National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works Residual Risk and Technology Review, 49513-49533 [2017-23067]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49513-49533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23067]



[[Page 49513]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490; FRL-9969-95-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS85


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Publicly Owned Treatment Works Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) source 
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing 
revised names and definitions of the subcategories, revisions to the 
applicability criteria, revised regulatory provisions pertaining to 
emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), 
initial notification requirements for existing Group 1 and Group 2 
POTW, revisions to the requirements for new Group 1 POTW, requirements 
for electronic reporting, and other miscellaneous edits and technical 
corrections. While we do not anticipate any emission reductions as a 
result of these revisions, the changes should provide clarity for 
sources determining applicability and ensuring compliance.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a 
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490. All 
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov 
Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (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 
through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 
Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Katie Hanks, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-2159; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email 
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact Terri Hollingsworth, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5623; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: 
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of 
the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (E-19J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; 
telephone number: (312) 353-6266; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

    CAA Clean Air Act
    CBI confidential business information
    CDX Central Data Exchange
    CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
    ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
    HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
    HQ hazard quotient
    H2S hydrogen sulfide
    ICR Information Collection Request
    MACT maximum achievable control technology
    MGD million gallons per day
    MIR maximum individual risk
    NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
    NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
    NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    PB-HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
    POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
    RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
    RIN Regulatory Information Number
    RTR Risk and Technology Review
    SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
    TOSHI Target Organ Specific Hazard Index
    UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Background information. On December 27, 2016, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the POTW NESHAP based on our RTR. In this action, we are 
finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of 
the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed 
rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other 
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those 
comments is available in Response to Public Comments on the EPA's 
Residual Risk and Technology Review for the Publicly Owned Treatment 
Works Source Category in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490. A ``track 
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the POTW source category and how does the NESHAP 
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the POTW source category in 
our December 27, 2016, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the POTW source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the POTW source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the POTW source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the POTW Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the POTW Source Category
    C. Applicability Criteria
    D. Emissions From Collection Systems
    E. Pretreatment Requirements

[[Page 49514]]

    F. HAP Fraction Emitted for Existing Group 1 and Group 2 Sources
    G. New and Existing Group 1 POTW
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  NAICS
     NESHAP and source category                 NESHAP             \1\
                                                                   code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sewage Treatment Facilities.........  Subpart VVV..............   221320
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. The 
standards are directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, 
state, local, and tribal governments are affected as discussed below. 
By definition, a POTW is owned by a municipality, state, intermunicipal 
or interstate agency, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of 
the federal government (see 40 CFR 63.1595 of subpart VVV). To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the POTW NESHAP. Specifically, if a POTW is a 
Group 2 POTW \1\ that is a major source of hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) emissions or a Group 1 POTW regardless of the HAP emissions, and 
the POTW meets the criteria for development and implementation of a 
pretreatment program according to 40 CFR 403.8, then the POTW is 
affected by these standards. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the 
appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As discussed below in section III.D of this preamble, the 
terms ``Group 1 POTW'' and ``Group 2 POTW'' are replacing the 
previous terms ``industrial POTW'' and ``nonindustrial POTW. The 
``Group 1'' and ``Group 2'' subcategories are described in the 
regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the Internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/publicly-owned-treatment-works-potw-national-emission-standards. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same Web 
site.
    Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites for the RTR 
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by December 26, 2017. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, 
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For 
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the 
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including but not limited 
to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through 
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; 
enclose systems or

[[Page 49515]]

processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when 
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; 
are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any 
combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\2\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see the proposed rule published on December 27, 2016 (81 
FR 95352).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 
112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 
(``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards 
provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is free to 
readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the POTW source category and how does the NESHAP regulate 
HAP emissions from the source category?

1. Definition of the POTW Source Category and the Affected Source
    The EPA promulgated the NESHAP for the POTW source category 
(henceforth referred to as the ``POTW NESHAP'') on October 26, 1999 (64 
FR 57572). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV. 
The POTW NESHAP was amended on October 21, 2002 (67 FR 64742). As 
amended in 2002, the POTW source category consists of new and existing 
POTW treatment plants that are located at a POTW that is a major source 
of HAP emissions and that meets the criteria for development and 
implementation of a pretreatment program as defined by 40 CFR 403.8 
under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additional information about the 
National Pretreatment Program can be found in the December 27, 2016, 
RTR proposal (81 FR 95374). The source category covered by this MACT 
standard currently includes thirteen facilities.
    As used in this regulation, the term POTW refers to both any POTW 
that is owned by a state, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate 
agency and, therefore, eligible to receive grant assistance under the 
Subchapter II of the CWA, and any federally owned treatment works as 
that term is described in section 3023 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. 
For more information see the December 27, 2016, RTR proposal (81 FR 
95352). The source category includes any intercepting sewers, outfall 
sewers, sewage collection systems, pumping, power, and other equipment. 
The wastewater treated by these facilities is generated by industrial, 
commercial, and domestic sources.
2. Applicability of the 2002 POTW NESHAP
    The 2002 POTW NESHAP is subcategorized based on whether the POTW is 
providing treatment for wastewaters received from an industrial user as 
the means by which that industrial user complies with another NESHAP. 
The 2002 POTW NESHAP defined an ``industrial POTW'' as ``a POTW that 
accepts a waste stream regulated by another NESHAP and provides 
treatment and controls as an agent for the industrial discharger. The 
industrial discharger complies with its NESHAP by using the treatment 
and controls located at the POTW. For example, an industry discharges 
its benzene-containing waste stream to the POTW for treatment to comply 
with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF--National Emission Standards for 
Benzene Waste Operations. This definition does not include POTW 
treating waste streams not specifically regulated under another 
NESHAP.'' An ``industrial POTW'' is subject to the 2002 POTW NESHAP 
regardless of the HAP emissions (i.e., the POTW does not have to be a 
major source). In contrast, a ``non-industrial POTW'' was defined in 
the 2002 POTW NESHAP as ``a POTW that does not meet the definition of 
an industrial POTW as defined above.'' A ``non-industrial POTW'' must 
be a major source to be subject to the 2002 POTW NESHAP. For more 
information, see the December 27, 2016, RTR proposal (81 FR 95357).
3. HAP Emitted and HAP Emission Points
    The amount and type of HAP emitted from a POTW is dependent on the 
composition of the wastewater streams discharged to a POTW by 
industrial users. The primary HAP emitted from the POTW that were 
identified as subject to the POTW NESHAP include acetaldehyde, 
acetonitrile, chloroform, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, methanol, 
methylene chloride, tetratchloroethylene, toluene, and xylenes. The HAP 
present in the wastewater entering a POTW can biodegrade, adhere to 
sewage sludge, volatilize to the air, or pass through (remain in the 
wastewater discharge) to receiving waters. Emissions can occur at any 
point at the POTW, including collection systems and wastewater 
treatment units located at the POTW treatment plant.
4. Regulation of HAP Emissions in the 2002 POTW NESHAP
    The POTW NESHAP specifies requirements for the industial and non-
industrial POTW subcategories. Under the 2002 POTW NESHAP, an existing 
``industrial POTW'' must meet the requirements of the industrial user's 
NESHAP. A new or reconstructed ``industrial POTW'' must meet the 
requirements of the industrial user's

[[Page 49516]]

NESHAP or the requirements for new or reconstructed non-industrial 
POTW, whichever is more stringent.
    There are no control requirements in the 2002 POTW NESHAP for 
existing ``non-industrial POTW.'' However, new or reconstructed ``non-
industrial POTW'' must equip each treatment unit up to, but not 
including, the secondary influent pumping station, with a cover. In 
addition, all covered units, except the primary clarifier, must route 
the air in the headspace above the surface of the wastewater to a 
control device that meets the requirements for closed-vent systems and 
control devices found in the NESHAP from Off-Site Waste and Recovery 
Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart DD). As an alternative, a new or 
reconstructed ``non-industrial POTW'' can demonstrate that all units up 
to, but not including, the secondary influent pumping station emit a 
HAP fraction of 0.014 or less. The HAP fraction emitted is the fraction 
of HAP in the wastewater entering the POTW that is emitted to the 
atmosphere. For additional information, see the December 27, 2016, RTR 
proposal (81 FR 95357).

C. What changes did we propose for the POTW source category in our 
December 27, 2016, RTR proposal?

    On December 27, 2016, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the POTW NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV, that 
took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed rule, we 
proposed that the risks are acceptable and the current standards 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
Additionally, we did not identify any developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies for the POTW source category as 
part of the technology review. During this rulemaking, we evaluated 
other revisions to the 2002 POTW NESHAP outside of the RTR. We proposed 
to revise the names and definitions of the industrial and non-
industrial subcategories to be called Group 1 and Group 2 POTW. We also 
proposed to include requirements to limit emissions from collection 
systems and the POTW treatment plant; requirements for existing, new, 
or reconstructed Group 1 POTW to comply with both the requirements in 
the POTW NESHAP and those in the applicable NESHAP for which the POTW 
acts as a control agent; and HAP emission limits for existing Group 2 
POTW. In addition, we proposed to clarify the applicability criteria; 
require initial notification for existing Group 1 and Group 2 POTW; 
revise regulatory provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of 
SSM; add requirements for electronic reporting; and make other 
miscellaneous edits and technical corrections.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the POTW source category. This action 
also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including revised names and 
definitions of the subcategories, clarified applicability criteria, 
revised regulatory provisions pertaining to emissions during periods or 
SSM, initial notification requirements for existing Group 1 and Group 2 
POTW, requirements for new or reconstructed Group 1 POTW to comply with 
both the requirements in the POTW NESHAP and those in the applicable 
NESHAP for which the POTW acts as a control agent, requirements for 
electronic reporting, and other miscellaneous edits and technical 
corrections. As explained in section IV of this preamble, we are not 
taking final action at this time on several provisions that were 
proposed, including standards for pretreatment, the inclusion of 
collection systems in the major source determination, and the HAP 
fraction emission limit for existing Group 1 and Group 2 POTW.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
POTW source category?

    We determined that risks resulting from emissions from the POTW 
source category are acceptable. Specifically, the maximum individual 
cancer risk (MIR) is 2-in-1 million based on allowable emissions and 1-
in-1 million based on actual emissions, well below the presumptive 
limit of acceptability (100-in-1 million), and other health information 
indicates there is no appreciable risk of adverse chronic or acute non-
cancer health effects due to HAP emissions from the source category. 
Additionally, emissions of 2-methylnaphthalene, the only HAP emitted 
from the POTW source category that is known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), did not exceed the worst-case 
Tier I screening emission rate or any ecological benchmarks. Therefore, 
revisions to the standards are not necessary to reduce risk to an 
acceptable level or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. 
Further, considering risk and non-risk factors, we determined that the 
2002 POTW NESHAP requirements provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to 
the standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the POTW source category?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing 
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 552 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. 
We have revised Table 1 to Subpart VVV of Part 63 (the General 
Provisions applicability table) in several respects to eliminate the 
incorporation of those General Provisions that stated or were tied to 
the SSM exemption. These revisions to Table 1 are explained in detail 
in the proposed rule preamble at 81 FR 95780-95782. Further, in 
conjunction with the elimination of the incorporation of these General 
Provisions requirements, we have (1) added a general duty to minimize 
emissions in 40 CFR 63.1582(e) and 63.1586(e), see 81 FR at 95380 (col. 
2-3); (2) incorporated performance testing requirements for control 
devices in 40 CFR 63.694, see 81 FR at 95781 (col. 1); (3) added 
language to Table 1 related to monitoring that is identical to 40 CFR 
63.8(d)(3) (which is no longer incorporated) but with certain revisions 
to reflect the ending of the SSM plan requirement, see 81 FR at 95381 
(col. 2); (4) made the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.696(h) 
and 63.1589(d) applicable to periods that were previously covered by 
SSM-related provisions, see 81 FR 95381 (col. 2-3); and (5) amended the 
reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.1590 which, in conjunction with the 
existing reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.693 and 63.1590(a), will 
adequately provide for reporting that was previously governed by SSM-
related provisions, see 81 FR at 95382.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

