National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins Risk and Technology Review Reconsideration, 51842-51857 [2018-22395]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51842-51857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22395]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133; FRL-9985-37-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS79


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins Risk and Technology Review 
Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; notification of final action on reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments to the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Manufacture of 
Amino/Phenolic Resins (APR). These final amendments are in response to 
petitions for reconsideration regarding the APR NESHAP rule revisions 
that were promulgated on October 8, 2014. In this action, we are 
revising the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard for 
continuous process vents (CPVs) at existing affected sources. In 
addition, we are extending the compliance date for CPVs at existing 
sources. We also are revising the requirements for storage vessels at 
new and existing sources during periods when an emission control system 
used to control vents on fixed roof storage vessels is undergoing 
planned routine maintenance. To improve the clarity of the APR NESHAP, 
we are also finalizing five minor technical rule corrections. In this 
action, we have not reopened any other aspects of the October 2014 
final amendments to the NESHAP for the Manufacture of APR, including 
other issues raised in petitions for reconsideration of the October 
2014 rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 15, 2018. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 15, 
2018.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a 
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133. All 
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov 
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, 
e.g., confidential business information 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/DC), 
EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
please contact Mr. Art Diem, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(Mail Code E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1185; email address: 
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP 
to a particular entity, contact Ms. Maria Malave, Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC 
South Building, Mail Code 2227A, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, 
DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7027; fax number: (202) 564-0050; 
and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. A number of acronyms and abbreviations 
are used in this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to 
ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the 
following terms and acronyms are defined:

APR amino/phenolic resin
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPV continuous process vent
CRA Congressional Review Act
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP
ICR information collection request
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
MON Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
TRE total resource effectiveness
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    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 Information
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered
    A. Analysis, Supporting Data, and Resulting Emission Standards 
for CPVs at Existing Sources
    B. Planned Routine Maintenance of Emission Control Sytems Used 
To Reduce HAP Emissions From Storage Vessels
    C. Technical Corrections
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
V. 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

[[Page 51843]]

    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) and 
1 CFR part 51
    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?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this final rule 
include, but are not limited to, facilities having a North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325211. Facilities with 
this NAICS code are described as plastics material and resin 
manufacturing establishments, which includes facilities engaged in 
manufacturing amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other 
plastic and resin types.
    To determine whether your facility would be affected by this final 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.1400. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any 
aspect of this final action, please contact the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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

    The docket number for this final action regarding the APR NESHAP is 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133.
    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-sourcesair-pollution/manufactureaminophenolic-resins-nationalemission-standards. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version and key technical documents on this same website.

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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the 
Court) by December 14, 2018. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an 
objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review. Note, 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 these 
requirements.
    This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider 
the rule ``[i]f 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 Information

    On October 8, 2014, the EPA completed the residual risk and 
technology review of the January 20, 2000, APR MACT standards (65 FR 
3276), and published its final rule amending the NESHAP for the APR 
Production source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO (79 FR 
60898). Following promulgation of the October 2014 final rule, the EPA 
received three petitions for reconsideration from the Sierra Club, 
Tembec BTLSR (``Tembec'') (now Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc.), and 
Georgia-Pacific LLC (``Georgia-Pacific''), requesting administrative 
reconsideration of amended 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO under CAA 
section 307(d)(7)(B).
    In partial response to the petitions, the EPA reconsidered and 
requested comment on two distinct issues in the proposed rule 
amendments, published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2017 (82 FR 
40103). These issues included: (1) The analysis, supporting data, and 
resulting emission standards for CPVs at existing sources; and (2) 
planned routine maintenance of emission control systems used to reduce 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions from storage vessels.
    In addition, while the EPA granted reconsideration on the pressure 
relief device issues raised in one of the petitions for 
reconsideration, the EPA did not address this issue in the August 24, 
2017, proposal and intends to address those issues separately in a 
future action.
    We received public comments on the proposed rule amendments from 
five parties. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the EPA 
Docket Center Public Reading Room. Comments are also available 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133.
    In this document, the EPA is taking final action with respect to 
the issues on reconsideration addressed in the August 2017 proposal. 
Section III of this preamble summarizes the proposed rule amendments 
and the final rule amendments, presents public comments received on the 
proposed amendments and the EPA's responses to those comments, and 
explains our rationale for the rule revisions published here.

III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered

    The two reconsideration issues for which amendments are being 
finalized in this rulemaking are: (1) The analysis, supporting data, 
and resulting emission standards for CPVs at existing sources; and (2) 
planned routine maintenance of emission control systems used to reduce 
HAP emissions from storage vessels. In this rulemaking, we are also 
finalizing several minor technical corrections to the regulation text 
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO.

A. Analysis, Supporting Data, and Resulting Emission Standards for CPVs 
at Existing Sources

1. What changes did we propose regarding CPV standards at existing 
sources?
    In the August 2017 proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
OOO, we proposed a revised emissions limit for CPVs at existing 
sources, addressing only back-end CPVs.
    In addition, we requested comments on the following issues: (1) 
Whether the existing compliance date or another date for back-end CPVs 
is appropriate if the standard is revised; and (2) whether the EPA 
should promulgate a separate standard for front-end CPVs at existing 
sources and whether there are other front-end CPVs in the source 
category beyond those identified by the EPA.

[[Page 51844]]

    For back-end CPVs at existing sources, we proposed a production-
based HAP emission limit of 8.6 pounds of HAP per ton of resin 
produced. This emissions limit represents the MACT floor based on 2015 
test data provided by Georgia-Pacific and Tembec, the only two 
companies in the source category with back-end CPVs. We also solicited 
comments on whether existing facilities would need additional time to 
comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV standards, noting that 
the compliance date in the October 2014 final rule is October 9, 2017, 
and that the APR NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1401(d) provides the opportunity 
for existing facilities, on a case-by-case basis, to request a 
compliance extension from their permitting authorities of up to 1 year, 
if necessary, to install controls to meet a standard.
    The EPA identified two front-end CPVs at APR production existing 
sources at proposal and requested information about any other front-end 
CPVs in the source category. Due to the characteristics of these two 
CPVs, we noted that these CPVs could be subcategorized into two types--
reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs, and separate standards for the 
two types of front-end CPVs would be consistent with how reactor and 
non-reactor vents have been regulated for batch processes for the APR 
Production source category. We also stated that if no other reactor or 
non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected sources were 
identified, or if no additional data were provided for any such CPVs, 
the EPA would consider adopting final revised standards for front-end 
CPVs at existing sources based on existing information. Based on our 
analysis of the data provided by Georgia-Pacific for its front-end 
reactor CPVs, we proposed that the MACT floor for front-end reactor 
CPVs at existing sources would be 0.61 pounds of HAP per hour. Based on 
our analysis of the data provided by INEOS Melamines for its front-end 
non-reactor CPV, we proposed that the MACT floor for front-end non-
reactor CPVs at existing sources would be 0.022 pounds of HAP per hour. 
We received no information about any additional front-end CPVs during 
the comment period.
2. What comments did we receive regarding proposed amendments to CPV 
standards at existing sources?
    The following is a summary of the significant comments received on 
the proposed amendments to CPV standards at existing sources and our 
responses to these comments.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's updated risk analysis 
for INEOS Melamines and for the category are underestimated for reasons 
it has stated in comments on the October 2014 rule for this source 
category. The commenter also said the new analysis for INEOS Melamines 
only considers risks from formaldehyde and fails to consider the risks 
from other HAP emitted by the facility or the cumulative risks to the 
community from other pollution sources.
    Response: We addressed the commenter's concerns regarding 
cumulative risks (and the various reasons the commenter claimed the 
risks were underestimated) in previous analyses in our October 2014 
response to comments (Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0066). These same 
responses still apply and are not repeated here. Regarding the risk 
analysis for INEOS Melamines, the commenter is mistaken in asserting 
that the analysis only included formaldehyde. The risk analysis for the 
facility included all HAP emissions from equipment in the source 
category, and these HAP include both formaldehyde and methanol. As we 
noted in the August 2017 proposal, the 2014 risk modeling analysis 
indicated that the INEOS Melamines facility maximum individual risk 
(MIR) was estimated to be 0.4-in-1 million. As the risk driver was 
formaldehyde, we mentioned in the August 2017 proposal that the input 
files included 0.375 tons of formaldehyde emissions. We also discussed 
in the proposal that information received from INEOS Melamines 
indicated there were additional emissions of less than 0.03 tons per 
year from its non-reactor front-end CPV that were not accounted for in 
the 2014 modeling analysis. We explained in the proposal that when 
including these additional emissions in the risk estimate for the 
facility, the facility MIR would be about the same (less than 1-in-1 
million), and we determined that additional quantitative risk analyses 
for this facility are not necessary. No updates to the risk analysis 
were made to other facilities, and the overall estimation of risks for 
the source category remain unchanged.
    Comment: Several commenters were concerned about the proposed 
elimination of the use of the Total Resource Effectiveness (TRE) value 
as a compliance option for continuous process vents at an existing 
affected source. The commenters noted that the TRE provision is found 
in numerous other rules, such as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) and 
the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON). The commenters stated that the 
TRE provides facilities with the flexibility to reduce emissions in the 
most cost-effective manner. The commenters also stated that the EPA has 
not articulated a rational basis for eliminating the TRE and that the 
EPA should maintain the current TRE for this and all other rules 
affecting continuous process vents. The commenters further stated that 
by keeping the TRE for continuous process vents at a new affected 
source, but eliminating it for existing sources, the requirements for 
existing sources would become more restrictive and costly than those 
for new affected sources.
    Response: In the development of the MACT requirements for this 
NESHAP and in other rules, such as the HON and the MON, a TRE was 
included in the rule to help define the regulated process vents. In 
those rules, data for only a portion of the process vents in the 
existing source category were available to base the MACT floor and 
beyond-the-floor analyses upon. To ensure the rule required control for 
all process vents in the source category that were similar to those for 
which the MACT floor and the level of the standard was set, the TRE was 
used. This value ensures that all the process vents in the source 
category with comparable characteristics, such as flow rate, emission 
rate, net heating value, etc., as the process vents used to establish 
the level of the standard are the ones required to meet the established 
level of control. In this case, the EPA now has information for every 
CPV at an existing source in this source category, and the 
characteristics of every CPV were considered in establishing the 
proposed revised MACT standards. Therefore, a TRE value is not 
necessary to define the regulated CPVs at existing sources.
    For CPVs at new sources, the EPA did not propose to eliminate the 
TRE. Keeping the TRE for CPVs at these sources will continue to ensure 
the representativeness of the process vent on which the emission 
standards were based to the process vents regulated by that standard, 
as it is unknown what characteristics any future process vents will 
have. The commenters are not correct in their assertion that without 
the inclusion of the TRE, the proposed revised existing source 
requirements will become more restrictive and costly than the standards 
for new sources. The CPVs at new sources with characteristics similar 
to the vent on which the standard is based will be required to have 
greater emissions reductions than the reductions effectively required 
for existing sources (i.e., 85-percent reduction for new sources 
compared to approximately 50-percent reduction in emissions for the

