National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cellulose Products Manufacturing, 46684-46700 [05-15733]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46684
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR–2003–0193; FRL–7948–5]
RIN 2060–AL91
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cellulose
Products Manufacturing
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final
action on amendments to the national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) for cellulose
products manufacturing, which were
issued on June 11, 2002, under section
112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
amendments revise the work practice
standards, general and initial
compliance requirements, definitions,
and General Provisions applicability, as
well as correct typographical,
formatting, and cross-referencing errors
in the final rule. We are issuing the
amendments as a direct final rule,
without prior proposal, because we
view the amendments as
noncontroversial and anticipate no
adverse comments. However, in the
Proposed Rules section of this Federal
Register, we are publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal
to amend the NESHAP for cellulose
products manufacturing if adverse
comments are filed.
DATES: The direct final rule is effective
on October 11, 2005, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by
September 9, 2005, or by September 26,
2005, if a hearing is requested by August
22, 2005. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register
indicating which sections will become
effective, and which provisions are
being withdrawn due to adverse
comment. If anyone contacts the EPA
requesting to speak at a public hearing,
a public hearing will be held on August
24, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2003–
0193, 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.
• E-mail: air-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–1741.
• Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a duplicate copy, if
possible.
• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation
Docket, EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Room B–108, Washington, DC
20460. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
We request that a separate copy also
be sent to the contact person listed
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Instructions. Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0193. EPA’s
policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made
available online at https://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. 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 email 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
Category
326121 ..................
325221 ..................
326199, 325211 ....
326199 ..................
325199 ..................
...............................
Mr.
Bill Schrock, Organic Chemicals Group,
Emission Standards Division (C504–04),
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541–5032, facsimile
number (919) 541–3470, electronic mail
(e-mail) address schrock.bill@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this
action include those listed in the
following table:
NAICS code*
Industry .......................................................................................................
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. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit
EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal
Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).
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
hardcopy 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 Docket is (202) 566–1742.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is
held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the
EPA’s Environmental Research Center
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina or at an alternate site
nearby.
Federal Government ...................................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Examples of regulated entities
cellulose food casing operations.
rayon operations.
cellulosic sponge operations.
cellophane operations.
cellulose ether operations.
Not affected.
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Category
NAICS code*
State/local/tribal government ......................................................................
...............................
* North
46685
Examples of regulated entities
Not affected.
American Industrial Classification System.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in § 63.5485 of
the national emission standards. If you
have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in
presenting oral testimony or inquiring
as to whether a hearing is to be held
should contact Mr. Bill Schrock,
Organic Chemicals Group, Emission
Standards Division (Mail Code C504–
05), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541–5605, electronic mail
address schrock.bill@epa.gov., at least 2
days in advance of the potential date of
the public hearing. Persons interested in
attending the public hearing must also
call Mr. Bill Schrock to verify the time,
date, and location of the hearing. The
public hearing will provide interested
parties the opportunity to present data,
views, or arguments concerning these
proposed emission standards.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition
to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of today’s document
will also be available on the WWW
through EPA’s Technology Transfer
Network (TTN). Following signature by
the EPA Administrator, a copy of this
action will be posted on the TTN’s
policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
Comments. We are publishing the
direct final rule amendments without
prior proposal because we view the
amendments as noncontroversial and do
not anticipate adverse comments.
However, in the Proposed Rules section
of this Federal Register, we are
publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to amend the
national emission standards for
cellulose products manufacturing
operations if adverse comments are
filed. If we receive any adverse
comments on one or more distinct
amendments, we will publish a timely
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public which provisions
will become effective, and which
provisions are being withdrawn due to
adverse comment. We will address all
public comments in a subsequent final
rule, should the Agency determine to
issue one. Any of the distinct
amendments in today’s direct final rule
for which we do not receive adverse
comment will become effective on the
previously mentioned date. We will not
institute a second comment period on
the direct final rule amendments. Any
parties interested in commenting must
do so at this time.
Judicial Review. Under section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of
the direct final rule amendments is
available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit by
October 11, 2005. Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to the direct final rule
amendments which was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period
for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by the direct final rule
amendments may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
Outline. The following outline is
provided to aid in reading the preamble
to the direct final rule.
I. Background
A. Work Practice Standards
B. General Compliance Requirements
C. Initial Compliance Requirements
D. Definitions
E. Applicability of General Provisions
F. Miscellaneous Corrections
II. Summary of Amendments
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
The EPA, under section 112 of the
CAA, promulgated the NESHAP for
cellulose products manufacturing on
June 11, 2002 (67 FR 40044). The final
rule, codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUUU, includes emission limits,
operating limits, and work practice
standards, as well as general, initial, and
continuous compliance requirements
and notification, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements. Following
promulgation of the rule, UCB Films,
Inc. and Teepak, LLC petitioned the
Agency for specific changes to the final
rule, and Dow Chemical Co. informally
requested that we issue specific
amendments to the final rule.
In response to industry’s requests,
today’s action issues amendments to
subpart UUUU of 40 CFR part 63 to
revise the work practice standards,
general and initial compliance
requirements, definitions, and General
Provisions applicability. The
amendments also include corrections of
typographical, formatting, and crossreferencing errors identified after the
final rule was published. The
amendments are described below.
A. Work-Practice Standards
The cellophane operation at the UCB
Films facility in Tecumseh, Kansas
includes a number of casting machines,
each of which includes concentrated
sulfuric acid baths referred to as ‘‘Atanks.’’ Above the A-tanks are
retractable hoods that can be moved up
or down. To capture emissions, the
hoods over the A-tanks are moved into
the down position, and the vent streams
from the A-tanks are routed to a thermal
oxidizer. For operational purposes, the
hoods over the A-tanks are at times kept
in the up position, and during those
times the vent streams from the A-tanks
are diverted to the stack. UCB Films has
asked whether the provision in the final
rule requiring vent streams at
cellophane operations to be routed
through closed-vent systems to control
devices possibly could be construed to
apply to these A-tank hoods and,
therefore, could require UCB Films to
operate its casting machines with the Atank hoods in the down position at all
times.
The cellophane operation at the UCB
Films facility is the only one currently
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
46686
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
operating in the U.S. Consequently, the
maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) floor for cellophane
operations was established based on the
current emission limitation at the UCB
Films facility. This MACT floor
accounted for the A-tank hoods at the
UCB Films facility at times being kept
in the up position. Consequently, the
closed-vent system requirement, as
currently stated, would be inconsistent
with MACT for cellophane operations.
Therefore, through the amendments to
the final rule, we are now making clear
that we did not intend for the closedvent system provision to apply to
retractable hoods over sulfuric acid
baths at a cellophane operation, such as
the A-tank hoods at the UCB Films
facility. The final rule does not prohibit
UCB Films from operating its casting
machines with the A-tank hoods in the
up position.
B. General Compliance Requirements
In response to comments on the
proposed rule, we changed the deadline
for completing a performance test or
other initial compliance demonstration
from 180 days before to 180 days after
the compliance date. To ensure that a
record of compliance would be kept
between the compliance date and the
date when operating limits for the
continuous monitoring systems (CMS)
are established (i.e., the date of the
performance test or other initial
compliance demonstration), we
included a provision in § 63.5515(b)(1)
of the final rule that requires affected
sources to maintain an operation and
maintenance (O&M) log of the process
and emissions control equipment during
that period.
Dow has requested that we limit the
O&M log to emission control equipment
because the amount and type of data
associated with operation and
maintenance of the process are unclear
and onerous. For example, with the
current text in the final rule, companies
would be required to document when a
pump used to inject water treatment
chemicals into boiler feedwater for
steam generation was replaced or
repaired. Plant operators would be
required to record literally thousands of
data points related to the operation of
‘‘any’’ aspect of the production unit,
even though it would have no bearing
on emissions or the compliance
parameters required by the final rule.
According to Dow, this broad scope was
certain to be inconsistently applied, and
it would be difficult, if not impossible,
to demonstrate compliance.
Dow has also requested that we clarify
that the O&M log requirement is needed
only for those control devices used to
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
comply with the standard, not every
control device unassociated with the
scope of the final rule. Some control
devices may be installed for odor or
State requirements and do not need to
be included in the O&M log. For
example, one of Dow’s cellulose ether
facilities has a scrubber that, under a
State permit, is used to control nonhazardous air pollutants emissions, and
the facility does not need to monitor or
conduct a performance test on this
scrubber in order to comply with the
final rule. According to Dow, with the
current text in the final rule, the facility
would have to maintain data on the
scrubber for no other purpose than that
stated in § 63.5515(b)(1).
Consequently, Dow has recommended
that EPA revise § 63.5515(b)(1) to
replace the term ‘‘process and emissions
control equipment’’ with the term
‘‘control technique used to comply with
the rule.’’ Dow has recommended using
the term ‘‘control technique’’ rather than
‘‘emissions control equipment’’ because
‘‘control technique’’ is defined in
§ 63.5610 of the final rule. Dow believes
that this revision would clarify the
requirement and strike a more
appropriate balance without being
unnecessarily burdensome. The Agency
agrees with the rationale provided by
Dow that a more narrow definition for
items to be contained in the O&M log is
appropriate. Therefore, through the
amendments to the final rule, we are
making the suggested revision to
§ 63.5515(b)(1).
C. Initial Compliance Requirements
1. Material Balance Compliance Option
One of Dow’s cellulose ether facilities
uses a material balance to calculate the
amount of HAP reacted, i.e., destroyed
in the process. According to Dow, this
facility’s demonstration of overall
control efficiency is similar to the
viscose process material balance. Dow
has requested that EPA provide
cellulose ether affected sources with a
material balance compliance option
similar to that for the viscose process
affected sources. This option would
allow the cellulose ether affected
sources to demonstrate initial
compliance using a month-long initial
compliance demonstration and
demonstrate continuous compliance by
maintaining a material balance and
using it to document the percent
reduction of total organic hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emissions. The Agency
was unaware that any cellulose ether
facilities were using the material
balance technique to calculate their
control efficiency and, therefore, did not
provide this as a compliance option for
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
cellulose ether facilities in the final rule.
We consider this a valid approach for
calculating control efficiency and
extending this option to the cellulose
ether affected sources makes the final
rule consistent with the viscose process
affected sources. Therefore, through the
amendments to the final rule, we are
providing the requested material
balance compliance option for cellulose
ether operations, with the clarification
that the start point from which the
percent reduction is determined must be
the onset of extended cookout. Extended
cookout is a means of reducing HAP
emissions by allowing the reaction to
occur for a longer period of time than
economically desired, thus allowing for
more of the HAP to be consumed in the
reaction. This clarification that the start
point for the material balance
compliance option is necessary because
cellulose ether affected sources actually
consume much of the HAP in their
reaction (e.g., ethylene oxide), while
viscose process affected sources
eventually regenerate all of the HAP in
their reaction (as either carbon disulfide
or hydrogen sulfide).
2. Additional Testing
Tables 3 and 5 to the final rule require
viscose process affected sources to
prepare and maintain a material balance
that includes the ‘‘pertinent data’’ used
to determine the percent reduction of
total sulfide emissions. To prepare and
maintain such a material balance,
emissions information to determine
control efficiency would be needed in
addition to that gathered through the
initial performance test. According to
Teepak, the ‘‘pertinent data’’ language
in the final rule possibly could be
construed to require additional testing
to complete the material balance,
although such additional testing is not
explicitly required in the final rule and
would be inconsistent with language in
the preamble. Teepak has recommended
that EPA revise § 63.5535(g)(1) to clarify
that no additional emission tests are
required. The Agency did not intend to
require additional emissions tests be
conducted by use of the term ‘‘pertinent
data’’ and agrees with Teepak’s request.
