estimated during the terms. As we stated at proposal, this Reviews next 3 years. Executive Order applies to any rule that: As a result of public comments, we (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory learned there are no existing carbon significant’’ as defined under Executive Planning and Review black production facilities that are area Order 12866, and (2) concerns an Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR sources. Consequently, there are no environmental health or safety risk that 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a costs or burden hours associated with EPA has reason to believe may ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because the monitoring, reporting and disproportionately affect children. If a it may raise novel legal or policy issues. recordkeeping requirements for existing regulatory action meets both criteria, the Accordingly, EPA submitted this action area sources. No costs or burden hours Executive Order directs EPA to evaluate to OMB for review under Executive are estimated for new carbon black the environmental health or safety Order 12866, and any changes made in production area sources because no new effects of the planned rule on children response to OMB recommendations sources are estimated during the next 3 and explain why the planned regulation have been documented in the docket for years. The testing, monitoring, is preferable to other potentially this action. recordkeeping, and reporting effective and reasonably feasible B. Paperwork Reduction Act requirements for existing chromium alternatives considered by the Agency. The information requirements in compounds manufacturing area sources EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 these rules have been submitted for are the same as the requirements that as applying to those regulatory actions approval to OMB under the Paperwork are in the current title V operating that concern health or safety risks, such Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. permit for the two existing facilities. that the analysis called for by section 5– The information collection requirements The only new information collection 501 of the Executive Order has the are not enforceable until OMB approves requirements that apply to these area potential to influence the regulation. them. sources consist of initial notifications, These final rules are not subject to The recordkeeping and reporting SSM plans, and control device Executive Order 13045 because they are requirements in the final rules are based inspections at one plant. Any new not economically significant and, on the existing permit requirements as chromium compounds manufacturing because the rules are based solely on well as the information collection area source is subject to all information technology performance, an analysis requirements in the part 63 General collection requirements in the part 63 under section 5–501 of the Executive Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). General Provisions. The recordkeeping and reporting The annual burden for this Order would not have had the potential requirements in the General Provisions information collection averaged over the to influence this regulation. are mandatory pursuant to section 114 first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All total 194 labor hours per year at a cost

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38897

of $16,409 for the two existing initial notifications, records (1) A small business that meets the chromium compounds manufacturing demonstrating compliance with the Small Business Administration size area sources. No capital/startup costs or management practice requirements, and standards for small businesses found at operation and maintenance costs are deviation reporting requirements. 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 1,000 associated with the requirements. No The annual burden for this employees for acrylic and modacrylic costs or burden hours are estimated for information collection averaged over the fibers production and chromium new chromium compounds first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to compounds manufacturing and less manufacturing area sources because no total 1,055 labor hours per year at a cost than 500 employees for carbon black new area sources are estimated during of $89,324 for approximately 400 production, flexible polyurethane foam the next 3 years. existing wood preserving area sources. production and fabrication, lead-acid The final NESHAP for flexible No capital/startup costs or operation battery manufacturing, and wood polyurethane foam production and and maintenance costs are associated preserving); (2) a small governmental fabrication operations area sources with the requirements. No costs or jurisdiction that is a government of a require a one-time notification by slab burden hours are estimated for new city, county, town, school district, or stock foam facilities certifying that they wood preserving area sources because special district with a population of less do not use methylene chloride and no new sources are estimated during the than 50,000; and (3) a small records documenting that they do not next 3 years. organization that is any not-for-profit use methylene chloride. One plant that Burden means the total time, effort, or enterprise which is independently uses methylene chloride is subject to financial resources expended by persons owned and operated and is not additional reporting requirements. to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or dominant in its field. The annual burden for this provide information to or for a Federal After considering the economic information collection averaged over the agency. This includes the time needed impacts of the proposed rules on small first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to to review instructions; develop, acquire, entities, I certify that this action will not total 925 labor hours per year at a cost install, and utilize technology and have a significant economic impact on of $78,337 for the 500 or more existing systems for the purposes of collecting, a substantial number of small entities. flexible foam fabrication and production validating, and verifying information, There will not be adverse impacts on area sources. No capital/startup costs or processing and maintaining existing area sources in any of the seven operation and maintenance costs are information, and disclosing and source categories because the final rules associated with the requirements. No providing information; adjust the do not create any new requirements or costs or burden hours are estimated for existing ways to comply with any burdens for existing sources other than new flexible foam production or previously applicable instructions and minimal notification requirements. fabrication area sources because no new requirements; train personnel to be able Although the final NESHAP contain sources are estimated during the next 3 to respond to a collection of emissions control requirements for new years. information; search data sources; area sources in all seven source The testing and monitoring complete and review the collection of categories, we are not specifically aware requirements for emissions sources information; and transmit or otherwise of any new sources being constructed equipped with a scrubbing system at disclose the information. now or planned in the next 3 years, and new and existing lead acid battery An agency may not conduct or consequently, we did not estimate any manufacturing area sources are the same sponsor, and a person is not required to impacts for new sources. as the requirements that are in the NSPS respond to, a collection of information Although this final rule will not have (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK). unless it displays a currently valid OMB a significant economic impact on a Monitoring requirements for emissions control number. The OMB control substantial number of small entities, sources equipped with fabric filter are numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the also included in the final rule. New CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. impact of this rule on small entities. information collection requirements that When this ICR is approved by OMB, the These final rules are designed to apply to these area sources consist of Agency will publish a technical harmonize with existing State or local notifications, records, and reports amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the requirements. required by the part 63 General Federal Register to display the OMB D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Provisions. control number for the approved The annual burden for this information collection requirements Title II of the Unfunded Mandates information collection averaged over the contained in this final rule. Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to Law 104–4, establishes requirements for total 2,302 labor hours per year at a cost C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Federal agencies to assess the effects of of $172,477 for the approximately 60 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) their regulatory actions on State, local, existing lead acid battery manufacturing generally requires an agency to prepare and tribal governments and the private area sources, with capital/startup costs a regulatory flexibility analysis of any sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, of $4,840 and no operation and rule subject to notice and comment EPA generally must prepare a written maintenance costs. No costs or burden rulemaking requirements under the statement, including a cost-benefit hours are estimated for new lead acid Administrative Procedure Act or any analysis, for proposed and final rules battery manufacturing area sources other statute unless the agency certifies with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may because no new sources are estimated that the rule would not have a result in expenditures by State, local, during the next 3 years. significant economic impact on a and tribal governments, in the aggregate, The final NESHAP for wood substantial number of small entities. or to the private sector, of $100 million preserving area sources does not include Small entities include small businesses, or more in any 1 year. Before testing or monitoring requirements small not-for-profit enterprises, and promulgating an EPA rule for which a because they are subject to management small governmental jurisdictions. written statement is needed, section 205 practices. The only new information For the purposes of assessing the of the UMRA generally requires EPA to collection requirements that apply to impacts of the area source NESHAP on identify and consider a reasonable these existing area sources consist of small entities, small entity is defined as: number of regulatory alternatives and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38898 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

adopt the least costly, most cost- States, on the relationship between the on technology performance and not on effective, or least burdensome national government and the States, or health or safety risks. alternative that achieves the objectives on the distribution of power and H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That of the rule. The provisions of section responsibilities among the various Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 205 do not apply when they are levels of government, as specified in Distribution, or Use inconsistent with applicable law. Executive Order 13132. These final Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to rules impose requirements on owners These final rules are not a ‘‘significant adopt an alternative other than the least and operators of specified area sources energy action’’ as defined in Executive costly, most cost-effective, or least and not State and local governments. Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, burdensome alternative if the Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 2001) because they are not likely to have Administrator publishes with the final apply to these final rules. a significant adverse effect on the rule an explanation why that alternative supply, distribution, or use of energy. was not adopted. Before EPA establishes F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Further, we have concluded that these any regulatory requirements that may and Coordination With Indian Tribal final rules are not likely to have any significantly or uniquely affect small Governments adverse energy effects because energy governments, including tribal Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, requirements would remain at existing governments, it must have developed November 6, 2000), requires EPA to levels. No additional pollution controls under section 203 of the UMRA a small develop an accountable process to or other equipment that would consume government agency plan. The plan must ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by energy are required by these final rules. provide for notifying potentially tribal officials in the development of I. National Technology Transfer affected small governments, enabling regulatory policies that have tribal Advancement Act officials of affected small governments implications.’’ These final rules do not Section 12(d) of the National to have meaningful and timely input in have tribal implications, as specified in the development of EPA regulatory Technology Transfer and Advancement Executive Order 13175. They will not Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104– proposals with significant Federal have substantial direct effects on tribal intergovernmental mandates, and 113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) governments, on the relationship directs EPA to use voluntary consensus informing, educating, and advising between the Federal government and small governments on compliance with standards (VCS) in its regulatory Indian tribes, or on the distribution of activities, unless to do so would be the regulatory requirements. power and responsibilities between the EPA has determined that the final inconsistent with applicable law or Federal government and Indian tribes, otherwise impractical. The VCS are rules do not contain a Federal mandate as specified in Executive Order 13175. that may result in expenditures of $100 technical standards (e.g., materials These final rules impose requirements specifications, test methods, sampling million or more for State, local, and on owners and operators of specified tribal governments, in the aggregate, or procedures, and business practices) that area sources and not tribal governments. are developed or adopted by VCS the private sector in any one year. Thus, Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not the final rules are not subject to the bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to apply to these final rules. requirements of sections 202 and 205 of provide Congress, through OMB, the UMRA. In addition, the final rules G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of explanations when the Agency does not do not significantly or uniquely affect Children From Environmental Health use available and applicable VCS. small governments. The final rules and Safety Risks The final rules involve technical contain no requirements that apply to standards. The EPA cites the following Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of such governments, impose no standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, obligations upon them, and will not Children from Environmental Health 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9 result in expenditures by them of $100 Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, and 22 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. million or more in any one year or any April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: The method ASME PTC 19.10–1981, disproportionate impacts on them. (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ Therefore, the final rules are not subject significant’’ as defined under Executive (incorporated by reference—see 40 CFR to section 203 of the UMRA. Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 63.14) is cited in one of these final rules environmental health or safety risk that for its manual method for measuring the E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism EPA has reason to believe may have a oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, disproportionate effect on children. If monoxide content of the exhaust gas. August 10, 1999) requires EPA to the regulatory action meets both criteria, This part of ASME PTC 19.10–1981 is develop an accountable process to EPA must evaluate the environmental an acceptable alternative to EPA Method ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by health or safety effects of the planned 3B. This ASTM method is a VCS. State and local officials in the rule on children, and explain why the Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA development of regulatory policies that planned regulation is preferable to other conducted searches to identify VCS in have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies potentially effective and reasonably addition to these EPA methods. No that have federalism implications’’ are feasible alternatives considered by the applicable VCS were identified for EPA defined in the Executive Order to Agency. Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, 9 or include regulations that have EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 22. The search and review results are in ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, as applying only to those regulatory the docket for these final rules. on the relationship between the national actions that concern health or safety The search for emissions government and the States, or on the risks, such that the analysis required measurement procedures identified 12 distribution of power and under section 5–501 of the Executive other VCS. The EPA determined that responsibilities among the various Order has the potential to influence the these 12 standards identified for levels of government.’’ regulation. These final rules are not measuring emissions of the HAP or These final rules do not have subject to Executive Order 13045 surrogates subject to emissions federalism implications. They will not because they are not economically standards in these final rules were have substantial direct effects on the significant and because they are based impractical alternatives to EPA test

