National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; General Provisions, 43992-44010 [05-13497]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 145 (Friday, July 29, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43992-44010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13497]



[[Page 43991]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 63 and 65



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; General 
Provisions; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 145 / Friday, July 29, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 43992]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63 and 65

[OAR-2004-0094; FRL-7934-8]
RIN 2060-AM89


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; General 
Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of reconsideration of final rule; proposed amendments; 
request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: On May 30, 2003, EPA promulgated amendments to the General 
Provisions to the national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP). On July 29, 2003, we were petitioned to reconsider 
certain aspects of the final rule amendments. This notice announces our 
reconsideration and requests public comment.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before September 12, 
2005.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by August 8, 2005, a public hearing will be held on 
August 15, 2005. Persons interested in attending the public hearing 
should contact Ms. Janet Eck at (919) 541-7946 to verify that a hearing 
will be held.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2004-
0094, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web Site: https://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2004-0094.
     Facsimile: (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-
2004-0094.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air 
Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room: B108, Mail Code: 6102T, 
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention E-Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0094.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (Air Docket), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room: 
B102, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2004-0094. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's 
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0094. 
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at http:/
/www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the 
following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, 
U.S. EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0161, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal 
regulations.gov Web sites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your 
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 
EPA's Campus located in Research Triangle Park, NC or an alternate site 
nearby.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 
copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick Colyer, Emission Standards 
Division (C504-05), EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone (919) 541-5262, e-mail colyer.rick@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include sources in all source categories regulated under 
40 CFR part 63 that must develop and implement a startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed rules at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control.

II. Background

    The NESHAP General Provisions were first promulgated on March 16, 
1994 (59 FR 12408). We subsequently proposed a variety of amendments to 
the initial rule based in part on settlement negotiations with 
industrial trade organizations, which had sought judicial review of the 
rule, and in part on our practical experience in developing and 
implementing NESHAP, also know as maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) standards, under the General Provisions (66 FR 16318, March 23, 
2001). We then promulgated final amendments to the General Provisions 
pursuant to that proposal (67 FR 16582, April 5, 2002).
    On April 25, 2002, Sierra Club filed a petition seeking judicial 
review of the final rule, Sierra Club v. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, No. 02-1135 (DC Circuit). The Sierra Club also filed a petition 
seeking administrative reconsideration of certain provisions in the 
final rule,

[[Page 43993]]

pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d)(7)(B).
    Shortly after the filing of the petition, EPA commenced discussions 
with the Sierra Club concerning a settlement agreement. We reached 
initial agreement with the Sierra Club on the terms of a settlement and 
lodged the tentative agreement with the court on August 15, 2002, under 
which we agreed to propose a rule to make specified amendments to the 
General Provisions.
    Following execution of the final settlement agreement, we published 
proposed amendments effectuating its terms (67 FR 72875, December 9, 
2002). Most of the General Provisions amendments dealt with clarifying 
the general duty to minimize emissions and its relationship to the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plans required under 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(3). We also proposed to require that all sources subject to 
Sec.  63.6(e)(3) submit their SSM plans to their permitting authority, 
instead of only when requested.
    Many commenters vigorously opposed the proposed new requirement to 
routinely submit their SSM plans instead of maintaining the plans on 
site and submitting them only when requested. They cited the burden of 
untangling the plans from operating procedures and CBI. They also noted 
the significant paperwork burden that would be imposed on the 
permitting authority.
    We agreed with the commenters regarding the unnecessary burden and 
that access to the plans can still be maintained in less burdensome 
ways. We issued final amendments (68 FR 32586, May 30, 2003) that pared 
the broad requirement for submittal of all plans and require that a 
source must promptly submit a copy of its plan to its permitting 
authority if and when the permitting authority requests that the plan 
be submitted. The final amendments also require the permitting 
authority to obtain a copy of the plan from a facility if a member of 
the public makes a specific and reasonable request to examine or 
receive a copy. We noted that the permitting authority should work with 
the requester to clarify any request if it is overly broad or 
insufficiently specific.
    After promulgation of the amendments, the NRDC petitioned EPA on 
July 29, 2003, under section 307(d)(7)(D) of the CAA, to reconsider the 
public access aspects of the SSM plan provisions. Specifically, NRDC 
opposed the criteria for the public to access SSM plans, i.e., that a 
plan may be obtained only if the request is ``specific and 
reasonable.'' The NRDC concluded that the final amendments allow the 
Administrator to block a citizen's access to SSM plans just by 
declaring the request not ``specific and reasonable.''
    Today, we are announcing our reconsideration of these issues 
arising from the final amendments of May 30, 2003, regarding SSM plans, 
and are requesting public comment on these issues.

