United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality EPA 453/R-02-001
Planning and Standards February 2002
Research Triangle Park, 27711
Air
Guidelines for MACT
Determinations under
Section 112 (j) Requirements
-------
-------
[This page intentionally left blank]
-------
ABSTRACT
Section 112 (j) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
requires owners or operators of major sources to apply for a
Title V permit should the Environmental Protection Agency fail to
promulgate emission standards for an applicable source category
within 18 months after the date specified in the regulatory
schedule established through Section 112 (e) of the Act. The
Title V permit that is issued must require the owner or operator
to meet a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emission .
limitation for all hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions within
the source category. Regulations to implement Section 112 (j) are
codified in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart B. This document provides
guidance for complying with these regulations by Identifying and
evaluating control technology options to determine the MACT
emission limitation. In this document,- the term "control
technology" is defined broadly to be consistent with section
112(d)(2) of the Clean,Air Act to include measures, processes,
methods, systems or techniques which reduce the volume of, or
eliminate emissions of, HAP through process changes, substitution
of materials or other modifications; enclose systems or processes
to eliminate emissions; collect, capture or treat HAP when
released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions
-------
point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards; or' a combination of the above.
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1.0
Chapter 2.0
Chapter 3.0
Chapter 5.0
An Overview of the MACT Determination Process for
Section 112 (j) . ..... ...... ' 1~1
1.1 Overview of Statutory Requirements . . . 1-1
l".2 Overview of the Section 112 (j) Regulatory
Requirements ...... ........ 1-4
1.3 Affected Source and New Affected Source
Review
1-11
2-1
, 2-1
, 2-3
. 2-5
Available Information 2-8
Gener.al Permits ......-' 2-9
The MACT Determination
2.1 Criteria for the MACT'Determination
2.2 Compliance Provisions
2.3 Approaches to the MACT Determination
2.4
2.5
The MACT Analysis
3.1 Overview of the MACT Analysis Process .
3.2 A Detailed Look at the MACT Analysis
3.3 Determining the MACT Emission Unit and
"Affected Source" *.
3.4 Similar Emission Units
3.5 Subcategorization* . . .
Chapter 4.0 The MACT Floor Finding
4.1 Calculation of the MACT Floor .......
4.2 Method 1- Computing the MACT Floor Using
Existing State and Local Regulations . .
4.3 Method 2 - Computing the MACT Floor Using
Control Efficiency Ratings
4.4 Method 3 - Computing the MACT Floor Using
Emission Reduction Ratios 4-9
4.5 Technology Approach 4-12
4.6 Other Methods to Compute the MACT Floor .4-13
The MACT Emission Limitation and Permit Conditions
«"**
5.1 MACT Emission Limitation ........ 5-1
5.2 Alternative Ways to Comply' 5-5
5.3 Applicable Monitoring, Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Compliance 5-6
-------
Chapter 6.0 Costs, Non-Air'Quality Health and Environmental
Impacts and Energy Impacts 6-1
6.1 Cost Impacts : _ g_3
,6.2 Environmental Impacts' 6-6
6.3 Energy Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; 6-8
Chapter 7.0 Sources of Information rf . . . .'. 7-1
Appendix A Examples of MACT Analyses ' . . . . -^-1
Appendix B Federal Register Notice on Determining an Average
Emission Limitation for Existing-Sources, June 6
1994 . (59 FR 29196) ....... B-l
Appendix C Example Notice of MACT Approval' c-1
Appendix D Federal^Register Notice on Final Amendments to
Regulations Governing Equivalent Emission
Limitations by Permit D-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Sources in Existence and Subject to 112(j) at Deadline
for Source Category . . 1-9
Figure 2 Source Becomes Subject to 112 (j) After the 112(j)
Deadline but Before Issuance of Permit ..... 1-10
Figure 3 The MACT Analysis
3-4
111
-------
IV
-------
Introduction
The purpose of this manual is to provide State and local
agencies with guidance for establishing the case-by-case maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) determinations required by
Section 112 (j) of the Clean Air Act in the event that EPA should
miss the deadline for promulgating a Section.112(d) standard by
more than 18 months. As with any guidance, this document does
not impose legally binding requirements for either the permitting
authority or an owner or operator. For a complete understanding
of the regulatory requirements, readers should refer to the
General Provisions for National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Source Categories (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A)
and sections 63.50 through 63.56 implementing the Section 112 (j)
requirements (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart B).
This manual is divided into seven chapters and four
appendices. Chapter 1 of this manual provides an overview of the
statutory and regulatory requirements and discusses the
procedures for applying for a Notice of MACT Approval. Chapter .2
outlines the criteria a permitting authority should use when
evaluating applications as well as possible approaches permitting
authorities may use for determiningthe appropriate level of
control for each source. Chapter 3 describes a process for
selecting control technology that meets the criteria discussed in
v
-------
Chapter 2. Chapter 4 provides a detailed discussion on -
determining the minimum level of control that can be MACT for the
source (the MACT floor). Chapter 5 briefly discusses some
calculation procedures for the equivalent (MACT) .emission
limitation. Chapter 6 describes the analysis that may be
required to assess the costs of achieving the emission reduction,
and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements associated with use of different control
options. Chapter 7 discusses sources that may assist in the
collection of available information.
Appendix A illustrates examples for defining a MACT-affected
emission unit, and selecting a control technology to meet MACT.
Appendix B contains the June 6, 1994 Federal Real .sf-.P.r clarifying
EPA's use of the word "average" to determine how an average
emission limitation should be computed for existing sources.
Appendix C provides a suggested format for the Notice of MACT
Approval, which the permitting authority may issue" consistent'
with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.54 of Subpart B. Finally,
Appendix D contains the Federal Register notice on-the final
amendments to Regulations Governing Equivalent Emission
Limitations by Permit.
While the examples and methodologies in this guidance
attempt to illustrate ways the EPA may determine the emission
limitation for the purposes of a national Section 112(d) emission
VI
-------
standard, they may not represent the only methodology or they may
not be the best methodology for establishing a MACT emission
limitation. The methods used to establish an emission standard
or case-by-case MACT emission limitation will be highly dependent
upon the amount and type of information available, the complexity
of the source, and the number of feasible control options. In
some instances, a permitting authority's control technology
determination procedures may yield the appropriate level of
control without specifically following this guidance or making a
MACT floor finding. The EPA is less concerned with the actual
methodologies used, and more concerned that the outcome requires
sources to comply with an emission limitation based on MACT.
Also, throughout this manual, the reader, will find that the
roles and responsibilities in the case-by-case MACT determination
have been delineated between the permitting authority and the
permit applicant. This delineation of roles and responsibilities
is intended to indicate a lead role, but is not intended to
establish any solfe responsibilities. Permitting authorities and
applicants should recognize that establishing the appropriate
level of control is an iterative process that will require on-
going communication and exchange of- information between the
permitting authority and the applicant.
In summary, the EPA encourages State and local agencies to
cooperatively use this guidance, methods used by the EPA in
Vll
-------
developing Section 112(d).MACT standards, and various State
control technology determination procedures to'establish timely,
accurate, and consistent MACT emission limitations.
vi iz
-------
Chapter 1.0
An Overview of the
MACT Determination Process
for Section 112(j)
1.1 Overview of Statutory Requirements
Beginning after the effective date of an approved permit
program, Section 112 (j) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 .