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38899

methods. Therefore, EPA does not action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined Other Requirements and Information intend to adopt these standards for this by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These final rules will 63.11397 What General Provisions apply to purpose. The reasons for the be effective on July 16, 2007. this subpart? determinations for the 12 methods are 63.11398 What definitions apply to this List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 discussed in a memorandum included subpart? in the docket for these final rules. Environmental protection, Air 63.11399 Who implements and enforces For the methods required or pollution control, Hazardous this subpart? referenced by these final rules, a source substances, Incorporations by reference, Table 1 to Subpart LLLLLL of Part 63— may apply to EPA for permission to use Applicability of General Provisions to Reporting and recordkeeping Subpart LLLLLL alternative test methods or alternative requirements. monitoring requirements in place of any Dated: June 15, 2007. Applicability and Compliance Dates required testing methods, performance Stephen L. Johnson, specifications, or procedures under § 63.11393 Am I subject to this subpart? § 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) of subpart A of the Administrator. (a) You are subject to this subpart if General Provisions. I For the reasons stated in the preamble, you own or operate an acrylic or title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code modacrylic fibers production plant that J. Executive Order 12898: Federal of Federal Regulations is amended as is an area source of hazardous air Actions To Address Environmental follows: pollutant (HAP) emissions. Justice in Minority Populations and (b) This subpart applies to each new Low-Income Populations PART 63—[AMENDED] or existing affected source. The affected Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, source is each acrylic or modacrylic I 1. The authority citation for part 63 February 16, 1994) establishes Federal fibers plant. executive policy on environmental continues to read as follows: (1) An affected source is existing if justice. Its main provision directs Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. you commenced construction or Federal agencies, to the greatest extent reconstruction of the affected source on practicable and permitted by law, to Subpart A—[Amended] or before April 4, 2007. make environmental justice part of their (2) An affected source is new if you I 2. Section 63.14 is amended by mission by identifying and addressing, commenced construction or revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as as appropriate, disproportionately high reconstruction of the affected source follows: and adverse human health or after April 4, 2007. environmental effects of their programs, § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. (c) This subpart does not apply to policies, and activities on minority * * * * * research and development facilities, as populations and low-income (i) * * * defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean populations in the United States. (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Air Act (CAA). EPA has determined that these final ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part (d) You are exempt from the rules will not have disproportionately 10, Instruments and Apparatus],’’ IBR obligation to obtain a permit under 40 high and adverse human health or approved for §§ 63.309(k)(1)(iii), CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided environmental effects on minority or 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), you are not otherwise required by law low-income populations because they 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) increase the level of environmental 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the protection for all affected populations 63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), previous sentence, you must continue to without having any disproportionately 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), comply with the provisions of this high and adverse human health or 63.9307(c)(2), 63.9323(a)(3), subpart. environmental effects on any 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), § 63.11394 What are my compliance population, including any minority or 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), low-income population. These final dates? 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), (a) If you own or operate an existing rules establish national standards for 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), and Table 5 of each area source category. affected source, you must achieve subpart DDDDD of this part. compliance with the applicable K. Congressional Review Act * * * * * provisions in this subpart no later than The Congressional Review Act, 5 I 3. Part 63 is amended by adding January 16, 2008. U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the subpart LLLLLL to read as follows: (b) If you startup a new affected Small Business Regulatory Enforcement source on or before July 16, 2007, you Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Subpart LLLLLL—National Emission must achieve compliance with the that before a rule may take effect the Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants applicable provisions of this subpart not agency promulgating the rule must for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers later than July 16, 2007. submit a rule report, which includes a Production Area Sources (c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you must copy of the rule, to each House of Sec. Congress and to the Comptroller General achieve compliance with the provisions of the United States. The EPA will Applicability and Compliance Dates in this subpart upon startup of your submit a report containing these final 63.11393 Am I subject to this subpart? affected source. 63.11394 What are my compliance dates? rules and other required information to Standards and Compliance the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Standards and Compliance Requirements Requirements Representatives, and the Comptroller 63.11395 What are the standards and § 63.11395 What are the standards and General of the United States prior to compliance requirements for existing compliance requirements for existing publication of the final rules in the sources? sources? Federal Register. A major rule cannot 63.11396 What are the standards and take effect until 60 days after it is compliance requirements for new (a) You must operate and maintain published in the Federal Register. This sources? capture or enclosure systems that collect

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38900 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

the gases and fumes containing polymerization process equipment fall (3) of this section for each fiber spinning acrylonitrile (AN) released from below 50 l/min or the daily average line that uses a spin dope produced polymerization process equipment and water flow rate to a wet scrubber control from either a suspension polymerization monomer recovery process equipment device for the monomer recovery process or solution polymerization and convey the collected gas stream process equipment fall below 30 l/min, process. through a closed vent system to a you must notify EPA or the delegated (1) You must reduce the AN control device. authority in writing within 10 days of concentration of the spin dope to less (b) Except as provided in paragraph the identification of the exceedance. than 100 parts per million by weight (b)(3) of this section, you must not (g) You must keep records of each (ppmw); or discharge to the atmosphere through monthly compliance determination for (2) You must design and operate a any combination of stacks or other vents the water flow rate operating parameter fiber spinning line enclosure according captured gases containing AN in excess limits in a permanent form suitable for to the requirements in § 63.1103(b)(4) of of the emissions limits in paragraphs inspection and retain the records for at subpart YY and reduce AN emissions by (b)(1) and (2) of this section. least 2 years following the date of each 85 weight-percent or more by venting (1) 0.2 pounds of AN per hour (lb/hr) compliance determination. emissions from the enclosure through a from the control device for (h) You must conduct a performance closed vent system to any combination polymerization process equipment. test for each control device for of control devices meeting the (2) 0.05 lb/hr of AN from the control polymerization process equipment and requirements in § 63.982(a)(2) of subpart device for monomer recovery process monomer recovery process equipment SS; or equipment. subject to an emissions limit in (3) You must reduce AN emissions (3) If you do not comply with the paragraph (b) of this section within 180 from the spinning line to less than or emissions limits in paragraphs (b)(1) days of your compliance date and report equal to 0.5 pounds of AN per ton (lb/ and (2) of this section, you must comply the results in your notification of ton) of acrylic and modacrylic fiber with the new source standards for compliance status. You must conduct produced. process vents in § 63.11396(a). each test according to the requirements (k) You may change the operating (c) If you use a wet scrubber control in § 63.7 of subpart A and § 63.1104 of limits for a wet scrubber if you meet the device, you must comply with the subpart YY. You are not required to requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) control device parameter operating conduct a performance test if a prior through (3) of this section. limits in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this performance test was conducted using (1) Submit a written notification to section. the methods specified in § 63.1104 of the Administrator to conduct a new (1) You must maintain the daily subpart YY and either no process performance test to revise the operating average water flow rate to a wet changes have been made since the test, limit. scrubber used to control polymerization or you can demonstrate that the results (2) Conduct a performance test to process equipment at a minimum of 50 of the performance test, with or without demonstrate compliance with the liters per minute (l/min). If the water adjustments, reliably demonstrate applicable emissions limit for a control flow to the wet scrubber ceases, the compliance despite process changes. device in paragraph (b) of this section. polymerization reactor(s) must be shut (i) If you do not use a wet scrubber (3) Establish revised operating limits down. control device for the polymerization according to the procedures in (2) You must maintain the daily process equipment or the monomer paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and (ii) of this average water flow rate to a wet recovery process equipment, you must section. scrubber used to control monomer submit a monitoring plan to EPA or the (i) Using the CPMS required in recovery process equipment at a delegated authority for approval. Each paragraph (e) of this section, measure minimum of 30 l/min. plan must contain the information in and record the water flow rate to the wet (d) You must comply with the paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this scrubber in intervals of no less than 15 requirements of the New Source section. minutes during each AN test run. Performance Standard for Volatile (1) A description of the device; (ii) Determine and record the average Organic Liquids (40 CFR part 60, (2) Test results collected in water flow rate for each test run. Your subpart Kb) for vessels that store accordance with § 63.1104 of subpart operating limit is the lowest average acrylonitrile. The provisions in 40 CFR YY verifying the performance of the flow rate during any test run that 60.114b do not apply to this subpart. device for reducing AN to the levels complies with the applicable emissions (e) You must operate continuous required by this subpart; limit. parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) (3) Operation and maintenance plan (l) You must treat process and to measure and record the water flow for the control device (including a maintenance wastewater containing AN rate to a wet scrubber control device for preventative maintenance schedule in a wastewater treatment system. You the polymerization process equipment consistent with the manufacturer’s must keep records that list each process and the monomer recovery process instructions for routine and long-term and maintenance wastewater stream equipment. The CPMS must record the maintenance) and continuous that contains AN and a process flow water flow rate at least every 15 minutes monitoring system. diagram of the wastewater treatment and determine and record the daily (4) A list of operating parameters that system that identifies each wastewater average water flow rate. will be monitored to maintain stream. (f) You must determine compliance continuous compliance with the with the daily average control device applicable emissions limits; and § 63.11396 What are the standards and parameter operating limits for water (5) Operating parameter limits based compliance requirements for new sources? flow rate in paragraph (c) of this section on monitoring data collected during the (a) You must comply with the on a monthly basis and submit a performance test. requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) summary report to EPA or the delegated (j) If you do not operate a monomer of this section for each process vent authority on a quarterly basis. Should recovery process that removes AN prior where the AN concentration of the vent the daily average water flow rate to a to spinning, you must comply with the stream is equal to or greater than 50 wet scrubber control device for the requirements in paragraph (j)(1), (2), or parts per million by volume (ppmv) and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38901

the average flow rate is equal to or equipment leaks); and subpart G (for performance tests and assessments in greater than 0.005 cubic meters per process wastewater and maintenance accordance with § 63.11396(f)’’. If you minute, as determined by the wastewater). Only the provisions in conduct a performance test or applicability and assessment procedures §§ 63.132 through 63.148 and §§ 63.151 assessment to demonstrate compliance, in § 63.1104 of subpart YY. through 63.153 of subpart G apply to you must include the results of the (1) You must reduce emissions of AN this subpart. performance test and/or assessment. by 98 weight-percent or limit the (g) If you use a control device other (3) This certification of compliance, concentration of AN in the emissions to than a wet scrubber, flare, incinerator, signed by a responsible official, for the no more than 20 ppmv, whichever is boiler, process heater, absorber, standards for storage tanks in less stringent, by venting emissions condenser, or carbon adsorber, you must § 63.11396(d): ‘‘This facility complies through a closed vent system to any prepare and submit a monitoring plan to with the requirements of 40 CFR part combination of control devices meeting the Administrator for approval. Each 60, subpart Kb for each tank that stores the requirements for process vents in plan must contain the information in acrylonitrile.’’ § 63.982(a)(2) of subpart SS; or paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this (4) This certification of compliance, (2) You must reduce emissions of AN section. signed by a responsible official, for the by using a flare that meets the (1) A description of the device; requirement in Table 1 to subpart requirements of § 63.987 of subpart SS. (2) Test results collected in LLLLLL for preparation of a startup, (b) You must comply with the accordance with paragraph (f) of this shutdown, and malfunction plan: ‘‘This requirements in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or section verifying the performance of the facility has prepared a startup, (3) of this section for each fiber spinning device for reducing AN to the levels shutdown, and malfunction plan in line that uses a spin dope produced required by this subpart; accordance with the requirements of 40 from either a suspension polymerization (3) Operation and maintenance plan CFR 63.6(e)(3).’’ process or solution polymerization for the control device (including a (c) If you own or operate a new process. preventative maintenance schedule affected source, your notification of (1) You must reduce the AN consistent with the manufacturer’s compliance status required by § 63.9(h) concentration of the spin dope to less instructions for routine and long-term must include: than 100 ppmw; or maintenance) and continuous (1) The results of the initial (2) You must design and operate a monitoring system. performance test or compliance fiber spinning line enclosure according (4) A list of operating parameters that demonstration for each process vent to the requirements in § 63.1103(b)(4) of will be monitored to maintain (including closed vent system and subpart YY and reduce AN emissions by continuous compliance with the control device, flare, or recovery 85 weight-percent or more by venting applicable emissions limits; and device), fiber spinning line, AN storage emissions from the enclosure through a (5) Operating parameter limits based tank, equipment, and wastewater stream closed vent system to any combination on monitoring data collected during the subject to this subpart. of control devices meeting the performance test. (2) This certification of compliance, requirements in § 63.982(a)(2) of subpart signed by a responsible official, for the SS; or Other Requirements and Information (3) You must reduce AN emissions applicable emissions limit in from the spinning line to less than or § 63.11397 What General Provisions apply § 63.11396(a) for process vents: ‘‘This to this subpart? equal to 0.5 pounds of AN per ton (lb/ facility complies with the emissions ton) of acrylic and modacrylic fiber (a) You must meet the requirements of limits in § 63.11396(a) for each process produced. the General Provisions in 40 CFR part vent subject to control.’’ (c) You must comply with the 63, subpart A, as shown in Table 1 to (3) This certification of compliance, requirements for storage vessels holding this subpart. signed by a responsible official, for the acrylonitrile as shown in Table 2 to (b) If you own or operate an existing applicable emissions limit in § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY. affected source, your notification of § 63.11396(b) for each fiber spinning (d) You must comply with the compliance status required by § 63.9(h) line: ‘‘This facility complies with the requirements for equipment that must include the following information: emissions limit and/or management contains or contacts 10 percent by (1) This certification of compliance, practice requirements in weight or more of AN and operates 300 signed by a responsible official, for the § 63.11396(b)(1), (2), or (3) for each fiber hours per year as shown in Table 2 to standards in § 63.11395(a): ‘‘This facility spinning line.’’ § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY. complies with the management (4) This certification of compliance, (e) You must comply with the practices required in § 63.11395(a) for signed by a responsible official, for the requirements for process wastewater operation of capture systems for storage tank requirements in and maintenance wastewater from an polymerization process equipment and § 63.11396(c): ‘‘This facility complies acrylic and modacrylic fibers monomer recovery process equipment.’’ with the requirements for storage production process as shown in Table 2 (2) This certification of compliance, vessels holding acrylonitrile as shown to § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY. signed by a responsible official, for the in Table 2 to § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of Process wastewater and maintenance emissions limits in § 63.11395(b): ‘‘This subpart YY.’’ wastewater that contains AN and is not facility complies with the emissions (5) This certification of compliance, subject to the requirements in Table 2 to limits in § 63.11395(b)(1) and (2) for signed by a responsible official, for the § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY must be control devices serving the equipment leak requirements in treated in a wastewater treatment polymerization process equipment and § 63.11396(d): ‘‘This facility complies system. monomer recovery process equipment with the requirements for all equipment (f) You must comply with all testing, based on previous performance tests in that contains or contacts 10 percent by monitoring, recordkeeping, and accordance with § 63.11395(h)’’ or ‘‘This weight or more of AN and operates 300 reporting requirements in subpart SS facility complies with the alternative hours per year or more as shown in (for process vents); subpart SS or WW standards for process vents in Table 2 to § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart (for AN tanks); subpart TT or UU (for § 63.11395(b)(3) based on previous YY.’’