[[Page 51845]]

two existing CPVs that require control to meet the MACT standard).
    Comment: One commenter expressed dissatisfaction with the EPA's 
beyond-the-floor analysis for the proposed existing source standards 
for back-end CPVs. The commenter stated that the EPA only examined new 
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) and did not consider less costly 
options, such as using existing controls or conducting process changes. 
The commenter also stated that the EPA did not address whether 
additional beyond-the-floor reductions would be achievable. The 
commenter further stated that cost effectiveness is a measure of 
whether the benefits of a particular action are worth the cost, and the 
EPA's practice of comparing marginal cost for beyond-the-floor options 
relative to the costs of the reductions achieved by the MACT floor does 
not answer the question of whether the beyond-the-floor option is cost 
effective.
    Response: In evaluating the beyond-the-floor emissions control 
options, we considered control technologies and strategies that would 
be technologically feasible for the facilities in the source category 
that have these process vents. In this case, RTO is the only control 
technology known that could treat the low HAP concentration, high air 
flow exhaust from these vents. We explained in the memorandum, 
``Proposed Revised MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-
End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and 
Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,'' which is available in the 
docket for this action, that we also considered scrubbers and carbon 
adsorbers in this analysis, but found them to be technologically 
infeasible for this application. While it may be possible that a 
facility could make process changes to reduce emissions, this would be 
highly facility-specific, and the EPA does not have information to 
suggest any particular type of process change would reduce HAP from 
these vents. We did explain that RTOs are capable of achieving emission 
rates beyond the MACT floor. We used the EPA's control cost manual to 
evaluate costs of control. We did not have enough information to 
evaluate the cost effectiveness of process changes that could be used 
to meet the standard. Regarding the cost effectiveness of the 
technologically available option, i.e., an RTO, we described the 
estimated cost of the beyond-the-floor option in the above-referenced 
memorandum. As shown in this memorandum, cost effectiveness was 
determined using capital and annual costs of an RTO, and the emissions 
reductions were determined using a baseline of no control compared to 
control using an RTO. The beyond-the-floor option was found to not be 
cost effective using these estimates.
Back-End CPVs
    Comment: One commenter generally supported the levels of the back-
end CPV standards for existing sources, but has some concerns regarding 
the associated compliance assurance measures and definitions. For the 
back-end CPVs, the commenter requested that an option to achieve an 85 
percent reduction be included to ensure the standards for existing 
sources are not more stringent than those for new sources. The 
commenter also requested that the EPA keep the formerly included 12-
month rolling average emission rate for back-end CPVs to account for 
emissions variability between resin types. Additionally, the commenter 
suggested that the EPA not change the definitions for reactor batch 
process vent and non-reactor batch process vent to ensure there is no 
confusion regarding applicability of the batch process vent provisions. 
Further, the commenter stated that the EPA should specify that initial 
compliance performance tests be conducted at ``maximum representative 
operating conditions.''
    Response: We are not revising the format of the proposed standard 
for existing source back-end CPVs as the commenter requested. The 12-
month rolling average emissions rate, formerly included in the October 
2014 rule, was used to help account for variability in emission rates 
before the EPA had the information submitted by the facilities for each 
CPV, in which the highest HAP emitting resin was tested. The proposed 
standard accounted for variability in emissions while the highest HAP 
emitting resin was produced. Therefore, there is no need for compliance 
to be determined over a long period to account for variability in 
resins produced or the conditions present while producing high HAP 
emitting resins. The EPA is also not adding an 85-percent reduction 
compliance option for existing source back-end CPVs. In calculating the 
MACT floor, we determined the emissions limitation achieved by the best 
performing existing sources in the category based on the emissions per 
unit of resin produced. This production-based standard accounts for 
variability associated with the manufacturing process, including 
fluctuations in the amount of product produced and different types of 
product produced (i.e., various resin types), as well as possible 
future process modifications to alter other production variables. An 
85-percent emissions reduction compliance option does not reflect the 
MACT floor level of control for back-end CPVs at existing sources.
    The proposed revised rule contains definitions for ``batch process 
vent,'' ``continuous process vent,'' ``non-reactor process vent,'' and 
``reactor process vent.'' It is clear from these definitions that the 
rule provisions pertaining to ``reactor batch process vents'' and 
``non-reactor batch process vents'' include only those vents that are 
``batch process vents.'' It is also clear that the rule provisions 
pertaining to ``reactor continuous process vents'' and ``non-reactor 
continuous process vents'' include only those vents that are 
``continuous process vents.'' Therefore, as the applicability of the 
rule provisions is sufficiently clear with these definitions, we have 
not added or changed the definitions related to these vents in the 
final rule beyond what was proposed.
    We agree with the commenter that the initial compliance performance 
test should be conducted at ``maximum representative operating 
conditions.'' However, as this is already a specified condition for 
performance tests in 40 CFR 63.1413(a)(2)(ii)(A), we have not further 
revised the regulatory text.
    Comment: One commenter stated that use of an upper predictive limit 
(UPL) in the standards for back-end CPVs at existing sources is not 
justified, since the EPA has extensive data for all the sources subject 
to the standard. The commenter stated that with such a comprehensive 
data set, it is likely that all variability is already accounted for, 
and there is no justification to assume there is additional variability 
that needs to be accounted for. The commenter also stated that the EPA 
did not disclose the actual emissions levels obtained by the sources in 
the category in the units of measurement used for the proposed 
standards and only presents the emission rates estimated by the UPL. 
The commenter stated that the standards are further weakened by not 
being required to determine compliance using the resin resulting in the 
highest HAP emissions, the way the MACT floor was calculated, but 
instead requiring compliance based on the resin with the highest HAP 
content. The commenter also stated that the alternative percent-
reduction and concentration-based limits do not reflect emissions 
reductions achieved by best-performing sources.
    Response: While we agree with the commenter that the EPA has a 
comprehensive data set for the back-end CPVs in the source category, 
the use of