III. Proposed Response to NRDC's Reconsideration Petition

    The General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 require that ``at all 
times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the 
owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, 
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions. During a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction, this general duty to minimize emissions 
requires that the owner or operator reduce emissions from the affected 
source to the greatest extent which is consistent with safety and good 
air pollution control practices.'' This is the so-called ``general 
duty'' clause and the applicable requirement under MACT standards for 
emission reductions during periods of SSM.
    This general duty clause is modeled on the general duty clause in 
the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 60, which governs new source 
performance standards (NSPS). These NSPS are technology based as are 
the MACT standards developed under 40 CFR part 63. The general duty 
clause is designed to recognize that technology-based standards may not 
always be met, as technology fails occasionally beyond the control of 
the owner or operator. Because emission control technology is normally 
designed to minimize emissions under normal operating conditions, 
periods of startup and shutdown may also cause technology standards to 
be exceeded beyond the control of the owner or operator. It is during 
these periods of SSM that the general duty clause becomes most 
prominent. If the standards cannot be met during a period of SSM, then 
the owner or operator must take steps to minimize emissions to the 
extent practicable. It is important to note that, for certain source 
categories where startups and shutdowns occur frequently and where the 
Agency was able to develop specific standards or additional provisions 
for emission control during startups and shutdowns, those standards 
have been included in specific MACT standards. One example is contained 
in the NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaners (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
T). In these cases, the specific MACT standards take precedence over 
the General Provisions at issue in this rulemaking.
    While the NSPS rely solely on the general duty clause to minimize 
emissions during SSM periods, 40 CFR part 63 further requires that 
owners or operators develop and implement a written SSM plan that 
describes procedures for operating and maintaining the source during 
periods of SSM, and a program of corrective action for malfunctioning 
process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment used to comply 
with the relevant standards. A primary purpose of the plan is to ensure 
that, during periods of SSM, the owner or operator operates and 
maintains each affected source, including associated air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment, in a manner which satisfies the 
general duty clause of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i). The Agency believes that 
by requiring owners or operators to anticipate possible SSM scenarios 
and to decide ahead of time how to minimize emissions in these 
situations, the requirement to prepare an SSM plan will play a valuable 
role. Therefore, an adequate SSM Plan must be developed consistent with 
the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e) and other 40 CFR part 63 subparts 
that have SSM-related requirements.
    While the requirement is that an owner or operator develop and 
implement an SSM plan, the plan itself does not become part of, and is 
not incorporated into, the source's title V permit. Thus, the source is 
required to have an SSM plan, but the provisions in the plan are not 
applicable requirements. Again, the applicable requirement during 
periods of SSM is the general duty to minimize emissions.
    The SSM plan documents procedures that source owners or operators 
should follow during periods of SSM. These plans are source-specific 
and often are not standalone documents. Many plans reference other in-
plant operating procedures and also often contain CBI. Plans must 
remain flexible and for large facilities may be revised frequently. 
Establishing the specific procedures in SSM plans as applicable 
requirements may unnecesarily constrain a source during a period where 
unanticipated events call for maximum flexibility. While the SSM plan 
may go a long way toward minimizing emissions, making the plan an 
applicable requirement would not necessarily ensure that