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38902 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

(6) This certification of compliance, this subpart during startup, shutdown, including but not limited to signed by a responsible official, for the or malfunction, regardless of whether or acrylonitrile storage tanks, recovered process wastewater and maintenance not such failure is permitted by this monomer tanks, monomer measuring wastewater requirements in subpart. tanks, monomer preparation tanks, § 63.11396(e): ‘‘This facility complies Equipment means each of the monomer feed tanks, slurry receiver with the requirements in Table 2 to following that is subject to this subpart: tanks, polymerization reactors, and § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY for each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure drum filters. process wastewater stream and each relief device, sampling collection Process vent means the point of maintenance wastewater stream.’’ system, open-ended valve or line, valve discharge to the atmosphere (or point of (d) If you own or operate a new connector, instrumentation system in entry into a control device, if any) of a affected source, you must report any organic HAP service which contains or gas stream from the acrylic and deviation from the requirements of this contacts greater than 10 percent by modacrylic fibers production process. subpart in the semiannual report weight of acrylonitrile and operates Process wastewater means required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3). more than 300 hours per year. wastewater, which during Fiber spinning line means the group manufacturing or processing, comes into § 63.11398 What definitions apply to this of equipment and process vents direct contact with or results from the subpart? associated with acrylic or modacrylic production or use of any raw material, Acrylic fiber means a manufactured fiber spinning operations. The fiber intermediate product, finished product, synthetic fiber in which the fiber- spinning line includes (as applicable to by-product, or waste product. forming substance is any long-chain the type of spinning process used) the Responsible official means synthetic polymer composed of at least blending and dissolving tanks, spinning responsible official as defined at 40 CFR 85 percent by weight of acrylonitrile solution filters, wet spinning units, spin 70.2. units. bath tanks, and the equipment used Spin dope means the liquid mixture Acrylic and modacrylic fibers downstream of the spin bath to wash, of polymer and solvent that is fed to the production means the production of dry, or draw the spun fiber. spinneret to form the acrylic and either of the following synthetic fibers Maintenance wastewater means modacrylic fibers. composed of acrylonitrile units: acrylic wastewater generated by the draining of fiber or modacrylic fiber. process fluid from components in the § 63.11399 Who implements and enforces Acrylonitrile solution polymerization process unit, whose primary product is this subpart? means a process where acrylonitrile and a product produced by a source category (a) This subpart can be implemented comonomers are dissolved in a solvent subject to this subpart, into an and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a to form a polymer solution (typically individual drain system prior to or delegated authority such as a State, polyacrylonitrile). The polyacrylonitrile during maintenance activities. local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA is soluble in the solvent. In contrast to Maintenance wastewater can be Administrator has delegated authority to suspension polymerization, the generated during planned and a State, local, or tribal agency pursuant resulting reactor polymer solution (spin unplanned shutdowns and during to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency dope) is filtered and pumped directly to periods not associated with a shutdown. has the authority to implement and the fiber spinning process. Examples of activities that can generate enforce this subpart. You should contact Acrylonitrile suspension maintenance wastewaters include your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find polymerization means a polymerization descaling of heat exchanger tubing out if this subpart is delegated to a State, process where small drops of bundles, cleaning of distillation column local, or tribal agency within your State. acrylonitrile and comonomers are traps, draining of low legs and high (b) In delegating implementation and suspended in water in the presence of point bleeds, draining of pumps into an enforcement authority of this subpart to a catalyst where they polymerize under individual drain system, and draining of a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 agitation. Solid beads of polymer are portions of the process unit, whose CFR part 63, subpart E, the approval formed in this suspension reaction primary product is a product produced authorities contained in paragraphs which are subsequently filtered, by a source category subject to this (b)(1) through (4) of this section are washed, refiltered, and dried. The beads subpart, for repair. retained by the Administrator of the must be subsequently redissolved in a Modacrylic fiber means a U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the solvent to create a spin dope prior to manufactured synthetic fiber in which State, local, or tribal agency. introduction to the fiber spinning the fiber-forming substance is any long- (1) Approval of an alternative non- process. chain synthetic polymer composed of at opacity emissions standard under Deviation means any instance in least 35 percent by weight of § 63.6(g). which an affected source subject to this acrylonitrile units but less than 85 (2) Approval of a major change to a subpart, or an owner or operator of such percent by weight of acrylonitrile units. test method under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). a source: Monomer recovery process equipment A ‘‘major change to test method’’ is (1) Fails to meet any requirement or means the collection of process units defined in § 63.90. obligation established by this subpart, and associated process equipment used (3) Approval of a major change to including but not limited to any to reclaim the monomer for subsequent monitoring under § 63.8(f). A ‘‘major emissions limitation or management reuse, including but not limited to change to monitoring’’ is defined in practice; polymer holding tanks, polymer buffer § 63.90. (2) Fails to meet any term or condition tanks, monomer vacuum pump flush (4) Approval of a major change to that is adopted to implement an drum, and drum filter vacuum pump recordkeeping/ reporting under applicable requirement in this subpart flush drum. § 63.10(f). A ‘‘major change to and that is included in the operating Polymerization process equipment recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in permit for any affected source required means the collection of process units § 63.90. to obtain such a permit; or and associated process equipment used As required in § 63.11397(a), you (3) Fails to meet any emissions in the acrylonitrile polymerization must comply with the requirements of limitation or management practice in process prior to the fiber spinning line, the NESHAP General Provisions (40

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38903

CFR part 63, subpart A) as shown in the following table.

TABLE 1.—TO SUBPART LLLLLL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLLL

Applies to sub- Citation Subject part LLLLLL? Explanation

63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), Applicability ...... Yes. (a)(6), (a)(10)–(a)(12) (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e). 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)–(a)(9), (b)(2), Reserved ...... No. (c)(3), (c)(4), (d). 63.2 ...... Definitions ...... Yes. 63.3 ...... Units and Abbreviations ...... Yes. 63.4 ...... Prohibited Activities and Cir- Yes. cumvention. 63.5 ...... Preconstruction Review and Notifi- No. cation Requirements. 63.6(a), (b)(1)–(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), Compliance with Standards and Yes ...... Subpart LLLLLL requires new and existing sources (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (e)(3)(i), Maintenance Requirements. to comply with requirements for startups, shut- (e)(3)(iii)–(e)(3)(ix), (f) (g), (i), (j). downs, and malfunctions in § 63.6(e)(3). 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), Reserved ...... No. (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv). 63.6(h)(1)–(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)– ...... No ...... Subpart LLLLLL does not include opacity or visible (h)(5)(iii), (h)(6)–(h)(9). emissions standards or require a continuous opacity monitoring system. 63.7(a), (e), (f), (g), (h) ...... Performance Testing Require- Yes/No ...... Subpart LLLLLL requires performance tests for new ments. and existing sources; a test for an existing source is not required if a prior test meets the conditions in § 63.11395(h). 63.7(b), (c) ...... Yes/No ...... Requirements for notification of performance test and for quality assurance program apply to new sources but not existing sources. 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1)–(c)(3), Monitoring Requirements ...... Yes. (f)(1)–(5). 63.8(a)(3) ...... Reserved ...... No. 63.8(a)(4) ...... Yes ...... Requirements apply to new sources if flares are the selected control option. 63.8(c)(4)–(c)(8), (d), (e), (f)(6), (g) ...... Yes ...... Requirements apply to new sources but not to ex- isting sources. 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(5), (c), (d), (i), Notification Requirements ...... Yes. (j). 63.9(e) ...... Yes/No ...... Notification of performance test is required for new area sources. 63.9(b)(2) ...... Yes ...... Initial notification of applicability is required for new and existing area sources. 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4) ...... Reserved ...... No. 63.9(b)(4), (h)(5) ...... No. 63.9(f), (g) ...... No ...... Subpart LLLLLL does not require a continuous opacity monitoring system or continuous emis- sions monitoring system. 63.9(h)(1)–(h)(3), (h)(6) ...... Yes ...... Notification of compliance status is required for new and existing area sources. 63.10(a) ...... Recordkeeping Requirements ...... Yes. 63.10(b)(1) ...... Yes/No ...... Record retention requirement applies to new area sources but not existing area sources. Subpart LLLLLL establishes 2-year retention period for existing area sources. 63.10(b)(2) ...... Yes ...... Recordkeeping requirements for startups, shut- downs, and malfunctions apply to new and exist- ing area sources. 63.10(b)(3) ...... Yes ...... Recordkeeping requirements for applicability deter- minations apply to new area sources. 63.10(c)(1), (c)(5)–(c)(14) ...... Yes/No ...... Recordkeeping requirements for continuous param- eter monitoring systems apply to new sources but not existing sources. 63.10(c)(2)–(c)(4), (c)(9) ...... Reserved ...... No. 63.10(d)(1), (d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), (f) Reporting Requirements ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(2) ...... Yes ...... Report of performance test results applies to each area source required to conduct a performance test. 63.10(d)(3) ...... No ...... Subpart LLLLLL does not include opacity or visible emissions limits.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38904 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—TO SUBPART LLLLLL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLLL— Continued

Applies to sub- Citation Subject part LLLLLL? Explanation

63.10(d)(5) ...... Yes ...... Requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunc- tion reports apply to new and existing area sources. (e)(1)–(e)(2), (e)(4) ...... No ...... Subpart LLLLLL does not require a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous opac- ity monitoring system. 63.10(e)(3) ...... Yes/No ...... Semiannual reporting requirements for excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances apply to new area sources but not existing area sources. 63.11 ...... Control Device Requirements ...... Yes ...... Requirements apply to new sources if flares are the selected control option. 63.12 ...... State Authorities and Delegations Yes. 63.13 ...... Addresses ...... Yes. 63.14 ...... Incorporations by Reference ...... Yes. 63.15 ...... Availability of Information and Yes. Confidentiality. 63.16 ...... Performance Track Provisions...... Yes.