1. Applicability Criteria
    The EPA is not revising the applicability of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart VVV as proposed on December 27, 2016. Instead, the EPA is 
finalizing minor clarifying changes to the applicability criteria that 
are in the 2002 POTW NESHAP. The renaming of the subcategories (from 
``industrial'' to ``Group 1'' and from ``non-industrial'' to ``Group 2) 
and the definitions of Group

[[Page 49517]]

1 and Group 2 POTW are being finalized as proposed, and as discussed 
below. However, for clarification, the EPA has removed the statements 
regarding ownership and operation of POTW in regards to which POTW are 
required to develop and implement a pretreatment program as defined by 
40 CFR 403.8. This change clarifies that any Group 1 POTW (regardless 
of HAP emissions) or Group 2 POTW that is a major source of HAP is 
subject to the POTW NESHAP if the POTW also meets the criteria for 
development and implementation of a pretreatment program, regardless of 
whether the POTW, state, or other entity implements the pretreatment 
program.
2. Names and Definitions of the Subcategories
    As proposed, the EPA is revising the names and definitions for the 
subcategories identified in the POTW NESHAP. The EPA is renaming an 
``industrial POTW treatment plant'' as a ``Group 1'' POTW treatment 
plant and a ``non-industrial POTW treatment plant'' as a ``Group 2'' 
POTW treatment plant. The EPA expects that this clarification will 
address any confusion that could have been caused by the previous 
subcategory names ``industrial POTW treatment plant'' and ``non-
industrial treatment plant'' because POTW in both subcategories treat 
wastewater from industrial users. The key difference between Group 1 
and Group 2 is that a Group 1 POTW acts as an agent for an industrial 
user by accepting and controling the industrial user's waste stream 
regulated under another NESHAP. By contrast, a Group 2 POTW may treat 
the waste stream from an industrial user, but does not act as the 
industrial user's agent to comply with another NESHAP.
3. Initial Notification Requirements for Existing Group 1 and Group 2 
POTW
    In the final rule (40 CFR 63.1586(a)), existing Group 1 and Group 2 
POTW treatment plants must comply with the initial notification 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.1591(a) of subpart VVV. This notification 
requirement was not required for these existing sources in the 2002 
POTW NESHAP, but was proposed in the December 27, 2016, proposal, and 
is consistent with notification requirements that were applicable to 
new or reconstructed Group 2 sources under the 2002 POTW NESHAP.
4. Requirements for New Group 1 POTW
    The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that new Group 
1 POTW comply with both the requirements of the other NESHAP for which 
they act as an agent of control for an industrial user and the 
requirements for new Group 2 POTW in this final rule. The requirements 
for new Group 2 POTW are unchanged from the 2002 POTW NESHAP and 
provide the option of complying with either (a) cover all primary 
treatment units and route emissions through a closed vent system to a 
control device or (b) meet a HAP fraction emission limit of 0.014 for 
emissions from all primary treatment units.
5. Requirements for Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is finalizing electronic reporting requirements for new 
POTW consistent with the proposed rule. Specifically, new POTW must 
electroncally submit all annual reports and certain performance test 
reports. The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of these 
reports will increase the usefulness of data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will 
further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, 
and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community.
6. Other Miscellaneous Edits and Technical Corrections
    The EPA is finalizing the following technical corrections as 
proposed:
     Revising all references to ``new or reconstructed POTW'' 
to refer to ``new POTW'' because the definition of ``new'' includes 
reconstructed POTW.
     Combining text from 40 CFR 63.1581 and 63.1582 because the 
language was redundant and confusing. This includes revising 40 CFR 
63.1581 to include all combined text and revising 40 CFR 63.1583(c) to 
include the text from the current 40 CR 63.1582(c).
     Revising 40 CFR 63.1586(b)(1) to require covers ``designed 
and operated to prevent exposure of the wastewater to the atmosphere'' 
instead of ``designed and operated to minimize exposure of the 
wastewater to the atmosphere.'' This clarification has also been made 
to the definition of ``cover'' in 40 CFR 63.1595.
     Revising 40 CFR 63.1587 to include compliance requirements 
that are currently found in 40 CFR 64.1584 and 63.1587, and deleting 40 
CFR 63.1584.
     Clarifying the method for calculating the HAP fraction 
emitted and moving the detailed instructions for calculating the HAP 
fraction emitted from 40 CFR 63.1588(c)(4) to 40 CFR 63.1588(c)(3). The 
requirements remaining in 40 CFR 63.1588(c)(4) address monitoring for 
continuous compliance.
     Revising 40 CFR 63.1588(a)(3) to clarify that a cover 
defect must be repaired within 45 ``calendar'' days; currently the 
paragraph says ``45 days.''
     Adding definitions of existing source/POTW and new source/
POTW to 40 CFR 63.1595 to clarify the date that determines whether a 
POTW is existing or new.
     Renaming the title of 40 CFR 63.1588 to ``How do Group 1 
and Group 2 POTW treatment plants demonstrate compliance?'' from ``What 
inspections must I conduct?'' The new title better reflects the 
contents of this section.
     Removing the details on how to calculate the HAP fraction 
emitted from the definition of HAP fraction emitted. The procedure for 
how to calculate the HAP fraction emitted is provided within the text 
of the rule. Having a summarized version of this procedure in the 
definition could cause confusion.
     Revising two references to dates to insert the actual 
dates. The phrase ``six months after October 26, 1999'' was replaced 
with ``April 26, 2000''; and the phrase ``60 days after October 26, 
1999'' was replaced with ``December 27, 1999.'' These changes do not 
result in a change in the date, but only clarify the specific dates 
being referenced.
     Clarifying that the reports required in 40 CFR 
63.1589(b)(1) include the records associated with the HAP loading and 
not just the records associated with the HAP emissions determination.
     Removing the definition of ``Reconstruction'' in 40 CFR 
63.1595 as ``Reconstruction'' is already defined in the General 
Provisions of 40 CFR 63.2.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on October 26, 2017.
    The compliance date for existing Group 1 POTW is found in the 
applicable NESHAP for which the industrial user is subject to 
wastewater requirements. The compliance date for existing Group 2 POTW 
constructed or reconstructed on or before December 1, 1998, remains 
April 26, 2000. While we do not expect any additional existing Group 1 
or Group 2 POTW beyond the 13 identified, we have chosen to include an 
additional compliance date of October 26, 2018 for existing Group 1 and 
Group 2 sources to submit their initial notification. We understand 
from public comments that POTW are evaluating their potential emissions 
and additional POTW may find they are subject to the rule. These POTW 
are only required to submit a notification that they are subject to the 
rule, and the additional time given for compliance of

[[Page 49518]]

this notification submittal will provide time for completion of the 
necessary emission calculations. The 13 existing sources that are 
subject to the rule and were previously identified have already met 
this notification requirement and do not need to resubmit a 
notification. New sources constructed or reconstructed after December 
27, 2016, must comply with all of the standards immediately upon the 
effective date of the standard, October 26, 2017, or upon startup, 
whichever is later. While we did not identify any new sources that are 
subject to the rule since the original rule was published in 1999, we 
are including a transition period until October 26, 2020 for any new 
sources constructed or reconstructed between December 1, 1998, and 
December 27, 2016, to comply with the revisions in this rule.

F. What are the requirements for submission of annual reports and 
performance test data to the EPA?

    As we proposed, the EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners 
and operators of POTW to submit electronic copies of certain required 
performance test reports and annual reports through the EPA's Central 
Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI). The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in 
this rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in 
those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability 
and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public 
health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
    The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data, 
WebFIRE, is easily accessible and provides a user-friendly interface. 
By making records, data, and reports addressed in this rulemaking 
readily available, the EPA, the regulated community, and the public 
will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-required technology reviews. 
As a result of having reports readily accessible, our ability to carry 
out comprehensive reviews will increase and be achieved within a 
shorter period of time.
    We anticipate fewer or less substantial Information Collection 
Requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology 
reviews may be needed, which results in a decrease in time spent by 
industry to respond to data collection requests. We also expect the 
ICRs to contain less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will 
already have stack test data electronically. Reduced testing 
requirements would be a cost savings to industry. The EPA should also 
be able to conduct these required reviews more quickly. While the 
regulated community may benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the 
general public benefits from the agency's ability to provide these 
required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased public health and 
environmental protection.
    Air agencies, as well as the EPA, can benefit from more streamlined 
and automated review of the electronically submitted data. 
Standardizing report formats allows air agencies to review reports and 
data more quickly. Having reports and associated data in electronic 
format facilitates review through the use of software ``search'' 
options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in 
spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies and the EPA can access 
reports wherever and whenever they want or need, as long as they have 
access to the Internet. The ability to access and review reports 
electronically assists air agencies in determining compliance with 
applicable regulations more quickly and accurately, potentially 
allowing a faster response to violations, which could minimize harmful 
air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the general public.
    For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting required by 
this rule, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal. In 
summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control 
strategy development, and other air pollution control activities, 
having an electronic database populated with performance test data will 
save industry, air agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and 
effort while improving the quality of emission inventories and air 
quality regulations and enhancing the public's access to this important 
information.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the POTW source category?

    For each decision or amendment, this section provides a description 
of what we proposed and what we are finalizing, the EPA's rationale for 
the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and 
responses. Comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries, 
and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and 
response document available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0490).

A. Residual Risk Review for the POTW Source Category

    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk review 
and presented the results of the review, along with our proposed 
decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in 
the December 27, 2016, RTR proposal (81 FR 95372). The residual risk 
review for the POTW source category included assessment of cancer risk, 
chronic non-cancer risk, and acute non-cancer risk due to inhalation 
exposure, as well as multipathway exposure risk and environmental risk. 
The results of the risk assessment are presented briefly in this 
preamble and in more detail in the residual risk document, Residual 
Risk Assessment for Publicly Owned Treatment Works Source Category in 
Support of the October 2017 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule,\3\ 
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This report is an update to the residual risk report 
provided at proposal, Residual Risk Assessment for Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works Source Category in Support of the December 2016 Risk 
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results indicated that maximum inhalation cancer risk to the 
individual most exposed is 2-in-1 million based on allowable emissions 
and 1-in-1 million based on actual emissions, which is well below the 
presumptive limit of acceptability (i.e., 100-in-1 million). In 
addition, the maximum chronic noncancer target organ specific hazard 
index (TOSHI) due to inhalation exposures is less than 1. The 
evaluation of acute noncancer risk, which was conservative, showed a 
hazard quotient at or below 1 for all but one POTW. Based on the 
results of the screening analyses for human multipathway exposure to, 
and environmental impacts from, PB-HAP, we also concluded that the 
cancer risk to the individual most exposed through ingestion is below 
the level of concern and no ecological benchmarks are exceeded. The 
facility-wide cancer and noncancer risks were estimated based on the 
actual emissions from all sources at the identified POTW (both MACT and 
non-MACT sources). The results indicated the cancer risk to

[[Page 49519]]

the individual most exposed is no greater than 10-in-1 million and the 
noncancer TOSHI is less than 1. Considering the above information, as 
well as other relevant non-health factors under the Benzene NESHAP 
analysis codified in CAA 112(f)(2)(B), we proposed that the risk is 
acceptable and the requirements in the 2002 POTW NESHAP provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse 
environmental effect.
    The risk assessment conducted for the POTW proposal estimated 
cancer, chronic noncancer, and acute noncancer risk for six of the 13 
facilities in the source category and is summarized and referenced 
above. We confirmed the existence of seven additional POTW subject to 
the rule that were identified through public comments. For these seven 
POTW, we conducted a facility-wide risk assessment of potential cancer 
and chronic noncancer health effects. The results of this assessment 
indicate that all seven POTW have a facility-wide noncancer TOSHI less 
than 1, four of the POTW have a facility-wide cancer risk estimated 
less than 1-in-1 million, and three of the POTW have a facility-wide 
cancer risk estimated at or above 10-in-1 million. The highest 
facility-wide MIR was 60-in-1 million driven by formaldehyde from 
internal combustion engines which are covered under the NESHAP for the 
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines source category. 
For this POTW with the highest facility-wide MIR, the facility-wide 
emissions of formaldehyde are 22 tpy while the source category 
emissions of formaldehyde are 0.0026 tpy, which indicates that almost 
100 percent of the estimated cancer risk is from emissions sources that 
are not part of the POTW source category. This ratio of source category 
emissions relative to facility-wide emissions of formaldehyde is the 
same for the other two POTW with facility-wide cancer risk estimated at 
or above 10-in-1 million. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 
all 13 POTW have estimated cancer risk close to or below 1-in-1 million 
from source category emissions and we retain our proposed determination 
that risk is acceptable. Further, as discussed in the December 27, 
2016, RTR proposal (81 FR 95373), we retain our determination that, 
considering the costs, economic impacts and technological feasibility 
of additional standards to reduce risk further, the 2002 POTW NESHAP 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and 
prevents an adverse environmental effect. Details of this risk 
assessment are described in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Publicly Owned Treatment Works Source Category in Support of the 
October 2017 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule found in the docket 
for this rulemaking.
    Most of the commenters on the proposed risk review supported our 
risk acceptability and ample margin of safety determinations for the 
POTW NESHAP. Some commenters requested that we make changes to our 
residual risk review approach. However, we evaluated the comments and 
determined that no changes to our risk assessment methods or 
conclusions are warranted. A summary of these comments and responses 
are in the comment summary and response document, available in the 
docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490).
    Since proposal, our risk assessment has been broadened to include 
additional POTW; however, the conclusions of our risk assessment and 
our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of 
safety, and adverse environmental effects have not changed. For the 
reasons explained in the proposed rule and discussed above, we 
determined that the risks from the POTW source category are acceptable, 
and that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.