(the Act) requires an owner or operator of a major source to
submit either a new Title V permit application or revise an
existing permit if such major source incorporates.a source
category for which the promulgation deadline for a relevant
Section 112(d) or 112(h) standard has been, missed .by 18 months.
The promulgation deadline for each source category was
established through the regulatory schedule in accordance with
Section 112(e) of the Act. A final regulatory schedule was
published on December 3, 1993 in the Federal Register (58 FR
63941). To obtain the most current list of categories of sources
to be regulated under Section 112 of the Act, or to obtain the
most recent regulation promulgation schedule established pursuant
to Section 112(e) of the Act, contact the Office of the Director,
Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Section 112 (j) also requires States or local agencies with
approved permit programs to issue permits or revise existing
1-1
-------
permits for all of these major sources. These permits must
contain either an equivalent emission limitation or an alternate
emission limitation for the control of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from the equipment within the source category. An
equivalent emission limitation, also referred to as a MACT
emission limitation, will be determined on a case-by-case basis
by the permitting authority for each source category that becomes
subject to the provisions of Section 112(j). The MACT emission
limitation will be "equivalent" to the. emission limitation that
the source category would'have been subject to if a relevant
standard had been promulgated under Section 112(d) (or
Section 112 (h)) . ' .
In accordance with Section 112(d), the MACT emission
limitation will require a maximum degree of reduction of HAP
emissions, taking into consideration the costs of achieving such
emission reductions and any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements. For new sources,
the MACT emission limitation will be no less stringent than the
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar source. For.existing sources the MACT
emission limitation will be no less stringent than:
1. The average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the
Administrator has emissions,information),' excluding those
sources that have, within 18 months before the emission
standard is proposed or within 30 months before such
standard is promulgated, whichever is later, first achieved
1-2
-------
a level of emission rate or emission reduction which
complies, or would comply if the source is not subject to
such standard, with the lowest achievable emission rate (as
defined by Section 171 (of the Act) ) applicable to the
source category and prevailing at the time, in the category
or subcategory for categories and subcategories with 30 or
more sources; or,
2. The average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 5 sources (for which the Administrator has or
could reasonably obtain emissions information) in the
category or subcategory for categories or subcategories with
fewer than 30 sources. (Sections 112 (d) (3) (A) and (B) of
the Act.) .
These minimum requirements for the MACT emission limitation for
new and existing sources are termed the "maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) floor".
An alternate emission limitation is a voluntary emission
limitation that an owner or operator of a major source has agreed
to achieve through the early reductions program (see 57 FR 61970;
December 29, 1992). (This regulation is codified in Subpart D,
40 CFR 63.70.) The alternate emission limitation can be written
into the permit in lieu of an equivalent emission .limitation only
if the source has achieved the required reduction in HAP
emissions before the missed promulgation deadline for the
relevant Section 112(d) (or 112(h)) standard.
Section 112 (j) also requires the EPA to establish
requirements for owners or operators and reviewing agencies to
carry out the intent of Section 112 (j). These, re'gulatory
requirements are contained- in Chapter 40, Part 63, Subpart B of
the Code of Federal Regulations.
1-3
-------
1.2 Overview of the Section 112 (j) Regulatory Requirements
The owner or operator of a major source is required to apply
for a Title V permit or permit revision, when the statutory
deadline for a relevant Section 112(d) emission standard is
missed by 18 months. The content of applications, details of the
application approval process, timing of submittals, reviews, and
permit issuance are in sections 63.52 and 63.53 of the
Section 112(j) rule.
The application f or' a case-by-case MACT determination is a
two-part process. Part 1 of the application requests very basic
information about the affected source; the substantive
information required by the permitting authority to make its MACT
determination is tied to submittal of the -Part 2 application.
The application content for a MACT determination is contained in
section 63.53. Information available as :of the date on which the
first Part 2 MACT application is filed for a source in the
relevant source.category or subcategory in the State or
jurisdiction will be considered- by the permitting authority in
making its case-by-case MACT determination. The definition of
"available information" in section 63.51 specifies the'type of
information and sources of information available to the affected
source owner or operator for use in completing the application or
to the permitting authority in determining the terms and
conditions of case-by-case MACT.
1-4
-------
The cutoff date for what information may be considered by
the permitting authority is in the context of the development of
control technologies that could be considered in the MACT floor
determination. The definition does not preclude the permitting
authority from considering information that was brought to its
attention after the cutoff date through public comment or other
means, so long as the information (e.g., control technology) had
*
been developed prior to the cutoff date.
The following is a synopsis of the approval process under
several scenarios for existing sources, affected sources, and new
affected sources as described in section 63.52 of the rule. This
synopsis includes situations where an affected source is subject
to Section 112(g) requirements and later becomes subject to , .
Section 112(j) and area sources become major affected sources
subject to Section 112 (j). This synopsis is provided for
information purposes only. To the extent the reader identifies
any potential conflicts or errors compared to the actual 'rule
language, the language in Subpart B governs.
Sources in existence at the Section 112(j) deadline:
(1) The owner or operator can reasonably determine- the
affected source is subject to the Section 112 (j) rule and submits
the Part 1 application as described under Section 63.53(a) of the
rule by the Section 112 (j) deadline.
1-5
-------
(2) If an owner or operator submits a Part 1 application in
error, the State is responsible for notifying them that they are
not subject to Section 112 (j). (That is, the source is'not in a
category or subcategory subject to Section 112 Cg ) ) .
(3) The owner or operator of the affected source who does
not submit a Part 1 application is notified by the State that
he/she is subject .to the Section 112(j) rule and submits the Part
1 MACT application within 30 days of the notification. Owners or
operators who can reasonably determine they are subject and do
not submit an application may be subject to enforcement action.
(4) The affected source has a Title V permit or .application
that addresses Section 112(g) emission limitation requirements:
affected source has a Section 112(g) MACT .
determination and submits Part 1 MACT application.
per timing in (1) or (3) above;
affected source has an application and completes
the Title V permit process'under Section 112(g)..
Within 30 days.of issuance of the Title V permit
containing the Section 112(g) MACT determination,
affected source submits the Part 1 MACT
application.
Sources that become subject after the Section 112(j) deadline and
do not have a Title V permit addressing the Section 112(j)
requirements:
1-6
-------
(1) Installation at a major source or installation that
results in the source becoming a major source, but Section 112(g)
is not triggered. The owner or operator submits the Part 1 MACT
application within 30 days of startup.
(2) The owner or operator has a Title V permit or . " _.
application satisfying the requirements of Section 112(g). The
owner or operator submits the Part 1 MACT application within
30 days of issuance of the Title V permit that addresses the
emission limitation requirements of Section 112(g).
(3) Area source becomes major as a result of change in
potential to emit (PTE), Source submits a Part 1 MACT
application for a Title V permit or an application for a Title V
permit revision within 30 days after such source becomes a major
source.,
(4) Area source becomes major as a result of a lesser
quantity emission rate established by the Administrator. Source
submits a Part 1 MACT application for a Title V permit- or Title V
permit .revision within 6 months after such source becomes a major
source.
Sources that become subject after the Section 112(j) deadline and
have a Title V permit addressing the requirements of Section
112 (j):
(1) If the "event" is covered by the permit, then th'e
affected source owner or operator complies with the permit;
1-7
-------
(2) If the "event" is not covered by the permit, then the-
existing source,submits a Part 1 MACT application for a revision
to the permit within 30 days of .beginning construction.