I 4. Part 63 is amended by adding or reconstruction of the affected source § 63.11403 [Reserved] subpart MMMMMM to read as follows: on or before April 4, 2007. Other Requirements and Information Subpart MMMMMM—National (2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or § 63.11404 What General Provisions apply Emission Standards for Hazardous Air to this subpart? reconstruction of the affected source Pollutants for Carbon Black The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, after April 4, 2007. Production Area Sources subpart A, applicable to this subpart are (c) This subpart does not apply to Sec. §§ 63.1 through 63.5 and §§ 63.11 research and development facilities, as through 63.16. Applicability and Compliance Dates defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean § 63.11405 What definitions apply to this 63.11400 Am I subject to this subpart? Air Act (CAA). subpart? 63.11401 What are my compliance dates? (d) If you own or operate an area The terms used in this subpart are Standards and Compliance Requirements source subject to this subpart, you must defined in §§ 63.1101 and 63.1103(f)(2). 63.11402 What are the standards and obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or compliance requirements for new and 40 CFR part 71. § 63.11406 Who implements and enforces existing sources? this subpart? 63.11403 [Reserved] § 63.11401 What are my compliance (a) This subpart can be implemented dates? Other Requirements and Information and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a (a) If you own or operate an existing delegated authority such as a State, 63.11404 What General Provisions apply to local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA this subpart? affected source, you must achieve 63.11405 What definitions apply to this compliance with the applicable Administrator has delegated authority to subpart? provisions of this subpart by July 16, a State, local, or tribal agency pursuant 63.11406 Who implements and enforces 2007. to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency this subpart? has the authority to implement and (b) If you startup a new affected enforce this subpart. You should contact Applicability and Compliance Dates source on or before July 16, 2007, you your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find § 63.11400 Am I subject to this subpart? must achieve compliance with the out if this subpart is delegated to a State, applicable provisions of this subpart not local, or tribal agency within your State. (a) You are subject to this subpart if later than July 16, 2007. (b) In delegating implementation and you own or operate a carbon black enforcement authority of this subpart to production facility that is an area source (c) If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you must a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) CFR part 63, subpart E, the approval emissions. achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart upon startup authorities contained in paragraphs (b) This subpart applies to each new (b)(1) through (4) of this section are of your affected source. or existing affected source. The affected retained by the Administrator of the source is each carbon black production Standards and Compliance U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the process unit. The affected source Requirements State, local, or tribal agency. includes all waste management units, (1) Approval of an alternative non- maintenance wastewater, and § 63.11402 What are the standards and opacity emissions standard under equipment components that contain or compliance requirements for new and § 63.992(b)(1). contact HAP that are associated with the existing sources? (2) Approval of a major change to test carbon black production process unit. You must meet all the requirements in methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A (1) An affected source is an existing § 63.1103(f) of subpart YY. ‘‘major change to test method’’ is source if you commenced construction defined in § 63.90.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38905

(3) Approval of a major change to compliance with the applicable control device which has been operated monitoring under § 63.8(f). A ‘‘major provisions in this subpart not later than within 60 days of the compliance date. change to monitoring’’ is defined in January 16, 2008. For an installed control device which § 63.90. (b) If you startup a new affected has not been operated within 60 days of (4) Approval of a major change to source on or before July 16, 2007, you the compliance date, you must conduct recordkeeping/reporting under must achieve compliance with the an initial inspection prior to startup of § 63.10(f). A ‘‘major change to applicable provisions of this subpart not the control device. recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in later than July 16, 2007. (1) For each baghouse, you must § 63.90. (c) If you startup a new affected visually inspect the system ductwork I 5. Part 63 is amended by adding source after July 16, 2007, you must and baghouse unit for leaks. You must subpart NNNNNN to read as follows: achieve compliance with the applicable also inspect the inside of each baghouse provisions of this subpart upon startup for structural integrity and fabric filter Subpart NNNNNN—National Emission of your affected source. condition. You must record the results Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants of the inspection and any maintenance for Chemical Manufacturing Area Standards and Compliance action in the logbook required in Sources: Chromium Compounds Requirements paragraph (d) of this section. An initial Sec. § 63.11409 What are the standards? inspection of the internal components of a baghouse is not required if an Applicability and Compliance Dates (a) You must operate a capture system inspection has been performed within that collects the gases and fumes 63.11407 Am I subject to this subpart? the past 12 months. 63.11408 What are my compliance dates? released during the operation of each (2) For each dry electrostatic emissions source listed in Table 1 of Standards and Compliance Requirements precipitator, you must verify the proper this subpart and conveys the collected 63.11409 What are the standards? functioning of the electronic controls for gas stream to a particulate matter (PM) corona power and rapper operation, that 63.11410 What are the compliance control device. requirements? the corona wires are energized, and that (b) You must not discharge to the adequate air pressure is present on the Other Requirements and Information atmosphere through any combination of rapper manifold. You must also visually 63.11411 What General Provisions apply to stacks or other vents process gases from inspect the system ductwork and this subpart? an emissions source listed in Table 1 of electrostatic precipitator housing unit 63.11412 What definitions apply to this this subpart that contain PM in excess and hopper for leaks and inspect the subpart? of the allowable process rate determined 63.11413 Who implements and enforces interior of the electrostatic precipitator according to Equation 1 of this section to determine the condition and integrity this subpart? (for an emissions source with a process Table 1 to Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63— of corona wires, collection plates, HAP Emissions Units rate of less than 30 tons per hour) or hopper, and air diffuser plates. An Table 2 to Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63— Equation 2 of this section (for an initial inspection of the internal Applicability of General Provisions to emissions source with a process rate of components of a dry electrostatic Subpart NNNNNN 30 tons per hour or greater). If more than precipitator is not required if an one process vents to a common stack, Applicability and Compliance Dates inspection has been performed within the applicable emissions limit for the the past 24 months. § 63.11407 Am I subject to this subpart? stack is the sum of allowable emissions (3) For each wet electrostatic (a) You are subject to this subpart if calculated for each process using precipitator, you must verify the proper you own or operate a chromium Equation 1 or 2 of this section, as functioning of the electronic controls for compounds manufacturing facility that applicable. corona power, that the corona wires are is an area source of hazardous air energized, and that water flow is =×067. pollutant (HAP) emissions. EP41. (Eq. 1) present. You must also visually inspect (b) This subpart applies to each new the system ductwork and electrostatic Where: or existing affected source. The affected precipitator housing unit and hopper for source is each chromium compounds E = Emissions limit in pounds per hour (lb/ leaks and inspect the interior of the hr); and manufacturing facility. electrostatic precipitator to determine P = Process rate of emissions source in tons the condition and integrity of corona (1) An affected source is existing if per hour (ton/hr). you commenced construction or wires, collection plates, plate wash spray heads, hopper, and air diffuser reconstruction of the affected source on EP=×55011. − 40 (Eq. 2) or before April 4, 2007. plates. An initial inspection of the (2) An affected source is new if you internal components of a wet § 63.11410 What are the compliance electrostatic precipitator is not required commence construction or requirements? reconstruction of the affected source if an inspection has been performed after April 4, 2007. (a) Existing sources. If you own or within the past 24 months. (c) This subpart does not apply to operate an existing area source, you (4) For each wet scrubber, you must research and development facilities, as must comply with the requirements in verify the presence of water flow to the defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA. paragraphs (b) through (e) of this scrubber. You must also visually inspect (d) If you own or operate an area section. the system ductwork and scrubber unit source subject to this subpart, you must (b) Initial control device inspection. for leaks and inspect the interior of the obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or You must conduct an initial inspection scrubber for structural integrity and the 40 CFR part 71. of each PM control device according to condition of the demister and spray the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) nozzle. § 63.11408 What are my compliance through (4) of this section. You must (i) An initial inspection of the internal dates? conduct each inspection no later than components of a wet scrubber is not (a) If you own or operate an existing 60 days after your applicable required if an inspection has been affected source, you must achieve compliance date for each installed performed within the past 12 months.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 ER16JY07.000 ER16JY07.001 38906 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

(i) An initial inspection of the internal (iii) You must conduct inspections of authority for inspection upon request. components of a wet scrubber is not the interior of the electrostatic You must maintain records of all required if an inspection has been precipitator to determine the condition required monitoring data and performed within the past 12 months. and integrity of corona wires, collection supporting information for at least 5 (ii) The requirement in paragraph plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air years from the date of the monitoring (b)(4) of this section for initial diffuser plates every 24 months. If an sample, measurement, report, or inspection of the internal components of initial inspection is not required by application. a wet scrubber does not apply to a paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the first (e) Reports. (1) You must report each cyclonic scrubber installed upstream of inspection must not be more than 24 deviation (an action or condition not in a wet or dry electrostatic precipitator. months from the last inspection. accordance with the requirements of (c) Periodic inspections/maintenance. (4) You must inspect and maintain this subpart, including upset conditions Following the initial inspections, you each wet scrubber according to the but excluding excess emissions) to the must perform periodic inspections and requirements in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) permitting agency on the next business maintenance of each PM control device through (iii) of this section. day after becoming aware of the according to the requirements in (i) You must conduct a daily deviation. You must submit a written paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this inspection to verify the presence of report within 2 business days which section. water flow to the scrubber. identifies the probable cause of the (1) You must inspect and maintain (ii) You must conduct monthly visual deviation and any corrective actions or each baghouse according to the inspections of the system ductwork and preventative actions taken. All reports requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and scrubber unit for leaks. of deviations must be certified by a (ii) of this section. (iii) You must conduct inspections of responsible official. (i) You must conduct monthly visual the interior of the scrubber to determine (2) You must submit semiannual inspections of the system ductwork for the structural integrity and condition of reports of monitoring and recordkeeping leaks. the demister and spray nozzle every 12 activities to your permitting authority. (ii) You must conduct inspections of months. Internal inspections of cyclonic (3) You must submit the results of any the interior of the baghouse for scrubbers installed upstream of wet or maintenance performed on each PM structural integrity and to determine the dry electrostatic precipitators are not control device within 30 days of a condition of the fabric filter every 12 required. written request by the permitting months. If an initial inspection is not (d) Recordkeeping requirements. You authority. required by paragraph (b)(1) of this must record the results of each (f) New sources. If you own or operate section, the first inspection must not be inspection and maintenance action in a a new affected source, you must comply more than 12 months from the last logbook (written or electronic format). with the requirements in paragraphs (g) inspection. You must keep the logbook onsite and and (h) of this section. (2) You must inspect and maintain make the logbook available to the (g) Bag leak detection systems. You each dry electrostatic precipitator permitting authority upon request. You must install, operate, and maintain a bag according to the requirements in must keep records of the information leak detection system on all baghouses paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through used to comply with the PM emissions section. (4) of this section for 5 years following limit in § 63.11409 according to (i) You must conduct a daily the date of each recorded action. paragraph (g)(1) of this section; prepare inspection to verify the proper (1) The date and time of each and operate by a site-specific functioning of the electronic controls for recorded action for a fabric filter, the monitoring plan according to paragraph corona power and rapper operation, that results of each inspection, and the (g)(2) of this section; take corrective the corona wires are energized, and that results of any maintenance performed action according to paragraph (g)(3) of adequate air pressure is present on the on the bag filters. this section; and record information rapper manifold. (2) The date and time of each according to paragraph (g)(4) of this (ii) You must conduct monthly visual recorded action for a wet or dry section. inspections of the system ductwork, electrostatic precipitator (including (1) Each bag leak detection system housing unit, and hopper for leaks. ductwork), the results of each must meet the specifications and (iii) You must conduct inspections of inspection, and the results of any requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) the interior of the electrostatic maintenance performed on the through (viii) of this section. precipitator to determine the condition electrostatic precipitator. (i) The bag leak detection system must and integrity of corona wires, collection (3) The date and time of each be certified by the manufacturer to be plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air recorded action for a wet scrubber capable of detecting PM emissions at diffuser plates every 24 months. (including ductwork), the results of each concentrations of 0.00044 grains per (3) You must inspect and maintain inspection, and the results of any actual cubic foot or less. each wet electrostatic precipitator maintenance performed on the wet (ii) The bag leak detection system according to the requirements in scrubber. sensor must provide output of relative paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this (4) Records of all required monitoring PM loadings. The owner or operator section. data and supporting information shall continuously record the output (i) You must conduct a daily including all calibration and from the bag leak detection system using inspection to verify the proper maintenance records, original strip- electronic or other means (e.g., using a functioning of the electronic controls for chart recordings for continuous strip chart recorder or a data logger). corona power, that the corona wires are monitoring information, and copies of (iii) The bag leak detection system energized, and that water flow is all reports required by this subpart. You must be equipped with an alarm system present. must maintain records of required that will sound when the system detects (ii) You must conduct monthly visual monitoring data in a form suitable and an increase in relative particulate inspections of the system ductwork, readily available for expeditious review. loading over the alarm set point electrostatic precipitator housing unit, All records must be kept onsite and established according to paragraph and hopper for leaks. made available to EPA or the delegated (g)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38907