B. Technology Review for the POTW Source Category

    As described in the December 27, 2016, RTR proposal (81 FR 95373), 
and as provided by CAA section 112(d)(6), our technology review focused 
on identifying developments in the practices, processes, and control 
technologies for the POTW source category. We concluded that there are 
two different control options that may be used at a POTW to reduce HAP 
emissions: pretreatment programs and add-on controls (i.e., covers or 
covers vented to a control device). While we proposed specific 
revisions to the standards, none of those revisions were the result of 
any identified developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies beyond the programs and controls already in use at the 
time of the promulgation of the original 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV 
rulemaking.
    Comment: We received various comments related to the information 
evaluated for the proposal. Two commenters stated that there is no 
technical basis that requires the EPA to revise the standards since 
there have been no technology advances since 1998 that warrant a change 
in the original MACT analysis. Several commenters provided additional 
information on specific control technologies, including biofilters, 
caustic scrubbers, and carbon absorbers. One of these commenters stated 
that biofilters are not reliable control devices in the context of a 
POTW because they are designed for stable operating conditions. In 
contrast, another commenter provided information that biofilters might 
have the ability to reduce HAP in addition to hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Additional 
comments on the technology review can be found in section 3 of the 
response to comments document in the docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0490).
    Response: The EPA conducted a literature review and evaluated 
available studies and publications on the use of add-on controls and 
process modifications that are used to reduce emissions from POTW 
wastewater collection and treatment operations. As noted by the 
commenters, these technologies include biotrickling filters, the use of 
covers and ducting of the headspace vent stream to caustic scrubbers 
and carbon adsorbers, and biofiltration/biofilters. These types of 
technologies have been used historically at POTW where they provide a 
relatively high degree of H2S control for the purpose of 
preventing odor. As documented in the technology review memorandum and 
reflected in the comments received on the proposed rule, the efficacy 
of these technologies to reduce HAP emissions is highly variable and 
dependent on site-specific operating parameters. Our conclusion is that 
the experience with biofilters for controlling organics at POTW is at 
the experimental and pilot scale and that this technology has not been 
demonstrated to be commercially available and effective for controlling 
the range of HAP emitted by POTW. Thus, we do not consider this 
technology to be a development in practices, processes, or control 
technologies for purposes of this technology review. Scrubbers are 
generally not used to control emissions of organic constituents, and 
while carbon adsorbers may be effective at HAP control in certain 
applications, as used in POTW, they are generally not designed for HAP 
control. Nevertheless, 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV allows flexibility 
for POTW to develop site-specific control strategies to meet any 
applicable requirements, and such strategies could include the use of 
biologic filters and carbon adsorbers

[[Page 49520]]

that can achieve the required control levels.
    As stated in section III.B of this preamble, we did not identify 
any developments in practices, processes, or control technology with 
respect to programs and controls already in use when the 2002 POTW 
NESHAP was promulgated that warrant revisions to the standards as part 
of the technology review of the POTW NESHAP.

C. Applicability Criteria

    The 2002 POTW NESHAP established three criteria (40 CFR 
63.1580(a)(1), (2), and (3)) for determining what POTW are subject to 
the rule. Specifically, the following criteria must all be true: (1) 
You own or operate a POTW that includes a POTW treatment plant; (2) the 
POTW is a major source of HAP emissions, or an industrial POTW 
regardless of the HAP emissions; and (3) the POTW is required to 
develop and implement a pretreatment program as defined by 40 CFR 
403.8. The EPA proposed to revise the applicability criteria in order 
to clarify the original intent of the rule. Specifically, we proposed 
to revise the first and second criteria in 40 CFR 63.1580(a)(1) and (2) 
to state that your POTW is subject to the POTW NESHAP if ``(1) You own 
or operate a POTW that is a major source of HAP emissions; or (2) you 
own or operate a Group 1 POTW regardless of whether or not it is a 
major source of HAP.'' As stated in the proposal, we proposed this 
revision because we found several instances where a POTW might not 
realize they are subject to the standards, or where the applicability 
criteria could be misinterpreted to exclude facilities that are covered 
by the rule. See 81 FR 95377.
    The third applicability criterion in the 2002 POTW NESHAP states 
that ``(3) Your POTW is required to develop and implement a 
pretreatment program as defined by 40 CFR 403.8 (for a POTW owned or 
operated by a municipality, state, or intermunicipal or interstate 
agency), or your POTW would meet the general criteria for development 
and implementation of a pretreatment program (for a POTW owned or 
operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal 
government).'' We proposed revising the third criterion in 40 CFR 
63.1580(a)(3) to state ``You are subject to this subpart if your POTW 
has a design capacity to treat at least 5 million gallons of wastewater 
per day (MGD) and treats wastewater from an industrial user, and either 
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) is true.'' This proposed revision removed 
the requirement that a POTW must already have a pretreatment program in 
place in order to be subject to the rule. The proposed revisions were 
intended to clarify the intent of the rule, which was to limit 
applicability to POTW that treat at least 5 MGD and wastewater from 
industrial users.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that raised specific 
concerns related to these proposed changes. First, commenters disagreed 
that the proposed changes were necessary and stated that the proposed 
changes created confusion and changed the scope of affected sources. 
One commenter stated that the applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
VVV has been well-defined for over 17 years, and if sources are 
confused, the EPA has methods to correct any confusion without making 
rule changes.
    Several commenters specifically objected to the proposed change 
that removed pretreatment from the third applicability criterion and 
made it a requirement of the rule. These commenters stated that 
removing pretreatment as an applicability criterion and making it a 
requirement changes the source category that the EPA intended to 
control. One state commented that this proposed change would cause an 
additional 12 POTW in their state to become subject to the rule. The 
commenter explained that because the state (not the POTW) implements 
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
pretreatment program, the original rule does not apply to any POTW in 
that state.
    Response: As stated in the proposal, the EPA did not intend to 
expand the applicability criteria from the 2002 POTW NESHAP. After 
consideration of the comments received, we agree that implementing the 
proposed changes to rule applicability could have caused confusion 
among the regulated community without a demonstrable environmental 
benefit. Therefore, at this time, we are not making any substantive 
change to the 2002 POTW NESHAP third applicability criterion and are 
not adopting the proposed applicability criterion of 5 MGD. However, it 
is important to note that the requirements in the National Pretreatment 
Program do establish a 5 MGD threshold for applicability.
    In response to the apparent potential for misinterpretation of the 
regulatory text that is reflected in the state's comment, we are making 
one minor change to clarify our interpretation and the intent of 40 CFR 
63.1580(a)(3). In developing the 2002 POTW NESHAP, we wrote the rule to 
apply to POTW that receive a significant amount of HAP-containing waste 
from industrial or commercial facilities. In developing the rule 
language, we sought to define such POTW by using a regulatory criterion 
that was already established and well understood in the industry. We 
selected the criterion that the POTW be subject to a pretreatment 
program under the NPDES program because this criterion would encompass 
industrial and commercial wastes with HAP that pass through the POTW 
untreated and that could present a safety or health concern to POTW 
workers. In adopting this criterion, we did not limit applicability 
based on the entity that administers the program. In other words, the 
criterion encompasses every POTW that receives a waste stream that is 
subject to pretreatment standards, regardless of whether the standards 
are prescribed by the POTW itself or by a state or federal regulatory 
body. Thus, to make sure that the regulatory text is properly read, we 
have revised 40 CFR 63.1581(a)(3) to make clear that a POTW is subject 
to this rule if either (1) the POTW is required to develop and 
implement a pretreatment program as defined by 40 CFR 403.8, or (2) the 
POTW meets the general criteria for development and implementation of a 
pretreatment program, even if does not develop and implement the 
pretreatment program itself. Specifically, we have removed the 
parenthetical text in 40 CFR 63.1580(a)(3) that limited the first part 
of the third criterion to POTW owned or operated by a municipality, 
state, or intermunicipal or interstate agency and limited the second 
part of the third criterion to POTW owned or operated by a department, 
agency, or instrumentality of the federal government.

D. Emissions From Collection Systems

    In the 2016 proposal, we stated that HAP emissions from collection 
systems should be included when determining whether the POTW is a major 
source, and therefore, subject to the rule. Specifically, we stated 
that the 2002 applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1580(a)(2) provided 
that emissions from the entire POTW source category must be considered 
when determining whether the POTW is a major source of HAP emissions, 
and not just the emissions from the POTW treatment plant (i.e., the 
portion of the POTW designed to provide treatment of municipal sewage 
or industrial waste).
    Comment: Several commenters opposed including emissions from 
collection systems in the determination of whether a POTW is a major 
source. The commenters stated that collection systems/sewers may 
include hundreds or thousands of miles of sewers and other equipment, 
are not always under

[[Page 49521]]

the jurisdiction of the POTW, and are typically owned by another 
entity.
    We also received comments that stated the inclusion of emissions 
from collection systems for major source determination is inconsistent 
with the federal definition of a major source. One commenter stated 
that expansion of the major source definition to include collection 
sewers as part of the affected source is not authorized under section 
112 of the CAA. The commenter also stated that the equipment that 
collect and convey wastewater to a POTW treatment plant do not 
reasonably constitute a ``building, structure, facility, or 
installation'' as specified in the definition of a stationary source in 
section 112(a)(3) of the CAA, are clearly not within a contiguous area 
under common control, and should not be considered a single source. 
Commenters noted that the determination of a major source of HAP 
emissions should be limited to emission sources within the fence line 
of each treatment plant, which would be consistent with the fact that 
the emission fraction requirement of the proposed POTW NESHAP is 
limited to emissions within the treatment plant. Further, one commenter 
contended that excluding collection system emissions in POTW major 
source determinations is also supported by Alabama Power Co. v. Costle 
and EPA's response to that decision.
    Commenters also noted that the emission data reviewed by the EPA in 
developing the proposed rule represented the HAP emissions from the 
POTW treatment plant only. One commenter noted that the risk assessment 
did not include emissions from collection systems. Several commenters 
disagreed with the EPA's statement in the preamble to the proposed rule 
that collection systems may have significant HAP emissions. Some 
commenters suggested that emissions from collection systems are 
insignificant and in some cases collection systems are operated under a 
vacuum to control odors. However, none of the commenters provided data 
to demonstrate the level of HAP emissions from collection systems.
    Response: Considering these comments, the EPA is not taking final 
action at this time on any changes to the emission sources that must be 
considered when determining if a POTW is a major source of HAP 
emissions. Specifically, the EPA is not taking action on whether 
emissions from collection systems should be included in the total HAP 
emissions from a POTW. The determination of source boundaries is a 
site-specific and often a complex determination. Facilities work with 
their permitting authority to consider factors such as whether 
activities and equipment are in a contiguous area and whether they are 
under common control. In contemplating the comments, the EPA has 
decided that we do not have enough information on individual POTW, 
including information on the jurisdiction of the control of collection 
system equipment or information on whether this equipment should be 
considered contiguous with the POTW treatment plant. Also, data on HAP 
emissions from collection systems are not well understood, and we are 
not aware of accepted methods for measuring or calculating emissions 
from collection systems at this time. In addition, we understand that 
these source boundary determinations have already been made for the 
approximately 16,000 POTW through Title V applicability assessment. For 
these reasons, we are not taking final action at this time to change 
these determinations. We may take action in the future if we obtain 
additional information on source boundary issues (i.e., common control, 
contiguous area), HAP emissions, and other information related to the 
issues described above.
    With respect to new sources, we expect new sources to consult their 
permitting authorities on these matters as they plan for new 
construction. The EPA considers these determinations on source 
boundaries to be appropriately under the jurisdiction of the permitting 
authority. Accordingly, to avoid regulatory disruption, this final rule 
takes no action to change the definition of POTW. The definition of 
POTW remains the same as originally promulgated and continues to 
include ``. . . any intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, sewage 
collection systems, pumping, power and other equipment.'' Likewise, we 
are not taking final action at this time to revise the originally 
promulgated definition of the affected source. The definition of 
affected source continues to mean the ``group of all equipment that 
comprise the POTW treatment plant.''