[[Page 43994]]

emissions are minimized during these periods.
    To clarify and emphasize that the applicable requirement is the 
general duty to minimize emissions and not the specifics in the SSM 
plan itself, we are proposing to retract the requirement to implement 
the plan during periods of SSM. This is consistent with the concept 
that the plan specifics are not applicable requirements and thus cannot 
be required to be followed. Nonetheless, the general duty to minimize 
emissions remains intact and is the applicable requirement; 
determination of whether a source met its obligation during periods of 
SSM can be made in part by whether a source followed an adequate plan. 
Although a source would not be required to follow the plan, it still 
must report periods of SSM and whether the plan was followed, as 
discussed below. Indeed, if, during an SSM event, a source is not in 
compliance with the emission limits or parameter values applicable 
under normal operations and has not followed its SSM plan, this may be 
evidence that the source has not complied with the general duty clause 
obligation. However, the source may be able to offer a defense for 
following an alternative approach that is more effective. In addition, 
we note that following the SSM plan itself is no ``safe harbor'' for 
sources if the plan is found to be deficient. That is, a source could 
not use ``following the plan'' as a defense for an inadequate program 
to minimize emissions.
    We believe, however, that SSM plans help owners or operators by 
consciously having them focus on steps to minimize emissions during SSM 
prior to the events happening. It also establishes consistent operating 
procedures during these periods so that facility operators can address 
the same types of events the same way. The plan also aids permitting 
authorities so that each event does not have to be investigated 
individually. The inspector may review the plan, audit some SSM events 
to see if the plan was followed, and assess whether the plan was 
adequate.
    The SSM plan required under 40 CFR part 63 is further tied to 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements that alert permitting 
authorities to continuing potential problems at a facility. All periods 
of SSM must be reported. If the SSM plan is not followed and the 
applicable emission limitation is exceeded, this fact, and the actions 
taken by the source, must be reported within 2 working days after 
commencing actions inconsistent with the plan, followed by a letter 
within 7 working days after the end of the event. If the source follows 
the SSM plan (whether or not the applicable emission limitation is 
exceeded), or if the plan is not followed and the applicable emission 
limitation is not exceeded, reports are due semiannually.
    These periodic and immediate SSM reports provide the permitting 
authority with adequate information to determine if the facility has 
SSM problems above and beyond what might normally be expected. The 
types and frequency of SSM events will vary from source category to 
source category. Sources that report much higher number of SSM events 
than other sources within the same source category would be subject to 
higher scrutiny by the permitting authority, by EPA, and presumably by 
the public. Inspectors would examine the facility's records and its SSM 
plan to determine its adequacy and whether it conformed to the general 
duty clause. If not, the facility could be cited for violating the 
general duty clause and required to revise its plan to minimize 
emissions to the satisfaction of the permitting authority. As such, the 
reports identify potential problems that can be followed up with 
appropriate action.
    We are also proposing to make a conforming change to startup and 
shutdown recordkeeping consistent with a reporting change to startups 
and shutdowns we made to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) on May 30, 2003 at 68 FR 
32586. In that notice, we relieved the owner or operator from detailed 
reporting for startups and shutdowns when the applicable standards are 
not exceeded. In this notice, we propose to make similar changes for 
startup and shutdown recordkeeping. This change would not affect 
recordkeeping for malfunctions.
    Review of each SSM plan, from each facility, by the permitting 
authority, for adequacy prior to implementation is neither reasonable 
nor necessary. There are thousands of sources required to develop SSM 
plans, and each plan is tailored to its source. Some plans are closely 
tied and cross referenced to other operating materials at the source. 
Many, and perhaps most, plans contain CBI. The burden on the permitting 
authorities to review every plan would be enormous. We believe that the 
proposed SSM reporting regimen accomplishes the same result in a much 
more efficient way to identify poor performers and inadequate plans. 
The SSM provisions as a whole would form a coordinated program for 
minimizing emissions and alerting permitting authorities to problems 
and noncompliance with the general duty clause.
    In its petition for reconsideration, NRDC argues that, under the 
CAA, SSM plans must be made available to the public because they are 
``compliance plans'' within the meaning of sections 502(b)(8) and 
503(e) of the CAA. We disagree. The term ``compliance plan'' (as well 
as the related term ``schedule of compliance'') has a specific meaning 
under the CAA. A compliance plan, which a source must submit along with 
its permit application, contains a brief description of method or 
methods that the source is using or plans to use to meet each 
applicable requirement.
    The compliance plan must also include a ``schedule of compliance.'' 
If a source is in compliance with all applicable requirements, and if 
there are no promulgated but not-yet-effective additional requirements 
that will become applicable to the source in the future, then the 
schedule of compliance simply notes these facts. If the source will 
become subject to a new EPA or State implementation plan (SIP) 
requirement that is not yet in effect but will become applicable in the 
future, or if the source is out of compliance with a currently 
applicable requirement, then the schedule of compliance takes on added 
importance. In either case, it must outline the steps that the source 
will take to come into compliance and include a time line for taking 
each of those steps. It is clear, however, that an SSM plan is neither 
a ``compliance plan'' nor a ``schedule of compliance'' as those terms 
are used in the CAA.
    In arguing to the contrary, NRDC construes statements in our March 
23, 2001, and December 9, 2002, proposed rules as recognizing that SSM 
plans are compliance plans. To the extent that these notices stated or 
implied that SSM plans are compliance plans, these statements are not 
consistent with sections 502(b)(8) and 503(e) of the CAA.
    It is important to note that the Administrator (or an authorized 
permitting authority) may at any time require a facility owner or 
operator to submit a copy of an SSM plan under section 114(a) of the 
CAA. Under section 114(c), the public may also obtain a copy of any SSM 
plan obtained by the Administrator (or authorized permitting authority) 
under section 114(a). In its petition for reconsideration, NRDC cites a 
technical support document accompanying the May 30, 2003 final rule 
which suggests that, under sections 114(c) and 503(e), there is a 
general obligation to provide public access to SSM plans, regardless of 
whether EPA or the permitting authority had obtained an SSM plan from a 
source under section 114(a). We