Therefore, through the amendments to
the final rule, we are making the
suggested revision to § 63.5535(g)(1) for
viscose process affected sources. For
consistency, we are providing the same
clarification for those cellulose ether
affected sources that choose the material
balance compliance option.
3. Batch Emission Episodes
For those sources that choose to
conduct an initial performance test,
Dow has noted that the final rule does
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
not address the testing of batch emission
episodes lasting less than 1 hour.
According to Dow, the final rule is
unclear and has conflicting
requirements between the regulatory
text and tables regarding whether (1) the
batch emission episode provisions in
§ 63.490(c) apply to calculating the
emission rate, as stated in table 4 to the
final rule, (2) three 1-hour tests are
required, as stated in § 63.5535(d), or (3)
a 3-hour test is required, as stated in
table 3 to the final rule. Dow has
recommended that EPA clarify in
§ 63.5535(d) and (e) that batch process
vent tests follow the provisions listed in
table 4 and § 63.490(c), which Dow has
interpreted as allowing testing on a
batch emission episode. Upon review of
the subject testing requirements the
Agency agrees with Dow’s assessment
that the language in the text and tables
conflict and need clarification.
Therefore, through the amendments to
the final rule, we are making the
suggested revision to § 63.5535(d) and
(e). To account for the testing of batch
emission episodes, which may last less
than 1 hour per test run, we are also
removing the ‘‘3-hour’’ term used in
table 3 to the final rule to describe the
performance test. This revision also
eliminates any confusion with the
requirement in § 63.5535(d) for three 1hour test runs.
4. Uncontrolled Emissions
Both Teepak and Dow have noted that
table 3 to the final rule requires
operations to demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission limit by
‘‘measuring’’ the average uncontrolled
emissions during the compliance
demonstration or performance test.
However, the final rule does not require
month-long initial performance tests,
nor does it require any additional
testing after the initial performance tests
of control device efficiency. Teepak has
recommended that EPA change the term
‘‘measured’’ in table 3 to the final rule
to ‘‘determined’’ to clarify that no
additional testing or measurement was
intended for cellulose food casing
operations or any other viscose process
affected source. Dow has recommended
that EPA revise tables 3 and 4 to the
final rule to allow engineering
assessments to be used as an alternative
for determining the uncontrolled
emissions from process vents.
According to Dow, engineering
assessments are allowed in other
NESHAP, including the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP (HON), the
Pharmaceutical NESHAP, and the
Pesticide Active Ingredient NESHAP.
The Agency agrees with Dow and
Teepak that using the term
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
‘‘determined’’ instead of ‘‘measured’’ is
consistent with the approach of using an
engineering assessment as an alternative
for determining uncontrolled emissions.
Through the amendments to the final
rule, we are making the clarification to
table 3 to the final rule suggested by
Teepak for viscose process affected
sources. For consistency, we are
providing the same clarification for
those cellulose ether affected sources
that choose to demonstrate initial
compliance using a month-long
compliance demonstration. We are also
making the revision to table 3 to the
final rule suggested by Dow for cellulose
ether affected sources. This revision
should provide cellulose ether affected
sources with some flexibility in
determining uncontrolled emissions,
whether they are conducting an initial
performance test or a month-long
compliance demonstration. For
consistency, we are also providing the
viscose process affected sources with
the same option to use engineering
assessments. We are not making the
revision to table 4 to the final rule
suggested by Dow because this issue
will already be addressed in the revision
to table 3 of the final rule. Table 4 of the
final rule is designed to describe the
performance testing requirements, and if
a source is using other means (e.g.,
engineering assessments) to determine
uncontrolled emissions, then those
means should be described in table 3 of
the final rule.
5. Equations
Dow has noted that § 63.5535(e)(2)
requires sources to calculate the ‘‘total
sulfide emission rate.’’ According to
Dow, it is not necessary for a source to
calculate the total sulfide emission rate
if it does not use sulfur compounds,
specifically carbon disulfide, in its
process. Dow has recommended that
EPA clarify the final rule so that
§ 63.5535(e)(2) is used only for viscose
processes that actually use carbon
disulfide. Through the amendments to
the final rule, we are revising
§ 63.5535(e) to require sources to use the
equations ‘‘as applicable.’’ This revision
should account for those sources (e.g.,
cellulose ether affected sources) for
which an equation (e.g., total sulfide
emission equation) may not apply.
6. Establishing Operating Limits
Section 63.5535(h)(1) of the final rule
references § 63.505(b)(2) regarding the
establishment of operating limits for
continuous processes. Section
63.505(b)(2) requires sources to use the
average of the maximum values to
establish a maximum level and the
average of the minimum values to
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
46687
establish a minimum level. Teepak has
argued that this procedure
inappropriately restricts the range in
which their scrubbers can be operated to
ensure compliance with the emission
reduction requirements. According to
Teepak, the capabilities of the scrubber
under a range of conditions, not simply
the average capabilities, should be used
to determine maximum and minimum
operating limits. Teepak has
recommended that we replace the
procedures of § 63.505(b)(2) with those
of § 63.505(c), which require sources to
establish parameter operating levels
based on performance tests,
supplemented by engineering
assessments and/or manufacturer’s
recommendations. According to Teepak,
this change would allow the
development of true operating limits of
the control or recovery device. Teepak
has also recommended that we revise
table 3 to the final rule to clarify that a
range of scrubber operating values is
acceptable.
The Agency agrees with Teepak that
the use of average values to establish the
minimum and maximum operating
limits for the scrubbers will not result
in an effective measure for assessing the
operational performance of the
scrubbers. By using the averages for
establishing both the minimum and
maximum values for the scrubber
operating range, an overly restrictive
range is set, while the scrubbers can be
demonstrated to operate effectively
operate over a much broader range.
Therefore, through the amendments to
the final rule, we are making the
suggested revisions to § 63.5535(h)(1),
(5), and (6). We are also revising tables
2, 3, and 6 to final rule. For consistency,
we are applying the requirement to use
§ 63.505(c) to both continuous and batch
processes.
D. Definitions
1. Process Unit/Source Category
In response to a comment on the
proposed rule, we added a definition for
‘‘cellulose ether process unit’’ to the
final rule to help define the boundaries
around equipment for equipment leak
monitoring. We also revised the
definition for ‘‘cellulose ether
operation’’ to provide greater
clarification of what it includes, and we
revised the definition for ‘‘cellulose
ether process’’ to specifically exclude
solids handling. However, the
requirements in the final rule refer only
to the definitions for ‘‘cellulose ether
operation’’ and ‘‘cellulose ether process
unit,’’ which do not exclude solids
handling equipment. Dow has argued
that, without clear definitions, the
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
46688
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
regulated industry cannot delineate the
equipment included in the process unit
and subject to the final rule. As
‘‘cellulose ether process unit’’ is
currently defined, equipment in the
solids handling process would be a part
of the cellulose ether process unit and
would be subject to the equipment leak
provisions. According to Dow, it is
doubtful that the HAP concentration in
the solids handling equipment would
exceed 5 percent, and unnecessary
records would be needed to document
that the equipment is not monitored.
Dow has recommended that EPA revise
the definition for ‘‘cellulose ether
process unit’’ to specifically include the
term ‘‘cellulose ether process.’’
According to Dow, revising this
definition would be a clear and simple
approach to exclude equipment not a
part of the cellulose ether process unit
and, therefore, not subject to equipment
leaks monitoring. Dow has also
recommended that EPA revise the
definition for ‘‘Cellulose Ethers
Production source category’’ to refer to
‘‘the collection of cellulose ether
operations’’ to provide a similar
clarification.
The Agency agrees with Dow that
revising the definitions will provide
clarity and consistency to what
equipment is subject to the equipment
leak monitoring. Additionally, based on
a review of the information presented to
EPA during the initial development of
these provisions the solids handling
equipment is unlikely to exceed the 5
percent HAP threshold and, as the rule
is currently written, unnecessary
records would need to be kept. Through
the amendments to the final rule, we are
making the suggested revisions to the
definitions for ‘‘cellulose ether process
unit’’ and ‘‘Cellulose Ethers Production
source category.’’ For consistency, we
are also revising several other
definitions. We are revising the
definitions for ‘‘cellulose food casing
process unit,’’ ‘‘cellulosic sponge
process unit,’’ and ‘‘rayon process unit’’
to specifically include the term ‘‘viscose
process.’’ We are revising the definition
for ‘‘cellophane process unit’’ to
specifically include the terms ‘‘viscose
process’’ and ‘‘solvent coating process.’’
Finally, we are revising the definition
for ‘‘Miscellaneous Viscose Processes
source category’’ to specifically include
the collection of ‘‘cellulose food casing,
rayon, cellulosic sponge, and
cellophane operations.’’
Dow has also recommended that EPA
revise the tables in the final rule to refer
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
to the definition for ‘‘cellulose ether
process unit’’ instead of ‘‘cellulose ether
operation.’’ According to Dow, this
change would allow EPA to clearly
define the equipment subject to control.
Specifically, Dow believes that EPA
needs to define the boundaries of the
process unit to determine where a
wastewater process stream is discarded
and, thus, becomes a wastewater.
According to Dow, with the broadly
defined term ‘‘cellulose ether
operation,’’ no stream ever exits the
process and becomes discarded.
We do not believe that replacing the
term ‘‘cellulose ether operation’’ with
‘‘cellulose ether process unit’’ in the
tables is necessary or even desirable.
Such a revision would effectively
exclude from regulation those
equipment, such as heat exchanger
systems, wastewater and waste
management units, and cooling towers,
that are not associated with the
cellulose ether process unit but are
located at a cellulose ether operation.
Additionally, these sources were
considered in establishing the MACT
floor. Consequently, we are not making
this suggested revision to the final rule.
2. Process Vent
In response to a comment on the
proposed rule, we revised the definition
of ‘‘process vent’’ in the final rule to
refer to ‘‘a point of discharge to the
atmosphere * * * of a HAP-containing
gas stream from the process operation.’’
Noting that the term ‘‘process
operation’’ is not defined in the final
rule, Dow has recommended that EPA
replace it with the term ‘‘unit
operation.’’ According to Dow, the term
‘‘unit operation’’ is already defined in
the final rule because § 63.5610
references the definitions from § 63.101
of the HON. Dow has also expressed
concern that the definition for ‘‘process
vent’’ in the final rule does not define
the basis for the concentration of a
process vent, e.g., HAP or total organic
compound (TOC). Consequently, Dow
has recommended that EPA revise the
definition for ‘‘process vent’’ to state
that it does not include ’’* * * vents
with * * * a concentration less than 50
parts per million by volume (ppmv) of
HAP or TOC * * *’’ EPA agrees with
Dow’s comment concerning the
definition of process vent. Specifically,
we agree that through the reference to
§ 63.101 of the HON and our definition
of ‘‘process vent’’ we have created an
inconsistency in the rule. To correct this
inconsistency we are incorporating the
characteristics of the vent stream from
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the HON into our process vent
definition. Through the amendments to
the final rule, we are making the
suggested clarifications to the definition
for ‘‘process vent.’’
E. Applicability of General Provisions
Facilities subject to the final rule are
required to submit periodic compliance
reports containing, among other things,
information on episodes of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that occurred
during each reporting period. UCB
Films has asked whether the routine
breaks of film (commonly called ‘‘wet
breaks’’) that occur in its casting
machines possibly could be construed
as falling within the definition for
‘‘malfunction.’’ The wet breaks would
not affect UCB’s ability to meet the
standards. We do not consider this type
of routine event to fall within the
definition for ‘‘malfunction’’ and believe
it should not be included within the
reporting requirement. See 67 FR 72875,
72881 (December 9, 2002); 68 FR 32586,
32592–32593 (May 30, 2003). For
consistency, this interpretation also
applies to routine breaks of cellulose
food casing and rayon.