[[Page 51846]]

the UPL is justified to account for variability that occurs due to 
process conditions when producing the highest HAP-emitting resins. We 
calculated the UPL values for each back-end CPV with that CPV's highest 
HAP-emitting resin to take this variability into consideration. As 
discussed in detail in the MACT floor memorandum, ``Proposed Revised 
MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End Continuous 
Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins 
Production Source Category,'' which is available in the docket for this 
action, we used the arithmetic average of the UPLs of the five best-
performing back-end CPVs to calculate the MACT floor. To respond to the 
commenter's concerns about the calculation of the UPL, we have 
summarized the emissions information used to calculate the UPL values 
for each back-end CPV and included this information in a memorandum 
titled ``Addendum to Proposed Revised MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor 
Analysis for Back-End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in 
the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category'' to the 
docket for this action. Regarding the compliance determination based on 
the resin with the highest HAP content, for these back-end CPVs, the 
liquid resin having the highest HAP content is the condition for which 
the highest HAP emissions result. This occurs because no significant 
quantities of HAP are created or destroyed in the drying process, and 
the drying process moves nearly all HAP in the liquid resin to the 
dryer vent (i.e., back-end CPV). In addition, 40 CFR 
63.1413(a)(2)(ii)(A) specifies that performance tests used to 
demonstrate compliance must be under ``maximum representative operating 
conditions,'' as defined at 40 CFR 63.1402. This term specifies 
conditions which reflect the highest organic HAP emissions reasonably 
expected to be vented to the control device or emitted to the 
atmosphere.
    Regarding the alternative standards included in the rule for CPVs, 
the alternative standard is not a percent reduction based standard and 
is only a concentration based alternative standard that represents the 
performance limits of combustion and non-combustion control 
technologies for low-HAP concentration airstreams. We did not propose 
to amend the alternative standard and are not making any amendments to 
the alternative standard in this action.
    Comment: Two commenters responded to the EPA's request for comment 
about whether existing facilities would need additional time to comply 
with the proposed revised back-end CPV standards. One commenter stated 
that the EPA should not extend the compliance deadline, asserting that 
such an extension would contravene the CAA's provisions stating that 
CAA section 112 standards become effective upon promulgation. The 
commenter also noted that sources would be in compliance with the more 
stringent 2014 standard by October 2017, and CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) 
provides that the EPA shall not delay the effective date of a 
regulation more than 3 months pending reconsideration. Another 
commenter recommended that all existing sources impacted by any of the 
proposed emission limits, definitions, and work practice standards have 
an additional year to meet the proposed compliance requirements. The 
commenter stated that facilities would need time to further evaluate 
the impact of the rule change, evaluate and/or modify its compliance 
strategy, and implement the compliance measures.
    Response: Pursuant to CAA section 112(i)(3)(A), the Agency is 
establishing a compliance date of 1 year from the promulgation date of 
the final standards for back-end CPVs at existing sources. We are 
establishing this compliance date with recognition that the original 
October 2017 compliance date has already passed, that several state 
agencies have already given sources 1 year compliance date extensions, 
and that the amended emissions standard for back-end CPVs at existing 
sources changes the numerical emission limitation. After promulgation 
of these standards, facility owners or operators will require time to 
reevaluate compliance options, potentially revise compliance 
strategies, and implement the strategies, which the EPA anticipates 
will entail the purchase and installation of emissions control devices 
at two sources. We are providing 1 year to allow for this evaluation 
and implementation, which we consider as expeditious as practicable 
given the need to evaluate compliance options and the anticipated 
installation and initial compliance determination of emission control 
equipment in order to meet the standards in this final rule. 
Additionally, since we are revising the standards for front-end CPVs at 
existing facilities, we are also establishing the same compliance date 
as for the back-end CPVs at existing sources. The reasons for the 
revised compliance date for front-end CPVs at existing sources are the 
same as those for the back-end CPVs, except that the EPA anticipates 
that sources will not need to purchase and install emissions control 
devices to achieve the front-end CPV standard. Regardless of whether 
control devices will need to be employed to achieve the standards for 
front-end CPVs at existing sources, the numeric value and format of the 
standard is revised and owners or operators of sources subject to these 
revised standards will need to alter how they demonstrate compliance. 
For front-end CPVs, the standard is being revised from 1.9 pounds of 
HAP per ton of resin produced, as specified in the October 2014 rule, 
to less than a pound of HAP per hour standard as revised in this 
action. This is a logical outgrowth of the proposal's discussion of the 
considered options for front-end CPVs at existing sources, for which 
the Agency solicited comments which yielded no identification of other 
front-end vents and no substantive comments regarding the discussed 
possible standards. The need to establish an expeditious yet reasonable 
compliance date for a revised standard is reasonable in light of our 
revising the standard in both numeric value and units of measure. The 
revised compliance deadline for CPVs at existing sources being 
established in this action is specified at 40 CFR 63.1401(b). In 
contrast, for the storage vessel standard for periods of planned 
routine maintenance, the option to comply through a work practice 
standard would only require planning not substantially different from 
what is necessary to implement the planned routine maintenance of the 
emissions control system and would not require any additional 
equipment. Therefore, the EPA has determined that this storage vessel 
standard can be implemented by the compliance date previously 
established, and we are not amending this compliance date for the 
finalized storage vessel amendments in this final action.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's opinion that providing 
additional time to comply with the revised CPV standards is unlawful 
under the CAA. Although it is true that CAA section 112 provides that 
standards ``shall be effective upon promulgation,'' the commenter 
overlooks the fact that CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) clearly provides the 
EPA discretion to establish an appropriate compliance period to follow 
the ``effective date'' of standards. Similarly, although CAA section 
307(d)(7)(B) speaks of potential delays of the effectiveness of a 
standard following receipt of a petition of reconsideration, that 
provision has no relevance to the decision the Agency makes under CAA 
section 112(i)(3)(A) to establish a

[[Page 51847]]

compliance date following the promulgation of a standard.
    Comment: One commenter noted there were several references in the 
proposed rule to 40 CFR 63.1405(b)(2)((i), (ii), and (iii), which were 
not included in the proposed rule language. The commenter also noted 
that there was no paragraph (i) or (ii) before 40 CFR 
63.1413(h)(3)(ii)(B)(3)(iii). The commenter requested that the EPA 
correct the discrepancies and allow for an extended comment period on 
the technical corrections.
    Response: The commenter is correct that several references to these 
paragraphs were included in the proposed rule language and that the 
paragraphs were not present in the proposed rule text. The paragraphs 
in which these references were located in the proposed rule text were 
40 CFR 63.1413(c)(5), (c)(6), (h)(1)(i), (h)(3)(ii)(B)(4), and 
(h)(3)(iii), and 40 CFR 63.1416(f)(5) and (f)(6), and 40 CFR 
63.1417(f)(15). In the final rule language, we have corrected this 
discrepancy by revising 40 CFR 63.1405(b) and including standards for 
reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources in 40 CFR 
63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii). We did not propose rule language for these 
front-end CPVs because we were taking comment on whether it would be 
appropriate to establish front-end CPV standards at existing sources 
for the source category and the associated value of the standard if 
there were front-end CPVs, other than the two we had identified, at 
existing affected sources. In the proposal, we discussed what the 
standard would be based on information available to the EPA at the time 
and provided a memorandum in the docket regarding calculation of the 
MACT floor and beyond-the-floor analysis. As no comments were received 
regarding additional front-end CPVs, and no other information indicates 
there are other existing source front-end CPVs in the source category, 
we have included the standards for front-end CPVs in the final rule. 
These standards are based on the existing information available to the 
EPA, as discussed at proposal. We have also corrected the numbering for 
40 CFR 63.1413(h)(3)(ii)(B)(3). As the levels of the front-end CPV 
standards now included in the rule language were explained in our 
proposal, and no comments on the standards were received, we are not 
providing additional time for comment on these provisions.
3. What are the final rule amendments and our associated rationale 
regarding CPV standards at existing sources?
    The analyses regarding the emission standards for CPVs at existing 
source APR facilities has not changed since proposal, and our rationale 
for the standards are provided in the preamble for the proposed rule 
and in the responses to the comments presented above. For these 
reasons, we are finalizing the revised back-end CPV standards for 
existing sources of 8.6 pounds of HAP per ton of resin produced, as 
proposed in August 2017. We are also finalizing, for the reasons 
provided above, separate standards for reactor and non-reactor front-
end CPVs at existing sources, as described in the August 2017 proposal. 
The standard for front-end reactor CPVs is 0.61 pounds of HAP per hour, 
and the standard for front-end non-reactor CPVs is 0.022 pounds of HAP 
per hour.

B. Planned Routine Maintenance of Emission Control Systems Used To 
Reduce HAP Emissions From Storage Vessels

1. What changes did we propose regarding planned routine maintenance of 
storage vessel emissions control systems?
    In its petition for reconsideration of the October 2014 final rule, 
Georgia Pacific requested that the EPA reconsider the applicability of 
the storage vessel HAP emissions standards when the emission control 
system for the vent on a fixed roof storage vessel is shut down for 
planned routine maintenance. In response to this request, the EPA 
reviewed and re-evaluated the standards for storage vessels, and we 
proposed a separate work practice standard for storage vessels during 
periods of planned routine maintenance of the storage vessel control 
device in the August 2017 proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart OOO. This proposed work practice would allow owners or 
operators to bypass the control device for up to 240 hours per year 
during planned routine maintenance of the emission control system, 
provided there are no working losses from the vessel. This proposed 
standard would apply to fixed roof storage vessels at new and existing 
APR sources and represents the MACT floor level of control.
2. What comments did we receive regarding the proposed standards for 
planned routine maintenance of storage vessel emissions control 
systems?
    The following is a summary of the significant comments received on 
the proposed standards for planned routine maintenance of storage 
vessel emissions control systems and our responses to these comments.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA lacks authority to 
exempt sources from emissions standards during any period of time and 
asserted that the proposed work practice standard is merely an 
exemption for storage vessel emissions during control device planned 
routine maintenance. The commenter also asserted that the EPA has not 
met the statutory requirements specified in CAA section 112(h)(1)-(2) 
to authorize the Agency to issue a work practice standard rather than a 
numeric emission standard. The commenter further stated that the 
proposed work practice standards are not consistent with the 
requirements of CAA section 112(d), which sets forth requirements for 
determining the MACT floor and beyond-the-floor levels based on the 
emissions reductions achieved by the best performing similar sources. 
The commenter stated that the EPA has not determined the emissions 
achieved by the best performing sources or whether those sources have 
240 hours of uncontrolled emissions annually. The commenter stated that 
the EPA failed to apply the CAA standards for beyond-the-floor 
determinations. On this point, the commenter noted that the EPA claims 
the use of carbon canisters for emissions control during storage vessel 
planned routine maintenance is achievable, but not cost effective, 
however, the EPA did not attempt to examine the benefits of reducing 
HAP during these periods. The commenter stated that the EPA did not 
disclose the data or methodology used in its estimate of 26 pounds per 
year per facility for routine maintenance emissions.
    Response: First, there is no basis for the commenter's assertion 
that the proposed work practice standard is an exemption for storage 
vessel emissions during control device planned routine maintenance. The 
work practice standard establishes specific requirements that apply 
during up to 240 hours per year of planned routine maintenance of the 
control system. Specifically, the standard prohibits sources from 
increasing the level of material in the storage vessel during periods 
that the closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform 
planned routine maintenance. This standard minimizes emissions by 
ensuring that no working losses occur during such time periods. Working 
losses are the loss of stock vapors as a result of filling a storage 
vessel and are the majority of uncontrolled emissions for storage 
vessels having significant