must be located such that it can be is not feasible to alleviate this condition section verifying the performance of the heard by the appropriate plant within 3 hours of the time the alarm device for reducing PM to the levels personnel. occurs, and demonstrates that the required by this subpart; (iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag requested time will ensure alleviation of (3) Operation and maintenance plan leak detection system, you must this condition as expeditiously as for the control device (including a establish, at a minimum, the baseline practicable. preventative maintenance schedule output by adjusting the sensitivity (3) For each bag leak detection consistent with the manufacturer’s (range) and the averaging period of the system, you must initiate procedures to instructions for routine and long-term device, the alarm set points, and the determine the cause of every alarm maintenance) and continuous alarm delay time. within 1 hour of the alarm. Except as monitoring system. (v) Following initial adjustment, you provided in paragraph (g)(2)(vi) of this (4) A list of operating parameters that shall not adjust the averaging period, section, you must alleviate the cause of will be monitored to maintain alarm set point, or alarm delay time the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by continuous compliance with the without approval from the taking whatever corrective action(s) are applicable emissions limits; and Administrator or delegated authority necessary. Corrective actions may (5) Operating parameter limits based except as provided in paragraph include, but are not limited to the on monitoring data collected during the (g)(1)(vi) of this section. following: performance test. (vi) Once per quarter, you may adjust (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air (i) Performance tests. If you own or the sensitivity of the bag leak detection leaks, torn or broken bags or filter operate a new affected source, you must system to account for seasonal effects, media, or any other condition that may conduct a performance test for each including temperature and humidity, cause an increase in particulate emissions source subject to an according to the procedures identified emissions; emissions limit in § 63.11409(b) within in the site-specific monitoring plan (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 180 days of your compliance date and required by paragraph (g)(2) of this media; report the results in your notification of section. (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter compliance status. If you own or operate (vii) You must install the bag leak media or otherwise repairing the control an existing affected source, you are not detection sensor downstream of the device; required to conduct a performance test baghouse and upstream of any wet (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse if a prior performance test was scrubber. compartment; conducted within the past 5 years of the (viii) Where multiple detectors are (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection effective date using the same methods required, the system’s instrumentation system probe or otherwise repairing the specified in paragraph (j) of this section and alarm may be shared among bag leak detection system; or and either no process changes have been detectors. (vi) Shutting down the process made since the test, or if you can (2) You must develop and submit to producing the particulate emissions. demonstrate that the results of the the Administrator or delegated authority (4) You must maintain records of the performance test, with or without for approval a site-specific monitoring information specified in paragraphs adjustments, reliably demonstrate plan for each bag leak detection system. (g)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section for compliance despite process changes. You must operate and maintain the bag each bag leak detection system. (j) Test methods. You must conduct leak detection system according to an (i) Records of the bag leak detection each performance test according to the approved site-specific monitoring plan system output; requirements in § 63.7 and paragraphs at all times. Each monitoring plan must (ii) Records of bag leak detection (j)(1) through (3) of this section. describe the items in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) system adjustments, including the date (1) Determine the concentration of PM through (vi) of this section. and time of the adjustment, the initial according to the following test methods (i) Installation of the bag leak bag leak detection system settings, and in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A: detection system; the final bag leak detection system (i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of settings; and port locations and the number of the bag leak detection system, including (iii) The date and time of all bag leak traverse points in each stack or duct. how the alarm set-point will be detection system alarms, the time that Sampling sites must be located at the established; procedures to determine the cause of the outlet of the control device and prior to (iii) Operation of the bag leak alarm were initiated, the cause of the any releases to the atmosphere. detection system, including quality alarm, an explanation of the actions (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G assurance procedures; taken, the date and time the cause of the to determine the volumetric flow rate of (iv) How the bag leak detection alarm was alleviated, and whether the the stack gas. system will be maintained, including a alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine routine maintenance schedule and spare the alarm. the dry molecular weight of the stack parts inventory list; (h) Other control devices. If you use gas. You may use ANSI/ASME PTC (v) How the bag leak detection system a control device other than a baghouse, 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas output will be recorded and stored; and you must prepare and submit a Analyses (incorporated by reference— (vi) Corrective action procedures as monitoring plan to EPA or the delegated see § 63.14) as an alternative to EPA specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this authority for approval. You must Method 3B. section. In approving the site-specific operate and maintain the control device (iv) Method 4 to determine the monitoring plan, the Administrator or according to an approved site-specific moisture content of the stack gas. delegated authority may allow owners monitoring plan at all times. Each plan (v) Method 5 or 5D to determine the and operators more than 3 hours to must contain the information in concentration of particulate matter alleviate a specific condition that causes paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this (front half filterable catch only). Three an alarm if the owner or operator section. valid test runs are needed to comprise identifies in the monitoring plan this (1) A description of the device; a performance test. specific condition as one that could lead (2) Test results collected in (2) During the test, you must operate to an alarm, adequately explains why it accordance with paragraph (i) of this each emissions source within ±10

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:53 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38908 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

and record the process rate during the complies with the management practice § 63.11412 What definitions apply to this test. requirements in § 63.11409(a) for subpart? (3) Compute the mass emissions (E) in installation and operation of capture Terms used in this subpart are pounds per hour (lb/hr) for each test run systems for each emissions source defined in the CAA, in 40 CFR 63.2, and using Equation 1 of this section and the subject to an emissions limit in in this section as follows: process rate measured during the test. § 63.11409(b).’’ Bag leak detection system means a The PM emissions in lb/hr must be less (2) This certification of compliance by system that is capable of continuously than the allowable PM emissions rate the owner or operator of an existing monitoring relative particulate matter for the emissions source. source (if applicable), signed by a (dust loadings) in the exhaust of a responsible official, for the emissions baghouse to detect bag leaks and other CQ× limits in § 63.11409(b): ‘‘This facility upset conditions. A bag leak detection E = (Eq. 1) K complies with the emissions limits in system includes, but is not limited to, § 63.11409(b) based on a previous an instrument that operates on Where: performance test in accordance with triboelectric, light scattering, light E = Mass emissions of PM, pounds per hour § 63.11410(i).’’ transmittance, or other effect to (lb/hr); (3) The process rate for each continuously monitor relative C = Concentration of PM, grains per dry emissions source subject to an particulate matter loadings. standard cubic foot (gr/dscf); emissions limit in § 63.11409(b) that Chromic acid means chromium Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dry represents normal and representative trioxide (CrO3). It is produced by the standard cubic foot per hour (dscf/hr); production operations. electrolytic reaction or acidification of and (4) The procedures used to measure sodium dichromate. K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per and record the process rate for each pound (gr/lb). Chromium compounds emissions source subject to an manufacturing means any process that (k) Startups, shutdown, and emissions limit in § 63.11409(b). uses chromite ore as the basic feedstock malfunctions. The requirements in (5) This certification of compliance by to manufacture chromium compounds, paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section the owner or operator of an existing primarily sodium dichromate, chromic apply to the owner or operator of a new affected source, signed by a responsible acid, and chromic oxide. or existing affected source. official, for the control device Chromium compounds (1) Except as provided in paragraph inspection and maintenance manufacturing facility means the (k)(2) of this section, you must report requirements in § 63.11410(b) through collection of processes and equipment emissions in excess of a PM emissions (d): ‘‘This facility has conducted an at a plant engaged in chromium limit established by this subpart lasting initial inspection of each control device compounds manufacturing. for more than 4 hours that result from according to the requirements in Chromite ore means an oxide of a malfunction, a breakdown of process § 63.11410(b), will conduct periodic chromium and iron (FeCr2O4) that is the or control equipment, or any other inspections and maintenance of control primary feedstock for chromium abnormal condition by 9 a.m. of the next devices in accordance with compounds manufacturing. business day of becoming aware of the § 63.11410(c), and will maintain records Chromic oxide means Cr2O3. In the occurrence. You must provide the name of each inspection and maintenance production of chromic oxide, and location of the facility, the nature action in the logbook required by ammonium sulfate and sodium and cause of the malfunction or § 63.11410(d).’’ dichromate that have been concentrated breakdown, the time when the (6) This certification of compliance by by evaporation are mixed and fed to a malfunction or breakdown is first the owner or operator of a new affected rotary roasting kiln to produce chromic observed, the expected duration, and source, signed by a responsible official, oxide, sodium sulfate and nitrogen gas. the estimated rate of emissions. You for the bag leak detection system Roasting means a heating (oxidizing) must also notify EPA or the delegated monitoring plan requirement in process where ground chromite ore is authority immediately when corrected § 63.11410(g)(2): ‘‘This facility has an mixed with alkaline material (such as measures have been accomplished and, approved bag leak detection system soda ash, sodium bicarbonate, and if requested, submit a written report monitoring plan in accordance with sodium hydroxide) and fed to a rotary within 15 days after the request. § 63.11410(g)(2).’’ kiln where it is heated to about 2,000 ßF, (2) As an alternative to the (7) Performance test results for each converting the majority of the chromium requirements in paragraph (k)(1) of this emissions unit at a new affected source in the ore from trivalent to hexavalent section, you must comply with the (or each emissions source at an existing chromium. startup, shutdown, and malfunction affected source if a test is required) in Sodium chromate means Na2CrO4. It requirements in § 63.6(e)(3). accordance with § 63.11410(j). The is produced by roasting chromite ore in performance test results for a new Other Requirements and Information a rotary kiln. affected source must identify the daily Sodium dichromate means sodium § 63.11411 What General Provisions apply average parameter operating limit for bichromate or sodium bichromate to this subpart? each PM control device. dihydrate and is known technically as (8) If applicable, this certification of (a) You must comply with the sodium dichromate dihydrate (Na2Cr2O7 compliance by the owner or operator of requirements of the General Provisions • 2H2O). It is produced by the in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A as a new or existing source, signed by a electrolytic reaction or acidification of specified in Table 2 to this subpart. responsible official, for the requirement sodium chromate. (b) Your notification of compliance in paragraph (k)(2) of this section to status required by § 63.9(h) must comply with the startup, shutdown, and § 63.11413 Who implements and enforces include the following information for a malfunction provisions in 40 CFR this subpart? new or existing affected source: 63.6(e)(3): ‘‘This facility has prepared a (a) This subpart can be implemented (1) This certification of compliance, startup, shutdown, and malfunction and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a signed by a responsible official, for the plan in accordance with 40 CFR delegated authority such as a State, standards in § 63.11409(a): ‘‘This facility 63.6(e)(3)’’. local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:15 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 ER16JY07.002 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38909