Requests for applicability determinations and for Notice of MACT
Approval:
(1) If a source owner or operator is unsure whether any of
the above scenarios apply, then he/she may submit a Part 1 MACT'
application to ask the State for an applicability determination.
(2) Owners or operators of new affected sources-can obtain
preconstruction review through an application for a Notice of
MACT approval under section 63.54 of the rule.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the 'obligations and associated
timing requirements of sources subject to Section 112(j)
requirements.
-------
112(j) Deadline
5/15/02*
No Later Than
5/15/04*
No Later Than
7/15,04*
No Later Than
1/15/06*
No LaterThan
1/15/09*
Parti Application Due
Part 2 Application Due
Part2 Completeness
Determination Made
-Issue 112{j) Permit with
Case-By-Case MACT
Comply with Existing Source
MACT
Figure 1. Sources in Existence and Subject to Section
112(j) at D ead lin e fo r So urce C ateg ory
(orSubcategory)
* D^tes represent latest dde possible for compliance
1-9
-------
May 15,2002
"112(j) Deadline"
Startup
T Not more than 30 days
Part 1 Application
Not more than 24 months
Part 2 Application
Not more than 2 months
Part 2 Completeness
Determination
JNot more than 18 months
Issue Revised 112(j)
Permit with Case-by-Case
MACT
f Not more than 3 years
Comply with Existing
Source MACT
Figure 2. Source Becomes Subject to
Section 112(j) After the 112(j) Deadline but
before Issuance of Permit
1-10
-------
1.3 Affected Source and New Affected Source Review
In some instances an owner/operator may be "required to
obtain preconstruction review or provide notice of intent to
change a source subject to Section 112(j). If an owner or
operator is not required to obtain or revise a Title V- permit
before construction of the new affected source (and has not
elected to do so), but the new affected source is covered.by any
»
preconstruction or pre-operation review requirements established
pursuant to Section 112(g)'of the Act, then the preconstruction
review requirements under Section 112(g) would fulfill the
requirements of Section 112(j). If the hew affected source is
not covered by Section 112(g), the permitting authority, in its
discretion, may issue a Notice of MACT Approval, or the . .
equivalent, consistent with the requirements, in 40 CFR 63.54 of
Subpart B before construction or operation of the new affected-
source. Appendix C provides a suggested format for the Notice of
MACT Approval. If a Section 112(j) case-by-case MACT
determination has been made for such a source, it will include a
determination of existing source MACT and new source MACT as well
as the applicability of new source MACT. Such a case-by-case
determination is the basis for preconstruction review. This
process would- require owners and operators of major sources to
undergo preconstruction review before constructing a new affected
source or reconstructing an affected source, 'if construction is
1-11-
-------
to commence after the Section112(j) deadline. Details of the
requirements for the approval process for affected sources and
new affected sources are described in Section 63.52 of Subpart B;
preconstruction review procedures for new affected sources are
described in Section 63.54. Regardless of the review process,
the MACT determination must be consistent with the principles
established in Section 63.55.
1-12
-------
Chapter 2.0
The MACT Determination
2.1 Criteria for the MACT Determination
The process of determining an equivalent (MACT) emission
limitation is called a MACT determination. For MACT
determinations under Section 112 (j), the MACT emission limitation
should be comparable to the emission limitation(s) or
requirements that would likely be imposed if a Section 112(d) or
Section 112(h) emission standard had been promulgated for that
source category. The Clean Air Act sets forth specific criteria
for setting a hazardous air pollutant emission standard under
Section 112(d) and Section 112(h). These criteria should also be
used when establishing the MACT emission limitation under
Section 112 (j).
Permit conditions created through Section 112 (j) of the Act
should establish limitations that:
1) Are no less stringent than the MACT floor when a MACT
floor can be determined; and,
2) - Achieve a maximum degree of HAP.emission reduction with
consideration to the cost of achieving such .emission
reductions, and the non-air-quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements; and,
2-1
-------
3)
4)
Limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of HAP
emissions on. a continuous basis; or,
Designate specific design, equipment, wo.rk practice,
operational standard, or a combination thereof, that
achieves a maximum degree of emission reduction, when
it is not .practicable (economically or technologically)
to prescribe a specific numerical emission limitation.
The MACT emission limitation could be expressed as a
numerical emission limitation on the total quantity of HAP
emissions from the source in tons per year (tpy), a production
ratio (e.g., 10 Ibs of HAP/100 Ibs of polymer), or as a
concentration limit (e.g., 10-ppm HAP). The MACT emission
limitation could also be a performance standard based on the
expected efficiency of MACT in reducing HAP emissions. For *
example, a source may be required to reduce emissions by 90
percent from a 1990 baseline or to achieve a specified reduction
from 'uncontrolled emission rates. The MACT emission limitation
can also be based on a design, equipment, work practice,
operational standard, or any combination of these. In some '
cases, the EPA found that it is appropriate to require a source
to use a high efficiency spray gun in the coating process; to
conduct a leak detection and repair program for.various items of
equipment; or to install a floating roof with primary and
2-2
-------
secondary seals on a storage tank in lieu of establishing a
numerical emission limitation.
If an individual hazardous air pollutant is of particular
concern, a MACT limitation may also be placed on that pollutant
based on the expected level of reduction with MACT in place.
Reviewing agencies should consider whether it is appropriate to
impose such a Limitation on a specific hazardous air pollutant.
In addition to specifying the MACT emission limitation, the
permit should establish the terms and conditions that are
necessary to make the emission limitation federally enforceable.
as a legal and practical matter. This involves establishing
appropriate operational and/or monitoring parameters to ensure
compliance with the MACT emission limitation. The following
section discusses compliance provisions in greater detail.
2.2 Compliance Provisions
Each Title V permit' and Notice of MACT Approval must contain
sufficient testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements to assure compliance with the MACT emission
limitation.
When the permit or Notice of MACT Approval requires an add-
on control, operating parameters and' assumptions that can be used
to determine the efficiency of the device or its emission rate
should be specified. For example, a source may have a MACT
2-3
-------
emission limitation that requires a control device to be
installed and operated at a 95-percent emission reduction
efficiency. An operational limit on the range of temperatures
that the device can be operated under could be sufficient to
ensure compliance, if operating the control device' within this
temperature range ensures that the device achieves a 95-percent
destruction efficiency.
If establishing operating parameters for control equipment
is infeasibl'e in a particular situation, a short, term emission
limit (e.g., Ibs/hr) would 'be sufficient provided that such
limits, reflect the operation of the control equipment, and
additional requirements are imposed to install, maintain, and
operate a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) or other
periodic monitoring that yields sufficiently reliable data to
determine the source's compliance with .the MACT emission',
limitation. .
If parameter monitoring .of the process is infeasible due'to
the wide variety of operating conditions, emission limits coupled
with a requirement to calculate daily emissions may be required.
For.instance, a source could be required to keep the records of
the daily emission calculation, including daily quantities and
the HAP content of each coating used.
For limitations to be enforceable as a practical matter, the
limitations should extend over the shortest practicable time
2-4
-------
period, generally not to exceed one month. If it is not
practicable to place a monthly limit on the source, a longer time
can be used with a rolling average period. However, the limit
should not exceed an annual limit rolled on a monthly basis.
In addition to conveying practical enforceability' of a MACT
emission limitation, the Title V permit or Notice of MACT
Approval should require testing or monitoring that yields data
that are representative of the source's operations and can be
used to certify the source's compliance with the terms and
conditions of the Title V permit or Notice of MACT Approval.