E. Pretreatment Requirements

    As stated in section IV.C of this preamble, the EPA proposed 
removing pretreatment from the applicability criteria and making it a 
control requirement for new and existing sources. We proposed adding 
pretreatment requirements in the rule because pretreatment would reduce 
HAP emissions from the entire source category (i.e., collection systems 
and the treatment plant) by limiting the quantity of HAP in the 
wastewater before it is discharged to the collection system. The intent 
of this requirement was to reduce the pollutant loading into the POTW 
in order to reduce emissions throughout all stages of treatment.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the EPA requiring a 
pretreatment program for HAP emissions. Commenters disagreed with the 
EPA's contention that a pretreatment program will reduce emissions of 
HAP by reducing the presence of toxic gases. Specifically, commenters 
noted that a ``pretreatment program under CAA Section 112 is not the 
same as a pretreatment program under the Clean Water Act (CWA)'', as 40 
CFR 403 authorizes POTW to set pretreatment requirements for air 
contaminants for worker and plant safety, and to prevent interference 
and pass through. One commenter contended that the proposed rule 
expands the CAA regulatory framework into the CWA National Pretreatment 
Program without a legal basis.
    Additionally, several commenters opposed requiring POTW to develop 
local limits and expressed concerns about the way in which local limits 
should be determined. Instead, commenters suggested that the EPA 
establish wastewater concentration limits for HAP to identify 
pollutants that may need local limits. One commenter stated that the 
EPA should either ``regulate industrial users directly for HAP or 
provide technically-based wastewater concentrations for HAP that POTW 
could use for screening (where analytical methods exist under 40 CFR 
part 136)'' to determine the need for establishing local limits.
    Commenters also expressed concerns about the costs related to 
requiring pretreatment programs wherein POTW evaluate and set local 
limits for volatile organic HAP. The commenters stated that developing 
local limits to identify pollutants of concern, as well as identify 
potential pretreatment controls, would require significant time and 
that the significant costs these requirements would impose on POTW have 
not been quantified or justified. In contrast, one commenter stated 
that categorical limits set by the EPA pursuant to the CWA for certain 
industries could merit consideration, but additional analysis is 
required.
    Response: In response to these comments, we are not taking final 
action at this time to require pretreatment as a control requirement 
for the revised NESHAP. As explained in section IV.C of this preamble, 
we are not changing the applicability criteria for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart VVV. The existence of a

[[Page 49522]]

pretreatment program under the CWA will continue to be one of the three 
rule applicability criteria.
    The EPA Office of Water is responsible for administering the 
pretreatment program and updates the requirements of the pretreatment 
program based on the best available technology and taking into account 
cost effectiveness. As the pretreatment requirements are modified 
through future updates, additional HAP reductions may occur. Because 
all of the POTW that are subject to the rule already have pretreatment 
programs, specifically requiring pretreatment under the NESHAP would 
not reduce HAP emissions further, but could cause confusion and 
increase compliance costs. Thus, we are not finalizing any revisions at 
this time to impose additional pretreatment requirements prior to 
discharging a wastewater stream to a receiving POTW. Pretreatment will 
continue to be handled under the authority of the CWA. By retaining the 
existing regulatory structure of the NESHAP, the EPA avoids redundancy 
and confusion in having pretreatment requirements included in both air 
and water permits.

F. HAP Fraction Emitted for Existing Group 1 and Group 2 Sources

    In the 2016 proposal, we proposed that existing Group 1 and Group 2 
POTW operate with an annual rolling average HAP fraction emitted from 
primary treatment units of 0.08 or less. As stated in the proposal, we 
believed that the existing POTW we knew about could meet this standard 
without the need for additional control.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that opposed the proposed 
HAP fraction emission limit, and we received additional data to suggest 
the proposed 0.08 HAP fraction limit was not appropriate and did not 
accurately account for variability in HAP loading at individual POTW.
    Several commenters objected that merely doubling the single largest 
HAP fractions from the two available sources was not a scientifically 
or statistically valid method for setting the emission limit and stated 
that the EPA had provided no support for using the 2x factor to account 
for variability of emissions. For example, the commenters collectively 
pointed out that the two POTW on which the proposed standard was based 
were operating at half capacity, that the available data represent 
merely a snapshot in time, that other potentially regulated POTW might 
emit higher HAP fractions, and that the specific combination of HAP 
measured by the two POTW might not be representative of HAP emitted by 
other POTW. One commenter suggested that due to the uncertainty 
associated with such a small data set, the EPA should use a larger 
multiplier for setting a standard.
    Additionally, commenters stated that the EPA had underestimated the 
cost of achieving compliance with the 0.08 HAP fraction emitted 
standard. Specifically, commenters stated that in order to comply, they 
would incur capital and operating costs, in addition to the 
recordkeeping and reporting costs that the EPA accounted for in the 
proposal. One commenter stated that they would potentially need to 
install covers and controls in order to meet the HAP fraction emitted 
limit, which would be an expense of $20 to $30 million with negligible 
emission reductions. Two commenters argued that the compliance cost for 
the proposed standard was not warranted given the low public health 
risk that the EPA estimated. Commenters further recommended that the 
EPA gather more complete data from the universe of affected sources, 
conduct statistical analysis of those data, and determine a suitable 
standard based on an acceptable level of risk and variability of the 
data.
    Response: After reviewing public comments and re-evaluating our 
analysis, we are not taking final action to adopt the 0.08 HAP fraction 
emitted limit for existing Group 1 and Group 2 POTW at this time. The 
proposed HAP fraction emitted limit did not reflect the performance or 
application of a specific control technology. At proposal, we 
envisioned this limit as an enforceable numerical limit that would 
ensure performance consistent with that being achieved by existing 
sources. However, after consideration of the information provided in 
public comment, we now recognize that we do not have the comprehensive 
data on existing POTW that are necessary to conduct a sufficiently 
robust analysis. The HAP fraction emitted by different POTW is 
influenced by individual HAP vapor pressures, pollutant loadings, HAP 
concentrations, sample measurement and analytical techniques, and 
ambient conditions, which differ from POTW to POTW. Testing of influent 
loadings is limited by applicable test methods, by compounds identified 
by dischargers, and by the HAP for which air permits require sampling. 
Without sufficient data, we cannot determine an appropriate HAP 
fraction emitted limit, considering the variability in operating 
conditions that is likely to occur across even well-operated POTW. 
Moreover, at this time, we are unable to analyze the control costs for 
all affected sources or the emissions reductions that might be 
achieved. For all of these reasons, we are not taking final action on 
the proposed 0.08 HAP fraction at this time, but we may in the future 
consider promulgating a limit if we obtain further information on the 
issues discussed above.

G. New and Existing Group 1 POTW

    In addition to proposing a HAP fraction for existing Group 1 POTW, 
we also proposed other changes to the requirements for Group 1 POTW.
    The 2002 POTW NESHAP required existing Group 1 POTW to comply only 
with the requirements of the other NESHAP for which they are acting as 
an agent of control for the industrial user. We proposed that existing 
Group 1 POTW must meet both the requirements of the other NESHAP for 
which they are acting as an agent of control for an industrial user and 
the proposed requirements for existing Group 2 POTW in the POTW NESHAP 
(i.e., the proposed 0.08 HAP fraction emitted limit discussed in IV.F, 
above).
    The 2002 POTW NESHAP required new and reconstructed (which we are 
now referring to as ``new'') Group 1 POTW to comply with the more 
stringent of the following: (1) The requirements of the other NESHAP 
for which they are acting as an agent of control for the industrial 
user; or (2) the requirements applicable to new Group 2 POTW, which 
allowed the POTW to choose to meet either a requirement to (a) cover 
all equipment and route emissions through a closed vent system to a 
control device; or (b) meet a HAP fraction emission limit of 0.014 for 
emissions from all primary treatment units. We proposed that new Group 
1 POTW comply with the other NESHAP for which they are acting as an 
agent of control for an industrial user and the requirements for new 
Group 2 POTW in the 2002 POTW NESHAP. (Note that we did not propose, 
and are not finalizing, any revisions to the requirements for new Group 
2 POTW.)
1. Existing Group 1 POTW
    Comment: We received comments from one of the existing Group 1 POTW 
that expressed concern that by imposing the HAP fraction emitted limit 
on the existing Group 1 POTW with no alternative compliance option, the 
EPA had ignored existing POTW with covers and controls already in 
place. The commenter stated that new Group 1 POTW have the option of 
either installing covers or complying with the HAP fraction limit. 
However, the EPA did not provide that flexibility to

[[Page 49523]]

existing Group 1 POTW, thereby imposing an additional HAP fraction 
limit without a cover option and more onerous recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements. The commenter stated that the EPA should 
provide existing Group 1 POTW that already use covers the option of 
adding controls in lieu of complying with a HAP fraction limit.
    Response: The EPA is not taking final action on the proposed 
changes for existing Group 1 sources at this time. As explained in 
section IV.F of this preamble, we are not setting a HAP fraction limit 
for existing Group 1 or Group 2 POTW at this time; therefore, no 
additional requirements are being added for existing Group 1 POTW in 
the POTW NESHAP. Thus, as required by the 2002 POTW NESHAP, an existing 
Group 1 POTW must comply with the control requirements as specified in 
the appropriate NESHAP for the industrial user(s).
2. New Group 1 POTW
    We did not receive any comment on our proposed revision to the 
requirements for new Group 1 POTW. We proposed, and are finalizing, 
that new Group 1 POTW must (1) meet the requirements of the other 
NESHAP for which they act as an agent of control for an industrial user 
and (2) either (a) cover all equipment and route emissions through a 
closed vent system to a control device or (b) meet a HAP fraction 
emission limit of 0.014 for emissions from all primary treatment units. 
See 81 FR 95375 for our rationale for this change. Because we received 
no adverse comment on our proposal, we are finalizing these 
requirements as proposed.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The EPA estimates, based on the responses to the 2015 ICR, the 2011 
and 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and public comments 
received, that there are 13 POTW that are engaged in treatment of 
industrial wastewater and are currently subject to the POTW NESHAP. Two 
of these facilities are considered Group 1 POTW, while the remaining 
eleven are considered Group 2 POTW. All 13 currently subject to the 
POTW NESHAP have already met the notification requirements for existing 
Group 1 and Group 2 POTW. The EPA is not currently aware of any planned 
new Group 1 or Group 2 POTW that will be constructed or any existing 
Group 1 or Group 2 POTW that will be reconstructed.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual organic HAP emissions from the 13 
POTW subject to the rule are approximately 35 tpy. We expect no 
emissions of inorganic HAP from this category. The EPA does not 
anticipate any additional emission reductions from the final changes to 
the rule, and there are no anticipated new or reconstructed facilities.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The 13 entities subject to this proposal will incur only minimal 
costs related to familiarizing themselves with this rule--estimated to 
be a one-time total cost of $790 for all 13 entities. For further 
information on the requirements of this rule, see section IV of this 
preamble. For further information on the costs associated with the 
requirements of this rule, see the document titled Economic Impact 
Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works Risk and Technology Review, 
in the docket. The memorandum titled Technology Review Memorandum for 
the Publicly Owned Treatment Works Source Category, in the docket for 
this action, presents costs estimated associated with the regulatory 
options that were not selected for inclusion in this final rule (Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490).