UCB Films also requested clarification
of the reporting obligations for its
casting machines when they are
temporarily turned off to fix wet breaks.
Clarification may also be needed,
according to UCB Films, regarding the
subsequent restart of the casting
machines after the wet breaks are fixed.
The recent revisions to the 40 CFR part
63 General Provisions state that there is
no duty to report the number or
duration of these events or to describe
each one individually in the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report as
long as the provisions of the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan are
followed and the report contains a
statement to that effect; see
§ 63.10(d)(5)(i) and 68 FR 32592. No
changes to subpart UUUU of 40 CFR
part 63 are needed to address this issue.
F. Miscellaneous Corrections
Through the amendments to the final
rule, we are also correcting various
typographical, formatting, and crossreferencing errors found in the final rule
and updating the cross-references,
where necessary, to include the
amended sections.
II. Summary of Amendments
Today’s amendments to subpart
UUUU are described in Table 1 of this
preamble.
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
46689
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS TO SUBPART UUUU OF 40 CFR PART 63
Citation
Change
§ 63.5490(d) ..............................................................................................
§ 63.5515(b)(1) and (f) introductory paragraph ........................................
Change ‘‘meet’’ to ‘‘met’’ for verb tense consistency.
Remove the requirement in paragraph (b)(1) to maintain a log for O&M
of process equipment and state that the O&M log is only required for
control devices used to comply with the rule.
Replace the phrase ‘‘to of this subpart’’ in (f) introductory paragraph
with ‘‘to this subpart.’’
Revise paragraph (d) to reference § 63.490(c) for batch process vents.
Revise (e) introductory paragraph to reference § 63.490(c) for batch
process vents. Also note that sources must use the equations as applicable.
Revise paragraph (g)(1) to specify that no additional testing is required
for viscose process affected sources required to conduct an initial
performance test to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery control devices.
Replace references to § 63.505(b) (2) and (3) in paragraphs (h) (1) and
(2) with references to § 63.505(c) for procedures used to establish
operating limits. Combine paragraphs (h) (1) and (2) to apply to both
continuous and batch processes. Renumber paragraphs (h) (3)
through (10) as paragraphs (h) (2) through (9).
Revise paragraphs (h) (5) and (6) to require affected sources to record
the range of scrubber parameter values, rather than the average.
Renumber paragraph (h) as paragraph (i) and add a new paragraph
(h) that includes an initial compliance option for cellulose ether operations similar to the material balance option for the viscose process
affected sources. For cellulose ether operations using extended
cookout under this option, specify that the start point from which the
percent reduction is determined must be the onset of extended cookout. Also specify that no additional testing is required for cellulose
ether affected sources required to conduct an initial performance test
to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery control devices.
Change the citation, which describes the data to be excluded from continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data averages, from
paragraph (a)(5) to paragraph (e)(5) of this section.
Revise paragraph (a) by changing the citation for operating limit provisions from § 63.505(b) to § 63.505(c).
Revise the definitions of ‘‘Cellulose Ethers Production source category’’
and ‘‘Miscellaneous Viscose Processes source category’’ in paragraph (g) to include a reference to the types of operations that are
included in the source categories (cellulose ether, cellophane, cellulose food casing, cellulosic sponge, and rayon).
Revise the definition of ‘‘cellulose ether process unit’’ in paragraph (g)
to include the term ‘‘cellulose ether process.’’ Revise the definitions
of ‘‘cellulose food casing process unit,’’ ‘‘cellulosic sponge process
unit,’’ and ‘‘rayon process unit’’ to include the term ‘‘viscose process.’’ Revise the definition of ‘‘cellophane process unit’’ to include
the terms ‘‘viscose process’’ and ‘‘solvent coating process.’’
Revise the definition of ‘‘process vent’’ in paragraph (g)to replace the
undefined term ‘‘process operation’’ with the defined term ‘‘unit operation’’ and to define the concentration basis for process vents as
HAP or TOC.
Remove the numbering for individual requirements under items 1.c. i
and ii.
Revise items 1.f. ii and iii, item 10, and item 11 to clarify that the
standards for closed-vent systems at cellophane operations do not
apply to retractable hoods over sulfuric acid baths at a cellophane
operation.
Revise item 9 to replace the phrase ‘‘liquid streams in open system 2’’
with ‘‘liquid streams in open systems.’’
Designate the affected source text under item 11 as ‘‘a.’’
Revise items 3 and 4 to require affected sources to maintain the scrubber parameters within a range of values established during the compliance demonstration, rather than above or below an average value.
Revise the introductory statement for Table 3 to include § 63.5535(h) in
the list of referenced provisions.
Regarding the requirement in items 1.a.i.(1), 1.b.i.(1), 1.c.i.(1), 1.c.ii.(1),
1.d.i.(1), 1.e.i.(1), 1.f.i.(1), 2.a.i.(1), 3.a, and 6.a.i.(1) to ‘‘measure’’
average uncontrolled emissions during the month-long compliance
demonstration, change ‘‘measured’’ to ‘‘determined.’’ Provide
sources with the option to use engineering assessments to determine uncontrolled emissions.
§ 63.5535 (d), (e) introductory paragraph, (g)(1), and (h) ........................
§ 63.5545(e)(4) .........................................................................................
§ 63.5610 (a) and (g) ................................................................................
Table 1, items 1.c. i and ii, 1.f. ii and iii, 9, 10, and 11 ...........................
Table 2, items 3 and 4 .............................................................................
Table 3, introductory statement and items 1.a.i. (1) and (2); 1.b.i. (1)
and (2); 1.c.i.(1); 1.c.ii.(1); 1.d.i.(1); 1.e.i.(1); 1.f.i.(1); 1.f.ii and
2.a.i.(1); 3.a; 6.a.i.(1); and 12.a.i.(2).
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
46690
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS TO SUBPART UUUU OF 40 CFR PART 63—Continued
Citation
Change
Table 4, introductory statement and items 3 and 4.a.i.(2).(b) .................
Table 5, items 1.a. ii and iii; 3.a; 5.a. i, ii, and iv; and 8 .........................
Table 6, items 3 and 4 .............................................................................
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
5173, October 4, 1993), 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
standards 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;
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
Revise items 1.a.i.(2) and 1.b.i.(2) to replace the term ‘‘average operating parameter values’’ with ‘‘range of operating parameter values.’’
Revise items 1.f. ii and iii to clarify that the standards and initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems at cellophane operations
do not apply to retractable hoods over sulfuric acid baths at a cellophane operation.
Revise item 2.a.i to change ‘‘folling’’ to ‘‘rolling.’’
Split item 3.a. into two parts—items 3.a and 3.b. Item 3.a applies to
cellulose ether operations using a performance test to demonstrate
initial compliance. Item 3.b applies to cellulose ether operations
using a material balance compliance demonstration to demonstrate
initial compliance. Include under item 3.b the requirements associated with the material balance compliance demonstration. Include
under items 3.a and 3.b the option to use engineering assessments
to determine uncontrolled emissions.
Revise items 3.a.i. (1) and (2) to remove the term ‘‘3-hour.’’
Remove the numbering for individual requirements under item
12.a.i.(2).
Revise the introductory statement for Table 4 to include § 63.5535(h)(1)
in the list of referenced provisions. Reposition the requirements for
item 3 into their proper columns. Correct the misspelling for ‘‘potentially’’ in item 4.a.i.(2).(b).
Revise items 1.a. ii and iii to clarify that the standards and continuous
compliance requirements for closed-vent systems do not apply to retractable hoods over sulfuric acid baths at a cellophane operation.
Under item 1.a.ii, designate the work practice standard for closed-vent
systems as ‘‘iii,’’ instead of ‘‘c.’’
Split item 3.a. into two parts—items 3.a and 3.b. Item 3.a applies to
cellulose ether operations using a performance test to demonstrate
initial compliance. Item 3.b applies to cellulose ether operations
using a material balance compliance demonstration to demonstrate
initial compliance. Include under item 3.b the requirements associated with the material balance continuous compliance option.
Under items 5.a. i, ii, and iv, remove the numbering for individual emission limits and standards (e.g., remove ‘‘(1),’’ ‘‘(2),’’ and ‘‘(3)’’). Also,
change the numbering for individual continuous compliance requirements (e.g., change ‘‘(a),’’ ‘‘(b),’’ and ‘‘(c)’’ to ‘‘(1),’’ ‘‘(2),’’ and ‘‘(3)’’).
Correct the misspelling for ‘‘wastewater’’ in item 8.
Revise items 3 and 4 to require affected sources to maintain the scrubber parameters within a range of values established during the compliance demonstration, rather than above or below an average value.
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlement, 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, it has been determined
that the direct final rule amendments
are not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
because they do not meet any of the
above criteria. Consequently, this action
was not submitted to OMB for review
under Executive Order 12866.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action makes clarifying changes
to the final rule and imposes no new
information collection requirements on
the industry. This action revises a work
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
practice standard, general and initial
compliance requirements, definitions,
and General Provisions applicability, as
well as correct typographical,
formatting, and cross-referencing errors
in the final rule. The OMB has
previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations under the
provisions of the Paper Work Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has
assigned OMB control number 2060–
0488 (EPA ICR No. 1974.02).
Copies of the Information Collection
Request (ICR) document(s) may be
obtained from Susan Auby, by mail at
the Office of Environmental
Information, Collection Strategies
Division; U.S. EPA (2822T); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460, by e-mail at
auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202)
566–1672. A copy may also be
downloaded off the Internet at https://
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
www.epa.gov/icr. Include the ICR
number in any correspondence.
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 purpose of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train
personnel to respond to a collection of
information; search existing data
sources; complete and review the
collection of 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 are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA has determined that it is not
necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with
the direct final rule amendments.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s direct final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a
small business that has fewer than 1,000
employees for NAICS codes 325221,
325188, and 325199; fewer than 750
employees for NAICS code 325211; or
fewer than 500 employees for NAICS
codes 326121 and 326199; (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-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s direct final rule
amendments on small entities, the EPA
has concluded that this action will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The direct final rule amendments will
not impose any new requirements on
small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 by 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 costeffective, 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’s regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the
direct final rule amendments do not
contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in aggregate, or the private
sector in any 1 year, nor do the direct
final rule amendments significantly or
uniquely impact small governments,
because the amendments contain no
requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations
upon them. Thus, the requirements of
the UMRA do not apply to the direct
final rule amendments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (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’’ are
defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
46691
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 direct final rule amendments do
not have federalism implications. The
amendments will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. None of the
affected facilities are owned or operated
by State governments. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply to the
direct final rule amendments.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between the
EPA, State and local governments, the
EPA specifically solicits comment on
the direct final rule amendments from
State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 (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.’’ The direct final rule
amendments do not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, because tribal
governments do not own or operate any
sources subject to the amendments in
the direct final rule. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to the direct
final rule amendments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that
EPA determines (1) is ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by the
rule has a disproportionate effect on
children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, then EPA 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 that EPA considered.
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
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
46692
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
under section 5–501 of the Executive
Order has the potential to influence the
rule. The direct final rule amendments
are not subject to Executive Order
13045, because the action is based on
technology performance and not on
health or safety risks. Furthermore, the
direct final rule amendments have been
determined not to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
The direct final rule amendments are
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because the amendments are
not considered a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (Public Law 104–113; 15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory and procurement activities,
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards 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
voluntary consensus standards. This
action does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Act of 1996, generally provides that,
before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a
report containing the direct final rule
amendments and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the direct
final rule amendments in the Federal
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
Register. The direct final rule
amendments are not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The direct
final rule will become effective on
October 11, 2005, unless adverse
comments are received by September
26, 2005.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Cellulose products
manufacturing, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 1, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
§ 63.5535 What performance tests and
other procedures must I use?