Testing or monitoring must be performed in a manner to ensure
that the limitations are achieved at all -times, except during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction. Such testing or monitoring.
requirements may be in the form of continuous emission monitoring
systems, continuous opacity monitoring systems, or periodic
monitoring. If periodic testing is required, the specific EPA-
approved method or equivalent method that is to be used should be
specified in the permit or notice.
2.3 Approaches to the MACT Determination
When the Administrator fails to promulgate a standard by the
promulgation deadline, the EPA. intends to make all non-
confidential information collected during the development of a
source category standard available to the public. If the
2-5
-------
Administrator has conducted a MACT floor finding, this analysis
will be made available as well. Information will, be conveyed
either through a Federal Register notice, a. background "
information document,. .the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), or
other available mechanism. -.
A permitting authority could use several different
approaches for the MACT determination process. For example, a
permitting authority could wait until all' applications for
permits are received to determine the equivalent emission
limitations that would apply to all of the sources within its
jurisdiction. Or, a permitting authority or a group of
permitting, authorities could conduct a "MACT analysis" based on
available information before the first Part 2 MACT application is
filed for a source in the relevant source category or subcategory
in the State or jurisdiction. ,
The 'first approach requires less upfront coordination on the
part of the permitting'authority and is likely to be used when,
the EPA fails to collect sufficient information on the source
category or subcategory during the standards development process.
Once the permit applications are received, information from each
application can be compiled to determine the appropriate
emissions control level. When this approach is used,'the EPA
strongly encourages different permitting authorities to share
information received through the. permit application process.
2-6
-------
After the appropriate level of control is determined using the
permit application information, permit applicants may need to
submit additional information to demonstrate how the required
emission reductions will be.met so that permit terms and
conditions can be developed.
The second approach is most likely to be used when there is
a substantial amount of information already available for a
source category or subcategory, or when the EPA has already
proposed standards for that source category or. subcategory.
Based on this available information, the permitting authority (or
coalition of permitting authorities) could conduct a MACT
analysis (See Chapter 3) to determine the appropriate level of
control for each source. This control level could be made
federally enforceable for all sources in the category through the
use of general permits, or each applicant' could undergo a
separate review in the Title V permitting process. Section 2.5
discusses the concept of general permits in greater detail.
RegardJLess of the approach taken to issue or revise Title V
permits under Section 112 (j), permitting authorities are reminded
that the equivalent emission limitation is to be determined on a
case-by-case basis for each source.category or subcategory for
which a Section 112 (j) MACT determination is required. This
determination should be viewed as a "source category-by-source
category" determination and terms and conditions in each permit
2-7
-------
issued should yield an essentially equivalent degree of emission
reductions for all affected sources in the category or
subcategory.
2.4 Available Information
Section 112 (j) states that permits issued pursuant to
Section 112 (j) shall contain an equivalent emission limitation.
This emission limitation is to be "equivalent" to that which the
source would have been subject had an applicable Section 112(d)
or Section 112(h) emission standard been promulgated. In order
to establish an emission limitation that would be equivalent, the
permitting authority must determine 'the equivalent emission
limitation with consideration of the MACT floor using available
information-as defined in 40 CFR 63.51. . ,
It is not necessary for the MACT floor to be determined
based on emissions information from every existing source in the
source category or subcategory if such information is not
available. The permitting authority, however, should check with
EPA' Regional Offices and EPA- Headquarters for any available
information that could be used in determining the MACT floor.
Once a permitting authority has obtained available information,
»
the MACT floor can be determined using this information if it is
representative of the source categoryor subcategory. For
example, suppose there are 100 sources in a source category or
2-8
-------
subcategory. Control technology X and Y are generally considered
to achieve the greatest amount of emission reductions among
existing sources. Thirty sources in the category'use these
technologies. The MACT floor could be determined based on these
technologies, even if information was not available on the other
seventy sources. . '
2.5 General Permits
A general permit is a type of Title V permit. A single
general permit could be issued by a permitting authority to cover
a number of sources. The specific requirements for a general
permit are contained in 40 CFR Part 70.6(d).
The general permit can be written to set forth requirements
for an entire source category or subcategory, or portion of the
source category or subcategory. The facilities that are covered
by the general permit, should be homogenous in terms of
operations, processes, and emissions. In addition, the
facilities should have 'essentially similar operations or
processes and emit pollutants with similar characteristics. .The
facilities should be subject to. the same or substantially similar
requirements governing operations, emissions monitoring,
reporting, or recordkeeping.
Because the case-by-case determination under Section 112(j)
is a source category-by-source category determination of an
2-9
-------
equivalent emission limitation, the permitting authority could
use the general permit as a mechanism to issue Title V permits to
the entire source category or subcategory, or specific components
within the source category or subcategory. By using this
mechanism, a permitting authority would not be required to issue
individual permits to sources covered by the general permit.
Also, once the general permit has been issued and after
opportunity for public participation, EPA review, and affected
State review, the permitting authority may grant or deny a.
source's request to be covered by a general permit without
further outside review.
Major sources that do not require a specific Title V permit
for any other reason, could be covered by the general permit
indefinitely. For a major source that already-has. a Title V
permit, the owner or operator can apply for coverage under the
general permit, and then incorporate the general permit '
requirements into the source specific' permit through an
administrative amendment at permit renewal.
General permits- would not be an appropriate'mechanism to
issue permit conditions if the terms and conditions necessary to
establish federal enforceability as. a legal and practical matter
might vary from source, to source within the category. For
instance, if a MACT emission limitation restricted emissions- from.
multiple emission points within the source category or
2-10
-------
subcategory and the number of. emission points varied from major
source to major source, a general permit may not be appropriate.
2-11
-------
2-12
-------
Chapter 3.0
The MA.CT Analysis
For most source categories, the process by which the
permitting authority will determine the appropriate level of
control involves a number of different determinations. First,
the emission points at the major source that are related to the
activities and equipment in a source category or subcategory must
be identified. There may be a number of emitting activities and
equipment at a single major source. In some cases, not all of
these emissions are from a single source category or subcategory.
Only the emission points in the source category of subcategory
undergoing the Section 112 (-j) MACT. determination are subject to
control through an equivalent emission limitation.
The collection of equipment and/or activities in the source
category or subcategory at the source subject to Section 112 (j)
is the affected source as defined in-40 CFR 63.2. An affected
source may have only one emission unit comprised of all of the
emission points; or, it may have several emission units each
comprised of some portions of the total number of emission points
in the source category or subcategory. In this context the term
"emission unit" is equipment or a grouping of equipment for which
a floor determination and MACT will be determined. Note that
this term has no regulatory or statutory meaning under Section
3-1
-------
112 (j).' It is used here for convenience. E'xisting source .MACT
and new source MACT and their respective applicability must be
determined for the affected source and new affected source
consistent with 40 CFR 63.2, 40 GFR 63.5, and 4.0 CFR ^63. 52. The
process of.establishing the scope of the source category or
subcategory, the affected source and new affected source, and the
appropriate levels of control by the permitting authority
requires ongoing communication and exchange of information
between the permitting authority and applicants. This
interaction between the permitting authority and applicants is
essential in making these determinations.
. The,process by which these determinations are made is termed
the MACT analysis. The following sections of.this chapter
describe a MACT analysis process that EPA hasdeveloped to meet
the- requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart B.