[[Page 51848]]

throughput. The proposed work practice standard does not allow working 
losses to occur. With working losses eliminated during this period, the 
only emissions that would occur are breathing losses (a.k.a. standing 
losses). Breathing losses occur due to the expansion and contraction of 
the vapor space in a fixed roof storage vessel from diurnal temperature 
changes and barometric pressure changes. Breathing losses occur without 
any change to the liquid level in the storage vessel. The breathing 
losses from a fixed roof storage vessel are small and highly variable 
because they are dependent upon the volume of the vapor space in the 
storage vessel and the meteorological conditions at the time.
    Second, the storage vessel requirements in this rule were 
originally promulgated as CAA section 112(h) standards. The provisions 
establish two control options. One option is for the installation of a 
floating roof pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. This option is a 
combination of design, equipment, work practice, and operational 
standards. The other option is to install a conveyance system (pursuant 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS) and route the emissions to a control 
device that achieves a 95-percent reduction in HAP emissions or that 
achieves a specific outlet HAP concentration. The second option is a 
combination of design standards, equipment standards, operational 
standards, and a percent reduction or outlet concentration. See the 
preamble to the original rulemaking for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO at 
63 FR 68832 (12/14/1998) and the preamble to the HON at 57 FR 62608 
(12/31/1992). In this action, we neither reopened nor accepted comment 
on the standards that apply during all periods other than the up to 240 
hours of planned routine maintenance or any aspect of the original 
justification for the standards.
    Third, the specific work practice requirement added in this action 
fulfills the purposes of section 112(h)(1) of the CAA, which calls on 
the Administrator to include requirements in work practice standards 
sufficient to assure the proper operation and maintenance of the design 
or equipment. The work practice standard added simply allows for the 
planned routine maintenance of the control device and minimizes 
emissions during such periods of planned routine maintenance, 
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(h)(1).
    Fourth, the commenter did not provide any evidence to show that 
there is a methodology that could be applied to breathing losses from a 
fixed roof storage vessel that would be technologically and 
economically practicable. We have determined that it is not practicable 
due to technological and economic limitations, to apply measurement 
methodology to measure breathing losses from storage vessels during 
periods of planned routine maintenance. We have concluded that it would 
not be technically and economically practicable to measure breathing 
loss emissions with any degree of certainty to establish a numeric 
limit based upon the best performing sources because of the nature of 
the breathing losses. The breathing losses during the planned routine 
maintenance of the control system are highly dependent on the volume of 
the vapor space and the weather conditions during that time. It would 
be impractical to plan to test a storage vessel during the 10 days per 
year that have the both the weather conditions and the vapor space 
volume that would result in the most breathing losses. Specialized flow 
meters (such as mass flowmeters) would likely be needed in order to 
accurately measure any flow during these variable, no to low flow 
conditions. Measurement costs for these no to low flow durations of 
time would be economically impracticable, particularly in light of the 
small quantity of emissions. We have used AP-42 emissions estimate 
equations to estimate 10 days of breathing losses. See ``Addendum to 
National Impacts Associated with Proposed Standards for CPVs and 
Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source 
Category'' in the docket for this rule. We estimate that it would cost 
approximately $25,000 for three 1-hour testing runs on a single day. We 
calculated these costs based on industry average costs of deploying 
qualified individuals for a day and costs of performing the necessary 
tests on required equipment to determine the concentration and emission 
rate of HAP. The extremely low flow rate present would require a 
greater degree of monitoring plan and quality assurance project plan 
development than is typical. Specialized equipment that is not 
typically available may be required to measure flow rates under these 
conditions. We are not aware of any measurement of breathing loss HAP 
emissions from a fixed roof storage vessel in the field.
    In the proposed rule, we also evaluated whether a backup control 
device capable of achieving the 95-percent reduction standard would be 
cost effective at controlling the remaining breathing losses. In the 
proposal, we explained that the use of such back-up control devices is 
not cost effective. To respond to the commenter's concern about the 
disclosure of the data and methodologies used to calculate the 
breathing losses for assessing the cost effectiveness of controlling 
such emissions, in the memorandum titled ``Addendum to National Impacts 
Associated with Proposed Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the 
Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,'' we are 
providing a summary of the information used to calculate the breathing 
losses in the docket for this rule.
    Therefore, we are finalizing the amendments to the storage vessel 
requirements, as proposed, allowing owners or operators of fixed roof 
vessels at new and existing affected APR sources to perform planned 
routine maintenance of the emission control system for up to 240 hours 
per year, provided there are no working losses from the vessel during 
that time.
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposed work practice 
standards for storage vessels during planned routine maintenance of 
emission control systems. The commenter requested that the work 
practice standard also cover periods of malfunctions of the control 
device when it is temporarily incapable of controlling any emissions 
from the storage vessel. The commenter stated this would reduce the 
burden associated with required notifications of unpreventable failure 
of control equipment, which may not result in an exceedance of the 
emissions standard.
    Response: While emissions from most equipment can be eliminated 
completely during routine maintenance of a control device, simply by 
not operating the process during those times, the same is not true for 
a storage vessel. The stored material in the vessel will continue to 
emit small amounts of volatile compounds due to breathing losses even 
when the control device is not operating. The only ways to avoid these 
emissions are to route the vapors from the stored material to another 
control device or to completely empty and degas the storage vessel 
prior to the maintenance activity. We proposed the 240 hour work 
practice standard to avoid having owners or operators empty and degas a 
storage vessel prior to completing planned routine maintenance, as this 
activity results in higher emissions than the small amounts of 
breathing losses that would result during the time the control device 
was not operating. While this work

[[Page 51849]]

practice requirement prevents higher emissions than would result from 
the planned emptying and degassing activity that may take place prior 
to planned routine maintenance of a control device, the same emissions 
would not be avoided in the event of a malfunction. As malfunctions are 
not planned events, an owner or operator would not empty and degas a 
storage vessel prior to the malfunction. Since emissions would not be 
reduced and would possibly increase by including malfunctions in the 
work practice standard, we do not agree that it is not appropriate to 
include malfunctions in the standard. Consequently, the final rule does 
not adopt the commenter's suggestion.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA revise the proposed 
storage vessel control requirements to explicitly allow emissions to be 
routed to a process for re-use as a raw material rather than just to a 
control or recovery device, to be more consistent with the similar 
provisions contained in the HON.
    Response: The standards in 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1) refer to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SS, for storage vessel control requirements, stating, 
``Control shall be achieved by venting emissions through a closed vent 
system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements 
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (National Emission Standards for Closed 
Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel 
Gas System or a Process).'' The requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
SS, also include the ability to meet storage vessel emissions standards 
by routing emissions through a closed vent system to a fuel gas system 
or a process, which has been an option for control of storage vessel 
emissions meeting the standards of 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1). We have 
revised 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1) to clarify that compliance with the 
standards of 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1) can be achieved by following the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for routing emissions 
through a closed vent system to a fuel gas system or a process, which 
are included in the provisions and the title of the subpart. This 
clarification achieves the same result as the commenter's suggestion.
3. What are the final rule amendments and our associated rationale 
regarding the standards for planned routine maintenance of storage 
vessel emissions control systems?
    The analysis of the alternative work practice standards for storage 
vessels at new and existing APR facilities during planned routine 
maintenance of emission control systems has not changed since proposal. 
Therefore, for the reasons provided above, as well as in the preamble 
for the proposed rule, the EPA is finalizing, with minor 
clarifications, the proposed work practice standards for these periods 
of time. The work practice standards will permit owners or operators of 
fixed roof storage vessels at new and existing affected APR sources to 
bypass the emission control system for up to 240 hours per year during 
planned routine maintenance of the emission control system, provided 
there are no working losses from the fixed roof storage vessel. To 
prevent HAP emissions from working losses, owners or operators 
complying with the alternative work practice standards will not be 
permitted to add material to the storage vessel during control device 
planned routine maintenance periods.
    We are making two minor clarifications to the requirements for 
storage vessels during planned routine maintenance of emission control 
systems. In this final rule, we have revised 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1) to 
clarify that compliance with the standards of 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1) can 
be achieved by following the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
SS, for routing emissions through a closed vent system to a fuel gas 
system or a process. This revision will apply during times of normal 
operation, as well as during planned routine maintenance of the storage 
vessel emissions control system. We have also added language to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.1416(g)(6) and 40 
CFR 63.1417(f)(16) for storage vessel control device planned routine 
maintenance. These requirements were inadvertently omitted from the 
proposed rule text.