[[Page 43995]]

no longer believe this to be a correct interpretation of section 114(c) 
or 503(e).
    As noted above, section 114(c) of the CAA simply provides that, 
when EPA or an authorized permitting authority has taken action to 
request information such as an SSM plan under section 114(a), then the 
public may obtain a copy of that information (subject to statutory 
limitations about confidential information). Section 503(e) of the CAA 
states that ``[a] copy of each permit application, compliance plan 
(including the schedule of compliance), emissions or compliance 
monitoring report, certification, and each permit issued under this 
title, shall be available to the public.'' As noted above, an SSM plan 
is not part of a permit application or a permit and is not a compliance 
plan, a schedule of compliance, an emissions or compliance monitoring 
report, or a certification within the meaning of section 503(e).
    After reviewing NRDC's petition for reconsideration, we have 
concluded that the CAA does not require EPA or a permitting authority 
to obtain SSM plans at the request of the public. Nor does the CAA 
provide EPA with authority to impose such a requirement on permitting 
authorities. As noted above, however, the public is entitled to have 
access to an SSM plan if EPA or a permitting authority takes action to 
obtain such a plan under section 114(a) of the CAA.
    We do not believe that mandating public access to such plans is 
necessary for public oversight of the applicable requirement or of MACT 
during SSM periods. In fact, as noted above, we are concerned that any 
mandate for public access could make SSM plans less effective, because 
a source would be less likely to include in its plan sensitive details 
about its operations--details that are likely to be effective in 
minimizing emissions during periods of SSM. As previously explained in 
this notice, the general duty, rather than the SSM plan itself, is the 
applicable requirement during startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
periods. In effect, the general duty is MACT for these specified 
periods in which the control technology for normal operations is 
inapplicable.
    To make the regulatory status and significance of SSM plans clear, 
we are proposing to remove the provision in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(v) that 
requires a permitting authority to obtain an SSM plan under certain 
conditions. Consequently, we are proposing to deny NRDC's request to 
revise the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions to allow unlimited public 
access to a source's SSM plan.
    We recognize that, in some cases, members of the public may want to 
obtain SSM plans--especially where a source has reported (as required 
under our rules) an unusually high number of SSM events relative to 
similar sources. In such cases, public oversight of SSM plans could be 
useful to EPA, permitting authorities, and sources themselves. Many 
sources will be responsive to direct community requests without any 
governmental involvement at all. To the extent that government 
involvement is necessary, we believe that the mechanisms and conditions 
under which a permitting authority will respond to a request that it 
obtain an SSM plan is best left at the local level.
    Finally, we also note that EPA and State and local environmental 
agencies are actively working with industrial facilities to reduce 
emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. One 
major refining and chemical manufacturing company, Flint Hills 
Resources (FHR), recently approached EPA to propose a significant 
collaborative project intended to reduce SSM emissions from FHR 
refineries and chemical manufacturing facilities. The main goal of this 
collaboration, which is now under way, is to reduce emissions from 
SSM's through development and implementation of an approach that 
establishes explicit operational expectations and defines good 
engineering practices and good air pollution control practices at its 
facilities. The project aims to evaluate and continuously improve SSM 
practices with the goal of establishing state-of-the-art practices that 
can be replicated by other facilities. The project will provide EPA and 
State regulators with information and data that could help inform how 
to improve SSM practices across the regulated community. The project 
will also provide the public with improved information on FHR's SSM 
performance.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified 
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within 
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action 
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or 
recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The amendments eliminate the requirement for sources to follow their 
SSM plan, but do not require any additional recordkeeping and 
reporting, or any other information collection obligation. However, OMB 
has previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the existing regulations of 40 CFR part 63 under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. A 
copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) for any 
of the existing regulations may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection 
Strategies Division; U.S. EPA (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 566-1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of