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers 
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For 
this rule, the EPA estimated the annual cost of recordkeeping and 
reporting as a percentage of reported sewage fees received by the 
affected POTW. For the revisions promulgated in this final rule, costs 
are expected to be less than 0.001 percent of collected sewage fees, 
based on publicly available financial reports from the fiscal year 
ending in 2015 for the affected entities.
    In addition, the EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on 
small businesses by comparing estimated population served by the 
affected entities to the population limit set forth by the U.S. Small 
Business Administration. The screening analysis found that the 
population served for all affected entities is greater than the limit 
qualifying a public entity as a small business.
    More information and details of the EPA's analysis of the economic 
impacts, including the conclusions stated above, are provided in the 
technical document, Final Economic Impact Analysis for the Publicly 
Owned Treatment Works National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants Risk and Technology Review, which is available in the docket 
for this final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490).

E. What are the benefits?

    We do not anticipate any significant reductions in HAP emissions as 
a result of these final amendments. However, we think that the 
amendments will help to enhance the clarity of the rule, which can 
improve compliance and minimize emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    We examined the potential for any environmental justice concerns 
that might be associated with this source category by performing a 
demographic analysis of the population close to the six POTW that were 
modeled for source category risk.\4\ In this analysis, we evaluated the 
distribution of HAP-related cancer and non-cancer risks from the POTW 
source category across different social, demographic, and economic 
groups within the populations living near facilities identified as 
having the highest risks. The methodology and the results of the 
demographic analyses are included in a technical report, Risk and 
Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations 
Living Near POTW Facilities, available in the docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490). The results for various 
demographic groups are based on the estimated risks from actual 
emissions levels for the population living within 50 kilometers (km) of 
the facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See section IV.A of this preamble for an explanation of the 
residual risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the POTW source category demographic analysis 
indicate that actual emissions from the source category expose no 
person to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic non-
cancer TOSHI greater than 1. Therefore, we conclude that this final 
rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. However, this final rule may provide additional benefits 
to these demographic groups by improving the compliance and 
implementation of the NESHAP. The demographics of the population living 
within 50 km of POTW can be found in Table 2 of the document titled 
Risk and Technology

[[Page 49524]]

Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Publicly Owned Treatment Works, available in the docket for this final 
rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490).

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. The results of the POTW source category demographic analysis 
indicate that actual emissions from the source category expose no 
person to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic non-
cancer TOSHI greater than 1. Therefore, the analysis shows that actual 
emissions from the POTW source category are not expected to have an 
adverse human health effect on children.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that 
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1891.08. You can find 
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information to be collected includes the initial notification 
that the POTW is subject to the rule. However, as stated in this 
preamble, the 13 sources that we already know about have already met 
this initial notification requirement and are not required to submit an 
additional notification. The information will be used to identify 
sources subject to the standards.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are owners and operators of POTW. The NAICS 
code for the respondents affected by the standard is 221320 (Sewage 
Treatment Facilities), which corresponds to the United States Standard 
Industrial Classification code 4952 (Sewerage Systems).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Respondents are obligated to 
respond in accordance with the notification requirements under 40 CFR 
63.1591(a).
    Estimated number of respondents: Zero.
    Frequency of response: One response.
    Total estimated burden: 0 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $0 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital 
or operation and maintenance costs.
    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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no 
small entities affected in this regulated industry. See the technical 
document, Final Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works 
Risk and Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this 
final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490) for more detail.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. As discussed in section II.B.1 of this preamble, 
we have identified only 13 POTW that are subject to this final rule and 
none of those POTW are owned or operated by tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III.A and B and sections IV.A and B of this preamble and the 
Residual Risk Report memorandum contained in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section III.A.6 
of this preamble and in the corresponding

[[Page 49525]]

technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-
Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Publicly Owned Treatment 
Works, available in the docket for this action. The proximity results 
indicate, for eight of the 11 demographic categories, that the 
population percentages within 5 km and 50 km of source category 
emissions are greater than the corresponding national percentage for 
those same demographics. However, the results of the risk analysis 
presented in section III.A.6 of this preamble and in the corresponding 
technical report indicate that actual emissions from the source 
category expose no person to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million 
or to a chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 16, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart VVV to read as follows:
Subpart VVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Applicability

Sec.
63.1580 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.1581 Does the subpart distinguish between different types of POTW 
treatment plants?

Requirements for Group 1 POTW Treatment Plants

63.1582 [Reserved]
63.1583 What are the emission points and control requirements for a 
Group 1 POTW treatment plant?
63.1584 [Reserved]
63.1585 How does a Group 1 POTW treatment plant demonstrate 
compliance?

Requirements for Group 1 and Group 2 POTW Treatment Plants

63.1586 What are the emission points and control requirements for a 
Group 1 or Group 2 POTW?
63.1587 When do I have to comply?
63.1588 How do Group 1 and Group 2 POTW treatment plants demonstrate 
compliance?
63.1589 What records must I keep?
63.1590 What reports must I submit?
63.1591 What are my notification requirements?
63.1592 Which General Provisions apply to my POTW treatment plant?
63.1593 [Reserved]
63.1594 Who enforces this subpart?
63.1595 List of definitions.
Table 1 to Subpart VVV of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR part 63 
General Provisions to Subpart VVV
Table 2 to Subpart VVV of Part 63--Compliance Dates and Requirements

Subpart VVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Applicability


Sec.  63.1580   Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if the following are all true:
    (1) You own or operate a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) that 
includes an affected source (Sec.  63.1595);
    (2) The affected source is located at a Group 2 POTW which is a 
major source of HAP emissions, or at any Group 1 POTW regardless of 
whether or not it is a major source of HAP; and
    (3) Your POTW is required to develop and implement a pretreatment 
program as defined by 40 CFR 403.8, or your POTW meets the general 
criteria for development and implementation of a pretreatment program.
    (b) If your existing POTW treatment plant is not located at a major 
source as of October 26, 1999, but thereafter becomes a major source 
for any reason other than reconstruction, then, for the purpose of this 
subpart, your POTW treatment plant would be considered an existing 
source.

    Note to paragraph (b): See Sec.  63.2 of the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) General Provisions 
in subpart A of this part for the definitions of major source and 
area source.

    (c) If you commence construction or reconstruction of your POTW 
treatment plant after December 1, 1998, then the requirements for a new 
POTW apply.


Sec.  63.1581   Does the subpart distinguish between different types of 
POTW treatment plants?

    Yes, POTW treatment plants are divided into two subcategories: 
Group 1 POTW treatment plants and Group 2 POTW treatment plants, as 
described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) Your POTW is a Group 1 POTW treatment plant if an industrial 
user complies with its NESHAP by using the treatment and controls 
located at your POTW treatment plant. Your POTW treatment plant accepts 
the regulated waste stream and provides treatment and controls as an 
agent for the industrial user. Group 1 POTW treatment plant is defined 
in Sec.  63.1595.
    (b) Your POTW is a Group 2 POTW treatment plant if your POTW treats 
wastewater that is not subject to control by another NESHAP or the 
industrial user does not comply with its NESHAP by using the treatment 
and controls located at your POTW treatment plant. ``Group 2 POTW 
treatment plant'' is defined in Sec.  63.1595.
    (c) If, in the future, an industrial user complies with its NESHAP 
by using the treatment and controls located at your POTW treatment 
plant, then your Group 2 POTW treatment plant becomes a Group 1 POTW 
treatment plant on the date your POTW begins treating that regulated 
industrial wastewater stream.

Requirements for Group 1 POTW Treatment Plants


Sec.  63.1582  [Reserved]


Sec.  63.1583  What are the emission points and control requirements 
for a Group 1 POTW treatment plant?

    (a) The emission points and control requirements for an existing 
Group 1 POTW treatment plant are specified in the appropriate NESHAP 
for the industrial user(s).
    (b) The emission points and control requirements for a new Group 1 
POTW treatment plant are both those specified by the appropriate NESHAP 
which apply to the industrial user(s) who discharge their waste for 
treatment to the POTW, and those emission points and control 
requirements set forth in Sec.  63.1586(b) or (c), as applicable.
    (c) If your existing or new Group 1 POTW treatment plant accepts 
one or more specific regulated industrial waste streams as part of 
compliance with one or more other NESHAP, then you are subject to all 
the requirements of each appropriate NESHAP for each waste stream.
    (d) At all times, the POTW must operate and maintain any affected 
source, including associated air

[[Page 49526]]

pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner 
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for 
minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not 
require the POTW to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.


Sec.  63.1584  [Reserved]


Sec.  63.1585  How does a Group 1 POTW treatment plant demonstrate 
compliance?

    (a) An existing Group 1 POTW treatment plant demonstrates 
compliance by operating treatment and control devices which meet all 
requirements specified in the appropriate NESHAP. Requirements may 
include performance tests, routine monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting.
    (b) A new Group 1 POTW treatment plant demonstrates compliance by 
operating treatment and control devices which meet all requirements 
specified in the appropriate NESHAP and by meeting the requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.1586, as applicable, as well as the applicable 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.1588 through 63.1595.

Requirements for Group 1 and Group 2 POTW Treatment Plants


Sec.  63.1586  What are the emission points and control requirements 
for a Group 1 or Group 2 POTW?

    (a) An existing Group 1 or Group 2 POTW treatment plant must comply 
with the initial notification requirements in Sec.  63.1591(a).
    (b) Cover and control standard. Except as provided in paragraph (c) 
of this section, new Group 1 and Group 2 POTW treatment plants must 
install covers on the emission points up to, but not including, the 
secondary influent pumping station or the secondary treatment units. 
These emission points are treatment units that include, but are not 
limited to, influent waste stream conveyance channels, bar screens, 
grit chambers, grinders, pump stations, aerated feeder channels, 
primary clarifiers, primary effluent channels, and primary screening 
stations. In addition, all covered units, except primary clarifiers, 
must have the air in the headspace underneath the cover ducted to a 
control device in accordance with the standards for closed-vent systems 
and control devices in Sec.  63.693 of subpart DD--National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-site Waste and Recovery 
Operations of this part, except you may substitute visual inspections 
for leak detection rather than Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60 of 
this chapter. Covers must meet the following requirements:
    (1) Covers must be tightly fitted and designed and operated to 
prevent exposure of the wastewater to the atmosphere. This includes, 
but is not limited to, the absence of visible cracks, holes, or gaps in 
the roof sections or between the roof and the supporting wall; broken, 
cracked, or otherwise damaged seals or gaskets on closure devices; and 
broken or missing hatches, access covers, caps, or other closure 
devices.
    (2) If wastewater is in a treatment unit, each opening in the cover 
must be maintained in a closed, sealed position, unless plant personnel 
are present and conducting wastewater or sludge sampling, or equipment 
inspection, maintenance, or repair.
    (c) HAP fraction emitted standard. As an alternative to the 
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, a new Group 1 and Group 
2 POTW treatment plant may comply by demonstrating, for all emission 
points up to, but not including, the secondary influent pumping station 
or the secondary treatment units, that the annual rolling average HAP 
fraction emitted (calculated as specified in Sec.  63.1588(c)(3)) does 
not exceed 0.014. You must demonstrate that for your POTW treatment 
plant, the sum of all HAP emissions from these units divided by the sum 
of all HAP mass loadings to the POTW treatment plant results in an 
annual rolling average of the HAP fraction emitted of no greater than 
0.014. You may use any combination of pretreatment, wastewater 
treatment plant modifications, and control devices to achieve this 
performance standard.
    (d) At all times, the POTW must operate and maintain any affected 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty 
to minimize emissions does not require the POTW to make any further 
efforts to reduce emissions if the requirements of the applicable 
standard have been met. Determination of whether a source is operating 
in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based 
on information available to the Administrator, which may include, but 
is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and 
maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, 
and inspection of the source.