C. Technical Corrections

    In this rulemaking, we are making five technical corrections to 
improve the clarity of the APR NESHAP requirements.
    First, the original APR NESHAP, promulgated in January 2000 (65 FR 
3276), incorporated three voluntary consensus standards (VCS) by 
reference, as specified in 40 CFR 63.14. However, while the paragraphs 
in 40 CFR 63.14 for these three VCS include references to the NESHAP 
for which they are approved to be used, these references omit citations 
to 40 CFR 63, subpart OOO. In 40 CFR 63.14, we are adding citations to 
40 CFR 63.1402 and 40 CFR 63.1412 for the following consensus 
standards: American Petroleum Institute Publication 2517, Evaporative 
Loss From External Floating-Roof Tanks; American Society for Testing 
and Materials Method D2879-83; and American Society for Testing and 
Materials Method D1946-90.
    Second, we are also correcting a citation reference to 40 CFR 
63.1413(d)(6)(iii)(A) in 40 CFR 63.1417(3)(9). The correct citation is 
to 40 CFR 63.1414(d)(6)(iii)(A).
    Third, at 40 CFR 63.1403(a) and 40 CFR 63.1405(a)(2), we are 
correcting the reference to the title of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, 
i.e., ``National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control 
Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a 
Process.''
    Fourth, at 40 CFR 63.1412(g)(2)(ii), we are adding the phrase 
``(Reapproved 1994) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14)'' 
immediately following ``American Society for Testing and Materials 
D1946-90.''
    Fifth, at 40 CFR 63.1404(c) and 40 CFR 63.1416(g)(6)(iii), we are 
replacing the undefined term ``tank'' with the defined term ``storage 
vessel.''

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    We estimate that 11 to 16 existing sources will be affected by one 
or more of the revised requirements being finalized in this action. We 
expect one existing source will be subject to the revised front-end and 
back-end CPV requirements, one existing source will be subject to the 
revised front-end CPV requirements, and three existing sources will be 
subject to the back-end CPV requirements. We expect four of these five 
existing sources (and an additional six to 11 sources) will be able to 
take advantage of the storage vessel work practice standards during 
periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission control system 
that is used to comply with emissions standards for vents on fixed roof 
storage vessels.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We are finalizing a revised standard of 8.6 pounds of HAP per ton 
of resin produced for back-end CPVs at existing sources. We project the 
final standard will result in an estimated reduction of 207 tons of HAP 
per year beyond the January 2000 APR MACT standards, based on 
compliance with the alternative standard of 20 parts per million by 
volume for combustion control using RTOs. We estimate that the October 
2014 rule would have required HAP emission reductions of 271 tons per 
year from CPVs at existing sources. We are also finalizing a standard 
of 0.61 pounds of HAP per

[[Page 51850]]

hour for front-end reactor CPVs at existing sources and a standard of 
0.022 pounds of HAP per hour for front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing 
sources. The front-end CPVs are anticipated to be able to meet the 
emission standards without additional controls, and we project that 
these final standards will not result in HAP emission reductions beyond 
the January 2000 APR MACT standards.
    We are finalizing work practice standards to address emissions 
during periods of storage vessel emissions control system planned 
routine maintenance. The standards require that storage vessels not be 
filled during these times, which eliminates working losses, and limit 
the amount of time allowed annually for use of this work practice. We 
anticipate the revised work practice standards will reduce HAP 
emissions from those allowed under the January 2000 APR MACT standards 
by preventing working losses and limiting the annual duration of the 
maintenance period for which the work practice can be used, resulting 
in an estimated decrease of 0.9 tons of HAP per year per facility 
beyond the January 2000 APR MACT standards. When compared to the 
October 2014 rule, which required compliance with the storage vessel 
emissions standards at all times, including during times of planned 
routine maintenance of the emissions control system, the HAP emissions 
reduction may be slightly less than the 0.08 tons of HAP per year 
projected under the 2014 final rule.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    For back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, we are finalizing a 
revised standard of 8.6 pounds of HAP per ton of resin produced. We 
project that back-end CPVs at two existing affected sources will 
require emissions controls to meet the revised standard. For cost 
purposes, we assumed that each facility would install an RTO. Based on 
discussions with Georgia-Pacific and Tembec, we understand that the 
facilities are exploring other options, such as process changes, that 
may be more cost effective. However, the technical feasibility and 
potential costs of these options are currently unknown, and our 
estimate of compliance costs, assuming the use of RTOs, is based on the 
best information available. We estimate the nationwide capital costs to 
be $4.8 million and annualized costs to be $2.1 million per year. These 
costs are incremental to those of the 2000 rule, which did not regulate 
CPVs at existing sources. Compared to our revised estimate of the 
October 2014 rule costs of $9.6 million in capital costs and annualized 
costs of $4.2 million,\1\ the revised standard represents an 
approximate 50-percent reduction in industry-wide costs. For front-end 
CPVs, we anticipate compliance with the emissions standards to be met 
without additional control, and we estimate there will be no capital or 
annualized costs associated with achieving these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See memorandum, ``National Impacts Associated with Proposed 
Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic 
Resins Production Source Category,'' which is available in the 
rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimated the nationwide annualized cost reductions associated 
with the final work practice standards for periods of planned routine 
maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with 
emissions standards for vents on fixed roof storage vessels. Compared 
to our revised cost estimate of the October 2014 rule,\2\ the final 
storage vessel work practice standards result in an annualized cost 
reduction for each facility of $830 per year, which includes a capital 
cost reduction of $1,600. We estimate the nationwide annualized cost 
reduction to be up to $12,450 per year based on an estimated 15 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Same as previous footnote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What are the economic impacts?

    We performed a national economic impact analysis for APR production 
facilities affected by this final rule. We anticipate that two existing 
affected sources would install RTOs to comply with this rule at a total 
annualized cost of $2.1 million (in 2014$) per year compared to the 
January 2000 rule. These total annualized costs of compliance are 
estimated to be approximately 0.002 percent of sales. Accordingly, we 
do not project this final rule to have a significant economic impact on 
the affected entities.
    The estimated total annualized cost of this final rule can also be 
compared to the estimated cost for the industry to comply with all 
provisions of the October 2014 rule. Based on information received 
since the October 2014 rule was finalized and the issues reconsidered 
in this action, we developed a revised estimate of the cost to comply 
with the 2014 final rule. We estimate the revised annualized cost of 
complying with the October 2014 rule to be $4.2 million per year.\3\ 
Compared to this revised estimate of the cost of compliance with the 
October 2014 rule, this final rule will provide regulatory relief by 
reducing annualized compliance costs by $2.1 million in year 2014 
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Table 3 and Table 4 of the memorandum, ``National 
Impacts Associated with Final Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks 
in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,'' which 
is available in the rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More information and details of this analysis, including the 
conclusions stated above, are provided in the technical document, 
``Economic Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the NESHAP for 
Amino/Phenolic Resins,'' which is available in the rulemaking docket.

E. What are the benefits?

    We estimate that this final rule will result in an annual reduction 
of 207 tons of HAP, compared to the January 2000 rule baseline. The EPA 
estimates this rule will result in 64 tons per year fewer HAP emission 
reductions than what the EPA projects the 2014 rule would achieve based 
on the additional information and test data that the EPA obtained 
following issuance of the 2014 final rule, as described in section 
III.A.1 of this preamble. We have not quantified or monetized the 
effects of these emissions changes for this rulemaking. See section 
IV.B of this preamble for discussion of HAP emissions from CPVs at 
existing sources under this final rule compared to the October 2014 
rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.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. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule 
can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits 
associated with this action, titled ``Economic Impact Analysis for the 
Final Amendments to the NESHAP for Amino/Phenolic Resins,'' and 
included in the docket of this rule.

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

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 
action. Details on the 13771 deregulatory figures of this final rule 
can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits 
associated with this action, titled ``Economic Impact Analysis for the 
Final Amendments to the NESHAP for

[[Page 51851]]

Amino/Phenolic Resins,'' and included in the docket of this rule.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 1869.08. 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.
    This final rule requires recordkeeping and reporting of occurrences 
when control devices used to comply with the storage vessel provisions 
undergo planned routine maintenance. Reporting of such occurrences are 
required to be disclosed in the Periodic Reports as specified at 40 CFR 
63.1417.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents affected by the 
amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO, include, but are not limited 
to, facilities having a NAICS code 325211 (United States Standard 
Industrial Classification 2821). Facilities with a NAICS code of 325211 
are described as Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 
establishments, which includes facilities engaged in manufacturing 
amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other plastic and resin 
types.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under sections 112 
and 114 of the CAA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 15.
    Frequency of response: Once or twice per year.
    Total estimated burden: 45 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,750 per year, including no 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. The EPA has 
identified no small entities that are subject to the requirements of 40 
CFR 63, subpart OOO.