For the reasons set out in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
continuous compliance, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements specified in
tables 5 through 9 to this subpart for any
of these units. This exemption applies
to units used as control devices or
wastewater treatment units.
*
*
*
*
*
I 4. Section 63.5535 is amended by:
I a. Revising paragraphs (d), (e)
introductory text, (g)(1), and (h);
I b. Redesignating paragraph (h) as
paragraph (i); and
I c. Adding a new paragraph (h).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
(d) You must conduct three separate
test runs for each performance test
required in this section, as specified in
§ 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at
PART 63—[AMENDED]
least 1 hour, except as specified in
§ 63.490(c) for batch process vents.
I 1. The authority citation for part 63
(e) Except as specified in § 63.490(c)
continues to read as follows:
for batch process vents, you may use the
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
equations in paragraphs (e)(1) through
(3) of this section as applicable to
Subpart UUUU—[Amended]
determine the control efficiency for each
performance test.
I 2. Section 63.5490 is amended by
*
*
*
*
revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: *
(g) * * *
§ 63.5490 What parts of my plant does this
(1) Viscose process affected sources
subpart cover?
that must use non-recovery control
devices to meet the applicable emission
*
*
*
*
*
limit in table 1 to this subpart must
(d) An affected source is a new
conduct an initial performance test of
affected source if you began
their non-recovery control devices
construction of the affected source after
according to the requirements in table 4
August 28, 2000 and you met the
to this subpart to determine the control
applicability criteria in § 63.5485 at the
efficiency of their non-recovery control
time you began construction.
devices and incorporate this
*
*
*
*
*
information in their material balance.
I 3. Section 63.5515 is amended by
No additional performance tests are
revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (f)
required.
introductory text to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
§ 63.5515 What are my general
(h) Cellulose ether affected sources
requirements for complying with this
using the material balance compliance
subpart?
demonstration must conduct a month(b) * * *
long initial compliance demonstration
(1) During the period, if any, between according to the requirements in
the compliance date specified for your
paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this
affected source in § 63.5495 and the date section and table 3 to this subpart.
upon which continuous monitoring
(1) Cellulose ether affected sources
systems (CMS) have been installed and
that must use non-recovery control
validated and any applicable operating
devices to meet the applicable emission
limits have been set, you must maintain limit in table 1 to this subpart must
a log detailing the operation and
conduct an initial performance test of
maintenance of any control technique
their non-recovery control devices
used to comply with this subpart.
according to the requirements in table 4
*
*
*
*
*
to this subpart to determine the control
(f) You are not required to conduct a
efficiency of their non-recovery control
performance test when you use any of
devices and incorporate this
the units specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
information in their material balance.
through (5) of this section to comply
No additional performance tests are
with the applicable emission limit or
required.
(2) Cellulose ether affected sources
work practice standard in table 1 to this
that use recovery devices to meet the
subpart. You are also exempt from the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
*
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
applicable emission limit in table 1 to
this subpart must determine the
quantity of organic HAP fed to the
process and the quantity of organic HAP
recovered using the recovery device and
incorporate this information in their
material balance.
(3) Cellulose ether affected sources
that use cellulose ether process changes
to meet the applicable emission limit in
table 1 to this subpart must determine
the quantity of organic HAP used before
and after the process change and
incorporate this information in their
material balance. For cellulose ether
affected sources that use extended
cookout, the start point from which the
percent reduction is determined must be
the onset of extended cookout.
(4) Using the pertinent material
balance information obtained according
to paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this
section, cellulose ether affected sources
must calculate the monthly average
percent reduction for their affected
source over the month-long period of
the compliance demonstration.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) During the period of each
compliance demonstration, you must
establish each site-specific operating
limit in table 2 to this subpart that
applies to you according to the
requirements in paragraphs (i)(1)
through (9) of this section.
(1) For continuous, batch, and
combinations of continuous and batch
process vents, establish your sitespecific operating limit using the
procedures in § 63.505(c), except that, if
you demonstrate initial compliance
using a month-long compliance
demonstration, references to
‘‘performance test’’ mean ‘‘compliance
demonstration’’ for purposes of this
subpart.
(2) For condensers, record the outlet
(product side) gas or condensed liquid
temperature averaged over the same
period as the compliance demonstration
while the vent stream is routed and
constituted normally. Locate the
temperature sensor in a position that
provides a representative temperature.
(3) For thermal oxidizers, record the
firebox temperature averaged over the
same period as the compliance
demonstration. Locate the temperature
sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(4) For water scrubbers, record the
range of the pressure drop and flow rate
of the scrubber liquid over the same
time period as the compliance
demonstration while the vent stream is
routed and constituted normally. Locate
the pressure and flow sensors in a
position that provides a representative
measurement of the parameter.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
(5) For caustic scrubbers, record the
range of the pressure drop, flow rate of
the scrubber liquid, and pH,
conductivity, or alkalinity of the
scrubber liquid over the same time
period as the compliance demonstration
while the vent stream is routed and
constituted normally. Locate the
pressure sensors, flow sensors, and pH,
conductivity, or alkalinity sensors in
positions that provide representative
measurements of these parameters.
Ensure the sample is properly mixed
and representative of the fluid to be
measured.
(6) For flares, record the presence of
a pilot flame. Locate the pilot flame
sensor in a position that provides an
accurate and continuous determination
of the presence of the pilot flame.
(7) For biofilters, record the pressure
drop across the biofilter beds, inlet gas
temperature, and effluent pH averaged
over the same time period as the
compliance demonstration while the
vent stream is routed and constituted
normally. Locate the pressure,
temperature, and pH sensors in
positions that provide representative
measurement of these parameters.
Ensure the sample is properly mixed
and representative of the fluid to be
measured.
(8) For carbon adsorbers, record the
total regeneration stream mass or
volumetric flow during each carbon bed
regeneration cycle during the period of
the compliance demonstration. Record
the temperature of the carbon bed after
each carbon bed regeneration cycle
during the period of the compliance
demonstration (and within 15 minutes
of completion of any cooling cycle(s)).
Record the operating time since the end
of the last carbon bed regeneration cycle
and the beginning of the next carbon
bed regeneration cycle during the period
of the compliance demonstration.
Locate the temperature and flow sensors
in positions that provide representative
measurement of these parameters.
(9) For oil absorbers, record the flow
of absorption liquid through the
absorber, the temperatures of the
absorption liquid before and after the
steam stripper, and the steam flow
through the steam stripper averaged
during the same period of the
compliance demonstration. Locate the
temperature and flow sensors in
positions that provide representative
measurement of these parameters.
5. Section 63.5545 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(4) to read as
follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
46693
§ 63.5545 What are my monitoring
installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(4) The CEMS data must be reduced
to operating data averages computed
using valid data from at least 75 percent
of the hours during the averaging
period. To have a valid hour of data,
you must have four or more data points
equally spaced over the 1-hour period
(or at least two data points during an
hour when calibration, quality
assurance, or maintenance activities are
being performed), except as specified in
paragraph (e)(5) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
I 6. Section 63.5610 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and the paragraph
(g) definitions for cellophane process
unit, cellulose ether process unit,
Cellulose Ether Production source
category, cellulose food casing process
unit, cellulosic sponge process unit,
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes source
category, process vent, and rayon
process unit to read as follows:
§ 63.5610
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
(a) For all affected sources complying
with the batch process vent testing
provisions in § 63.490(c) and the
operating limit provisions in § 63.505(c),
the terms used in this subpart and in
subpart U of this part are defined in
§ 63.482 and paragraph (g) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
Cellophane process unit means all
equipment associated with the viscose
process or solvent coating process
which collectively function to
manufacture cellophane and any
associated storage vessels, liquid
streams in open systems (as defined in
§ 63.149), and equipment (as defined in
§ 63.161) that are used in the
manufacturing of cellophane.
*
*
*
*
*
Cellulose ether process unit means all
equipment associated with a cellulose
ether process which collectively
function to manufacture a particular
cellulose ether and any associated
storage vessels, liquid streams in open
systems (as defined in § 63.149), and
equipment (as defined in § 63.161 or
63.1020) that are used in the
manufacturing of a particular cellulose
ether.
Cellulose Ethers Production source
category means the collection of
cellulose ether operations that use the
cellulose ether process to manufacture a
particular cellulose ether.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
46694
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Cellulose food casing process unit
means all equipment associated with
the viscose process which collectively
function to manufacture cellulose food
casings and any associated storage
vessels, liquid streams in open systems
(as defined in § 63.149), and equipment
(as defined in § 63.161) that are used in
the manufacturing of cellulose food
casings.
*
*
*
*
*
Cellulosic sponge process unit means
all equipment associated with the
viscose process which collectively
function to manufacture cellulosic
sponges and any associated storage
vessels, liquid streams in open systems
(as defined in § 63.149), and equipment
(as defined in § 63.161) that are used in
the manufacturing of cellulosic sponges.
*
*
*
*
*
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes
source category means the collection of
cellulose food casing, rayon, cellulosic
sponge, and cellophane operations that
use the viscose process to manufacture
a particular cellulose product. These
cellulose products include cellulose
food casings, rayon, cellulosic sponges,
and cellophane.
*
*
*
*
*
Process vent means a point of
discharge to the atmosphere (or the
point of entry into a control device, if
any) of a HAP-containing gas stream
from the unit operation. Process vents
do not include vents with a flow rate
less than 0.005 standard cubic meter per
minute or with a concentration less than
50 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
of HAP or TOC, vents on storage tanks,
vents on wastewater emission sources,
or pieces of equipment regulated under
equipment leak standards.
*
*
*
*
*
Rayon process unit means all
equipment associated with the viscose
process which collectively function to
manufacture rayon and any associated
storage vessels, liquid streams in open
systems (as defined in § 63.149), and
equipment (as defined in § 63.161) that
are used in the manufacturing of rayon.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Table 1 is amended by revising
entries 1.c.i and ii, 1.f.ii and iii, and 9
through 11 to read as follows:
I
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART UUUU OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
For . . .
at . . .
*
*
1. the sum of all viscose process
vents.
*
*
*
*
*
c. each existing rayon operation ... i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 35% within 3 years after the effective date
based on a 6-month rolling average; for each vent stream that you
control using a control device, route the vent stream through a
closed-vent system to the control device; and comply with the work
practice standard for closed-vent systems; and ii. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at
least 40% within 8 years after the effective date based on a 6month rolling average; for each vent stream that you control using a
control device, route the vent stream through a closed-vent system
to the control device; and comply with the work practice standard
for closed-vent systems.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
f. each existing or new cellophane i. * * * ii. for each vent stream that you control using a control device
operation.
(except for retractable hoods over sulfuric acid baths at a cellophane operation), route the vent stream through a closed-vent system to the control device; and iii. comply with the work practice
standard for closed-vent systems (except for retractable hoods over
sulfuric acid baths at a cellophane operation).
*
*
9. liquid streams in open systems
10. closed-vent system used to
route emissions to a control device.
11. closed-vent system containing
a bypass line that could divert a
vent stream away from a control
device, except for equipment
needed for safety purposes (described in § 63.148(f)(3).
*
You must . . .
*
*
*
*
*
each existing or new cellulose comply with the applicable provisions or § 63.149, except that refether operation.
erences to ‘‘chemical manufacturing process unit’’ ether means
‘‘cellulose ether process unit’’ for the purposes of this subpart.
each existing or new affected conduct annual inspections, repair leaks, and maintain records as
source (except for retractable
specified in § 63.148.
hoods over sulfuric acid baths at
a cellophane operation).
a. each existing or new affected (i) install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator as specified
source (except for retractable
in § 63.148(f)(1); or (ii) secure the bypass line valve in the closed
hoods over sulfuric acid baths at
position with a car-seal or lock-and-key type configuration and ina cellophane operation).
spect the seal or closure mechanism at least once per month as
specified in § 63.148(f)(2)).