[[Page 43996]]

information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed amendments on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201 for each applicable subpart; (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of the proposed amendments 
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In determining whether a rule has significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives which minimize any significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 
603-604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    Small entities that are subject to MACT standards would not be 
required to take any action under this proposal; the amendments simply 
remove the requirement that sources must follow their SSM plan. 
However, we do not expect sources will address periods of SSM any 
differently than they do now.
    Based on the considerations above, we have concluded that the 
proposed amendments will relieve regulatory burden for all affected 
small entities. Nevertheless, we continue to be interested in the 
potential impacts of the proposed amendments on small entities and 
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that these proposed amendments do not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. Sources subject to MACT standards would 
not be required to take any action under this proposal, including 
sources owned or operated by State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, 
the proposed amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 and 205 of UMRA. EPA has determined that the proposed amendments 
contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because they contain no requirements that 
apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus, the 
proposed amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 203 
of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    The proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They 
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These amendments 
would impose no new requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to these proposed amendments.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed 
amendments from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' These proposed amendments do 
not have tribal

[[Page 43997]]

implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes. Any tribal government that owns or 
operates a source subject to MACT standards would not be required to 
take any action under this proposal. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to these proposed amendments.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on the proposed 
amendments from tribal officials.

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

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns 
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed amendments are 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because all MACT standards 
governed by the General Provisions are based on technology performance 
and not on health or safety risks.

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

    The proposed amendments are not a ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because 
they are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply 
distribution, or use of energy. The proposed amendments would impose no 
new requirements.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable VCS.
    The proposed amendments do not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS. EPA welcomes 
comments on this aspect of the proposed amendments, and specifically 
invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to 
explain why such standards should be used in the proposed amendments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 63 and 65

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 30, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1, parts 
63 and 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.6 is amended by:
    a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (e)(1)(ii);
    b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (e)(3)(i) introductory 
text;
    c. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(3)(ii);
    d. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (e)(3)(iii);
    e. Removing the sixth sentence in paragraph (e)(3)(v); and
    f. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (e)(3)(ix) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.6  Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1)(i) * * *
    (ii) Malfunctions must be corrected as soon as practicable after 
their occurrence. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The owner or operator of an affected source must develop a 
written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes, in 
detail, procedures for operating and maintaining the source during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; and a program of 
corrective action for malfunctioning process, air pollution control, 
and monitoring equipment used to comply with the relevant standard. * * 
*
* * * * *
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (iii) When actions taken by the owner or operator during a startup 
or shutdown (and the startup or shutdown causes the source to exceed 
any applicable emission limitation in the relevant emission standards), 
or malfunction (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) are 
consistent with the procedures specified in the affected source's 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator must 
keep records for that event which demonstrate that the procedures 
specified in the plan were followed. * * *
* * * * *
    (ix) The title V permit for an affected source must require that 
the owner or operator develop a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 
which conforms to the provisions of this part. * * *
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.8 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(iii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.8  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The owner or operator of an affected source must develop a 
written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for CMS as specified in 
Sec.  63.6(e)(3).
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and 
(ii), and the first sentence in paragraph (v) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.10  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The occurrence and duration of each startup or shutdown when 
the startup or shutdown causes the source