3.1 Overview of the MACT Analysis Process
The MACT analysis by the permitting authority uses available
information to make a MACT floor finding. There are. several
possible situations that may arise in the course of conducting a
MACT analysis. First, the MACT floor could be determined based
>
on emission reductions currently being achieved.by other
controlled sources. A second possible outcome is that.the MACT
floor cannot be determined due to the nature .of the pollutants
3-2
-------
emitted from the source, or because of the lack of available
data. A third possibility is that the MACT floor could equal "no
control" if the group of sources on which the MACT floor
determination is based are not currently controlling HAP
emissions. In the latter two cases, the EPA believes that a more
detailed analysis is required in order to determine the
appropriate level of control.
Because of the variety of situations that could arise, the
MACT analysis has been divided into three tiers. ^Figure 3
diagrams the steps for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III of the
analysis. A MACT floor finding by the permitting authority is
made during Tier I. During Tier II, the permitting authority, in
consultation with the applicant, evaluates all commercially
3-3
-------
.J2
"5>
mmam
03
C
K-
O
^^L
^3*
f "
B
CO
£
IBB^
CO
iZ
o
1
"<~ *~^
f^ C
Oco
o
- Q.
<""""" _ Q.
CO ^
_.. CD -o
C 0) m
'£ .£
~a ? °
"
J^r ^^ C
Cj ' ~ tu
1 i
CD ;
Lm
r^
i
O)
^
CO :£= _
0)? t
fi-E|
J 0 <
^ X D)
«=; o g'
! LL =i
_ , E
- o S.
p < ^
^^,
CO
.a
CO CD CO
J2 '5> ^i "S.
.a -2 co Q-
CO O CD CO
C r~ ^*~" ..
o -c .£ o
co cu j2r* to ^ to
a> ±! "to .5? c .3?
^ f^ ^j r^ft rt\ ^jj
CD js C O '^j O
ro o "o J *j J
^ ^T **? CD d \y *
-*- ^i *"* '^ "*^
* 1 i i IS
« a i § « g
_J CD LLJ O Q O
r- C\J CO
-4-*
C '
"^
-J
i^ ,.
'E .E o "o 'E
h i Eil
C_j tr^" .
< h-
2 0 ' "§
CD "^ i_ CD c
r- « O J3 =
^ to £ § S
^ 0 'CD
C v^ ~o
CD CO T
- s
^""^ ^T7*
T- CM 1 *-
1
>»
^««
O)
0
o
c
g
CD
*-'
2
"c
O
O C
g »
.2 03
t5 -"E
3 .E
CD ^
^ .« 0
c >, '«>
i -2 -^ to
Oco c E
= CO . CD
^ cS JG H-
S r- ^3 O
E co <
D5 3 Q- ^
^~ C £» ^~
I'll!
c >, o .to
-------
available and demonstrated controls that are reasonably
applicable to such source. Tier III uses the information
developed in Tier I or Tier II to establish a MACT emission
limitation.
This process is presented here as suggested guidance in
determining MACT. Permitting authorities are free to use the
process wi^th which they are most familiar to determine MACT.
If a MACT floor is determined, it is only necessary to complete
Tier I and Tier III of the MACT analysis. This analysis compares
the costs, non-air quality health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements associated with using control technologies
that obtain a level of HAP emission reductions that are equal to
or greater than the MACT floor. A key assumption is that the'
Tier I analysis yields sufficient information to conduct the Tier
III MACT analysis. If additional information ,is needed, the
permitting authority and the source would develop that
information as part of the Tier III analysis.
If, under Tier I, the MACT floor cannot be 'determined or .is
equal to "no control," Tier II of the analysis should be
completed before moving on to,Tier III.
The purpose of Tier II is to identify all commercially
available and demonstrated control technologies that are
reasonably applicable to such source. Available control
technologies include but are not limited to: reducing the volume
3-5
-------
of, or eliminating emissions of pollutants through process
changes,"substitution of materials or other techniques; enclosing
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collecting,
capturing, or treating pollutants when released^ from a process,
stack, storage, or fugitive emission point; using design,
equipment, work practices, or operational standards (including
requirements for operator training or certification); or, a
combination of any of these methods. The permitting authority in
consultation with the applicant is responsible for developing a
list of technologies that are reasonably applicable to the
source.
Once a list of control technologies that are reasonably
applicable to the source is developed, each control technology
should be evaluated to consider the costs, non-air quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy requirements associated
with using each control technology.
In Tier III, the control technology(s) achieving the maximum
degree of HAP emission reductions taking into consideration the
costs of achieving such emission reductions and the non-air
quelity health and environmental impacts and energy requirements
should be selected as MACT. Once MACT has been selected, a MACT
emission limitation(s) should be established by the permitting
authority based on the degree of emission reductions that can be
achieved through the application of the maximum, achievable
3-6
-------
control technology (MACT) . A design,' equipment, work practice or
operational standard, or combination thereof, may be designated
as the MACT emission limitation, if it is not practicable, in the
judgement of the permitting.authority, to prescribe or enforce a
numerical MACT emission limitation.
If an owner or operator wishes to comply with the MACT
emission limitation using a control strategy other than the
control strategy selected as MACT, then the Title V permit
application should be submitted or revised to demonstrate that
this alternative strategy achieves the required level of -emission
reductions.
3.2 A Detailed Look at the MACT Analysis
Tier I - Making a MACT floor finding
Step 1 Identify the MACT-affected emission unit(s)
In accordance with the provisions established in 40 CFR
63.53, the owner or operator is required to identify all HAP
emission points within the affected source. These emission
points will be grouped into emission units (MACT emission units)
that will be subject to a MACT determination by the permitting
authority.
When a relevant emission standard has been proposed, the
scope of the affected source and the emission units should, be
consistent with the scope of the affected source and the emission
3-7
-------
units for which MACT was determined in the proposed'emission
standard, unless an alternative can be adequately supported. ;
When no relevant emission standard has been proposed,, the MACT
emission unit will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Section 3.3 of this chapter discusses principles for determining
the MACT emission unit on a case-by-case basis.
The collection of emission points (and hence the collection
of emission units) at the source subject to Section 112 (j) that
are in the source category or subcategory subject to this subpart
is the affected source as defined in 40 CFR 63.2.
Step 2 Make a MACT floor finding
Using the available information provided by the EPA, other
permitting authorities, and/or the permit applications, a level
of HAP emission control that is .equal to the MACT floor for each
type of emission unit undergoing review' should be calculated by
the permitting authority-according to 40 CFR 63.55.
Chapter 4 discusses three ways to establish a MACT floor:
using (1) State and local regulations, (2) control efficiencies,
and (3) emission reduction ratios. Use of any of these
methodologies to determine the floor depends .on the .format of
available information. It is possible that a hybrid of .these
»
approaches may be necessary, or none of the methods may be.
appropriate given the format of the available Information. ' These
methods are provided in this guidance document to demonstrate the
3-8
-------
types of methodologies that would be appropriate for establishing
a MACT floor.
If the MACT floor cannot be determined or if it is equal to
"no control", the permitting authority should proceed to Tier II
of the analysis.
Tier II - Considering all control technologies
Step 1 List all available/reasonable applicable control
technologies .