*
*
*
*
*
8. Table 2 is amended by revising
entries 3 and 4 to read as follows:
I
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
*
46695
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART UUUU OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS
*
*
*
*
For the following control technique . . .
*
*
*
You must . . .
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3. water scrubber ...................................................................................... maintain the daily average scrubber pressure drop and scrubber liquid
flow rate within the range of values established during the compliance demonstration.
4. caustic scrubber ................................................................................... maintain the daily average scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid flow
rate, and scrubber liquid pH, conductivity, or alkalinity within the
range of values established during the compliance demonstration.
*
*
*
9. Table 3 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory statement;
I b. Revising entries 1.a.i.(1) and (2),
1.b.i.(1) and (2), 1.c.i.(1), 1.c.ii.(1),
I
I
*
*
1.d.i.(1), 1.e.i.(1), 1.f.i.(1), and 1.f.ii and
iii;
I c. Revising entries 2.a.i and 2.a.i.(1);
I d. Revising entry 3.a and adding item
3.b;
*
*
e. Revising entry 6.a.i.(1); and
f. Revising entry 12.a.i.(2) to read as
follows:
I
I
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART UUUU OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICE
STANDARDS
[As required in §§ 63.5530(a) and 63.5535(g) and (h), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the appropriate emission limits and work
practice standards according to the requirements in the following table]
For . . .
At . . .
For the following emission limit or work practice
standard . . .
You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .
1. the sum of all
viscose process
vents.
a. each existing cellulose food casing
operation.
i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 25%
based on a 6-month rolling average;
(1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering
assessments, are reduced by at least 25%;
(2) you have a record of the range of operating
parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average
uncontrolled total sulfide emissions were reduced by at least 25%;
*
*
b. each new cellulose food casing
operation.
*
*
*
i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 75%
based on a 6-month rolling average;
*
*
(1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering
assessments, are reduced by at least 75%;
(2) you have a record of the range of operating
parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average
uncontrolled total sulfide emissions were reduced by at least 75%;
*
*
c. each existing
rayon operation.
*
*
*
i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 35%
within 3 years after the effective date based
on a 6-month rolling average; for each vent
stream that you control using a control device,
route the vent stream through a closed-vent
system to the control device; and comply with
the work practice standard for closed-vent
systems; and
*
*
(1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering
assessments, are reduced by at least 35%
within 3 years after the effective date;
*
*
*
ii. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions
(reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 40%
within 8 years after the effective date based
on a 6-month rolling average; for each vent
stream that you control using a control device,
route the vent stream through a closed-vent
system to the control device; and comply with
the work practice standard for closed-vent
systems.
*
*
(1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering
assessments, are reduced by at least 40%
within 8 years after the effective date;
*
VerDate jul<14>2003
*
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
46696
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART UUUU OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICE
STANDARDS—Continued
[As required in §§ 63.5530(a) and 63.5535(g) and (h), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the appropriate emission limits and work
practice standards according to the requirements in the following table]
At . . .
For the following emission limit or work practice
standard . . .
You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .
*
*
d. each new rayon
operation.
*
*
*
i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 75%;
based on a 6-month rolling average;
*
*
(1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering
assessments, are reduced by at least 75%;
*
*
e. each existing or
new cellulosic
sponge operation.
*
*
*
i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 75%
based on a 6-month rolling average;
*
*
(1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering
assessments, are reduced by at least 75%;
*
*
f. each existing or
new cellophane
operation.
*
*
*
i. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as carbon disulfide) by at least 75%
based on a 6-month rolling average; ii. for
each vent stream that you control using a
control device (except for retractable hoods
over sulfuric acid baths at a cellophane operation), route the vent stream through a
closed-vent system to the control device; and
iii. comply with the work practice standard for
closed-vent systems (except for retractable
hoods over sulfuric acid baths at a cellophane
operation)
*
*
(1) the average uncontrolled total sulfide emissions, determined during the month-long compliance demonstration or using engineering
assessments, are reduced by at least 75%;
*
2. the sum of all
solvent coating
process vents.
*
a. each existing or
new cellophane
operation.
*
*
*
i. reduce uncontrolled toluene emissions by at
least 95% based on a 6-month rolling average;
*
*
(1) the average uncontrolled toluene emissions,
determined during the month-long compliance
demonstration or using engineering assessments, are reduced by at least 95%;
*
3. the sum of all
cellulose ether
process vents.
*
a. each existing or
new cellulose
ether operation
using a performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance; or.
*
*
*
i. reduce total uncontrolled organic HAP emissions by at least 99%; ii. for each vent stream
that you control using a control device, route
the vent stream through a closed-vent system
to the control device; and iii. comply with the
work practice standard for closed-vent systems; or
b. each existing or
new cellulose
ether operation
using a material
balance compliance demonstration to demonstrate initial
compliance.
i. reduce total uncontrolled organic HAP emissions by at least 99% based on a 6-month
rolling average; ii. for each vent stream that
you control using a control device, route the
vent stream through a closed-vent system the
control device; and iii. comply with the work
practice standard for closed-vent systems.
*
*
(1) average uncontrolled total organic HAP
emissions, measured during the performance
test or determined using engineering estimates are reduced by at least 99%;
(2) you have a record of the average operating
parameter values over the performance test
during which the average uncontrolled total
organic HAP emissions were reduced by at
least 99%; and
(3) you comply with the initial compliance requirements for closed-vent systems; or
(1) average uncontrolled total organic HAP
emissions, determined during the month-long
compliance demonstration or using engineering estimates are reduced by at least 99%;
(2) you have a record of the average operation
parameter values over the month-long compliance demonstration during which the average
uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions
were reduced by at least 99%;
(3) you prepare a material balance that includes
the pertinent data used to determine the percent reduction of total organic HAP emissions;
(4) if you use extended cookout to comply, you
measure the HAP charged to the reactor,
record the grade of product produced, and
then calculate reactor emissions prior to extended cookout by taking a percentage of the
total HAP charged.
For . . .
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
46697
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART UUUU OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICE
STANDARDS—Continued
[As required in §§ 63.5530(a) and 63.5535(g) and (h), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the appropriate emission limits and work
practice standards according to the requirements in the following table]
For . . .
At . . .
For the following emission limit or work practice
standard . . .
You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .
*
6. each toluene
storage vessel.
*
a. each existing or
new cellophane
operation.
*
*
*
i. reduce uncontrolled toluene emissions by at
least 95% based on a 6-month rolling average;
*
*
(1) the average uncontrolled toluene emissions,
determined during the month-long compliance
demonstration or using engineering assessments, are reduced by at least 95%;
*
12. heat exchanger
system that cools
process equipment or materials
in the process
unit.
*
a. each existing or
new affected
source.
*
*
*
i. monitor and repair the heat exchanger system
according to § 63.104(a) through (e), except
that reference to ‘‘chemical manufacturing
process unit’’ mean ‘‘cellulose food casing,
rayon, cellulosic sponge, cellophane, or cellulose either process unit’’ for the purposes of
this subpart.
*
*
* * * (2) if your heat exchanger system is not exempt, you identify in your Notification of Compliance Status Report the HAP or other representative substance that you will monitor, or
you prepare and maintain a site-specific plan
containing the information required by
§ 63.104(c) (1) (i) through (iv) that documents
the procedures you will use to detect leaks by
monitoring surrogate indicators of the leak.
10. Table 4 is amended by revising the
introductory statement and entries 3 and
4.a.i.(2)(b) to read as follows:
I
TABLE 4 TO SUBPART UUUU OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS
[As required in §§ 63.5530(b) and 63.5535(a), (b), (g)(1), and (h)(1), you must conduct performance tests, other initial compliance
demonstrations, and CEMS performance evaluations and establish operating limits according to the requirements in the following table]
For . . .
At . . .
You must . . .
Using . . .
According to the following requirements . . .
*
3. the sum of all
solvent coating
process vents.
*
a. each existing or
new cellophane
operation.
*
i. measure toluene
emissions.
*
(1) EPA Method 18
in appendix A to
part 60 of this
chapter; or
*
*
*
(a) you must conduct testing of emissions at the inlet and
outlet of each control device;
(b) you may use EPA Method 18 to determine the control
efficiency of any control device for organic compounds;
for a combustion device, you must use only HAP that
are present in the inlet to the control device to characterize the percent reduction across the combustion device;
(c) you must conduct testing of emissions from continuous solvent coating process vents and combinations
of batch and continuous solvent coating process vents
at normal operating conditions, as specified in
§§ 63.7(e)(1) and 63.5535;
(d) you must conduct testing of emissions from batch solvent coating process vents as specified in § 63.490(c),
except that the emission reductions required for process vents under this subpart supersede the emission
reductions required for process vents under subpart U
of this part; and
(e) you must collect CPMS data during the period of the
initial compliance demonstration and determine the
CPMS operating limit during the initial compliance
demonstration; or
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
46698
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4 TO SUBPART UUUU OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued
[As required in §§ 63.5530(b) and 63.5535(a), (b), (g)(1), and (h)(1), you must conduct performance tests, other initial compliance
demonstrations, and CEMS performance evaluations and establish operating limits according to the requirements in the following table]
For . . .
At . . .
You must . . .
Using . . .
According to the following requirements . . .
*
4. the sum of all
cellulose either
process vents.
*
a. each existing or
new cellulose either operation.
*
i. measure total organic HAP emissions.
*
* * * (2) ASTM
D6420–99
*
*
*
* * * (b) you may use ASTM D6420–99 (available for
purchase from at least one of the following addresses:
100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA
19428–2959; or University Microfilms International, 300
North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106) as an alternative to EPA Method 18 only where: the target compound(s) are those listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420–99; and the target concentration is between
150 ppbv and 100 ppmv; for target compound(s) not
listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–99, but potentially
detected by mass spectrometry, the additional system
continuing calibration check after each run, as detailed
in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed, met, documented, and submitted with the data
report even if there is no moisture condenser used or
the compound is not considered water soluble; and for
target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420–99 and not amenable to detection by mass
spectrometry, ASTM D6420–99 does not apply; target
concentration is between 150 ppbv and 100 ppmv; for
target compound(s).
*
I
I
*
*
11. Table 5 is amended by:
a. Revising entries 1.a. ii. and iii;
*
*
b. Revising entry 3.a and adding entry
3.b;
I
*
I
I
*
c. Revising entries 5.a. i, ii, and iv; and
d. Revising entry 8 to read as follows:
TABLE 5 TO SUBPART UUUU OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICE
STANDARDS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
For . . .
At . . .
For the following emission limit or work practice standard . . .
You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .
1. the sum of all viscose process vents.
a. each existing or
new viscose process affected source.
* * * ii. for each vent stream that you control
using a control device (except for retractable hoods over sulfuric acid baths at a
cellophane operation), route the vent
stream through a closed-vent system to the
control device; and iii. comply with the work
practice standard for closed-vent systems
(except for retractable hoods over sulfuric
acid baths at a cellophane operation).
* * *
*
3. the sum of all cellulose either process
vents.
*
a. each existing or
new cellulose ether
operation using a
performance test to
demonstrate initial
compliance; or
*
*
*
i. reduce total uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions by at least 99%; ii. for each vent
stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a
closed-vent system to the control device;
and, iii. comply with the work practice
standard for closed-vent systems; or
i. reduce total uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions by at least 99% based on a 6month rolling average; ii. for each vent
stream that you control using a control device, route the vent stream through a
closed-vent system to control device; and
iii. comply with the work practice standard
for closed-vent systems.