[[Page 43998]]

to exceed any applicable emission limitation in the relevant emission 
standards;
    (ii) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation 
(i.e., process equipment) or the required air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment;
* * * * *
    (v) All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the 
affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (see Sec.  
63.6(e)(3)) when all actions taken during periods of startup or 
shutdown (and the startup or shutdown causes the source to exceed any 
applicable emission limitation in the relevant emission standards), and 
malfunction (including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning 
process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its 
normal or usual manner of operation) are consistent with the procedures 
specified in such plan. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart F--[Amended]

    5. Section 63.105 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.105  Maintenance wastewater requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) The owner or operator shall incorporate the procedures 
described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section as part of the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required under Sec.  
63.6(e)(3).
* * * * *

Subpart G--[Amended]

    6. Section 63.152 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C)(1); and
    b. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(A) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.152  General reporting and continuous records.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (1) * * * During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when 
the source is operated during such periods in accordance with Sec.  
63.6(e).
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) The daily average value during any startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction shall not be considered an excursion for purposes of this 
paragraph (g)(2), if the owner or operator operates the source during 
such periods in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e).
* * * * *

Subpart L--[Amended]

    7. Section 63.310 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b); and
    b. Revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.310  Requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.

* * * * *
    (b) Each owner or operator of a coke oven battery shall develop, 
according to paragraph (c) of this section, a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes procedures for operating 
the battery, including associated air pollution control equipment, 
during a period of a startup, shutdown, or malfunction in a manner 
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions, and procedures for correcting malfunctioning process and air 
pollution control equipment as quickly as practicable.
    (c) Malfunctions shall be corrected as soon as practicable after 
their occurrence.
* * * * *

Subpart N--[Amended]

    8. Section 63.342 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii); and
    b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (f)(3)(i) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.342  Standards.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1)(i) At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction, owners or operators shall operate and maintain any 
affected source, including associated air pollution control devices and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution 
control practices.
    (ii) Malfunctions shall be corrected as soon as practicable after 
their occurrence.
* * * * *
    (3) Operation and maintenance plan. (i) The owner or operator of an 
affected source subject to paragraph (f) of this section shall prepare 
an operation and maintenance plan no later than the compliance date, 
except for hard chromium electroplaters and the chromium anodizing 
operations in California which have until January 25, 1998. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart U--[Amended]


Sec.  63.480  [Amended]

    9. Section 63.480 is amended by removing the third sentence in 
paragraph (j)(1).
    10. Section 63.506 is amended by:
    a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1) introductory 
text; and
    b. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv)(A) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.506  General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop 
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3). * * *
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) The daily average or batch cycle daily average value during any 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall not be considered an excursion 
for purposes of paragraph (h)(2) of this section, if the owner or 
operator operates the source during such periods in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6(e).
* * * * *

Subpart Y--[Amended]

    11. Section 63.562 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (e)(2) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.562  Standards.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop a 
written operation and maintenance plan that describes in detail a 
program of corrective action for varying (i.e., exceeding baseline 
parameters) air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, 
based on monitoring requirements in Sec.  63.564, used to comply with 
these emissions standards. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart AA--[Amended]

    12. Section 63.600 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.600  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (e) The emission limitations and operating parameter requirements 
of

[[Page 43999]]

this subpart do not apply during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, as those terms are defined in Sec.  63.2, provided that 
the source is operated in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).

Subpart BB--[Amended]

    13. Section 63.620 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.620  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (e) The emission limitations and operating parameter requirements 
of this subpart do not apply during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, as those terms are defined in Sec.  63.2, provided that 
the source is operated in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).