Sec.  63.1587  When do I have to comply?

    Sources subject to this subpart are required to achieve compliance 
on or before the dates specified in table 2 of this subpart.


Sec.  63.1588  How do Group 1 and Group 2 POTW treatment plants 
demonstrate compliance?

    (a) If you are complying with Sec.  63.1586(b) by using covers, you 
must conduct the following inspections:
    (1) You must visually check the cover and its closure devices for 
defects that could result in air emissions. Defects include, but are 
not limited to, visible cracks, holes, or gaps in the roof sections or 
between the roof and the supporting wall; broken, cracked, or otherwise 
damaged seals or gaskets on closure devices; and broken or missing 
hatches, access covers, caps, or other closure devices.
    (2) You must perform an initial visual inspection within 60 
calendar days of becoming subject to this NESHAP and perform follow-up 
inspections at least once per year, thereafter.
    (3) In the event that you find a defect on a cover on a treatment 
unit in use, you must repair the defect within 45 calendar days. If you 
cannot repair within 45 calendar days, you must notify the EPA or the 
delegated authority immediately and report the reason for the delay and 
the date you expect to complete the repair. If you find a defect on a 
cover on a treatment unit that is not in service, you must repair the 
defect prior to putting the treatment unit back in wastewater service.
    (b) If you own or operate a control device used to meet the 
requirements for Sec.  63.1586(b), you must comply with the inspection 
and monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.695(c) of subpart DD of this 
part.
    (c) To comply with the HAP fraction emitted standard specified in 
Sec.  63.1586(c), you must develop, to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator, an Inspection and Monitoring Plan. This Inspection and 
Monitoring Plan must include, at a minimum, the following:
    (1) A method to determine the influent HAP mass loading, i.e., the 
annual mass quantity for each HAP entering the wastewater treatment 
plant.

[[Page 49527]]

    (2) A method to determine your POTW treatment plant's annual HAP 
emissions for all units up to, but not including, the secondary 
influent pumping station or the secondary treatment units. The method 
you use to determine your HAP emissions, such as modeling or direct 
source measurement, must:
    (i) Be approved by the Administrator for use at your POTW;
    (ii) Account for all factors affecting emissions from your POTW 
treatment plant including, but not limited to, emissions from 
wastewater treatment units; emissions resulting from inspection, 
maintenance, and repair activities; fluctuations (e.g., daily, monthly, 
annual, seasonal) in your influent wastewater HAP concentrations; 
annual industrial loading; performance of control devices; or any other 
factors that could affect your annual HAP emissions; and
    (iii) Include documentation that the values and sources of all 
data, operating conditions, assumptions, etc., used in your method 
result in an accurate estimation of annual emissions from your POTW 
treatment plant.
    (3) A method to demonstrate that your POTW treatment plant meets 
the HAP fraction emitted standard specified in Sec.  63.1586(c), i.e., 
the sum of all HAP emissions from paragraph (c)(2) of this section 
divided by the sum of all HAP mass loadings from paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section results in a fraction emitted of 0.014 or less to 
demonstrate compliance with Sec.  63.1586(c). The Inspection and 
Monitoring Plan must require, at a minimum, that you perform the 
calculations shown in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (viii) of this 
section within 90 days of the end of each month. This calculation shall 
demonstrate that your annual rolling average of the HAP fraction 
emitted is 0.014 or less when demonstrating compliance with Sec.  
63.1586(c).
    (i) Determine the average daily flow in million gallons per day 
(MGD) of the wastewater entering your POTW treatment plant for the 
month;
    (ii) Determine the flow-weighted monthly concentration of each HAP 
listed in Table 1 to subpart DD of this part that is reasonably 
anticipated to be present in your influent;
    (iii) Using the information in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of 
this section, determine a total annual flow-weighted loading in pounds 
per day (lbs/day) of each HAP entering your POTW treatment plant;
    (iv) Sum up the values for each individual HAP loading in paragraph 
(c)(3)(iii) of this section and determine a total annual flow-weighted 
loading value (lbs/day) for all HAP entering your POTW treatment plant 
for the current month;
    (v) Based on the current month's information in paragraph 
(c)(3)(iii) of this section along with source testing and emission 
modeling, for each HAP, determine the annual emissions (lbs/day) from 
all wastewater units up to, but not including, secondary treatment 
units;
    (vi) Sum up the values in paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this section and 
calculate the total annual emissions value for the month for all HAP 
from all wastewater treatment units up to, but not including, secondary 
treatment units;
    (vii) Calculate the HAP fraction emitted value for the month, using 
Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC17.018

Where:

femonthly = HAP fraction emitted for the previous month
[sum]E = Total HAP emissions value from paragraph (c)(3)(vi) of this 
section
[sum]L = Total annual loading from paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this 
section

    (viii) Average the HAP fraction emitted value for the month 
determined in paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section, with the values 
determined for the previous 11 months, to calculate an annual rolling 
average of the HAP fraction emitted.
    (4) A method to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator, that your POTW treatment plant is in continuous 
compliance with the requirements of Sec.  63.1586(c). Continuous 
compliance means that your emissions, when averaged over the course of 
a year, do not exceed the level of emissions that allows your POTW to 
comply with Sec.  63.1586(c). For example, you may identify a 
parameter(s) that you can monitor that assures your emissions, when 
averaged over the entire year, will meet the requirements in Sec.  
63.1586(c). Some example parameters that may be considered for 
monitoring include your wastewater influent HAP concentration and flow, 
industrial loading from your permitted industrial users, and your 
control device performance criteria. Where emission reductions are due 
to proper operation of equipment, work practices, or other operational 
procedures, your demonstration must specify the frequency of 
inspections and the number of days to completion of repairs.
    (d) Prior to receiving approval on the Inspection and Monitoring 
Plan, you must follow the plan submitted to the Administrator as 
specified in Sec.  63.1590(f).


Sec.  63.1589  What records must I keep?

    (a) To comply with the cover and control standard specified in 
Sec.  63.1586(b), you must prepare and maintain the records required in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
    (1) A record for each treatment unit inspection required by Sec.  
63.1588(a). You must include a treatment unit identification number (or 
other unique identification description as selected by you) and the 
date of inspection.
    (2) For each defect detected during inspections required by Sec.  
63.1588(a), you must record the location of the defect, a description 
of the defect, the date of detection, the corrective action taken to 
repair the defect, and the date the repair to correct the defect is 
completed.
    (3) If repair of the defect is delayed as described in Sec.  
63.1588(a)(3), you must also record the reason for the delay and the 
date you expect to complete the repair.
    (4) If you own or operate a control device used to meet the 
requirements for Sec.  63.1586(b), you must comply with the 
recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.696(a), (b), (g), and (h).
    (b) To comply with the HAP fraction emitted standard specified in 
Sec.  63.1586(c), you must prepare and maintain the records required in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) A record of the methods and data used to determine your POTW 
treatment plant's annual HAP loading and HAP emissions as determined in 
Sec.  63.1588(c)(1) and (2) as part of your Inspection and Monitoring 
Plan;
    (2) A record of the methods and data used to determine that your 
POTW treatment plant meets the HAP fraction emitted standard of 0.014 
or less, as determined in Sec.  63.1588(c)(3) as part of your 
Inspection and Monitoring Plan; and
    (3) A record of the methods and data that demonstrates that your 
POTW treatment plant is in continuous compliance with the requirements 
of Sec.  63.1588(c)(4) to calculate annual emissions as specified in 
your Inspection and Monitoring Plan.
    (c) The POTW must record the malfunction information specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure, record the 
date, time, and duration of the failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment,

[[Page 49528]]

an estimate of the tons per year of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over any emission limit and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
    (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.1583(d) or Sec.  63.1586(d) and any corrective actions taken 
to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) may be maintained in electronic format. 
This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the 
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available 
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site 
compliance evaluation.


Sec.  63.1590   What reports must I submit?

    (a) An existing Group 1 POTW must meet the reporting requirements 
specified in the appropriate NESHAP for the industrial user(s).
    (b) A new Group 1 or Group 2 POTW must submit annual reports 
containing the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) 
of this section, if applicable. You must submit annual reports 
following the procedure specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. 
For new units, the initial annual report is due 15 months after your 
POTW becomes subject to the requirements in this subpart and must cover 
the first 12 months of operation after your POTW becomes subject to the 
requirements of this subpart. Subsequent annual reports are due by the 
same date each year as the initial annual report and must contain 
information for the 12-month period following the 12-month period 
included in the previous annual report.
    (1) The general information specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and 
(ii) of this section must be included in all reports.
    (i) The company name, POTW treatment plant name, and POTW treatment 
plant address, including county where the POTW is located; and
    (ii) Beginning and ending dates of the reporting period.
    (2) If you use covers to comply with the requirements of Sec.  
63.1586(b), you must submit the following:
    (i) The dates of each visual inspection conducted;
    (ii) The defects found during each visual inspection; and
    (iii) For each defect found during a visual inspection, how the 
defects were repaired, whether the repair has been completed, and 
either the date each repair was completed or the date each repair is 
expected to be completed.
    (3) If you comply with the HAP fraction emitted standard in Sec.  
63.1586(c), you must submit each value of the annual rolling average 
HAP fraction emitted as calculated in Sec.  63.1588(c)(3)(vii) for the 
period covered by the annual report. Identify each value by the final 
month included in the calculation.
    (4) If a source fails to meet an applicable standard, report such 
events in the annual report. Report the number of failures to meet an 
applicable standard. For each instance, report the start date, start 
time, and duration of each failure, as well as a list of the affected 
sources or equipment. If you comply with the cover and control standard 
in Sec.  63.1586(b), for each failure, the report must include the 
percent control achieved. If you comply with the HAP fraction emitted 
standard in Sec.  63.1586(c), for each failure, the report must include 
the HAP fraction emitted. You must include an estimate of the tons per 
year of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions in the report.
    (5) You must submit the report to the Administrator at the 
appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13, unless the Administrator 
agrees to or species an alternate reporting method. Beginning on 
October 28, 2019 or once the reporting form has been available in CEDRI 
for 1 year, whichever is later, you must submit subsequent annual 
reports to the EPA via CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX)(https://cdx.epa.gov/)). You must use the 
appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI Web site for this 
subpart or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI Web site 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). The date report templates 
become available in CEDRI will be listed on the CEDRI Web site. The 
reports must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, 
regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. If you 
claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI 
is confidential business information (CBI), you shall submit a complete 
report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) 
schema listed on the EPA's CEDRI Web site, including information 
claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly 
used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall 
be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this 
paragraph.
    (c) If you own or operate a control device used to meet the cover 
and control standard in Sec.  63.1586(b), you must submit the 
notifications and reports required by Sec.  63.697(b), including a 
notification of performance tests; a performance test report; a 
malfunction report; and a summary report. These notifications and 
reports must be submitted to the Administrator, except for performance 
test reports. Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each 
performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by subpart DD of 
this part, you must submit the results of the performance test 
following the procedure specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(https://www.epa/gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI. Performance test 
data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of 
the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file format consistent with 
the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13 of 
subpart A of this part, unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies 
an alternate reporting method.
    (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information 
being submitted under paragraph (b)(1) of this section is CBI, you must 
submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an 
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 
EPA's ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on a 
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI 
and mailed to U.S. EPA/

[[Page 49529]]

OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via 
the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (d) You must comply with the delay of repair reporting required in 
Sec.  63.1588(a)(3).
    (e) You may apply to the Administrator for a waiver of 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements by complying with the 
requirements of Sec.  63.10(f). Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot 
be waived.
    (f) To comply with the HAP fraction emitted standard specified in 
Sec.  63.1586(c), you must submit, for approval by the Administrator, 
an Inspection and Monitoring Plan explaining your compliance approach 
90 calendar days prior to beginning operation of your new POTW or by 
April 24, 2018, whichever is later.
    (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of 
either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, 
you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting 
a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of 
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in 
writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or 
through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or 
caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a 
written description identifying the date, time and length of the 
outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures 
taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a 
date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the 
reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you 
reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The 
decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, 
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an 
event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to 
the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a 
claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from 
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within 
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature 
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, 
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the 
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to 
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a 
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to 
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by 
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting 
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In 
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after 
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of 
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is 
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.