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. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this action.

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

    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 EPA's risk assessments for the October 2014 rule (Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133) demonstrate that the current regulations 
are associated with an acceptable level of risk and provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse 
environmental effects. This final action does not alter those 
conclusions.

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) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA is formalizing 
the incorporation of three technical standards that were included in 
the January 2000 rule for which the EPA had previously not formally 
requested the Office of the Federal Register to include in 40 CFR 63.14 
with a reference back to the sections in 40 CFR 63, subpart OOO. These 
three standards were included in the original January 2000 rule. These 
three standards were already incorporated in 40 CFR 63.14, and were 
formally requested for other rules. These standards are API Publication 
2517, Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks, Third 
Edition, February 1989; ASTM D1946-90 (Reapproved 1994), Standard 
Method for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas Chromatography; and ASTM 
D2879-83, Standard Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship 
and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope. API 
Publication 2517 is used to determine the maximum true vapor pressure 
of HAP in liquids stored at ambient temperature. API Publication 2517 
is available to the public for free viewing online in the Read Online 
Documents section on API's website at https://publications.api.org. In 
addition to this free online viewing availability on API's website, 
hard copies and printable versions are available for purchase from API. 
ASTM D2879 is also used to determine the maximum true vapor pressure of 
HAP in liquids stored at ambient temperature. ASTM D1946 is used to 
measure the concentration of carbon monoxide and hydrogen in a process 
vent gas stream. ASTM D2879 and ASTM D1946 are available to the public 
for free viewing online in the Reading Room section on ASTM's website 
at https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/. In addition to this free 
online viewing availability on ASTM's website, hardcopies and printable 
versions are available for purchase from ASTM. Additional information 
can be found at https://www.api.org/and https://www.astm.org/Standard/standards-and-publications.html.

[[Page 51852]]

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). In 
the October 2014 rule, the EPA determined that the current health risks 
posed by emissions from these source categories are acceptable and 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent 
adverse environmental effects. This final action does not alter the 
conclusions made in the October 2014 rule regarding these analyses.

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 procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 4, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 63 is amended 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. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1), (h)(17), and 
(h)(27) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) API Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss from External Floating-
Roof Tanks, Third Edition, February 1989, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.111, 63.1402, and 63.2406.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (17) ASTM D1946-90 (Reapproved 1994), Standard Method for Analysis 
of Reformed Gas by Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.11(b) and 63.1412.
* * * * *
    (27) ASTM D2879-83, Standard Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature 
Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by 
Isoteniscope, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.111, 63.1402, 63.2406, and 
63.12005.
* * * * *

Subpart OOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutant Emissions: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins

0
3. Section 63.1400 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1400   Applicability and designation of affected sources.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Equipment that does not contain organic hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) and is located within an APPU that is part of an 
affected source;
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.1401 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1401  Compliance schedule.

* * * * *
    (b) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with this 
subpart (except Sec. Sec.  63.1404, 63.1405, and 63.1411(c)) no later 
than 3 years after January 20, 2000. Existing affected sources shall be 
in compliance with the storage vessel requirements of Sec.  63.1404 and 
the pressure relief device monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.1411(c) 
by October 9, 2017. Existing affected sources shall be in compliance 
with the continuous process vent requirements of Sec.  63.1405(b) by 
October 15, 2019.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.1402 paragraph (b) is amended by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Back-end continuous 
process vent'', ``Front-end continuous process vent'', ``Non-reactor 
process vent'', and ``Reactor process vent''; and
0
b. Removing the definitions for ``Non-reactor batch process vent'' and 
``Reactor batch process vent''
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1402  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Back-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent 
for operations related to processing liquid resins into a dry form. 
Back-end process operations include, but are not limited to, flaking, 
grinding, blending, mixing, drying, pelletizing, and other finishing 
operations, as well as latex and crumb storage. Back-end does not 
include storage and loading of finished product or emission points that 
are regulated under Sec. Sec.  63.1404 or 63.1409 through 63.1411 of 
this subpart.
* * * * *
    Front-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent 
for operations in an APPU related to producing liquid resins, including 
any product recovery, stripping and filtering operations, and prior to 
any flaking or drying operations.
* * * * *
    Non-reactor process vent means a batch or continuous process vent 
originating from a unit operation other than a reactor. Non-reactor 
process vents include, but are not limited to, process vents from 
filter presses, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, weigh tanks, 
and distillation systems.
* * * * *
    Reactor process vent means a batch or continuous process vent 
originating from a reactor.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.1403 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:
    (a) Provisions of this subpart. Except as allowed under paragraph 
(b) of this section, the owner or operator of an affected source shall 
comply with the provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.1404 through 63.1410, as 
appropriate. When emissions are vented to a control device or control 
technology as part of complying with this subpart, emissions shall be 
vented through a closed vent system meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SS (national emission standards for closed vent 
systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel gas 
system or a process).
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.1404 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory 
text and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1404  Storage vessel provisions.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 95 weight-percent. 
Control shall be achieved by venting emissions through a closed vent 
system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements 
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (national emission standards for closed 
vent systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel 
gas system or a process). When complying with the requirements of 40

[[Page 51853]]

CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for purposes of this 
subpart:
* * * * *
    (c) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from a 
storage vessel through a closed-vent system connected to a control 
device used to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of 
this section, the control device must be operating except as provided 
for in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) The control device may only be bypassed for the purpose of 
performing planned routine maintenance of the control device. When the 
control device is bypassed, the owner or operator must comply with 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The control device may only be bypassed when the planned 
routine maintenance cannot be performed during periods that storage 
vessel emissions are vented to the control device.
    (ii) On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-vent system 
or control device is bypassed to perform routine maintenance shall not 
exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.
    (iii) The level of material in the storage vessel shall not be 
increased during periods that the closed-vent system or control device 
is bypassed to perform planned routine maintenance.
    (2) The gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from the storage 
vessel through a closed-vent system connected to an alternate control 
device meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or the alternative 
standard in paragraph (b) of this section.

0
8. Section 63.1405 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and paragraph (a)(2) 
introductory text;
0
b. Removing paragraph (a)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (c).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1405   Continuous process vent provisions.

    (a) Emission standards for new affected sources. For each 
continuous process vent located at a new affected source with a Total 
Resource Effectiveness (TRE) index value, as determined following the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1412(j), less than or equal to 1.2, 
the owner or operator shall comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) 
of this section. As an alternative to complying with paragraph (a) of 
this section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (2) Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 85 weight-percent. 
Control shall be achieved by venting emissions through a closed vent 
system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements 
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (national emission standards for closed 
vent systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel 
gas system or process). When complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for purposes of this subpart:
* * * * *
    (b) Emission standards for existing affected sources. For each 
continuous process vent located at an existing affected source, the 
owner or operator shall comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of 
this section. As an alternative to complying with paragraph (b) of this 
section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) Vent all emissions of organic HAP to a flare.
    (2) Reduce emissions as specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through 
(iii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) The owner or operator of a back-end continuous process vent 
shall reduce total organic HAP emissions to less than or equal to 4.3 
kilograms of total organic HAP per megagram of resin produced (8.6 
pounds of total organic HAP per ton of resin produced).
    (ii) The owner or operator of a front-end reactor continuous 
process vent shall reduce total organic HAP emissions to less than or 
equal to 0.28 kilograms of total organic HAP per hour (0.61 pounds of 
total organic HAP per hour).
    (iii) The owner or operator of a front-end non-reactor continuous 
process vent shall reduce total organic HAP emissions to less than or 
equal to 0.010 kilograms of total organic HAP per hour (0.022 pounds of 
total organic HAP per hour).
    (c) Alternative emission standards. As an alternative to complying 
with paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, an owner or operator may 
comply with paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate.
    (1) For each continuous process vent located at a new affected 
source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP emissions from 
a continuous process vent meeting the TRE value specified in paragraph 
(a) of this section to a non-flare combustion control device achieving 
an outlet organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less or to a non-
combustion control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration 
of 50 ppmv or less. Any continuous process vents that are not vented to 
a control device meeting these conditions shall be controlled in 
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this 
section.
    (2) For each continuous process vent located at an existing 
affected source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP 
emissions from a continuous process vent to a non-flare combustion 
control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv 
or less or to a non-combustion control device achieving an outlet 
organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or less. Any continuous process 
vents that are not vented to a control device meeting these conditions 
shall be controlled in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 
(b)(1) or (2) of this section.

0
9. Section 63.1412 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (g)(2)(ii), 
and (k)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1412   Continuous process vent applicability assessment 
procedures and methods.