Using available information, the permitting authority in
consultation with source owners/operators should develop a list
of commercially available control technologies that have been
successfully demonstrated in practice for similar emission units .
and that are reasonably applicable to sources in the category or
subcategory. Similar emission units are discussed in more detail
in Section 3.4 of this chapter. -
Step 2 Eliminate technically infeasible control technologies
All control technologies that could not be applied to the
MACT emission unit because of technical infeasibility should be
eliminated from the list. A technology is generally considered
technically infeasible if there are structural, design, physical
or operational constraints that prevent the application of the
control technology to the emission unit. A technology may also
be eliminated if the permitting authority deems it unreasonable.
A technology is considered unreasonable if the operational
3-9
-------
reliability and performance'have not been demonstrated by
approved methods under conditions' representative of those
applicable to the source for which MACT is being determined.
Step 3 Determine efficiency of applicable control technologies
The permitting authority should conduct a detailed analysis
of all of the available reasonably applicable control
technologies. The efficiency of each control technology in-
reducing overall HAP emissions should be determined. Generally,
MACT has been selected based on an overall reduction of all HAP
emissions. However, a permitting authority may also select MACT
based on the degree of emission reductions achieved for one or
more specific HAPs when the risk to human health and the
environment warrants- establishing MACT emission limitations
specifically for these HAPs. It should also be noted that the
application of more than one control technology may be necessary
in order to address multiple types of HAP emissions.
Tier III - Identifying MACT ' .....'.'
Step 1 -- Identify the maximum emission reduction control -
technology .
When a MACT floor finding is made, the permitting authority
will need to use available information to identify the control
technology(s) that reduce HAP emissions from the MACT emission
units to the maximum extent considering the factors in Section
112(d)(2) of the Act and to a level that is at 'least equal"to or
3-10
-------
greater than the MACT floor. Consideration can be given to
transfer and innovative technologies used to control emissions
from other emission units that use technologies that can be
applied to the MACT emission unit.
As in Tier II, the permitting authority should conduct an
analysis to eliminate any technically infeasible control
technologies and to determine the' efficiency of applicable
%
control technologies.
While the Clean Air Act establishes that MACT shall' be no
less stringent than the MACT floor, in establishing MACT, the
Administrator must take into consideration "the cost of achieving
such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements" [section . .
112(d) (2)]. In some cases, the EPA has developed MACT standards
that are more stringent than the MACT floor when the following-
criteria are met:
(1) The economic impact and incremental cost-effectiveness
are not unreasonable;
(2) The standard would control emissions of high risk or
highly toxic pollutants, e.g., chromium; or
(3) The standard resulted from a negotiated rulemaking,
e.g., the wood furniture NESHAP or the RON equipment
leaks standard.
Step 2 Conduct an impacts analysis
3-11
-------
The control technology that achieves the maximum degree of.
HAP emission reductions with consideration to costs, non-air
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements
is MACT. The Act does not provide direction on the significance
of one consideration to another. The EPA believes that it is .
inappropriate to provide specific guidance for determining the
amount of consideration that should be given to any one-factor.
Such decisions will need to be made based on the information
available at the time of the MACT determination. See Chapter 6 '
of this' guidance document for a more detailed discussion on the
analysis of the costs, non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. ' : .
Step 3 , Establish the MACT emission limitation
The MACT emission limitation established' by the permitting
authority is based on the degree of emission reduction that can
be obtained by the affected source if MACT is applied and is
properly operated and maintained. See' Chapter 5 for a detailed
discussion on the MACT emission limitation and permit conditions.
3.? Determining the MACT Emission Unit and "Affected Source"
In some cases available information is adequate to support a
MACT floor determination for the grouping of equipment and
activities comprising the affected source. However, in some
cases the EPA has found it necessary to evaluate smaller
3-12
-------
groupings of equipment and activities for the purpose of the MACT
floor and MACT determination. This smaller grouping is referred
to herein as a MACT emission unit.
There are four basic principles to follow when designating
the MACT emission unit. The principles can be summarized as
follows: 1) When a relevant Section 112(d) or Section 112(h)
standard has been proposed, the permitting authority- should refer
to the relevant standard to determine the MACT emission unit; or,
(2) The EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards should
be consulted to determine if a suggested method for grouping
affected emission points is available; or, (3) When a specific
piece of equipment is designated as a source category or
subcategory on the source category or.subcategory list, the MACT
emission unit is that piece of equipment or apparatus; or,
(4) Emission points should be combined into a single MACT
emission unit when the combination of points leads to a much more
cost-effective method of control, and achieves a greater degree
of emission reductions when compared to point-by-point
compliance.
The best indicator of how a source category or subcategory
may be regulated by a future promulgated relevant standard may be
found in the proposed standard. For this reason, the EPA
believes that permitting authorities should first consider the
guidelines in the proposed standard to determine the MACT
3-13
-------
emission unit for a Section 112 (j) MACT determination. In
addition, although there may be no proposed standard for the
source category or subcategory, information on the source
category or subcategory may have been collected which allows the
EPA to recommend a specific method for determining the emission
unit for a Section 112 (j) MACT determination. Therefore, the EPA
should be consulted before attempts are made to define the MACT
emission unit on a case-by-case basis.
When a source category or subcategory is associated with a
piece of.equipment or apparatus specifically listed on the source
category or subcategory list, that piece of equipment or
apparatus is the MACT emission unit.. The source category or
subcategory list contains sources that are defined- at various
levels of complexity: from -an integrated manufacturing or
process operation to an individual piece of equipment. In
developing the.source category or subcategory list, the EPA
determined that some individual pieces of equipment may be co-
located with other HAP-emitting equipment, that,.independently or
collectively, have the potential to emit major amounts of HAPs,.
'For example, under the fuel combustion industrial grouping,
stationary internal combustion engines are listed as a source
category or subcategory. When a source category or subcategory
is designated by a single type of apparatus, the EPA believes
that the intent is for emission limitations and requirements to
3-14
-------
be placed on that specific piece of equipment. As such, if a
Section 112(j) determination is conducted for any one of these
source categories or subcategories, the specific piece of
equipment or apparatus should be designated as the MACT emission
unit.
A single emission point such as a storage tank could be
considered the MACT emission unit. By contrast, emission points
from a distillation column, a condenser and distillate receiver
could be consolidated into one emission unit. Larger groupings
of emission points may be appropriate when a single control
technology can be used to control the aggregation or when a
pollution prevention or waste reduction strategy is considered.
For instance, the entire wastewate.r treatment operation within.
the source category or subcategory could be considered one
emission unit. Collectively, a single steam-stripper could be
used at the beginning of the operation to remove 'HAPs from the
wastewater and prevent downstream emissions from occurring.
Another example is illustrated .with a surface coating operation.
Rather than individually controlling the emissions from a spray
booth, flash-off area, and bake oven, switching to a water-based
paint could reduce emissions from all of these emission points.
Another reason to combine affected emission points into a
single emission unit is that many major sources are already
subject to regulation under 40 CFR Part 60. In promulgating
3-15
-------
these standards, "affected facility" definitions were developed
to designate the apparatus to which a standard applies. It may
make sense to use these same boundaries to designate the "MACT
emission unit" subject to a MACT determination. It should be
noted that a particular piece of apparatus or 'equipment should
not be excluded from a MACT determination because of an
applicability "cut-off" established under a Part 60 regulation.
Emission points could be consolidated into an emission unit
that is as large as the source category or subcategory boundary
for several reasons. First, the information that is available to
calculate-the MACT floor may only apply to the source category or
subcategory as a whole, not individual points within the
category. Also, the operations of some source categories are
quite variable. Either the nature of the process requires a
large latitude of flexibility in establishing the emission unit'
that should be controlled, or the types of facilities within the
category are so diverse that it only makes sense to compare the
existing sources on a source category or subcategory wide level.