Subpart DD--[Amended]

    14. Section 63.695 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(6)(i)(A) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.695  Inspection and monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) During a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when the 
affected facility is operated during such period in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6(e); or
* * * * *

Subpart GG--[Amended]

    15. Section 63.743 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (b) introductory text as follows:


Sec.  63.743  Standards: General.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * Each owner or operator that uses an air pollution control 
device or equipment to control HAP emissions shall prepare a startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan in accordance with Sec.  63.6. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart HH--[Amended]

    16. Section 63.773 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(8)(i)(A) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.773  Inspection and monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) During a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when the 
affected facility is operated during such period in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6(e); or
* * * * *

Subpart LL--[Amended]

    17. Section 63.848 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.848  Emission monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (h) * * * If a monitoring device for a primary control device 
measures an operating parameter outside the limit(s) established 
pursuant to Sec.  63.847(h), if visible emissions indicating abnormal 
operation are observed from the exhaust stack of a control device 
during a daily inspection, or if a problem is detected during the daily 
inspection of a wet roof scrubber for potline secondary emission 
control, the owner or operator shall initiate corrective action 
procedures within 1 hour. * * *
* * * * *
    18. Section 63.850 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.850  Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * The owner or operator shall develop a written plan as 
described in Sec.  63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be 
followed for operating the source and maintaining the source during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a program of 
corrective action for malfunctioning process and control systems used 
to comply with the standards. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart MM--[Amended]

    19. Section 63.864 is amended by revising paragraph (k)(1) 
introductory text and the first sentence in paragraph (k)(2)(v) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.864  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (k) * * * (1) Following the compliance date, owners or operators of 
all affected sources or process units are required to implement 
corrective action if the monitoring exceedances in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) 
through (vi) of this section occur:
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) For the hog fuel dryer at Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's 
Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit No. HD-14), when 
corrective action is not initiated within 1 hour of a bag leak 
detection system alarm and the alarm is engaged for more than 5 percent 
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. * * *
* * * * *
    20. Section 63.866 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.866  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * * The owner or operator must develop a written plan as 
described in Sec.  63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be 
followed for operating the source and maintaining the source during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and a program of 
corrective action for malfunctioning process and control systems used 
to comply with the standards. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart SS--[Amended]

    21. Section 63.998 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii);
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(6)(i)(A); and
    c. Revising the second sentence in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.998  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, if the owner or 
operator operates the source during such periods in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6(e) and maintains the records specified in paragraph (d)(3) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (6)(i) * * *
    (A) The daily average value during any startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction shall not be considered an excursion if the owner or 
operator operates the source during such periods in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6(e) and maintains the records specified in paragraph (d)(3) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * * If a source has developed a startup, shutdown and 
malfunction plan, and a monitored parameter is outside its established 
range or monitoring data are not collected during periods of start-up, 
shutdown, or malfunction (and the source is operated during such 
periods in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)) or during periods of 
nonoperation of the process unit or portion thereof (resulting in 
cessation of the emissions to which monitoring applies), then the 
excursion is not a violation and, in cases where continuous monitoring 
is required, the excursion does not count as the excused excursion for 
determining compliance.
* * * * *

[[Page 44000]]

Subpart YY--[Amended]

    22. Section 63.1108 is amended by:
    a. Removing the second sentence in paragraph (a)(1) introductory 
text;
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(6); and
    c. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (6) Malfunctions shall be corrected as soon as practical after 
their occurrence.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (and the 
source is operated during such periods in accordance with Sec.  
63.6(e)), or
* * * * *
    23. Section 63.1111 is amended by revising the first and fifth 
sentences in paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and revising 
paragraph(a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1111  Startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

    (a) * * * (1) Description and purpose of plan. The owner or 
operator of an affected source shall develop a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes, in detail, procedures 
for operating and maintaining the affected source during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. * * * The requirement to develop 
this plan shall be incorporated into the source's title V permit. * * *
* * * * *
    (2) Operation of source. During periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction, the owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
this subpart YY shall operate and maintain such affected source 
(including associated air pollution control equipment and CPMS) in a 
manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices 
for minimizing emissions to the extent practical.
* * * * *

Subpart CCC--[Amended]

    24. Section 63.1164 is amended by revising the last sentence in 
paragraph (c) introductory text and revising paragraph (c)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.1164  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * Malfunctions must be corrected as soon as practicable 
after their occurrence.
    (1) Plan. As required by Sec.  63.6(e)(3) of subpart A of this 
part, the owner or operator shall develop a written startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan that describes, in detail, procedures for 
operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction, and a program of corrective action for 
malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to 
comply with the relevant standards.
* * * * *

Subpart EEE--[Amended]