Administrator has delegated authority to As required in § 63.11409, you must TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNNNNN OF a State, local, or tribal agency pursuant install and operate capture systems and PART 63.—HAP EMISSIONS to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency comply with the applicable emissions SOURCES—Continued has the authority to implement and limit for each emissions source shown enforce this subpart. You should contact in the following table. Process Emissions sources your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNNNNN OF b. Melter used to produce local, or tribal agency. PART 63.—HAP EMISSIONS SOURCES chromic acid. (b) In delegating implementation and c. Chromic acid crystalliza- enforcement authority of this subpart to Process Emissions sources tion unit. a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 d. Chromic acid dryer. CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities 1. Sodium a. Ball mill used to grind 4. Chromic a. Primary rotary roasting chromate chromite ore. contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through oxide pro- kiln used to produce chro- production. duction. mic oxide. (4) of this section are retained by the b. Dryer used to dry chro- b. Chromic oxide filter. Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are mite ore. c. Chromic oxide dryer. not transferred to the State, local, or c. Rotary kiln used to roast d. Chromic oxide grinding tribal agency. chromite ore to produce unit. sodium chromate. (1) Approval of an alternative non- e. Chromic oxide storage d. Secondary rotary kiln opacity emissions standard under vessel. § 63.6(g). used to recycle and refine residues containing chro- f. Secondary rotary roasting (2) Approval of a major change to test mium compounds. kiln. methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A e. Residue dryer system. g. Quench tanks. ‘‘major change to test method’’ is f. Quench tanks. 5. Chromium a. Furnace used to produce defined in § 63.90. 2. Sodium di- a. Stack on the electrolytic hydrate pro- chromium hydrate. (3) Approval of a major change to chromate cell system used to duction. monitoring under § 63.8(f). A ‘‘major production. produce sodium dichro- b. Chromium hydrate grind- change to monitoring’’ is defined in mate. ing unit. § 63.90. b. Sodium dichromate crys- tallization unit. As required in § 63.11411(a), you (4) Approval of a major change to c. Sodium dichromate drying recordkeeping/reporting under unit. must comply with the requirements of § 63.10(f). A ‘‘major change to 3. Chromic a. Electrolytic cell system the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in acid produc- used to produce chromic subpart A) as shown in the following § 63.90. tion. acid. table.

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART NNNNNN OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART NNNNNN

Citation Subject Applies Explanation

63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), Applicability ...... Yes. (a)(6), (a)(10)–(a)(12), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e). 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)–(a)(9), (b)(2), Reserved ...... No. (c)(3), (c)(4), (d). 63.2 ...... Definitions ...... Yes. 63.3 ...... Units and Abbreviations ...... Yes. 63.4 ...... Prohibited Activities and Cir- Yes. cumvention. 63.5 ...... Preconstruction Review and Notifi- No. cation Requirements. 63.6(a), (b)(1)–(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), Compliance with Standards and Yes ...... The startup, shutdown, and malfunction require- (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (e)(3)(i), Maintenance Requirements. ments in § 63.6(e)(3) apply at new and existing (e)(3)(iii)–(e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (i), (j). area sources that choose to comply with § 63.11410(k)(2) instead of the requirements in § 63.11410(k)(1). 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), Reserved ...... No. (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv). 63.6(h)(1)–(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)– ...... No ...... Subpart NNNNNN does not include opacity or visi- (h)(5)(iii), (h)(6)–(h)(9). ble emissions standards or require a continuous opacity monitoring system. 63.7(a), (e), (f), (g), (h) ...... Performance Testing Require- Yes ...... Subpart NNNNNN requires a performance test for a ments. new source; a test for an existing source is not required under the conditions specified in § 63.11410(i). 63.7(b), (c) ...... Yes/No ...... Requirements for notification of performance test and for quality assurance program apply to new area sources but not existing area sources. 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1)–(c)(3), Monitoring Requirements ...... Yes. (f)(1)–(5). 63.8(a)(3) ...... Reserved ...... No. 63.8(a)(4) ...... No ...... Subpart NNNNNN does not require flares. 63.8(c)(4)–(c)(8), (d), (e), (f)(6), (g) ...... No ...... Subpart NNNNNN establishes requirements for continuous parameter monitoring systems.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38910 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART NNNNNN OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART NNNNNN— Continued

Citation Subject Applies Explanation

63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(5), (c), (d), (i), Notification Requirements ...... Yes. (j). 63.9(e) ...... Yes/No ...... Notification of performance test is required only for new area sources. 63.9(b)(2) ...... Yes. 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4) ...... Reserved ...... No. 63.9(b)(4), (h)(5) ...... No. 63.9(f), (g) ...... No ...... Subpart NNNNNN does not include opacity or visi- ble emissions standards or require a continuous opacity monitoring system or continuous emis- sions monitoring system. 63.9(h)(1)–(h)(3), (h)(6) ...... Yes. 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(xii), Recordkeeping Requirements ...... Yes. (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3). 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(b)(2)(v) ...... Yes...... Recordkeeping requirements for startups, shut- downs, and malfunctions apply to new and exist- ing area sources that choose to comply with § 63.11410(k)(2). 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(b)(2)(ix), (c)(1), ...... Yes/No ...... Requirements apply to continuous parameter moni- (c)(5)–(c)(14). toring systems at new area sources but not exist- ing area sources. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A)–(B), (b)(2)(x), ...... No. (b)(2)(xiii). 63.10(c)(2)–(c)(4), (c)(9) ...... Reserved ...... No. 63.10(d)(1), (d)(4), (f) ...... Reporting Requirements ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(2) ...... Yes ...... Report of performance test results applies to new area sources; the results of a previous test may be submitted for an existing area source under the conditions specified in § 63.11410(i). 63.10(d)(3) ...... No ...... Subpart NNNNNN does not include opacity or visi- ble emissions limits. 63.10(d)(5) ...... Yes ...... Requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunc- tion reports apply to new and existing area sources that choose to comply with § 63.11410(k)(2). 63.10(e)(1)–(e)(2), (e)(4) ...... No ...... Subpart NNNNNN does not require a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous opac- ity monitoring system. 63.10(e)(3) ...... Yes/No ...... Semiannual reporting requirements apply to new area sources but not existing area sources. 63.11 ...... Control Device Requirements ...... No ...... Subpart NNNNNN does not require flares. 63.12 ...... State Authorities and Delegations Yes. 63.13 ...... Addresses ...... Yes. 63.14 ...... Incorporations by Reference ...... Yes. 63.15 ...... Availability of Information and Yes. Confidentiality. 63.16 ...... Performance Track Provisions ...... Yes.

I 6. Part 63 is amended by adding 63.11417 What are the compliance that meets the criteria in paragraph subpart OOOOOO to read as follows: requirements for new and existing (a)(1) or (2) of this section. sources? (1) You own or operate a plant that Subpart OOOOOO—National Emission Other Requirements and Information produces flexible polyurethane foam or Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 63.11418 What General Provisions apply to rebond foam as defined in § 63.1292 of for Flexible Polyurethane Foam this subpart? subpart III. Production and Fabrication Area 63.11419 What definitions apply to this (2) You own or operate a flexible Sources subpart? polyurethane foam fabrication facility, 63.11420 Who implements and enforces as defined in § 63.11419. Sec. this subpart? (b) The provisions of this subpart Table 1 to Subpart OOOOOO of Part 63— apply to each new and existing affected Applicability and Compliance Dates Applicability of General Provisions to source that meets the criteria listed in 63.11414 Am I subject to this subpart? Subpart OOOOOO paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 63.11415 What are my compliance dates? Applicability and Compliance Dates section. Standards and Compliance Requirements (1) A slabstock flexible polyurethane § 63.11414 Am I subject to this subpart? foam production affected source is the 63.11416 What are the standards for new (a) You are subject to this subpart if collection of all equipment and and existing sources? you own or operate an area source of activities necessary to produce slabstock hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions flexible polyurethane foam.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38911

(2) A molded flexible polyurethane otherwise required by law to obtain a Standards and Compliance foam production affected source is the permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR Requirements collection of all equipment and 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the previous activities necessary to produce molded § 63.11416 What are the standards for new sentence, you must continue to comply and existing sources? foam. with the provisions of this subpart. (3) A rebond foam production affected (a) If you own or operate a slabstock source is the collection of all equipment § 63.11415 What are my compliance flexible polyurethane foam production and activities necessary to produce dates? affected source, you must meet the rebond foam. requirements in paragraph (b) of this (a) If you own or operate an existing section. If you own or operate a molded (4) A flexible polyurethane foam slabstock flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source is the foam affected source, you must meet the production affected source, you must collection of all equipment and requirements in paragraph (c) of this achieve compliance with the applicable activities at a flexible polyurethane section. If you own or operate a rebond foam fabrication facility where provisions in this subpart by July 16, foam affected source, you must meet the adhesives are used to bond foam to foam 2008. requirements in paragraph (d) of this or other substrates. Equipment and (b) If you own or operate an existing section. If you own or operate a flexible activities at flexible polyurethane foam molded flexible polyurethane foam polyurethane foam fabrication affected fabrication facilities which do not use affected source, an existing rebond foam source, you must meet the requirements adhesives to bond foam to foam or other production affected sources, or an in paragraph (e) of this section. substrates are not flexible polyurethane existing flexible polyurethane foam (b) If you own or operate a new or foam fabrication affected sources. fabrication affected source, you must existing slabstock polyurethane foam (c) An affected source is existing if achieve compliance with the applicable production affected source, you must you commenced construction or provisions in this subpart by July 16, comply with the requirements in either reconstruction of the affected source on 2007. paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section. or before April 4, 2007. (1) Comply with § 63.1293(a) or (b) of (d) An affected source is new if you (c) If you startup a new affected subpart III, except that you must use commenced construction or source on or before July 16, 2007, you Equation 1 of this section to determine reconstruction of the affected source must achieve compliance with the the HAP auxiliary blowing agent (ABA) after April 4, 2007. applicable provisions in this subpart not formulation limit for each foam grade (e) This subpart does not apply to later than July 16, 2007. instead of Equation 3 of § 63.1297 of research and development facilities, as (d) If you startup a new affected subpart III. defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean source after July 16, 2007, you must You must use zero as the formulation Air Act (CAA). achieve compliance with the provisions limitation for any grade of foam where (f) You are exempt from the obligation in this subpart upon startup of your the result of the formulation equation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 affected source. (using Equation 1 of this section) is or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not negative (i.e., less than zero):

 1   1  ABA=−0.( 2 IFD ) − 19 . 1  −−15 .( 3DEN ) 6 . 8   + 336. 5 (Equation 1) limit  IFD   DEN 

where: (d) If you own or operate a new or § 63.11417 What are the compliance ABA limit = HAP ABA formulation limitation, existing rebond foam affected source, requirements for new and existing sources? parts methylene chloride ABA allowed you must comply with the requirements (a) If you own or operate a slabstock per hundred parts polyol (pph). in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this flexible polyurethane foam production IFD = Indentation force deflection, pounds. section. DEN = Density, pounds per cubic foot. affected source, you must comply with (1) You must not use a material the requirements in paragraph (b) of this (2) Use no material containing containing methylene chloride as an section. If you own or operate a molded methylene chloride for any purpose in foam affected source, rebond foam any slabstock flexible foam production equipment cleaner in a rebond foam affected source, or a loop slitter at a process. process. flexible polyurethane foam fabrication (c) If you own or operate a new or (2) You must not use a mold release affected source you must comply with existing molded foam affected source, agent containing methylene chloride in the requirements in paragraphs (c) and you must comply with the requirements a rebond foam process. (d) of this section. in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this (e) If you own or operate a new or (b) Each owner or operator of a new section. existing flexible polyurethane foam or existing slabstock flexible (1) You must not use a material fabrication affected source, you must containing methylene chloride as an polyurethane foam production affected not use any adhesive containing equipment cleaner to flush the mixhead source who chooses to comply with methylene chloride in a flexible or use a material containing methylene § 63.11416(b)(1) must comply with polyurethane foam fabrication process. chloride elsewhere as an equipment paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Each cleaner in a molded flexible (f) You may demonstrate compliance owner or operator of a new or existing polyurethane foam process. with the requirements in paragraphs slabstock flexible polyurethane foam (2) You must not use a mold release (b)(2) and (c) through (e) of this section production affected source who chooses agent containing methylene chloride in using adhesive usage records, Material to comply with § 63.11416(b)(2) must a molded flexible polyurethane foam Safety Data Sheets, and engineering comply with paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of process. calculations. this section.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 ER16JY07.003 38912 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