    (a) General. The provisions of this section provide procedures and 
methods for determining the applicability of the control requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.1405(a) to continuous process vents.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) American Society for Testing and Materials D1946-90 
(Reapproved 1994) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) to 
measure the concentration of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (2) If the TRE index value calculated using engineering assessment 
is less than or equal to 4.0, the owner or operator is required either 
to perform the measurements specified in paragraphs (e) through (h) of 
this section for control applicability assessment or comply with the 
control requirements specified in Sec.  63.1405(a).
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.1413 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(4) introductory 
text, and paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) through (6);
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(7);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (f) and (h)(1);
0
f. Redesignating paragraph (h)(2) as (h)(3);
0
g. Adding new paragraph (h)(2);
0
h. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(3) introductory text

[[Page 51854]]

(h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii) introductory text, (h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) and (3), and 
(h)(3)(iii);
0
i. Adding paragraph (h)(4);
0
j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(iii) and (iv); and
0
k. Adding paragraph (i)(1)(v).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1413   Compliance demonstration procedures.

    (a) General. For each emission point, the owner or operator shall 
meet three stages of compliance, with exceptions specified in this 
subpart. First, the owner or operator shall conduct a performance test 
or design evaluation to demonstrate either the performance of the 
control device or control technology being used or the uncontrolled 
total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. 
Second, the owner or operator shall meet the requirements for 
demonstrating initial compliance (e.g., a demonstration that the 
required percent reduction or emissions limit is achieved). Third, the 
owner or operator shall meet the requirements for demonstrating 
continuous compliance through some form of monitoring (e.g., continuous 
monitoring of operating parameters).
* * * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Uncontrolled continuous process vents. Owners or operators 
are required to conduct either a performance test or a design 
evaluation for continuous process vents that are not controlled through 
either a large or small control device.
* * * * *
    (3) Design evaluations. As provided in paragraph (a) of this 
section, a design evaluation may be conducted to demonstrate the 
organic HAP removal efficiency for a control device or control 
technology, or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a 
continuous process vent. As applicable, a design evaluation shall 
address the organic HAP emissions rate from uncontrolled continuous 
process vents, the composition and organic HAP concentration of the 
vent stream(s) entering a control device or control technology, the 
operating parameters of the emission point and any control device or 
control technology, and other conditions or parameters that reflect the 
performance of the control device or control technology or the organic 
HAP emission rate from a continuous process vent. A design evaluation 
also shall address other vent stream characteristics and control device 
operating parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) 
through (vi) of this section, for controlled vent streams, depending on 
the type of control device that is used. If the vent stream(s) is not 
the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency demonstration also 
shall consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels, 
received by the control device.
* * * * *
    (4) Establishment of parameter monitoring levels. The owner or 
operator of a control device that has one or more parameter monitoring 
level requirements specified under this subpart, or specified under 
subparts referenced by this subpart, shall establish a maximum or 
minimum level, as denoted on Table 4 of this subpart, for each measured 
parameter using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (ii) 
of this section. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the 
owner or operator shall operate control devices such that the hourly 
average, daily average, batch cycle daily average, or block average of 
monitored parameters, established as specified in this paragraph, 
remains above the minimum level or below the maximum level, as 
appropriate.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Initial compliance with Sec.  63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) (venting 
of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the procedures 
specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Continuous compliance with Sec.  63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) 
(venting of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the 
continuous monitoring procedures specified in Sec.  63.1415.
    (5) Initial and continuous compliance with the production-based 
emission limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall be 
demonstrated following the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this 
section.
    (6) Initial and continuous compliance with the emission rate limits 
specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) shall be demonstrated 
following the procedures of either paragraphs (c)(6)(i) or (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit using 
a closed vent system and a control device or recovery device or by 
routing emissions to a fuel gas system or process shall follow the 
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. When complying with the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for 
purposes of this subpart:
    (A) The requirements specified in of Sec.  63.1405 (a)(2)(i) 
through (viii).
    (B) When 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS refers to meeting a weight-
percent emission reduction or ppmv outlet concentration requirement, 
meeting an emission rate limit in terms of kilograms of total organic 
HAP per hour shall also apply.
    (ii) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit by 
means other than those specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section 
shall follow the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this 
section.
    (7) Initial and continuous compliance with the alternative 
standards specified in Sec.  63.1405(c) shall be demonstrated following 
the procedures in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) Compliance with alternative standard. Initial and continuous 
compliance with the alternative standards in Sec. Sec.  63.1404(b), 
63.1405(c), 63.1406(b), 63.1407(b)(1), and 63.1408(b)(1) are 
demonstrated when the daily average outlet organic HAP concentration is 
20 ppmv or less when using a combustion control device or 50 ppmv or 
less when using a non-combustion control device. To demonstrate initial 
and continuous compliance, the owner or operator shall follow the test 
method specified in Sec.  63.1414(a)(6) and shall be in compliance with 
the monitoring provisions in Sec.  63.1415(e) no later than the initial 
compliance date and on each day thereafter.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Each owner or operator complying with the mass emission limit 
specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall determine initial compliance 
as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section and continuous 
compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Initial compliance. Initial compliance shall be determined by 
comparing the results of the performance test or design evaluation, as 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, to the mass emission 
limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i).
    (ii) Continuous compliance. Continuous compliance shall be based on 
the daily average emission rate calculated for each operating day. The 
first continuous compliance average daily emission rate shall be 
calculated using the first 24-hour period or otherwise-specified 
operating day after the compliance date. Continuous compliance shall be 
determined by comparing the daily average emission rate to the mass 
emission limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i).
    (2) As required by paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section, each owner 
or operator

[[Page 51855]]

complying with the emission rate limits specified in Sec.  
63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), as applicable, by means other than those 
specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section, shall determine 
initial compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section 
and continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this 
section.
    (i) Initial compliance. Initial compliance shall be determined by 
comparing the results of the performance test or design evaluation, as 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, to the emission rate 
limits specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), as applicable.
    (ii) Continuous compliance. Continuous compliance shall be based on 
the hourly average emission rate calculated for each operating day. The 
first continuous compliance average hourly emission rate shall be 
calculated using the first 24-hour period or otherwise-specified 
operating day after the compliance date. Continuous compliance shall be 
determined by comparing the average hourly emission rate to the 
emission rate limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), as 
applicable.
    (3) Procedures to determine continuous compliance with the mass 
emission limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i).
    (i) The daily emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per megagram 
of product, shall be determined for each operating day using Equation 5 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15OC18.007

Where:

ER = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process vent, kg 
of HAP/Mg product.
Ei = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process 
vent i as determined using the procedures specified in paragraph 
(h)(3)(ii) of this section, kg/day.
RPm = Amount of resin produced in one month as determined 
using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this 
section, Mg/day.

    (ii) The daily emission rate of organic HAP, in kilograms per day, 
from an individual continuous process vent (Ei) shall be determined. 
Once organic HAP emissions have been estimated, as specified in 
paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled continuous 
process vents or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section for 
continuous process vents vented to a control device or control 
technology, the owner or operator may use the estimated organic HAP 
emissions (Ei) until the estimated organic HAP emissions are no longer 
representative due to a process change or other reason known to the 
owner or operator. If organic HAP emissions (Ei) are determined to no 
longer be representative, the owner or operator shall redetermine 
organic HAP emissions for the continuous process vent following the 
procedures in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled 
continuous process vents or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 
section for continuous process vents vented to a control device or 
control technology.
* * * * *
    (B) * * *
    (1) Uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall be determined 
following the procedures in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Controlled organic HAP emissions shall be determined by 
applying the control device or control technology efficiency, 
determined in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, to the 
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, determined in paragraph 
(h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section.
    (iii) The rate of resin produced, RPM (Mg/day), shall be 
determined based on production records certified by the owner or 
operator to represent actual production for the day. A sample of the 
records selected by the owner or operator for this purpose shall be 
provided to the Administrator in the Precompliance Report as required 
by Sec.  63.1417(d).
    (4) Procedures to determine continuous compliance with the emission 
rate limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii).
    (i) The hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per hour, 
shall be determined for each hour during the operating day using 
Equation 6 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15OC18.008

Where:

EH = Hourly emission rate of organic HAP in the sample, 
kilograms per hour.
K2 = Constant, 2.494 x 10-\6\ (parts per 
million)-\1\ (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) 
(kilogram/gram) (minutes/hour), where standard temperature for 
(gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 20 [deg]C.
n = Number of components in the sample.
CJ = Organic HAP concentration on a dry basis of organic 
compound j in parts per million as determined by the methods 
specified in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section.
Mj = Molecular weight of organic compound j, gram/gram-
mole.
QS = Continuous process vent flow rate, dry standard 
cubic meters per minute, at a temperature of 20 [deg]C, as 
determined by the methods specified in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this 
section.

    (ii) The average hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per 
hour, shall be determined for each operating day using Equation 7 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15OC18.009

Where:

AE = Average hourly emission rate per operating day, kilograms per 
hour.
n = Number of hours in the operating day.