    25. Section 63.1206 is amended by revising paragraphs 
(c)(2)(v)(A)(2) and (c)(2)(v)(B)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1206  When and how must you comply with the standards and 
operating requirements?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Although the automatic waste feed cutoff requirements continue 
to apply during a malfunction, an exceedance of an emission standard 
monitored by a CEMS or COMS or operating limit specified under Sec.  
63.1209 is not a violation of this subpart EEE if you take the 
corrective measures prescribed in Sec.  63.6(e).
* * * * *
    (B) * * *
    (4) Although the automatic waste feed cutoff requirements of this 
paragraph (c)(2)(v)(B)(4) apply during startup and shutdown, an 
exceedance of an emission standard or operating limit is not a 
violation of this subpart EEE if you operate in accordance with Sec.  
63.6(e).
* * * * *

Subpart GGG--[Amended]

    26. Section 63.1258 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8)(iv) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.1258  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iv) Periods of time when monitoring measurements exceed the 
parameter values as well as periods of inadequate monitoring data do 
not constitute a violation if they occur during a start-up, shutdown, 
or malfunction, and the facility operates in accordance with Sec.  
63.6(e).
* * * * *
    27. Section 63.1259 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (a)(3) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1259  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop 
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3). * * *
* * * * *

Subpart HHH--[Amended]

    28. Section 63.1283 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(8)(i)(A) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1283  Inspection and monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) During a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when the 
affected facility is operated during such period in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6(e); or
* * * * *

Subpart JJJ--[Amended]


Sec.  63.1310  [Amended]

    29. Section 63.1310 is amended by removing the third sentence in 
paragraph (j)(1).
    30. Section 63.1335 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (b)(1) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1335  General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop 
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3). * * *
* * * * *

Subpart MMM--[Amended]

    31. Section 63.1366 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8)(iv) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.1366  Monitoring and inspection requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iv) Periods of time when monitoring measurements exceed the 
parameter values as well as periods of inadequate monitoring data do 
not constitute a violation if they occur during a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, and the facility operates in accordance with Sec.  
63.6(e).
* * * * *
    32. Section 63.1367 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (a)(3) introductory text to read as follows:

[[Page 44001]]

Sec.  63.1367  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop 
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3). * * *

Subpart NNN--[Amended]

    33. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (c)(1) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1386  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    (c) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator shall develop a written plan as described 
in Sec.  63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be followed 
for operating the source and maintaining the source during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a program of corrective action 
for malfunctioning process modifications and control systems used to 
comply with the standards. * * *

Subpart OOO--[Amended]


Sec.  63.1400  [Amended]

    34. Section 63.1400 is amended by removing the third sentence in 
paragraph (k)(1) and the last sentence in paragraph (k)(2).
    35. Section 63.1413 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (h)(4) introductory text and paragraph (5) introductory text 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1413  Compliance demonstration procedures.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) Deviation from the emission standard. If an affected source is 
not operated during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction in 
accordance with Sec.  63.6(e), there has been a deviation from the 
emission standard. * * *
* * * * *
    (5) Situations that are not deviations. If an affected source is 
operated during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction in 
accordance with Sec.  63.6(e), and any of the situations listed in 
paragraphs (h)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section occur, such 
situations shall not be considered to be deviations.
* * * * *
    36. Section 63.1416 is amended by:
    a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b) introductory text; 
and
    b. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1416  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop 
a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3) and shall keep the plan on-site. * * *
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) For purposes of paragraph (h)(2) of this section, a deviation 
means that the daily average, batch cycle daily average, or block 
average value of monitoring data for a parameter is greater than the 
maximum, or less than the minimum established value, except that the 
daily average, batch cycle daily average, or block average value during 
any startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall not be considered a 
deviation, if the owner or operator operates the source during such 
periods in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e).

Subpart PPP--[Amended]


Sec.  63.1420  [Amended]

    37. Section 63.1420 is amended by removing the third sentence in 
paragraph (h)(1).
    38. Section 63.1439 is amended by:
    a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1) introductory 
text; and
    b. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv)(A) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1439  General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * The owner or operator of an affected source shall develop 
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3). * * *
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) The daily average value during any startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction shall not be c