(1) You must comply with paragraphs polyurethane foam process in Flexible polyurethane foam (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section. accordance with § 63.11416(c)(1).’’ fabrication facility means a facility (i) The monitoring requirements in (ii) ‘‘This facility does not use any where pieces of flexible polyurethane § 63.1303 of subpart III. mold release agent containing foam are cut, bonded, and/or laminated (ii) The testing requirements in methylene chloride in a molded flexible together or to other substrates. § 63.1304 or § 63.1305 of subpart III. polyurethane foam process in accordance with § 63.11416(c)(2).’’ § 63.11420 Who implements and enforces (iii) The reporting requirements in this subpart? § 63.1306 of subpart III, with the (2) For a rebond foam affected source: exception of the reporting requirements (i) ‘‘This facility does not use any (a) This subpart can be implemented in § 63.1306(d)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of equipment cleaner which contains and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a subpart III. methylene chloride in a rebond flexible delegated authority such as a State, (iv) The recordkeeping requirements polyurethane foam process in local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA in § 63.1307 of subpart III, with the accordance with § 63.11416(d)(1).’’ Administrator has delegated authority to exception of the recordkeeping (ii) ‘‘This facility does not use any a State, local, or tribal agency pursuant requirements in § 63.1307(a)(1), (b)(1)(i), mold release agent containing to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency and (b)(2). methylene chloride in a rebond flexible has the authority to implement and (v) The compliance demonstration polyurethane foam process in enforce this subpart. You should contact requirements in § 63.1308(a), (c), and (d) accordance with § 63.11416(d)(2).’’ your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find (3) For a flexible polyurethane foam of subpart III. out if this subpart is delegated to a State, fabrication affected source containing a (2) You must submit a notification of local, or tribal agency within your State. loop slitter: ‘‘This facility does not use compliance status report no later than (b) In delegating implementation and any adhesive containing methylene 180 days after your compliance date. enforcement authority of this subpart to chloride on a loop slitter process in The report must contain the information a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 accordance with § 63.11416(e).’’ CFR part 63, subpart E, the approval detailed in § 63.9(h)(2)(i) paragraphs (A) (d) For molded foam affected sources, and (G), and must contain this authorities contained in paragraphs rebond foam affected sources, and (b)(1) through (4) of this section are certification of compliance, signed by a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication responsible official, for the standards in retained by the Administrator of the affected sources containing a loop U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the § 63.11416(b)(2): ‘‘This facility uses no slitter, you must maintain records of the material containing methylene chloride State, local, or tribal agency. information used to demonstrate (1) Approval of an alternative non- for any purpose on any slabstock compliance, as required in § 63.11416(f). flexible foam process.’’ opacity emissions standard under You must maintain the records for 5 § 63.6(g). (3) You must maintain records of the years, with the last 2 years of data (2) Approval of a major change to test information used to demonstrate retained on site. The remaining 3 years methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A compliance, as required in § 63.11416(f). of data may be maintained off site. You must maintain the records for 5 ‘‘major change to test method’’ is years, with the last 2 years of data Other Requirements and Information defined in § 63.90. (3) Approval of a major change to retained on site. The remaining 3 years § 63.11418 What General Provisions apply of data may be maintained off site. to this subpart? monitoring under § 63.8(f). A ‘‘major change to monitoring’’ is defined in (c) You must have a compliance The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, § 63.90. certification on file by the compliance subpart A, applicable to sources subject (4) Approval of a major change to date. This certification must contain the to § 63.11416(b)(1) are specified in Table recordkeeping/reporting under statements in paragraph (c)(1), (2), or (3) 1 of this subpart. of this section, as applicable, and must § 63.10(f). A ‘‘major change to be signed by a responsible official. § 63.11419 What definitions apply to this recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in (1) For a molded foam affected source: subpart? § 63.90. (i) ‘‘This facility does not use any The terms used in this subpart are As required in § 63.11418, you must equipment cleaner to flush the mixhead defined in the CAA; § 63.1292 of comply with the requirements of the which contains methylene chloride, or subpart III; § 63.8830 of subpart NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR any other equipment cleaner containing MMMMM; § 63.2 of subpart A; and in part 63, subpart A) as shown in the methylene chloride in a molded flexible this section as follows: following table.

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART OOOOOO OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART OOOOOO

Subpart A reference Applies to Subpart OOOOOO? Comment

§ 63.1 ...... Yes. § 63.2 ...... Yes ...... Definitions are modified and supplemented by § 63.11419. § 63.3 ...... Yes. § 63.4 ...... Yes. § 63.5 ...... Yes. § 63.6(a)–(d) ...... Yes. § 63.6(e)(1)–(2) ...... Yes. § 63.6(e)(3) ...... No ...... Owners and operators of subpart OOOOOO affected sources are not required to develop and implement a startup, shutdown, and mal- function plan. § 63.6 (f)–(g) ...... Yes. § 63.6(h) ...... No ...... Subpart OOOOOO does not require opacity and visible emissions standards. § 63.6 (i)–(j) ...... Yes. § 63.7 ...... No ...... Performance tests not required by subpart OOOOOO.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38913

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART OOOOOO OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART OOOOOO— Continued

Subpart A reference Applies to Subpart OOOOOO? Comment

§ 63.8 ...... No ...... Continuous monitoring, as defined in subpart A, is not required by subpart OOOOOO. § 63.9(a)–(d) ...... Yes. § 63.9(e)–(g) ...... No. § 63.9(h) ...... No ...... Subpart OOOOOO specifies Notification of Compliance Status re- quirements. § 63.9 (i)–(j) ...... Yes. § 63.10(a)–(b) ...... Yes ...... Except that the records specified in § 63.10(b)(2) are not required. § 63.10(c) ...... No. § 63.10(d)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.10(d)(2)–(3) ...... No. § 63.10(d)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.10(d)(5) ...... No. § 63.10(e) ...... No. § 63.10(f) ...... Yes. § 63.11 ...... No. § 63.12 ...... Yes. § 63.13 ...... Yes. § 63.14 ...... Yes. § 63.15 ...... Yes. § 63.16 ...... Yes.

I 7. Part 63 is amended by adding manufacturing facilities, lead in this subpart upon startup of your subpart PPPPPP to read as follows: reclamation facilities, and any other affected source. lead-emitting operation that is Standards and Compliance Subpart PPPPPP—National Emission associated with the lead acid battery Requirements Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants manufacturing plant. for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing (1) An affected source is existing if § 63.11423 What are the standards and Area Sources you commenced construction or compliance requirements for new and existing sources? Sec. reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007. (a) You must meet all the standards Applicability and Compliance Dates (2) An affected source is new if you for lead in 40 CFR 60.372. 63.11421 Am I subject to this subpart? commenced construction or (b) You must meet the monitoring 63.11422 What are my compliance dates? reconstruction of the affected source requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and Standards and Compliance Requirements after April 4, 2007. (2) of this section. 63.11423 What are the standards and (c) This subpart does not apply to (1) For any emissions point controlled compliance requirements for new and research and development facilities, as by a scrubbing system, you must meet existing sources? defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean the requirements in 40 CFR 60.373. 63.11424 [Reserved] Air Act (CAA). (2) For any emissions point controlled by a fabric filter, you must meet the Other Requirements and Information (d) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of 63.11425 What General Provisions apply to CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided this section and either paragraph this subpart? (b)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section. Fabric 63.11426 What definitions apply to this you are not otherwise required by law subpart? to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) filters equipped with a high efficiency 63.11427 Who implements and enforces or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the particulate air (HEPA) filter or other this subpart? previous sentence, you must continue to secondary filter are allowed to monitor Table 1 to Subpart PPPPPPP of Part 63— comply with the provisions of this less frequently, as specified in Applicability of General Provisions to subpart. paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section. Subpart PPPPPP (i) You must perform semiannual § 63.11422 What are my compliance Applicability and Compliance Dates inspections and maintenance to ensure dates? proper performance of each fabric filter. § 63.11421 Am I subject to this subpart? (a) If you own or operate an existing This includes inspection of structural (a) You are subject to this subpart if affected source, you must achieve and filter integrity. You must record the you own or operate a lead acid battery compliance with the applicable results of these inspections. manufacturing plant that is an area provisions in this subpart by no later (ii) You must install, maintain, and source of hazardous air pollutants than July 16, 2008. operate a pressure drop monitoring (HAP) emissions. (b) If you startup a new affected device to measure the differential (b) This subpart applies to each new source on or before July 16, 2007, you pressure drop across the fabric filter or existing affected source. The affected must achieve compliance with the during all times when the process is source is each lead acid battery applicable provisions in this subpart not operating. The pressure drop shall be manufacturing plant. The affected later than July 16, 2007. recorded at least once per day. If a source includes all grid casting (c) If you startup a new affected pressure drop is observed outside of the facilities, paste mixing facilities, three- source after July 16, 2007, you must normal operational ranges, you must process operation facilities, lead oxide achieve compliance with the provisions record the incident and take immediate

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38914 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

corrective actions. You must also record the incident and conduct an opacity applicable provisions of part 60, subpart the corrective actions taken. You must measurement in accordance with 40 A, as specified in § 63.11425(a); and submit a monitoring system CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must record the § 63.2 for terms used in the applicable performance report in accordance with results of each opacity measurement. If provisions of part 63, subpart A, as § 63.10(e)(3). the measurement exceeds the applicable specified in § 63.11425(b). (iii) You must conduct a visible opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) emissions observation at least once per or (8), you must submit this information § 63.11427 Who implements and enforces this subpart? day to verify that no visible emissions in an excess emissions report required are occurring at the discharge point to under § 63.10(e)(3). (a) This subpart can be implemented the atmosphere from any emissions (c) You must meet the testing and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a source subject to the requirements of requirements in 40 CFR 60.374. delegated authority such as a State, paragraph (a) of this section. If visible (1) Existing sources are not required local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA emissions are detected, you must record to conduct a performance test if a prior Administrator has delegated authority to the incident and conduct an opacity performance test was conducted using a State, local, or tribal agency pursuant measurement in accordance with 40 the same methods specified in 40 CFR to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must record the 60.374 and either no process changes has the authority to implement and results of each opacity measurement. If have been made since the test, or you enforce this subpart. You should contact the measurement exceeds the applicable can demonstrate that the results of the your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) performance test, with or without out if this subpart is delegated to a State, or (8), you must submit this information adjustments, reliably demonstrate local, or tribal agency within your State. in an excess emissions report required compliance despite process changes. (b) In delegating implementation and under § 63.10(e)(3). (2) Sources without a prior enforcement authority of this subpart to (iv) Fabric filters equipped with a performance test, as described in a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 HEPA filter or other secondary filter are paragraph (b) of this section, must CFR part 63, subpart E, the approval allowed to monitor less frequently, as conduct a performance test using the authorities contained in paragraphs specified in paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) or methods specified in 40 CFR 60.374 by (b)(1) through (4) of this section are (B) of this section. 180 days after the compliance date. retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the (A) If you are using a pressure drop § 63.11424 [Reserved] monitoring device to measure the State, local, or tribal agency. differential pressure drop across the Other Requirements and Information (1) Approval of an alternative non- fabric filter in accordance with opacity emissions standard under § 63.11425 What General Provisions apply § 63.6(g). paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, you to this subpart? must record the pressure drop at least (2) Approval of a major change to test (a) The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, once per week. If a pressure drop is methods under 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and subpart A, that are applicable to this observed outside of the normal (f). A ‘‘major change to test method’’ is subpart are specified in Table 1 to this operational ranges, you must record the defined in § 63.90. subpart. (3) Approval of a major change to incident and take immediate corrective (b) For existing sources, the initial monitoring under 40 CFR 63.8(f). A actions. You must also record the notification required by § 63.9(b) must ‘‘major change to monitoring’’ is defined corrective actions taken. You must be submitted not later than November in § 63.90. submit a monitoring system 13, 2007. performance report in accordance with (c) For existing sources, the (4) Approval of a major change to § 63.10(e)(3). notification of compliance required by recordkeeping/reporting under 40 CFR (B) If you are conducting visible § 63.9(h) must be submitted not later 63.10(f). A ‘‘major change to emissions observations in accordance than September 15, 2008. recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, § 63.90. you must conduct such observations at § 63.11426 What definitions apply to this As required in § 63.11425, you must least once per week and record the subpart? comply with the requirements of the results in accordance with paragraph The terms used in this subpart are NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR (b)(2)(iii) of this section. If visible defined in the CAA; 40 CFR 60.371; 40 part 63, subpart A) as shown in the emissions are detected, you must record CFR 60.2 for terms used in the following table.