In these instances, a source category or subcategory wide MACT
emission unit could allow some emission points to be under-
controlled while others are controlled to a level that would
exceed the level of control that would be placed on that-1
individual point through the application of MACT.
3-16
-------
Permitting authorities are cautioned that, consistent with
the EPA's emissions averaging decisions, as prescribed in 40 CFR
63.150, it would be generally inappropriate to include emission
points associated with equipment leak emissions together with
other types of emission points in a
-------
options will be integrated processes. Some aggregations of
emission points may be inappropriate because the information
available to calculate the MACT floor would dictate combining
emission points into certain emission units, or because controls
*t .
applied to the unit would not achieve a MACT level of-control-
when .compared to point-by-point compliance or some other
combination of emission units. Appendix A provides an example of
ways in which available control technologies would affect the
aggregation of emission points into an emission unit.
3.4 Similar Emission Units
The permitting authority should evaluate control
technologies used by similar emission units in other source
categories during Tier II. Whether control technologies from
other source categories should be considered in the MACT analysis
depends on whether the emission unit is "similar". At least two
questions should be answered to determine if an emission unit is
similar: 1) Do the two emission units have similar emission
types, and 2') Can the emission units be controlled with the same
type of control technology. If the two, emission units do have
similar emission types and are controllable to approximately the
same extent with the same control technologies, then the two
emission units can be considered similar for the purposes of a
case-by-case MACT determination under Section 112 (j).
3-18
-------
For example, suppose Section 112 (j) applies to the captan
production source category or subcategory (a source listed on the
source category or subcategory list), and a major source produces
captan with equipment using-product accumulation vessels (tanks)
and additional pipes, pumps, flanges and valves to.direct the
product to the tanks. During Tier I of the MACT analysis, it is
determined that there are no regulations controlling HAP
emissions from pumps, etc. within this source category or
subcategory. There is also not enough emission information
available on other emission units within the source category or
subcategory to calculate a MACT floor-. During Tier II of the
analysis, it is discovered that the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) source category or subcategory is
currently subject to regulations controlling equipment leaks.
Because the pipes, pumps, and flanges all have equipment leak
emissions and can be controlled to the same extent by a leak
detection and repair program, such equipment in the SOCMI source
category or subcategory would be considered similar emission
units. The regulations for SOCMI equipment leaks should be
considered for the control of the MACT emission unit during
Tier II of the analysis. When determining the existing source
level of control, identification of a similar emission unit does .
not mean that the controls will automatically be applied to the
MACT emission unit. Costs, non-air quality health and
3-19
-------
environmental impacts, and energy requirements should be used to
assess, the technologies ability to meet MACT criteria.
Also during Tier I of the analysis, it may be determined
that the best-controlled tank within this source category or
subcategory does not have state-of-the-art controls. Yet, tanks
from outside the source category or subcategory storing similar
organic liquids use .state-of-the-art controls vented to an
emission control device. The controls used on these tanks.would.
be considered in establishing MACT.
After identifying MACT, the permitting authority proceeds to
establish theMACT emission limitation, monitoring, and
recordkeeping as outlined previously.
3.5 Subcategorization
When the source category list was developed, sources with
some common features were grouped together to form a "category".
During the standard-setting process, the EPA has found it
appropriate to combine several categories or to further divide a
category into subcategories. The EPA chose to establish broad
source categories at the time the source category list was
developed because there was too little information to anticipate
»
specific groupings of similar sources that are appropriate- for
defining MACT floors for the purpose of establishing emission
standards.
3-20
-------
The broad nature of some source category descriptions may
pose some difficulty in establishing an appropriate MACT emission
limitation for a MACT emission unit on a case-by-case basis.
Subcategorization within a source category for the purposes of a
case-by-case MACT determination should be considered when there
is enough evidence to clearly demonstrate that there are air
pollution control engineering differences. Criteria to consider
include process operations (including differences between batch
and continuous operations), emissions characteristics, control
device applicability and costs, safety, and opportunities for
pollution prevention. When separate subcategories are
established, the MACT floor and MACT are then determined
separately for each such subcategory.
3-21
-------
3-22
-------
Chapter 4.0
The MACT Floor Finding
During Tier I of the MACT analysis, the permitting authority
will make a MACT floor finding if there is enough information to
determine an emission control level that is at least equal to the
MACT floor. If a MACT floor cannot be determined due to the
nature of the pollutant or process, or there is not enough
emissions information to compute a MACT floor, then the analysis
in Tier II would be completed. Similarly, if the MACT floor '.
equals "no control," the permitting authority 'should proceed to
the Tier II analysis.
The Act specifically directs EPA to consider the "average
emission limitation" achieved in practice to establish the MACT
floor for existing sources. Section 4.1 of this chapter
discusses calculation procedures for determining an .-"average
emission limitation".
Using the .calculation procedures discussed in Section 4.1,
this chapter explains four approaches for determining a MACT-
floor. If the emissions information is available, the first
three methods should be considered before the permitting
authority concludes that a MACT floor cannot be determined. The
three emissions-based methods include using: (1) existing State
and local air toxic control regulations; (2) control efficiency
ratings; or (3) emission reduction ratios.
4-1
-------
A fourth method, the technology approach, can be used when
insufficient emissions data are available to determine an average
emissions limitation.'
. The first method compares air pollution regulations in
different States. The second method is applicable when the
control technologies under consideration can be assigned an
efficiency rating for HAP emission reductions. This is most
likely to occur with add-on control devices. 'The third method
can. be used for add-on control devices, work practices,
recycling, reuse or pollution prevention strategies. Depending
on the format of available information, a hybrid of the three
approaches may be necessary. The fourth method involves
determining which technology is being used by the best performing
sources in the category as defined in sections 112(d)(3)(A) and
(B) and then determining the emissions limit that the technology
is capabl'e of achieving in practice on. a continuous basis. Later
in this chapter each of these methods is discussed in greater
detail.
4 .1 Calculation of the MA.CT Floor
Section 112(d) of the Act instructs the EPA to set emission
standards for new sources based on the emissions control achieved
in practice by the best controlled similar source and to set
emission standards for existing sources based, on an average
4-2
-------
emission limitation achieved by the Best performing 12 percent of
existing sources or best performing five sources in the source
category or subcategory for categories with fewer than
30 sources. For new sources, the direction provided by the Act
is relatively clear. For existing sources, further clarification
is required by the EPA to determine how an average emission
limitation should be computed.
The word "average" can have several different meanings,
including arithmetic mean, median, and mode. As stated
previously, the EPA published a Federal Register notice
describing these methods of determining the average as well as
other common sense considerations at 59 FR 29196 et.seq., June 6,
1994. A copy of this notice is contained in Appendix B of this
document. '
The following examples illustrate the average as represented
by the mean, median, and mode.
Example 1
The following emission limitations are representative of the
best performing 12 percent of existing sources:
% reduction
95
95
93
93
92
88
Average emission limitation
defined by the mean =
644/7 = 92%
4-3
-------
88. '
Total 644
Number of sources in the best performing 12% = 7-
In this case the MACT.floor would be 92%.
Under some circumstances the arithmetic mean results in a
number that may not correspond to the application of a specific
control technology. If there is a large discrepancy between the
amount of emission reductions that can be achieved by available
control options, other factors should be considered to determine
the MACT floor. This is illustrated with the following example,:
Example 2 .