Sec.  63.1591   What are my notification requirements?

    (a) You must submit an initial notification that your POTW 
treatment plant is subject to these standards as specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) If you have an existing Group 1 or Group 2 POTW treatment 
plant, you must submit an initial notification by October 26, 2018.
    (2) If you have a new Group 1 or Group 2 POTW treatment plant, you 
must submit an initial notification upon startup.
    (b) The initial notification must include the information included 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Your name and address;
    (2) The address (i.e., physical location) of your POTW treatment 
plant;
    (3) An identification of these standards as the basis of the 
notification and your POTW treatment plant's compliance date; and
    (4) A brief description of the nature, size, design, and method of 
operation of your POTW treatment plant, including its operating design 
capacity and an identification of each point of emission for each HAP, 
or if a definitive identification is not yet possible, a preliminary 
identification of each point of emission for each HAP.
    (c) You must submit a notification of compliance status as required 
in Sec.  63.9(h), as specified below:
    (1) If you comply with Sec.  63.1586(b) and use covers on the 
emission points and route air in the headspace underneath the cover to 
a control device, you must submit a notification of compliance status 
as specified in Sec.  63.9(h) that includes a description of the POTW 
treatment units and installed covers, as well as the information 
required for control devices including the performance test results.
    (2) If you comply with Sec.  63.1586(c) by meeting the HAP fraction 
emitted standard, submission of the Inspection and Monitoring Plan as 
required in Sec.  63.1588(c) and Sec.  63.1590(f) meets the requirement 
for submitting a notification of compliance status report in Sec.  
63.9(h).
    (d) You must notify the Administrator, within 30 calendar days of 
discovering that you are out of compliance with an applicable 
requirement of this subpart, including the following:
    (1) The requirement to route the air in the headspace underneath 
the cover of all units equipped with covers, except primary clarifiers, 
to a control device as specified in Sec.  63.1586(b).
    (2) The HAP fraction emitted standard as specified in Sec.  
63.1586(c).
    (3) The requirement to operate and maintain the affected source as 
specified in Sec.  63.1586(d).
    (4) The requirement to inspect covers annually and repair defects 
as specified in Sec.  63.1588(a).
    (5) The requirement to comply with the inspection and monitoring 
requirements of Sec.  63.695(c) as specified in Sec.  63.1588(b).
    (6) The procedures specified in an Inspection and Monitoring Plan 
prepared as specified in Sec.  63.1588(c).
    (7) The requirements specified in an appropriate NESHAP for which 
the Group 1 POTW treatment plan treats regulated industrial waste as 
specified in Sec.  63.1583(a) or (b), as applicable.

[[Page 49530]]

Sec.  63.1592   Which General Provisions apply to my POTW treatment 
plant?

    (a) Table 1 to this subpart lists the General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A) which do and do not apply to POTW treatment plants.
    (b) Unless a permit is otherwise required by law, the owner or 
operator of a Group 1 POTW treatment plant which is not a major source 
is exempt from the permitting requirements established by 40 CFR part 
70.


Sec.  63.1593   [Reserved]


Sec.  63.1594   Who enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA, 
or a delegated authority such as the applicable state, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a 
state, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the 
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. 
Contact the applicable U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if 
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to a state, 
local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of 
this section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot 
be delegated to the state, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.  
63.1580, 63.1583, and 63.1586 through 63.1588.
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in 
this subpart.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in this subpart.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in 
this subpart.
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.


Sec.  63.1595   List of definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    Affected source means the group of all equipment that comprise the 
POTW treatment plant.
    Cover means a device that prevents or reduces air pollutant 
emissions to the atmosphere by forming a continuous barrier over the 
waste material managed in a treatment unit. A cover may have openings 
(such as access hatches, sampling ports, gauge wells) that are 
necessary for operation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of the 
treatment unit on which the cover is used. A cover may be a separate 
piece of equipment which can be detached and removed from the treatment 
unit, or a cover may be formed by structural features permanently 
integrated into the design of the treatment unit. The cover and its 
closure devices must be made of suitable materials that will prevent 
exposure of the waste material to the atmosphere and will maintain the 
integrity of the cover and its closure devices throughout its intended 
service life.
    Existing source or existing POTW means a POTW that commenced 
construction on or before December 1, 1998, and has not been 
reconstructed after December 1, 1998.
    Fraction emitted means the fraction of the mass of HAP entering the 
POTW wastewater treatment plant which is emitted prior to secondary 
treatment.
    Group 1 POTW means a POTW that accepts a waste stream regulated by 
another NESHAP and provides treatment and controls as an agent for the 
industrial user. The industrial user complies with its NESHAP by using 
the treatment and controls located at the POTW. For example, an 
industry discharges its benzene-containing waste stream to the POTW for 
treatment to comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF--National Emission 
Standard for Benzene Waste Operations. This definition does not include 
POTW treating waste streams not specifically regulated under another 
NESHAP.
    Group 2 POTW means a POTW that does not meet the definition of a 
Group 1 POTW. A Group 2 POTW can treat a waste stream that is either:
    (1) Not specifically regulated by another NESHAP, or
    (2) From an industrial user that complies with the specific 
wastewater requirements in their applicable NESHAP prior to discharging 
the waste stream to the POTW.
    Industrial user means a nondomestic source introducing any 
pollutant or combination of pollutants into a POTW. Industrial users 
can be commercial or industrial facilities whose wastes enter local 
sewers.
    New source or new POTW means any POTW that commenced construction 
or reconstruction after December 1, 1998.
    Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) means a treatment works, as 
that term is defined by section 112(e)(5) of the Clean Air Act, which 
is owned by a municipality (as defined by section 502(4) of the Clean 
Water Act), a state, an intermunicipal or interstate agency, or any 
department, agency, or instrumentality of the federal government. This 
definition includes any intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, sewage 
collection systems, pumping, power, and other equipment. The wastewater 
treated by these facilities is generated by industrial, commercial, and 
domestic sources. As used in this subpart, the term POTW refers to both 
any publicly owned treatment works which is owned by a state, 
municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency and, therefore, 
eligible to receive grant assistance under the Subchapter II of the 
Clean Water Act, and any federally owned treatment works as that term 
is described in section 3023 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
    POTW treatment plant means that portion of the POTW which is 
designed to provide treatment (including recycling and reclamation) of 
municipal sewage and industrial waste.
    Secondary treatment means treatment processes, typically 
biological, designed to reduce the concentrations of dissolved and 
colloidal organic matter in wastewater.
    Waste and wastewater means a material, or spent or used water or 
waste, generated from residential, industrial, commercial, mining, or 
agricultural operations or from community activities that contain 
dissolved or suspended matter, and that is discarded, discharged, or is 
being accumulated, stored, or physically, chemically, thermally, or 
biologically treated in a publicly owned treatment works.

      Table 1 to Subpart VVV of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions to Subpart VVV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   General provisions reference               Applicable to subpart VVV                     Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.......................  .............................................  Applicability.
Sec.   63.1(a)(1).................  Yes..........................................  Terms defined in the Clean
                                                                                    Air Act.
Sec.   63.1(a)(2).................  Yes..........................................  General applicability
                                                                                    explanation.
Sec.   63.1(a)(3).................  Yes..........................................  Cannot diminish a stricter
                                                                                    NESHAP.

[[Page 49531]]

 
Sec.   63.1(a)(4).................  Yes..........................................  Not repetitive. Doesn't apply
                                                                                    to section 112(r).
Sec.   63.1(a)(5).................  Yes..........................................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)-(8).............  Yes..........................................  Contacts and authorities.
Sec.   63.1(a)(9).................  Yes..........................................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)................  Yes..........................................  Time period definition.
Sec.   63.1(a)(11)................  Yes..........................................  Postmark explanation.
Sec.   63.1(a)(12)-(14)...........  Yes..........................................  Time period changes.
                                                                                    Regulation conflict. Force
                                                                                    and effect of subpart A.
Sec.   63.1(b)(1).................  Yes..........................................  Initial applicability
                                                                                    determination of subpart A.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2).................  Yes..........................................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.1(b)(3).................  No...........................................  Subpart VVV specifies
                                                                                    recordkeeping of records of
                                                                                    applicability determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1).................  Yes..........................................  Requires compliance with both
                                                                                    subparts A and subpart VVV.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)(i)..............  No...........................................  State options regarding title
                                                                                    V permit. Unless required by
                                                                                    the State, area sources
                                                                                    subject to subpart VVV are
                                                                                    exempted from permitting
                                                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)(ii)-(iii).......  No...........................................  State options regarding title
                                                                                    V permit.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3).................  Yes..........................................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.1(c)(4).................  Yes..........................................  Extension of compliance.
Sec.   63.1(c)(5).................  No...........................................  Subpart VVV addresses area
                                                                                    sources becoming major due
                                                                                    to increase in emissions.
Sec.   63.1(d)....................  Yes..........................................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.1(e)....................  Yes..........................................  Title V permit before a
                                                                                    relevant standard is
                                                                                    established.
Sec.   63.2.......................  Yes..........................................  Definitions.
Sec.   63.3.......................  Yes..........................................  Units and abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4.......................  .............................................  Prohibited activities and
                                                                                    circumvention.
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(3).............  Yes..........................................  Prohibits operation in
                                                                                    violation of subpart A.
Sec.   63.4(a)(4).................  Yes..........................................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.4(a)(5).................  Yes..........................................  Compliance dates.
Sec.   63.4(b)....................  Yes..........................................  Circumvention.
Sec.   63.4(c)....................  Yes..........................................  Severability.
Sec.   63.5.......................  .............................................  Preconstruction review and
                                                                                    notification requirements.
Sec.   63.5(a)(1).................  Yes..........................................  Construction and
                                                                                    reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(a)(2).................  Yes..........................................  New source--effective dates.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1).................  Yes..........................................  New sources subject to
                                                                                    relevant standards.
Sec.   63.5(b)(2).................  Yes..........................................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.5(b)(3).................  Yes..........................................  No new major sources without
                                                                                    Administrator approval.
Sec.   63.5(b)(4).................  Yes..........................................  New major source
                                                                                    notification.
Sec.   63.5(b)(5).................  Yes..........................................  New major sources must
                                                                                    comply.
Sec.   63.5(b)(6).................  Yes..........................................  New equipment added
                                                                                    considered part of major
                                                                                    source.
Sec.   63.5(c)....................  Yes..........................................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.5(d)(1).................  Yes..........................................  Implementation of section
                                                                                    112(I)(2)--application of
                                                                                    approval of new source
                                                                                    construction.
Sec.   63.5(d)(2).................  Yes..........................................  Application for approval of
                                                                                    construction for new sources
                                                                                    listing and describing
                                                                                    planned air pollution
                                                                                    control system.
Sec.   63.5(d)(3).................  Yes..........................................  Application for
                                                                                    reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(d)(4).................  Yes..........................................  Administrator may request
                                                                                    additional information.
Sec.   63.5(e)....................  Yes..........................................  Approval of reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)(1).................  Yes..........................................  Approval based on State
                                                                                    review.
Sec.   63.5(f)(2).................  Yes..........................................  Application deadline.
Sec.   63.6.......................  .............................................  Compliance with standards and
                                                                                    maintenance requirements.
Sec.   63.6(a)....................  Yes..........................................  Applicability of compliance
                                                                                    with standards and
                                                                                    maintenance requirements.
Sec.   63.6(b)....................  Yes..........................................  Compliance dates for new and
                                                                                    reconstructed sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)....................  Yes..........................................  Compliance dates for existing
                                                                                    sources apply to existing
                                                                                    Group 1 POTW treatment
                                                                                    plants.
Sec.   63.6(d)....................  Yes..........................................  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)....................  Yes, except as noted below...................  Operation and maintenance
                                                                                    requirements apply to new
                                                                                    sources.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..............  No...........................................  General duty; See Sec.
                                                                                    63.1583(d) and Sec.
                                                                                    63.1586(d) for general duty
                                                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).............  No...........................................  Requirement to correct
                                                                                    malfunctions.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).................  No...........................................  SSM plans are not required
                                                                                    for POTW.
Sec.   63.6(f)....................  Yes, except as noted below...................  Compliance with non-opacity
                                                                                    emission standards applies
                                                                                    to new sources.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).................  No...........................................  The POTW standards apply at
                                                                                    all times.
Sec.   63.6(g)....................  Yes..........................................  Use of alternative non-
                                                                                    opacity emission standards
                                                                                    applies to new sources.
Sec.   63.6(h)....................  No...........................................  POTW treatment plants do not
                                                                                    typically have visible
                                                                                    emissions.
Sec.   63.6(i)....................  Yes..........................................  Extension of compliance with
                                                                                    emission standards applies
                                                                                    to new sources.
Sec.   63.6(j)....................  Yes..........................................  Presidential exemption from
                                                                                    compliance with emission
                                                                                    standards.
Sec.   63.7.......................  .............................................  Performance testing
                                                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.7(a)....................  Yes..........................................  Performance testing is
                                                                                    required for new sources.
Sec.   63.7(b)....................  Yes..........................................  New sources must notify the
                                                                                    Administrator of intention
                                                                                    to conduct performance
                                                                                    testing.
Sec.   63.7(c)....................  Yes..........................................  New sources must comply with
                                                                                    quality assurance program
                                                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.7(d)....................  Yes..........................................  New sources must provide
                                                                                    performance testing
                                                                                    facilities at the request of
                                                                                    the Administrator.
Sec.   63.7(e)....................  Yes, except as noted below...................  Requirements for conducting
                                                                                    performance tests apply to
                                                                                    new sources.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).................  No...........................................  The performance testing
                                                                                    provisions of Sec.   63.694
                                                                                    for control devices are
                                                                                    incorporated by reference
                                                                                    into subpart DD of this
                                                                                    part.