*
*
(1) complying with the continuous compliance
requirements for closed-vent systems; or
b. each existing or
new cellulose ether
operation using a
material balance
compliance demonstration to demonstrate initial compliance
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(1) maintaining a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine
the percent reduction of total organic HAP
emissions; (2) documenting the percent reduction of total organic HAP emissions
using the pertinent data from the material
balance; (3) if using extended cookout to
comply, monitoring reactor charges and
keeping records to show that extended
cookout was employed; (4) complying with
the continuous compliance requirements
for closed-vent systems.
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
46699
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 5 TO SUBPART UUUU OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICE
STANDARDS—Continued
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
For . . .
At . . .
For the following emission limit or work practice standard . . .
You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .
*
5. each carbon disulfide unloading and
storage operation.
*
a. each existingor new
viscose process affected source.
*
*
*
i. reduce uncontrolled carbon disulfide emissions by at least 83% based on a 6-month
rolling average if you use an alternative
control technique not listed in this table for
carbon disulfide unloading and stroage operations; if using a control device to reduce
emissions, route emissions through a
closed-vent system to the control device;
and comply with the work practice standard
for closed-vent systems;
ii. reduce total uncontrolled sulfide emissions
by at least 0.14% from viscose process
vents based on a 6-month rolling average;
for each vent stream that you control using
a control device, route the vent stream
through a closed-vent system to the control
device; and comply with the work practice
standard for closed-vent systems;
*
*
(1) keeping a record documenting the 83%
reduction in carbon disulfide emissions;
and (2) if venting to a control device to reduce emissions, complying with the continuous compliance requirements for closedvent systems;
*
*
*
8. all sources of wastewater emissions.
*
*
*
iv. install a nitrogen unloading system; reduce
total uncontrolled sulfide emissions by at
least 0.045% from viscose process vents
based on a 6-month rolling average; for
each vent stream that you control using a
control device, route the vent stream
through a closed-vent system to the control
device; and comply with the work practice
standard for closed-vent systems
*
each existing or new
cellulose either operation.
*
(1) maintaining a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine
the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions; (2) documenting the percent reduction of total sulfide emissions using the pertinent data from the material balance; and
(3) complying with the continuous compliance requirements for closed-vent systems;
*
*
*
(1) keeping a record certifying that a nitrogen
unloading system is in use; (2) maintaining
a material balance that includes the pertinent data used to determine the percent
reduction of total sulfide emissions; (3)
documenting the percent reduction of total
sulfide emissions using the pertinent data
from the material balance; and (4) complying with the continuous compliance requirements for closed-vent systems.
*
*
*
applicable wastewater provisions of § 63.105
and §§ 63.132 through 63.140.
*
*
complying with the applicable wastewater
continuous compliance provisions of
§§ 63.105, 63.143, and 63.148.
*
*
*
*
*
12. Table 6 is amended by revising
entries 3 and 4 to read as follows:
I
TABLE 6 TO SUBPART UUUU OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS
*
For the following control
technique
. . .
*
3. water
scrubber.
4. caustic
scrubber.
*
*
*
*
*
For the following operating limit . . .
You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .
*
*
maintain the daily average scrubber pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate
within the range of values established during the compliance demonstration.
maintain the daily average scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid flow rate, and
scrubber liquid pH, conductivity, or alkalinity within the range of values established
during the compliance demonstration.
*
*
*
*
collecting the scrubber pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate data according to § 63.5545; reducing the scrubber parameter data to daily averages; and
maintaining the daily scrubber parameter values within the range of values established during the compliance demonstration.
collecting the scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid flow rate, and scrubber liquid pH, conductivity, or alkalinity data according to § 63.5545; reducing the
scrubber parameter data to daily averages; and maintaining the daily scrubber
parameter values within the range of values established during the compliance
demonstration.
*
VerDate jul<14>2003
*
*
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
*
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
*
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
*
10AUR3
*
46700
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 05–15733 Filed 8–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 Aug 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10AUR3.SGM
10AUR3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46684-46700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15733]
[[Page 46683]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cellulose
Products Manufacturing; Final Rule and Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 10, 2005 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 46684]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2003-0193; FRL-7948-5]
RIN 2060-AL91
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Cellulose Products Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action on amendments to the
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
cellulose products manufacturing, which were issued on June 11, 2002,
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The amendments revise the
work practice standards, general and initial compliance requirements,
definitions, and General Provisions applicability, as well as correct
typographical, formatting, and cross-referencing errors in the final
rule. We are issuing the amendments as a direct final rule, without
prior proposal, because we view the amendments as noncontroversial and
anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section
of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to amend the NESHAP for cellulose products
manufacturing if adverse comments are filed.
DATES: The direct final rule is effective on October 11, 2005, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by September 9, 2005, or by September 26,
2005, if a hearing is requested by August 22, 2005. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register indicating which sections will become effective, and which
provisions are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. If anyone
contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing, a public
hearing will be held on August 24, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0193, 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.
E-mail: air-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
duplicate copy, if possible.
Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-108, Washington, DC 20460. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
We request that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person
listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0193.
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. 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31,
2002 (67 FR 38102).
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 hardcopy
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 Docket is (202) 566-
1742.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina or at an alternate site nearby.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Schrock, Organic Chemicals
Group, Emission Standards Division (C504-04), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5032, facsimile number (919)
541-3470, electronic mail (e-mail) address schrock.bill@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include those listed in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code* Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. 326121............................. cellulose food casing
operations.
325221............................. rayon operations.
326199, 325211..................... cellulosic sponge operations.
326199............................. cellophane operations.
325199............................. cellulose ether operations.
Federal Government........................ ................................... Not affected.
[[Page 46685]]
State/local/tribal government............. ................................... Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Industrial Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec.
63.5485 of the national emission standards. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mr. Bill
Schrock, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (Mail
Code C504-05), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-5605, electronic mail address
schrock.bill@epa.gov., at least 2 days in advance of the potential date
of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public
hearing must also call Mr. Bill Schrock to verify the time, date, and
location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning
these proposed emission standards.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's document will also be available on the
WWW through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this action will be
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.
Comments. We are publishing the direct final rule amendments
without prior proposal because we view the amendments as
noncontroversial and do not anticipate adverse comments. However, in
the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are publishing
a separate document that will serve as the proposal to amend the
national emission standards for cellulose products manufacturing
operations if adverse comments are filed. If we receive any adverse
comments on one or more distinct amendments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public which
provisions will become effective, and which provisions are being
withdrawn due to adverse comment. We will address all public comments
in a subsequent final rule, should the Agency determine to issue one.
Any of the distinct amendments in today's direct final rule for which
we do not receive adverse comment will become effective on the
previously mentioned date. We will not institute a second comment
period on the direct final rule amendments. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the direct final rule amendments is available only by filing
a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by October 11, 2005. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the
CAA, only an objection to the direct final rule amendments which was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2)
of the CAA, the requirements established by the direct final rule
amendments may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading the
preamble to the direct final rule.
I. Background
A. Work Practice Standards
B. General Compliance Requirements
C. Initial Compliance Requirements
D. Definitions
E. Applicability of General Provisions
F. Miscellaneous Corrections
II. Summary of Amendments
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
The EPA, under section 112 of the CAA, promulgated the NESHAP for
cellulose products manufacturing on June 11, 2002 (67 FR 40044). The
final rule, codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, includes emission
limits, operating limits, and work practice standards, as well as
general, initial, and continuous compliance requirements and
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Following
promulgation of the rule, UCB Films, Inc. and Teepak, LLC petitioned
the Agency for specific changes to the final rule, and Dow Chemical Co.
informally requested that we issue specific amendments to the final
rule.
In response to industry's requests, today's action issues
amendments to subpart UUUU of 40 CFR part 63 to revise the work
practice standards, general and initial compliance requirements,
definitions, and General Provisions applicability. The amendments also
include corrections of typographical, formatting, and cross-referencing
errors identified after the final rule was published. The amendments
are described below.
A. Work-Practice Standards
The cellophane operation at the UCB Films facility in Tecumseh,
Kansas includes a number of casting machines, each of which includes
concentrated sulfuric acid baths referred to as ``A-tanks.'' Above the
A-tanks are retractable hoods that can be moved up or down. To capture
emissions, the hoods over the A-tanks are moved into the down position,
and the vent streams from the A-tanks are routed to a thermal oxidizer.
For operational purposes, the hoods over the A-tanks are at times kept
in the up position, and during those times the vent streams from the A-
tanks are diverted to the stack. UCB Films has asked whether the
provision in the final rule requiring vent streams at cellophane
operations to be routed through closed-vent systems to control devices
possibly could be construed to apply to these A-tank hoods and,
therefore, could require UCB Films to operate its casting machines with
the A-tank hoods in the down position at all times.
The cellophane operation at the UCB Films facility is the only one
currently
[[Page 46686]]
operating in the U.S. Consequently, the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) floor for cellophane operations was established based
on the current emission limitation at the UCB Films facility. This MACT
floor accounted for the A-tank hoods at the UCB Films facility at times
being kept in the up position. Consequently, the closed-vent system
requirement, as currently stated, would be inconsistent with MACT for
cellophane operations. Therefore, through the amendments to the final
rule, we are now making clear that we did not intend for the closed-
vent system provision to apply to retractable hoods over sulfuric acid
baths at a cellophane operation, such as the A-tank hoods at the UCB
Films facility. The final rule does not prohibit UCB Films from
operating its casting machines with the A-tank hoods in the up
position.
B. General Compliance Requirements
In response to comments on the proposed rule, we changed the
deadline for completing a performance test or other initial compliance
demonstration from 180 days before to 180 days after the compliance
date. To ensure that a record of compliance would be kept between the
compliance date and the date when operating limits for the continuous
monitoring systems (CMS) are established (i.e., the date of the
performance test or other initial compliance demonstration), we
included a provision in Sec. 63.5515(b)(1) of the final rule that
requires affected sources to maintain an operation and maintenance
(O&M) log of the process and emissions control equipment during that
period.
Dow has requested that we limit the O&M log to emission control
equipment because the amount and type of data associated with operation
and maintenance of the process are unclear and onerous. For example,
with the current text in the final rule, companies would be required to
document when a pump used to inject water treatment chemicals into
boiler feedwater for steam generation was replaced or repaired. Plant
operators would be required to record literally thousands of data
points related to the operation of ``any'' aspect of the production
unit, even though it would have no bearing on emissions or the
compliance parameters required by the final rule. According to Dow,
this broad scope was certain to be inconsistently applied, and it would
be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate compliance.
Dow has also requested that we clarify that the O&M log requirement
is needed only for those control devices used to comply with the
standard, not every control device unassociated with the scope of the
final rule. Some control devices may be installed for odor or State
requirements and do not need to be included in the O&M log. For
example, one of Dow's cellulose ether facilities has a scrubber that,
under a State permit, is used to control non-hazardous air pollutants
emissions, and the facility does not need to monitor or conduct a
performance test on this scrubber in order to comply with the final
rule. According to Dow, with the current text in the final rule, the
facility would have to maintain data on the scrubber for no other
purpose than that stated in Sec. 63.5515(b)(1).
Consequently, Dow has recommended that EPA revise Sec.
63.5515(b)(1) to replace the term ``process and emissions control
equipment'' with the term ``control technique used to comply with the
rule.'' Dow has recommended using the term ``control technique'' rather
than ``emissions control equipment'' because ``control technique'' is
defined in Sec. 63.5610 of the final rule. Dow believes that this
revision would clarify the requirement and strike a more appropriate
balance without being unnecessarily burdensome. The Agency agrees with
the rationale provided by Dow that a more narrow definition for items
to be contained in the O&M log is appropriate. Therefore, through the
amendments to the final rule, we are making the suggested revision to
Sec. 63.5515(b)(1).
C. Initial Compliance Requirements
1. Material Balance Compliance Option
One of Dow's cellulose ether facilities uses a material balance to
calculate the amount of HAP reacted, i.e., destroyed in the process.