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART PPPPPP OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPPPPP

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart PPPPPP? Explanation

63.1 ...... Applicability ...... Yes. 63.2 ...... Definitions ...... Yes. 63.3 ...... Units and Abbreviations. 63.4 ...... Prohibited Activities and Cir- Yes. cumvention. 63.5 ...... Preconstruction Review and No. Notification Requirements. 63.6(a)–(d), (e)(1), (f)–(j) ...... Compliance with Standards Yes. and Maintenance Require- ments. 63.6(e)(3) ...... No ...... Subpart PPPPPP does not require a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 63.7 ...... Performance Testing Require- Yes. ments. 63.8 ...... Monitoring Requirements ...... Yes.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38915

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART PPPPPP OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPPPPP— Continued

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart PPPPPP? Explanation

63.9 ...... Yes. 63.10(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(4), (e), (f) Recordkeeping and Reporting Yes. Requirements. 63.10(d)(5) ...... No ...... Subpart PPPPPP does not require a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 63.11 ...... Control Device Requirements No ...... Subpart PPPPPP does not require flares. 63.12 ...... State Authorities and Delega- Yes. tions. 63.13 ...... Addresses ...... Yes. 63.14 ...... Incorporations by Reference .. Yes. 63.15 ...... Availability of Information and Yes. Confidentiality. 63.16 ...... Performance Track Provisions Yes. 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)–(9), (b)(2), Reserved ...... No. (c)(3), (d), 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv), 63.8(a)(3), 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4), 63.10(c)(2)–(c)(4), (c)(9).

I 8. Part 63 is amended by adding CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided (c) If you use any wood preservative subpart QQQQQQ to read as follows: you are not otherwise required by law containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or methylene chloride at a new or Subpart QQQQQQ—National Emission or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the existing area source, you must prepare Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants previous sentence, you must continue to and operate according to a management for Wood Preserving Area Sources comply with the provisions of this practice plan to minimize air emissions Sec. subpart. from the preservative treatment of wood at a new or existing area source. You Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.11429 What are my compliance may use your standard operating dates? 63.11428 Am I subject to this subpart? procedures to meet the requirements for 63.11429 What are my compliance dates? (a) If you have an existing affected a management practice plan if it Standards source, you must achieve compliance includes the minimum activities with applicable provisions in this 63.11430 What are the standards? required for a management practice 63.11431 [Reserved] subpart by July 16, 2007. plan. The management practice plan (b) If you startup a new affected must include, but is not limited to, the Other Requirements and Information source on or before July 16, 2007, you following activities: 63.11432 What General Provisions apply to must achieve compliance with (1) Minimize preservative usage; this subpart? applicable provisions in this subpart not (2) Maintain records on the type of 63.11433 What definitions apply to this later than July 16, 2007. subpart? treatment process and types and 63.11434 Who implements and enforces (c) If you startup a new affected amounts of wood preservatives used at this subpart? source after July 16, 2007, you must the facility; Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQQ of Part 63— achieve compliance with applicable (3) For the pressure treatment process, Applicability of General Provisions of provisions in this subpart upon initial maintain charge records identifying Subpart QQQQQQ startup. pressure reading(s) inside the retorts (or Applicability and Compliance Dates Standards similarly enclosed vessel); (4) For the thermal treatment process, § 63.11428 Am I subject to this subpart? § 63.11430 What are the standards? maintain records that the air scavenging (a) You are subject to this subpart if (a) If you use a pressure treatment system is in place and operated properly you own or operate a wood preserving process with any wood preservative during the treatment process; operation that is an area source of containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, (5) Store treated wood product on hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or methylene chloride at a new or drip pads or in a primary containment emissions. area to convey preservative drippage to (b) The affected source is each new or existing area source, the preservative must be applied to the wood product a collection system until drippage has existing wood preserving operation. ceased; (1) An affected source is existing if inside a retort or similarly enclosed you commenced construction or vessel. (6) For the pressure treatment process, reconstruction of the affected source on (b) If you use a thermal treatment fully drain the retort to the extent or before April 4, 2007. process with any wood preservative practicable, prior to opening the retort (2) An affected source is new if you containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, door; commenced construction or or methylene chloride at a new or (7) Promptly collect any spills; and reconstruction of the affected source existing area source, the preservative (8) Perform relevant corrective actions after April 4, 2007. must be applied using process treatment or preventative measures in the event of (c) You are exempt from the tanks equipped with an air scavenging a malfunction before resuming obligation to obtain a permit under 40 system to control emissions. operations.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 38916 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

§ 63.11431 [Reserved] § 63.11433 What definitions apply to this Thermal treatment process means a subpart? Other Requirements and Information non-pressurized wood treatment process Terms used in this subpart are where the wood is exposed to a heated § 63.11432 What General Provisions apply defined in the Clean Air Act, § 63.2, and preservative. to this subpart? in this section as follows: Wood preserving means the pressure (a) If you own or operate a new or Air scavenging system means an air or thermal impregnation of chemicals existing affected source that uses any collection and control system that into wood to provide effective long-term wood preservative containing collects and removes vapors from a resistance to attack by fungi, bacteria, chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or thermal treatment process vessel and insects, and marine borers. methylene chloride, you must comply vents the emissions to a vapor recovery with the requirements of the General tank that collects condensate from the § 63.11434 Who implements and enforces Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, vapors. this subpart? according to Table 1 to this subpart. Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) (a) This subpart can be implemented (b) If you own or operate a new or means a chemical wood preservative and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a existing affected source that uses any consisting of mixtures of water-soluble delegated authority such as a State, wood preservative containing chemicals containing metal oxides of local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or chromium, copper, and arsenic. CCA is Administrator has delegated authority to methylene chloride, you must submit an used in pressure treated wood to protect a State, local, or tribal agency pursuant initial notification of applicability wood from rotting due to insects and to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency required by § 63.9(a)(2) no later than 90 microbial agents. has the authority to implement and days after the applicable compliance Deviation means any instance in enforce this subpart. You should contact date specified in § 63.11429. The initial which an affected source subject to this your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find notification may be combined with the subpart, or an owner or operator of such out if this subpart is delegated to your notification of compliance status a source: State, local, or tribal agency. required in paragraph (c) of this section. (1) Fails to meet any requirement or (b) In delegating implementation and The notification of applicability must obligation established by this subpart, enforcement authority of this subpart to include the following information: including but not limited to any a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 (1) The name and address of the emissions limitation or management CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities owner or operator; practice; contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (2) The address (i.e., physical (2) Fails to meet any term or condition (4) of this section are retained by the location) of the affected source; and that is adopted to implement an Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are (3) An identification of the relevant applicable requirement in this subpart not transferred to the State, local, or standard, or other requirement, that is and that is included in the operating tribal agency. the basis of the notification and the permit for any affected source required (1) Approval of an alternative non- source’s compliance date. to obtain such a permit; or opacity emissions standard under (c) If you own or operate a new or (3) Fails to meet any emissions § 63.6(g). existing affected source that uses any limitation or management practice in (2) Approval of a major change to test wood preservative containing this subpart during startup, shutdown, methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or or malfunction, regardless of whether or ‘‘major change to test method’’ is methylene chloride, you must submit a not such failure is permitted by this defined in § 63.90 notification of compliance status subpart. required by § 63.9(h) no later than 90 Pressure treatment process means a (3) Approval of a major change to days after the applicable compliance wood treatment process involving an monitoring under § 63.8(f). A ‘‘major date specified in § 63.11429. Your enclosed vessel, usually a retort, and the change to monitoring’’ is defined in notification of compliance status must application of pneumatic or hydrostatic § 63.90. include this certification of compliance, pressure to expedite the movement of (4) Approval of a major change to signed by a responsible official, for the preservative liquid into the wood. recordkeeping/reporting under standards in § 63.11430: ‘‘This facility Responsible official means § 63.10(f). A ‘‘major change to complies with the management responsible official as defined in 40 CFR recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in practices to minimize air emissions 70.2. § 63.90. from the preservative treatment of wood Retort means an airtight pressure As required in § 63.11432, you must in accordance with § 63.11430.’’ vessel, typically a long horizontal comply with the requirements of the (d) You must report any deviation cylinder, used for the pressure NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR from the requirements of this subpart impregnation of wood products with a part 63, subpart A) as shown in the within 30 days of the deviation. liquid wood preservative. following table.

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART QQQQQQ OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART QQQQQQ

Citation Subject Applies to subpart QQQQQQ? Explanation

63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), Applicability ...... Yes. (a)(6), (a)(10)–(a)(12)(b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e). 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)–(a)(9), (b)(2), Reserved ...... No. (c)(3), (c)(4), (d). 63.2 ...... Definitions ...... Yes. 63.3 ...... Units and Abbreviations ...... Yes.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 135 / Monday, July 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38917

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART QQQQQQ OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART QQQQQQ— Continued

Citation Subject Applies to subpart QQQQQQ? Explanation

63.4 ...... Prohibited Activities and Cir- Yes. cumvention. 63.5 ...... Preconstruction Review and No. Notification Requirements. 63.6(a), (b)(1)–(b)(5), (b)(7), Compliance with Standards Yes. (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (i), and Maintenance Require- (j). ments. 63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)– No ...... Subpart QQQQQQ does not (e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (h)(1), require startup, shutdown, (h)(2), (h)(4), (h)(5)(i)– and malfunction plan or (h)(5)(iii), (h)(v)(v), (h)(6)– contain emission or opacity (h)(9). limits. 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), Reserved ...... No. (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv). 63.7 ...... Performance Testing Require- No ...... Subpart QQQQQQ does not require perform- ments. ance tests. 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (b), Monitoring Requirements ...... No ...... Subpart QQQQQQ does not require moni- (c), (d), (e), (f), (g). toring of emissions. 63.8(a)(3) ...... Reserved ...... No. 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4), Notification Requirements ...... Yes. (b)(5), (c), (d), (h)(1), (h)(6), (i), (j). 63.9(b)(2)(i)–(b)(2)(v), (h)(2)(i)– Yes. (h)(2)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5). 63.9(e), (f), (g) ...... No. 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4) ...... Reserved ...... No. 63.10(a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(5)– Recordkeeping and Reporting No ...... Subpart QQQQQQ establishes requirements (c)(8), (c)(10)–(c)(14), (d), Requirements. for a report of deviations within 30 days. (e), (f). 63.10(c)(2)–(c)(4), (c)(9) ...... Reserved ...... No. 63.11 ...... Control Device Requirements No ...... Subpart QQQQQQ does not require flares. 63.12 ...... State Authorities and Delega- Yes. tions. 63.13 ...... Addresses ...... Yes. 63.14 ...... Incorporations by Reference .. Yes. 63.15 ...... Availability of Information and Yes. Confidentiality. 63.16 ...... Performance Track Provisions Yes.

[FR Doc. E7–12018 Filed 7–13–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 13, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR2.SGM 16JYR2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2