[[Page 49532]]

 
Sec.   63.7(f)....................  Yes..........................................  New sources may use an
                                                                                    alternative test method.
Sec.   63.7(g)....................  Yes..........................................  Requirements for data
                                                                                    analysis, recordkeeping, and
                                                                                    reporting associated with
                                                                                    performance testing apply to
                                                                                    new sources.
Sec.   63.7(h)....................  Yes..........................................  New sources may request a
                                                                                    waiver of performance tests.
Sec.   63.8.......................  .............................................  Monitoring requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)....................  Yes..........................................  Applicability of monitoring
                                                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.8(b)....................  Yes..........................................  Monitoring shall be conducted
                                                                                    by new sources.
Sec.   63.8(c)....................  Yes, except as noted below...................  New sources shall operate and
                                                                                    maintain continuous
                                                                                    monitoring systems (CMS).
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..............  No...........................................  See Sec.   63.1583(d) for
                                                                                    general duty requirement
                                                                                    with respect to minimizing
                                                                                    emissions and continuous
                                                                                    monitoring requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)............  No...........................................  See the applicable CMS
                                                                                    quality control requirements
                                                                                    under Sec.   63.8(c) and
                                                                                    (d).
Sec.   63.8(d)....................  Yes, except as noted below...................  New sources must develop and
                                                                                    implement a CMS quality
                                                                                    control program.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3).................  No...........................................  The owner or operator must
                                                                                    keep these written
                                                                                    procedures on record for the
                                                                                    life of the affected source
                                                                                    or until the affected source
                                                                                    is no longer subject to the
                                                                                    provisions of this part, and
                                                                                    make them available for
                                                                                    inspection, upon request, by
                                                                                    the Administrator. If the
                                                                                    performance evaluation plan
                                                                                    is revised, the owner or
                                                                                    operator must keep previous
                                                                                    (i.e., superseded) versions
                                                                                    of the performance
                                                                                    evaluation plan on record to
                                                                                    be made available for
                                                                                    inspection, upon request, by
                                                                                    the Administrator, for a
                                                                                    period of 5 years after each
                                                                                    revision of the plan. The
                                                                                    program of corrective action
                                                                                    should be included in the
                                                                                    plan required under Sec.
                                                                                    63.8(d)(2).
Sec.   63.8(e)....................  Yes..........................................  New sources may be required
                                                                                    to conduct a performance
                                                                                    evaluation of CMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)....................  Yes..........................................  New sources may use an
                                                                                    alternative monitoring
                                                                                    method.
Sec.   63.8(g)....................  Yes..........................................  Requirements for reduction of
                                                                                    monitoring data.
Sec.   63.9.......................  .............................................  Notification requirements.
Sec.   63.9(a)....................  Yes..........................................  Applicability of notification
                                                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.9(b)....................  Yes, except as noted below...................  Initial notification due
                                                                                    February 23, 2000 or 60 days
                                                                                    after becoming subject to
                                                                                    this subpart.
Sec.   63.9(c)....................  Yes..........................................  Request for extension of
                                                                                    compliance with subpart VVV.
Sec.   63.9(d)....................  Yes..........................................  Notification that source is
                                                                                    subject to special
                                                                                    compliance requirements as
                                                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                                                    63.6(b)(3) and (4).
Sec.   63.9(e)....................  Yes..........................................  Notification of performance
                                                                                    test.
Sec.   63.9(f)....................  No...........................................  POTW treatment plants do not
                                                                                    typically have visible
                                                                                    emissions.
Sec.   63.9(g)....................  Yes..........................................  Additional notification
                                                                                    requirements for sources
                                                                                    with continuous emission
                                                                                    monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.9(h)....................  Yes, except as noted.........................  Notification of compliance
                                                                                    status when the source
                                                                                    becomes subject to subpart
                                                                                    VVV. See exceptions in Sec.
                                                                                     63.1591(b).
Sec.   63.9(i)....................  Yes..........................................  Adjustments to time periods
                                                                                    or postmark deadlines or
                                                                                    submittal and review of
                                                                                    required communications.
Sec.   63.9(j)....................  Yes..........................................  Change of information already
                                                                                    provided to the
                                                                                    Administrator.
Sec.   63.10......................  .............................................  Recordkeeping and reporting
                                                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.10(a)...................  Yes..........................................  Applicability of notification
                                                                                    and reporting requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)-(2)............  Yes, except as noted below...................  General recordkeeping
                                                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i).............  No...........................................  Recordkeeping for occurrence
                                                                                    and duration of startup and
                                                                                    shutdown.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)............  No...........................................  Recordkeeping for failure to
                                                                                    meet a standard, see Sec.
                                                                                    63.696.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)...........  Yes..........................................  Maintenance records.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)............  No...........................................  Actions taken to minimize
                                                                                    emissions during SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(v).............  No...........................................  Action taken to minimize
                                                                                    emissions during SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)............  Yes..........................................  Recordkeeping for CMS
                                                                                    malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)......  Yes..........................................  Other CMS requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)................  No...........................................  Recording requirement for
                                                                                    applicability determination.
Sec.   63.10(c)...................  Yes, except as noted below...................  Additional recordkeeping
                                                                                    requirements for sources
                                                                                    with continuous monitoring
                                                                                    systems.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)................  No...........................................  See Sec.   63.696(h) for
                                                                                    recordkeeping of (1) date,
                                                                                    time, and duration; (2)
                                                                                    listing of affected source
                                                                                    or equipment, and an
                                                                                    estimate of the tons per
                                                                                    year of each regulated
                                                                                    pollutant emitted over the
                                                                                    standard; and (3) actions to
                                                                                    minimize emissions and
                                                                                    correct the failure.
Sec.   63.10(c)(8)................  No...........................................  See Sec.   63.696(h) for
                                                                                    recordkeeping of (1) date,
                                                                                    time, and duration; (2)
                                                                                    listing of affected source
                                                                                    or equipment, and an
                                                                                    estimate of the tons per
                                                                                    year of each regulated
                                                                                    pollutant emitted over the
                                                                                    standard; and (3) actions to
                                                                                    minimize emissions and
                                                                                    correct the failure.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)...............  No...........................................  Use of SSM plan.
Sec.   63.10(d)...................  Yes, except as noted below...................  General reporting
                                                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)................  No...........................................  See Sec.   63.697(b) for
                                                                                    malfunction reporting
                                                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)...................  Yes..........................................  Additional reporting
                                                                                    requirements for sources
                                                                                    with continuous monitoring
                                                                                    systems.
Sec.   63.10(f)...................  Yes, except as noted.........................  Waiver of recordkeeping and
                                                                                    reporting requirements.
                                                                                    Electronic reporting to the
                                                                                    EPA cannot be waived.
Sec.   63.11......................  Yes..........................................  Control device and equipment
                                                                                    leak work practice
                                                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.11(a) and (b)...........  Yes..........................................  If a new source uses flares
                                                                                    to comply with the
                                                                                    requirements of subpart VVV,
                                                                                    the requirements of Sec.
                                                                                    63.11 apply.
Sec.   63.11(c), (d) and (e)......  Yes..........................................  Alternative work practice for
                                                                                    equipment leaks.

[[Page 49533]]

 
Sec.   63.12......................  Yes..........................................  State authority and
                                                                                    designation.
Sec.   63.13......................  Yes..........................................  Addresses of State air
                                                                                    pollution control agencies
                                                                                    and EPA Regional Offices.
Sec.   63.14......................  Yes..........................................  Incorporation by reference.
Sec.   63.15......................  Yes..........................................  Availability of information
                                                                                    and confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 2 to Subpart VVV of Part 63--Compliance Dates and Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        And the owner or
     If the construction/          Then the owner or      operator must
    reconstruction date is       operator must comply        achieve
                                         with              compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 POTW:
(1) After December 27, 2016...  (i) New source          Upon initial
                                 requirements in Sec.    startup.
                                 Sec.   63.1583(b);
                                 63.1586(b) or (c);
                                 and 63.1588 through
                                 63.1591.
(2) After December 1, 1998 but  (i) New source          Upon initial
 on or before December 27,       requirements in Sec.    startup through
 2016.                            63.1583(b) but         October 26,
                                 instead of complying    2020.
                                 with both
                                 requirements
                                 (industrial user(s)
                                 NESHAP and the POTW
                                 standards in Sec.
                                 Sec.   63.1586(b) or
                                 (c)), you must comply
                                 with the most
                                 stringent
                                 requirement\1\.
                                (ii) New source         On or before
                                 requirements in Sec.    October 26,
                                 Sec.   63.1586(b) or    2020.
                                 (c); and 63.1588
                                 through 63.1591.
(3) On or before December 1,    (i) Existing source     By the
 1998.                           requirements in Sec.    compliance date
                                 Sec.   63.1583(a).      specified in
                                                         the other
                                                         applicable
                                                         NESHAP.
                                (ii) Existing source    On or before
                                 requirements in Sec.    October 26,
                                 Sec.   63.1588          2018.
                                 through 63.1591.
Group 2 POTW:
(4) After December 27, 2016...  (i) New source          Upon initial
                                 requirements in Sec.    startup.
                                 Sec.   63.1586(b) or
                                 (c); and 63.1588
                                 through 63.1591.
(5) After December 1, 1998 but  (i) New source          Upon initial
 on or before December 27,       requirements in Sec.    startup through
 2016.                            63.1586(b) or (c)\1\.  October 26,
                                                         2020.
                                (ii) New source         On or before
                                 requirements in Sec.    October 26,
                                 Sec.   63.1586(b) or    2020.
                                 (c); and 63.1588
                                 through 63.1591.
(6) On or before December 1,    (i) Existing source     On or before
 1998.                           requirements in Sec.    October 26,
                                 Sec.   63.1586(a);      2018.
                                 and 63.1591(a).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: This represents the new source requirements in the original
  1999 NESHAP, which are applicable until October 26, 2020. Between
  October 26, 2017 and October 26, 2020, you must transition to the new
  requirements in Table 2 (2)(ii) and (5)(ii) for Group 1 and Group 2
  POTW, respectively.


[FR Doc. 2017-23067 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P