According to Dow, this facility's demonstration of overall control
efficiency is similar to the viscose process material balance. Dow has
requested that EPA provide cellulose ether affected sources with a
material balance compliance option similar to that for the viscose
process affected sources. This option would allow the cellulose ether
affected sources to demonstrate initial compliance using a month-long
initial compliance demonstration and demonstrate continuous compliance
by maintaining a material balance and using it to document the percent
reduction of total organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions.
The Agency was unaware that any cellulose ether facilities were using
the material balance technique to calculate their control efficiency
and, therefore, did not provide this as a compliance option for
cellulose ether facilities in the final rule. We consider this a valid
approach for calculating control efficiency and extending this option
to the cellulose ether affected sources makes the final rule consistent
with the viscose process affected sources. Therefore, through the
amendments to the final rule, we are providing the requested material
balance compliance option for cellulose ether operations, with the
clarification that the start point from which the percent reduction is
determined must be the onset of extended cookout. Extended cookout is a
means of reducing HAP emissions by allowing the reaction to occur for a
longer period of time than economically desired, thus allowing for more
of the HAP to be consumed in the reaction. This clarification that the
start point for the material balance compliance option is necessary
because cellulose ether affected sources actually consume much of the
HAP in their reaction (e.g., ethylene oxide), while viscose process
affected sources eventually regenerate all of the HAP in their reaction
(as either carbon disulfide or hydrogen sulfide).
2. Additional Testing
Tables 3 and 5 to the final rule require viscose process affected
sources to prepare and maintain a material balance that includes the
``pertinent data'' used to determine the percent reduction of total
sulfide emissions. To prepare and maintain such a material balance,
emissions information to determine control efficiency would be needed
in addition to that gathered through the initial performance test.
According to Teepak, the ``pertinent data'' language in the final rule
possibly could be construed to require additional testing to complete
the material balance, although such additional testing is not
explicitly required in the final rule and would be inconsistent with
language in the preamble. Teepak has recommended that EPA revise Sec.
63.5535(g)(1) to clarify that no additional emission tests are
required. The Agency did not intend to require additional emissions
tests be conducted by use of the term ``pertinent data'' and agrees
with Teepak's request. Therefore, through the amendments to the final
rule, we are making the suggested revision to Sec. 63.5535(g)(1) for
viscose process affected sources. For consistency, we are providing the
same clarification for those cellulose ether affected sources that
choose the material balance compliance option.
3. Batch Emission Episodes
For those sources that choose to conduct an initial performance
test, Dow has noted that the final rule does
[[Page 46687]]
not address the testing of batch emission episodes lasting less than 1
hour. According to Dow, the final rule is unclear and has conflicting
requirements between the regulatory text and tables regarding whether
(1) the batch emission episode provisions in Sec. 63.490(c) apply to
calculating the emission rate, as stated in table 4 to the final rule,
(2) three 1-hour tests are required, as stated in Sec. 63.5535(d), or
(3) a 3-hour test is required, as stated in table 3 to the final rule.
Dow has recommended that EPA clarify in Sec. 63.5535(d) and (e) that
batch process vent tests follow the provisions listed in table 4 and
Sec. 63.490(c), which Dow has interpreted as allowing testing on a
batch emission episode. Upon review of the subject testing requirements
the Agency agrees with Dow's assessment that the language in the text
and tables conflict and need clarification. Therefore, through the
amendments to the final rule, we are making the suggested revision to
Sec. 63.5535(d) and (e). To account for the testing of batch emission
episodes, which may last less than 1 hour per test run, we are also
removing the ``3-hour'' term used in table 3 to the final rule to
describe the performance test. This revision also eliminates any
confusion with the requirement in Sec. 63.5535(d) for three 1-hour
test runs.
4. Uncontrolled Emissions
Both Teepak and Dow have noted that table 3 to the final rule
requires operations to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limit by ``measuring'' the average uncontrolled emissions during the
compliance demonstration or performance test. However, the final rule
does not require month-long initial performance tests, nor does it
require any additional testing after the initial performance tests of
control device efficiency. Teepak has recommended that EPA change the
term ``measured'' in table 3 to the final rule to ``determined'' to
clarify that no additional testing or measurement was intended for
cellulose food casing operations or any other viscose process affected
source. Dow has recommended that EPA revise tables 3 and 4 to the final
rule to allow engineering assessments to be used as an alternative for
determining the uncontrolled emissions from process vents. According to
Dow, engineering assessments are allowed in other NESHAP, including the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON), the Pharmaceutical NESHAP, and the
Pesticide Active Ingredient NESHAP.
The Agency agrees with Dow and Teepak that using the term
``determined'' instead of ``measured'' is consistent with the approach
of using an engineering assessment as an alternative for determining
uncontrolled emissions. Through the amendments to the final rule, we
are making the clarification to table 3 to the final rule suggested by
Teepak for viscose process affected sources. For consistency, we are
providing the same clarification for those cellulose ether affected
sources that choose to demonstrate initial compliance using a month-
long compliance demonstration. We are also making the revision to table
3 to the final rule suggested by Dow for cellulose ether affected
sources. This revision should provide cellulose ether affected sources
with some flexibility in determining uncontrolled emissions, whether
they are conducting an initial performance test or a month-long
compliance demonstration. For consistency, we are also providing the
viscose process affected sources with the same option to use
engineering assessments. We are not making the revision to table 4 to
the final rule suggested by Dow because this issue will already be
addressed in the revision to table 3 of the final rule. Table 4 of the
final rule is designed to describe the performance testing
requirements, and if a source is using other means (e.g., engineering
assessments) to determine uncontrolled emissions, then those means
should be described in table 3 of the final rule.
5. Equations
Dow has noted that Sec. 63.5535(e)(2) requires sources to
calculate the ``total sulfide emission rate.'' According to Dow, it is
not necessary for a source to calculate the total sulfide emission rate
if it does not use sulfur compounds, specifically carbon disulfide, in
its process. Dow has recommended that EPA clarify the final rule so
that Sec. 63.5535(e)(2) is used only for viscose processes that
actually use carbon disulfide. Through the amendments to the final
rule, we are revising Sec. 63.5535(e) to require sources to use the
equations ``as applicable.'' This revision should account for those
sources (e.g., cellulose ether affected sources) for which an equation
(e.g., total sulfide emission equation) may not apply.
6. Establishing Operating Limits
Section 63.5535(h)(1) of the final rule references Sec.
63.505(b)(2) regarding the establishment of operating limits for
continuous processes. Section 63.505(b)(2) requires sources to use the
average of the maximum values to establish a maximum level and the
average of the minimum values to establish a minimum level. Teepak has
argued that this procedure inappropriately restricts the range in which
their scrubbers can be operated to ensure compliance with the emission
reduction requirements. According to Teepak, the capabilities of the
scrubber under a range of conditions, not simply the average
capabilities, should be used to determine maximum and minimum operating
limits. Teepak has recommended that we replace the procedures of Sec.
63.505(b)(2) with those of Sec. 63.505(c), which require sources to
establish parameter operating levels based on performance tests,
supplemented by engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's
recommendations. According to Teepak, this change would allow the
development of true operating limits of the control or recovery device.
Teepak has also recommended that we revise table 3 to the final rule to
clarify that a range of scrubber operating values is acceptable.
The Agency agrees with Teepak that the use of average values to
establish the minimum and maximum operating limits for the scrubbers
will not result in an effective measure for assessing the operational
performance of the scrubbers. By using the averages for establishing
both the minimum and maximum values for the scrubber operating range,
an overly restrictive range is set, while the scrubbers can be
demonstrated to operate effectively operate over a much broader range.
Therefore, through the amendments to the final rule, we are making the
suggested revisions to Sec. 63.5535(h)(1), (5), and (6). We are also
revising tables 2, 3, and 6 to final rule. For consistency, we are
applying the requirement to use Sec. 63.505(c) to both continuous and
batch processes.
D. Definitions
1. Process Unit/Source Category
In response to a comment on the proposed rule, we added a
definition for ``cellulose ether process unit'' to the final rule to
help define the boundaries around equipment for equipment leak
monitoring. We also revised the definition for ``cellulose ether
operation'' to provide greater clarification of what it includes, and
we revised the definition for ``cellulose ether process'' to
specifically exclude solids handling. However, the requirements in the
final rule refer only to the definitions for ``cellulose ether
operation'' and ``cellulose ether process unit,'' which do not exclude
solids handling equipment. Dow has argued that, without clear
definitions, the
[[Page 46688]]
regulated industry cannot delineate the equipment included in the
process unit and subject to the final rule. As ``cellulose ether
process unit'' is currently defined, equipment in the solids handling
process would be a part of the cellulose ether process unit and would
be subject to the equipment leak provisions. According to Dow, it is
doubtful that the HAP concentration in the solids handling equipment
would exceed 5 percent, and unnecessary records would be needed to
document that the equipment is not monitored. Dow has recommended that
EPA revise the definition for ``cellulose ether process unit'' to
specifically include the term ``cellulose ether process.'' According to
Dow, revising this definition would be a clear and simple approach to
exclude equipment not a part of the cellulose ether process unit and,
therefore, not subject to equipment leaks monitoring. Dow has also
recommended that EPA revise the definition for ``Cellulose Ethers
Production source category'' to refer to ``the collection of cellulose
ether operations'' to provide a similar clarification.
The Agency agrees with Dow that revising the definitions will
provide clarity and consistency to what equipment is subject to the
equipment leak monitoring. Additionally, based on a review of the
information presented to EPA during the initial development of these
provisions the solids handling equipment is unlikely to exceed the 5
percent HAP threshold and, as the rule is currently written,
unnecessary records would need to be kept. Through the amendments to
the final rule, we are making the suggested revisions to the
definitions for ``cellulose ether process unit'' and ``Cellulose Ethers
Production source category.'' For consistency, we are also revising
several other definitions. We are revising the definitions for
``cellulose food casing process unit,'' ``cellulosic sponge process
unit,'' and ``rayon process unit'' to specifically include the term
``viscose process.'' We are revising the definition for ``cellophane
process unit'' to specifically include the terms ``viscose process''
and ``solvent coating process.'' Finally, we are revising the
definition for ``Miscellaneous Viscose Processes source category'' to
specifically include the collection of ``cellulose food casing, rayon,
cellulosic sponge, and cellophane operations.''
Dow has also recommended that EPA revise the tables in the final
rule to refer to the definition for ``cellulose ether process unit''
instead of ``cellulose ether operation.'' According to Dow, this change
would allow EPA to clearly define the equipment subject to control.
Specifically, Dow believes that EPA needs to define the boundaries of
the process unit to determine where a wastewater process stream is
discarded and, thus, becomes a wastewater. According to Dow, with the
broadly defined term ``cellulose ether operation,'' no stream ever
exits the process and becomes discarded.
We do not believe that replacing the term ``cellulose ether
operation'' with ``cellulose ether process unit'' in the tables is
necessary or even desirable. Such a revision would effectively exclude
from regulation those equipment, such as heat exchanger systems,
wastewater and waste management units, and cooling towers, that are not
associated with the cellulose ether process unit but are located at a
cellulose ether operation. Additionally, these sources were considered
in establishing the MACT floor. Consequently, we are not making this
suggested revision to the final rule.
2. Process Vent
In response to a comment on the proposed rule, we revised the
definition of ``process vent'' in the final rule to refer to ``a point
of discharge to the atmosphere * * * of a HAP-containing gas stream
from the process operation.'' Noting that the term ``process
operation'' is not defined in the final rule, Dow has recommended that
EPA replace it with the term ``unit operation.'' According to Dow, the
term ``unit operation'' is already defined in the final rule because
Sec. 63.5610 references the definitions from Sec. 63.101 of the HON.