    (ii) Continuous process vent flow rate and organic HAP 
concentration shall be determined using the procedures specified in 
Sec.  63.1414(a), or by using the engineering assessment procedures in 
paragraph (h)(4)(iii) of this section.
    (iii) Engineering assessment. For the purposes of determining 
continuous compliance with the emission rate limit specified in Sec.  
63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) using Equations 6 and 7, engineering 
assessments may be used to determine continuous process vent flow rate 
and organic HAP concentration. An engineering assessment includes, but 
is not limited to, the following examples:
    (A) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of 
current operating practices.
    (B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the 
process under representative operating conditions.
    (C) Maximum volumetric flow rate or organic HAP concentration 
specified or implied within a permit limit applicable to the continuous 
process vent.
    (D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering 
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws 
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not 
limited to, the following:
    (1) Estimation of maximum organic HAP concentrations based on 
process stoichiometry material balances or saturation conditions; and
    (2) Estimation of maximum volumetric flow rate based on physical 
equipment design, such as pump or blower capacities.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Exceedance of the mass emission limit (i.e., having an 
average value higher than the specified limit) monitored according to 
the provisions of paragraph (e)(2) of this section for batch process 
vents and according to the provisions of paragraph (h)(1) of this 
section for continuous process vents;
    (iv) Exceedance of the organic HAP outlet concentration limit 
(i.e., having an average value higher than the

[[Page 51856]]

specified limit) monitored according to the provisions of Sec.  
63.1415(e); and
    (v) Exceedance of the emission rate limit (i.e., having an average 
value higher than the specified limit) determined according to the 
provisions of paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.1415 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1415   Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) Monitoring for the alternative standards. For control devices 
that are used to comply with the provisions of Sec.  63.1404(b), Sec.  
63.1405(c), Sec.  63.1406(b), Sec.  63.1407(b), or Sec.  63.1408(b) the 
owner or operator shall conduct continuous monitoring of the outlet 
organic HAP concentration whenever emissions are vented to the control 
device. Continuous monitoring of outlet organic HAP concentration shall 
be accomplished using an FTIR instrument following Method PS-15 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix B. The owner or operator shall calculate a daily 
average outlet organic HAP concentration.

0
12. Section 63.1416 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (3), (f)(5) introductory text, and 
(f)(5)(ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (f)(5)(iii);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (f)(6) as (f)(7);
0
d. Adding new paragraph (f)(6);
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (f)(7) introductory text and 
paragraph (g)(5)(v)(E); and
0
f. Adding paragraph (g)(6).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1416   Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) TRE index value records. Each owner or operator of a continuous 
process vent at a new affected source shall maintain records of 
measurements, engineering assessments, and calculations performed 
according to the procedures of Sec.  63.1412(j) to determine the TRE 
index value. Documentation of engineering assessments, described in 
Sec.  63.1412(k), shall include all data, assumptions, and procedures 
used for the engineering assessments.
* * * * *
    (3) Organic HAP concentration records. Each owner or operator shall 
record the organic HAP concentration as measured using the sampling 
site and organic HAP concentration determination procedures (if 
applicable) specified in Sec.  63.1412(b) and (e), or determined 
through engineering assessment as specified in Sec.  63.1412(k).
* * * * *
    (5) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate 
compliance with the mass emission limit specified in Sec.  
63.1405(b)(2)(i), keep records specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an 
operating day.
    (iii) The daily organic HAP emissions from the continuous process 
vent determined as specified in Sec.  63.1413(h)(3).
    (6) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission rate limits specified in Sec.  
63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), keep records specified in paragraphs 
(f)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The results of the initial compliance demonstration specified 
in Sec.  63.1413(h)(2)(i).
    (ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an 
operating day.
    (iii) The average hourly organic HAP emissions from the continuous 
process vent determined as specified in Sec.  63.1413(h)(4).
    (7) When using a flare to comply with Sec.  63.1405(a)(1) or 
(b)(1), keep the records specified in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through 
(f)(7)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
    (6) An owner or operator shall record, on a semiannual basis, the 
information specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(i) through (iii) of this 
section, as applicable, for those planned routine maintenance 
operations that would require the control device not to meet the 
requirements of Sec.  63.1404(a) or (b) of this subpart.
    (i) A description of the planned routine maintenance that is 
anticipated to be performed for the control device during the next 6 
months. This description shall include the type of maintenance 
necessary, planned frequency of maintenance, and lengths of maintenance 
periods.
    (ii) A description of the planned routine maintenance that was 
performed for the control device during the previous 6 months. This 
description shall include the type of maintenance performed and the 
total number of hours during these 6 months that the control device did 
not meet the requirement of Sec.  63.1404 (a) or (b) of this subpart, 
as applicable, due to planned routine maintenance.
    (iii) For each storage vessel for which planned routine maintenance 
was performed during the previous 6 months, record the height of the 
liquid in the storage vessel at the time the control device is bypassed 
to conduct the planned routine maintenance and at the time the control 
device is placed back in service after completing the routine 
maintenance. These records shall include the date and time the liquid 
height was measured.

0
13. Section 63.1417 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(8), (e)(1) 
introductory text, (e)(9), (f) introductory text, (f)(1) and (2), 
(f)(5) introductory text, and (f)(12)(ii);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (f)(14) through (16); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1417  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Precompliance Report. Owners or operators of affected sources 
requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use 
alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring 
and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use 
engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch 
emissions episode as described in Sec.  63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to 
establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures 
contained in Sec.  63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing parameter monitoring 
levels based on a design evaluation as specified in Sec.  
63.1413(a)(3); or following the procedures in Sec.  63.1413(e)(2); or 
following the procedures in Sec.  63.1413(h)(3), shall submit a 
Precompliance Report according to the schedule described in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section. The Precompliance Report shall contain the 
information specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through (11) of this 
section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (8) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission 
limit specified in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i), the sample of production 
records specified in Sec.  63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in the 
Precompliance Report.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) The results of any emission point applicability determinations, 
performance tests, design evaluations, inspections, continuous 
monitoring system performance evaluations, any other information used 
to demonstrate compliance, and any other information, as appropriate, 
required to be included

[[Page 51857]]

in the Notification of Compliance Status under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
WW and subpart SS, as referred to in Sec.  63.1404 for storage vessels; 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, as referred to in Sec.  63.1405 for 
continuous process vents; under Sec.  63.1416(f)(1) through (3), 
(f)(5)(i) and (ii), and (f)(6)(i) and (ii) for continuous process 
vents; under Sec.  63.1416(d)(1) for batch process vents; and under 
Sec.  63.1416(e)(1) for aggregate batch vent streams. In addition, each 
owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (9) Data or other information used to demonstrate that an owner or 
operator may use engineering assessment to estimate emissions for a 
batch emission episode, as specified in Sec.  63.1414(d)(6)(iii)(A).
* * * * *
    (f) Periodic Reports. Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of 
this section, a report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2) 
of this section or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3) 
through (11) and (13) through (16) of this section, as appropriate, 
shall be submitted semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of 
each 180 day period. In addition, for equipment leaks subject to Sec.  
63.1410, the owner or operator shall submit the information specified 
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, and for heat exchange systems subject to 
Sec.  63.1409, the owner or operator shall submit the information 
specified in Sec.  63.1409. Section 63.1415 shall govern the use of 
monitoring data to determine compliance for emissions points required 
to apply controls by the provisions of this subpart.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of this section, a 
report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2) of this section 
or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and 
(13) through (16) of this section, as appropriate, shall be submitted 
semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of each 180 day 
period. The first report shall be submitted no later than 240 days 
after the date the Notification of Compliance Status is due and shall 
cover the 6-month period beginning on the date the Notification of 
Compliance Status is due. Subsequent reports shall cover each preceding 
6-month period.
    (2) If none of the compliance exceptions specified in paragraphs 
(f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (16) of this section occurred 
during the 6-month period, the Periodic Report required by paragraph 
(f)(1) of this section shall be a statement that the affected source 
was in compliance for the preceding 6-month period and no activities 
specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (16) of 
this section occurred during the preceding 6-month period.
* * * * *
    (5) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified 
in Sec.  63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), Sec.  63.1407(b)(2), or 
Sec.  63.1408(b)(2), the following information, as appropriate, shall 
be included:
* * * * *
    (12) * * *
    (ii) The quarterly reports shall include all information specified 
in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (16) of this section 
applicable to the emission point for which quarterly reporting is 
required under paragraph (f)(12)(i) of this section. Information 
applicable to other emission points within the affected source shall be 
submitted in the semiannual reports required under paragraph (f)(1) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (14) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified 
in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(i), the report shall include the daily average 
emission rate calculated for each operating day for which a deviation 
occurred.
    (15) If there is a deviation from the emission rate limit specified 
in Sec.  63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), the report shall include the 
following information for each operating day for which a deviation 
occurred:
    (i) The calculated average hourly emission rate.
    (ii) The individual hourly emission rate data points making up the 
average hourly emission rate.
    (16) For periods of storage vessel routine maintenance in which a 
control device is bypassed, the owner or operator shall submit the 
information specified in Sec.  63.1416(g)(6)(i) through (iii) of this 
subpart.
    (h) * * *
    (7) Whenever a continuous process vent becomes subject to control 
requirements under Sec.  63.1405, as a result of a process change, the 
owner or operator shall submit a report within 60 days after the 
performance test or applicability assessment, whichever is sooner. The 
report may be submitted as part of the next Periodic Report required by 
paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-22395 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P