Dow has also expressed concern that the definition for ``process vent''
in the final rule does not define the basis for the concentration of a
process vent, e.g., HAP or total organic compound (TOC). Consequently,
Dow has recommended that EPA revise the definition for ``process vent''
to state that it does not include ''* * * vents with * * * a
concentration less than 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of HAP or
TOC * * *'' EPA agrees with Dow's comment concerning the definition of
process vent. Specifically, we agree that through the reference to
Sec. 63.101 of the HON and our definition of ``process vent'' we have
created an inconsistency in the rule. To correct this inconsistency we
are incorporating the characteristics of the vent stream from the HON
into our process vent definition. Through the amendments to the final
rule, we are making the suggested clarifications to the definition for
``process vent.''
E. Applicability of General Provisions
Facilities subject to the final rule are required to submit
periodic compliance reports containing, among other things, information
on episodes of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that occurred during
each reporting period. UCB Films has asked whether the routine breaks
of film (commonly called ``wet breaks'') that occur in its casting
machines possibly could be construed as falling within the definition
for ``malfunction.'' The wet breaks would not affect UCB's ability to
meet the standards. We do not consider this type of routine event to
fall within the definition for ``malfunction'' and believe it should
not be included within the reporting requirement. See 67 FR 72875,
72881 (December 9, 2002); 68 FR 32586, 32592-32593 (May 30, 2003). For
consistency, this interpretation also applies to routine breaks of
cellulose food casing and rayon.
UCB Films also requested clarification of the reporting obligations
for its casting machines when they are temporarily turned off to fix
wet breaks. Clarification may also be needed, according to UCB Films,
regarding the subsequent restart of the casting machines after the wet
breaks are fixed. The recent revisions to the 40 CFR part 63 General
Provisions state that there is no duty to report the number or duration
of these events or to describe each one individually in the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report as long as the provisions of the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan are followed and the report
contains a statement to that effect; see Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i) and 68 FR
32592. No changes to subpart UUUU of 40 CFR part 63 are needed to
address this issue.
F. Miscellaneous Corrections
Through the amendments to the final rule, we are also correcting
various typographical, formatting, and cross-referencing errors found
in the final rule and updating the cross-references, where necessary,
to include the amended sections.
II. Summary of Amendments
Today's amendments to subpart UUUU are described in Table 1 of this
preamble.
[[Page 46689]]
Table 1.--Summary of Amendments to Subpart UUUU of 40 CFR Part 63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.5490(d)...................... Change ``meet'' to ``met'' for
verb tense consistency.
Sec. 63.5515(b)(1) and (f) Remove the requirement in
introductory paragraph. paragraph (b)(1) to maintain a
log for O&M of process
equipment and state that the
O&M log is only required for
control devices used to comply
with the rule.
Replace the phrase ``to of this
subpart'' in (f) introductory
paragraph with ``to this
subpart.''
Sec. 63.5535 (d), (e) introductory Revise paragraph (d) to
paragraph, (g)(1), and (h). reference Sec. 63.490(c) for
batch process vents.
Revise (e) introductory
paragraph to reference Sec.
63.490(c) for batch process
vents. Also note that sources
must use the equations as
applicable.
Revise paragraph (g)(1) to
specify that no additional
testing is required for
viscose process affected
sources required to conduct an
initial performance test to
determine the control
efficiency of their non-
recovery control devices.
Replace references to Sec.
63.505(b) (2) and (3) in
paragraphs (h) (1) and (2)
with references to Sec.
63.505(c) for procedures used
to establish operating limits.
Combine paragraphs (h) (1) and
(2) to apply to both
continuous and batch
processes. Renumber paragraphs
(h) (3) through (10) as
paragraphs (h) (2) through
(9).
Revise paragraphs (h) (5) and
(6) to require affected
sources to record the range of
scrubber parameter values,
rather than the average.
Renumber paragraph (h) as
paragraph (i) and add a new
paragraph (h) that includes an
initial compliance option for
cellulose ether operations
similar to the material
balance option for the viscose
process affected sources. For
cellulose ether operations
using extended cookout under
this option, specify that the
start point from which the
percent reduction is
determined must be the onset
of extended cookout. Also
specify that no additional
testing is required for
cellulose ether affected
sources required to conduct an
initial performance test to
determine the control
efficiency of their non-
recovery control devices.
Sec. 63.5545(e)(4)................... Change the citation, which
describes the data to be
excluded from continuous
emissions monitoring system
(CEMS) data averages, from
paragraph (a)(5) to paragraph
(e)(5) of this section.
Sec. 63.5610 (a) and (g)............. Revise paragraph (a) by
changing the citation for
operating limit provisions
from Sec. 63.505(b) to Sec.
63.505(c).
Revise the definitions of
``Cellulose Ethers Production
source category'' and
``Miscellaneous Viscose
Processes source category'' in
paragraph (g) to include a
reference to the types of
operations that are included
in the source categories
(cellulose ether, cellophane,
cellulose food casing,
cellulosic sponge, and rayon).
Revise the definition of
``cellulose ether process
unit'' in paragraph (g) to
include the term ``cellulose
ether process.'' Revise the
definitions of ``cellulose
food casing process unit,''
``cellulosic sponge process
unit,'' and ``rayon process
unit'' to include the term
``viscose process.'' Revise
the definition of ``cellophane
process unit'' to include the
terms ``viscose process'' and
``solvent coating process.''
Revise the definition of
``process vent'' in paragraph
(g)to replace the undefined
term ``process operation''
with the defined term ``unit
operation'' and to define the
concentration basis for
process vents as HAP or TOC.
Table 1, items 1.c. i and ii, 1.f. ii Remove the numbering for
and iii, 9, 10, and 11. individual requirements under
items 1.c. i and ii.
Revise items 1.f. ii and iii,
item 10, and item 11 to
clarify that the standards for
closed-vent systems at
cellophane operations do not
apply to retractable hoods
over sulfuric acid baths at a
cellophane operation.
Revise item 9 to replace the
phrase ``liquid streams in
open system 2'' with ``liquid
streams in open systems.''
Designate the affected source
text under item 11 as ``a.''
Table 2, items 3 and 4................. Revise items 3 and 4 to require
affected sources to maintain
the scrubber parameters within
a range of values established
during the compliance
demonstration, rather than
above or below an average
value.
Table 3, introductory statement and Revise the introductory
items 1.a.i. (1) and (2); 1.b.i. (1) statement for Table 3 to
and (2); 1.c.i.(1); 1.c.ii.(1); include Sec. 63.5535(h) in
1.d.i.(1); 1.e.i.(1); 1.f.i.(1); the list of referenced
1.f.ii and 2.a.i.(1); 3.a; 6.a.i.(1); provisions.
and 12.a.i.(2). Regarding the requirement in
items 1.a.i.(1), 1.b.i.(1),
1.c.i.(1), 1.c.ii.(1),
1.d.i.(1), 1.e.i.(1),
1.f.i.(1), 2.a.i.(1), 3.a, and
6.a.i.(1) to ``measure''
average uncontrolled emissions
during the month-long
compliance demonstration,
change ``measured'' to
``determined.'' Provide
sources with the option to use
engineering assessments to
determine uncontrolled
emissions.
[[Page 46690]]
Revise items 1.a.i.(2) and
1.b.i.(2) to replace the term
``average operating parameter
values'' with ``range of
operating parameter values.''
Revise items 1.f. ii and iii to
clarify that the standards and
initial compliance
requirements for closed-vent
systems at cellophane
operations do not apply to
retractable hoods over
sulfuric acid baths at a
cellophane operation.
Revise item 2.a.i to change
``folling'' to ``rolling.''
Split item 3.a. into two parts--
items 3.a and 3.b. Item 3.a
applies to cellulose ether
operations using a performance
test to demonstrate initial
compliance. Item 3.b applies
to cellulose ether operations
using a material balance
compliance demonstration to
demonstrate initial
compliance. Include under item
3.b the requirements
associated with the material
balance compliance
demonstration. Include under
items 3.a and 3.b the option
to use engineering assessments
to determine uncontrolled
emissions.
Revise items 3.a.i. (1) and (2)
to remove the term ``3-hour.''
Remove the numbering for
individual requirements under
item 12.a.i.(2).
Table 4, introductory statement and Revise the introductory
items 3 and 4.a.i.(2).(b). statement for Table 4 to
include Sec. 63.5535(h)(1)
in the list of referenced
provisions. Reposition the
requirements for item 3 into
their proper columns. Correct
the misspelling for
``potentially'' in item
4.a.i.(2).(b).
Table 5, items 1.a. ii and iii; 3.a; Revise items 1.a. ii and iii to
5.a. i, ii, and iv; and 8. clarify that the standards and
continuous compliance
requirements for closed-vent
systems do not apply to
retractable hoods over
sulfuric acid baths at a
cellophane operation.
Under item 1.a.ii, designate
the work practice standard for
closed-vent systems as
``iii,'' instead of ``c.''
Split item 3.a. into two parts--
items 3.a and 3.b. Item 3.a
applies to cellulose ether
operations using a performance
test to demonstrate initial
compliance. Item 3.b applies
to cellulose ether operations
using a material balance
compliance demonstration to
demonstrate initial
compliance. Include under item
3.b the requirements
associated with the material
balance continuous compliance
option.
Under items 5.a. i, ii, and iv,
remove the numbering for
individual emission limits and
standards (e.g., remove
``(1),'' ``(2),'' and
``(3)''). Also, change the
numbering for individual
continuous compliance
requirements (e.g., change
``(a),'' ``(b),'' and ``(c)''
to ``(1),'' ``(2),'' and
``(3)'').
Correct the misspelling for
``wastewater'' in item 8.
Table 6, items 3 and 4................. Revise items 3 and 4 to require
affected sources to maintain
the scrubber parameters within
a range of values established
during the compliance
demonstration, rather than
above or below an average
value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, October 4, 1993), 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
standards 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 entitlement, 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, it has been
determined that the direct final rule amendments are not a
``significant regulatory action'' because they do not meet any of the
above criteria. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for
review under Executive Order 12866.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action makes clarifying changes to the final rule and imposes
no new information collection requirements on the industry. This action
revises a work practice standard, general and initial compliance
requirements, definitions, and General Provisions applicability, as
well as correct typographical, formatting, and cross-referencing errors
in the final rule. The OMB has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations under the
provisions of the Paper Work Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0488 (EPA ICR No. 1974.02).
Copies of the Information Collection Request (ICR) document(s) may
be obtained from Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of Environmental
Information, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. EPA (2822T); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may also be
downloaded off the Internet at https://
[[Page 46691]]
www.epa.gov/icr. Include the ICR number in any correspondence.
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 purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the direct final
rule amendments.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's direct final rule
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business
that has fewer than 1,000 employees for NAICS codes 325221, 325188, and
325199; fewer than 750 employees for NAICS code 325211; or fewer than
500 employees for NAICS codes 326121 and 326199; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule
amendments on small entities, the EPA has concluded that this action
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The direct final rule amendments will not impose any new
requirements on small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
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 by 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's regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that the direct final rule amendments do not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate,
or the private sector in any 1 year, nor do the direct final rule
amendments significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because
the amendments contain no requirements that apply to such governments
or impose obligations upon them. Thus, the requirements of the UMRA do
not apply to the direct final rule amendments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (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'' are 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 direct final rule amendments do not have federalism
implications. The amendments will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order
13132. None of the affected facilities are owned or operated by State
governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order
do not apply to the direct final rule amendments.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA, State and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on the direct final
rule amendments from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (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.'' The direct final rule amendments do
not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175,
because tribal governments do not own or operate any sources subject to
the amendments in the direct final rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to the direct final rule amendments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that EPA determines (1) is ``economically significant'' a