An arithmetic mean is computed for the best performing
12 percent of storage tanks. There are 10 sources among the
best performing 12 percent of storage tanks. Two tanks are
controlled at 99 percent, and the remaining 8 tanks are not
controlled. The emissions limitations considered in the
floor calculation are:
% reduction
99
99
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
average emission limitation =
19.8% reduction
4-4
-------
Total 198
Number of sources in top 12% = 10
In this example, no technology corresponds to 19.8-percent
control, and it might be inappropriate to elevate the MACT floor
to 99-percent control. - .
If there is a large discrepancy between the amount of
emission reductions that can be achieved by available control
options, the median should be used in'lieu of the arithmetic mean
to determine the average emission limitation equal to the MACT
floor. A median is the value that falls in the middle of a set
of numbers when those numbers are arranged in an increasing order
of magnitude; in other words, there will be an equal number of
values above and below the median. If the middle falls between
two values, the median is equal to the arithmetic mean of those
two numbers. This situation will occur when there is an even
number of values in the set of numbers. In this example, the
median would be 0-percent reduction, and this could be selected
as the MACT floor.
However, if there is a large discrepancy between the control
technologies used to establish a median such that no technology
could realistically obtain a reduction close to the median, the
mode should be used to calculate the MACT floor. A mode is the
most frequent occurrence among a set of data. In Example 1,
4-5
-------
there are two modes, 95-percent and 88-percent emission
reductions. In Example 2, the mode would be equal to 0-percent
emission reduction. When there is more than one mode in the data
set, the MACT floor should be based on the least;degree>of
emission control. However, the existence of more than one mode
may be an indicator that the MACT should be established at a
level of.control more stringent than the MACT floor.
The mode may also be used as a method to compute an average
emission limitation if the emissions data for a source category
or subcategory are not numerically based. This situation could
occur if sources were regulated by several different equipment or
work practice standards. Unless a specific level of emission
reduction can be associated with each different standard or
unless the standards can be ranked in some order of increasing
level of control', an arithmetic mean and median cannot be
calculated. A mode could be used if one of the control options
is used more frequently by the best performing 12 percent of '
existing sources. -For example:
Example 3
There are 44 tanks in the source category or subcategory.
Five sources are among the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources. These five tanks are subject to the
following regulations in the source category or subcategory:
4-6
-------
3 of the 5 must be covered .and vented to a carbon
canister;
2 of the 5 must use a fixed roof.
The mode would be to cover and vent the tank to a carbon
canister. . ""-.
4.2 Method 1 - Computing the MACT Floor Using Existing State and
Local Regulations
The steps for computing a MACT floor using this method are
as follows:
Step A: Conduct a geographical survey.
Determine the total number of existing similar emission .
units in the source category or subcat.egory, and conduct a survey
to determine the geographical location of these similar emission
units. Group the emission units according to the State or
locality in which they are located.
Step B: 'Review State or local air pollution regulations.
Review the different State or local air pollution control
regulations that are applicable to the emission unit in each
State or locality where an emission unit is located.
Step C: Rank the State or local air pollution regulations.
For the State and local regulations identified in Step 6,
rank the regulations in order of stringency. The regulations
4-7
-------
that require the greatest level of control should be listed
first.
Step D: Rank emission units.
Determine the total number of emission units and the number
of emission units complying with each stringency level. Based on
the level of regulation stringency, rank the emission units in
order from most stringent to least stringent.
Step E: Make a MACT floor finding.
Based on the distribution of sources in the varibus States
and the stringency of the respective State requirements, it may
be-possible to construct a database that would support a MACT
floor determination as described in Section 4.1. Note .that a
determination must also be made that sources in the States
actually achieve the required control levels.
4.3 Method 2 - Computing the MACT Floor Using Control Efficiency
Ratings
To use this method to calculate the MACT floor, the
permitting authority will evaluate emission units that use add-on
control devices or other methods whose HAP control efficiencies
have been clearly demonstrated in practice. The MACT floor and
»
MACT emission limitation can be computed as follows:
Step A: Determine HAP emission reduction efficiency for each
control device.
4-8
-------
For each emission unit in the source category or
subcategory, the ability of each control technology to reduce HAP
emissions should be determined as a percentage of reduction
efficiency. Acceptable methods for determining the efficiency
rating are:
(1) Federal and State enforceable permits limits on'
operation of the control technology, where compliance
has been demonstrated; ,
(2) Actual reported efficiencies.
In addition vendor data of demonstrated performance achieved
in similar service may be used in conjunction with good
engineering judgement.
Step B: Calculate the MACT floor using the methodology in
Section 4.1.
4.4 Method 3 - Computing the MACT Floor Using Emissions
Reduction Ratios
The emission reduction ratio is a fraction of uncontrolled
emissions to controlled emissions. The MACT floor is computed
using the emission reduction ratios. To compute the emission
reduction ratio for each emission unit, the permitting authority
must review emissions data or other information to determine
uncontrolled and controlled emissions levels for these units.
The step-by-step process is detailed below.
4-9
-------
Step A: Compute an uncontrolled emission level for each emission
unit. . .
The uncontrolled emission level for an emission unit is the
maximum amount of HAP that could be emitted from .the emission
unit using current design specifications at full capacity
utilization in the absence of controls.
Step B: Compute a controlled emission level for each emission
unit.
The controlled emission level is the maximum amount of HAP
that could be emitted from the emission unit under the source's
current design specification and at full capacity utilization
taking into consideration the application of federally
enforceable controls. Ideally, a controlled emission level
should be computed for all emission units, even when a single
uncontrolled emission level is used. However, if only general
information is known about the types of control technologies that
are being used in practice, a controlled emission level could be
estimated for each control scenario. Then a controlled emission
level for each emission unit would be assigned based on the types
of controls that major sources use. Readers should review
Chapter 5 for more information on controlled emission levels.
/
Step C: Compute the emission reduction ratio for each emission
unit.
4-10
-------
The emission reduction ratio for each emission unit can be
computed using the following formula:
Uncontrolled Emission Limit - Controlled 'Emission Limit
Uncontrolled Emission Limit
Step D: Determine the MACT floor using the methodology in
Section 4.1.
4-11
-------
4.5 Technology Approach
The technology approach is used when insufficient emissions
data are available to determine an average emission limitation.
Under this approach, EPA determines which technology is being
used by the average of the best performing 12 percent'of sources
in the category, and then determines the average emission limit
that this technology is capable of achieving in practice on a
continuous basis. Available emissions data are used to assign a
performance value for. each emission control identified (percent
removal, outlet grain loading, etc.). "The MACT floor calculation
is performed based on these performance values. Typically, a
median is used rather .than the arithmetic average since an .
arithmetic average generally would not correspond to any given
.control. The following example illustrates this approach.
A source category emitting metal HAP is comprised of 500
sources. A survey of the sources finds that 300 facilities use
cyclones to control HAP emissions, 150 facilities use wet
scrubbers, and 50 facilities use fabric filters. Based on
available emissions data, it is determined that cyclones are 25-
percent efficient at removing HAP emissions, wet scrubbers are
75-percent efficient, and fabric filters are 99-percent
efficient. The best controlled 12-percent of sources'would
include 10 sources with wet scrubbers and 50 sources with fabric
filters. The median corresponds to fabric filters. Therefore,
4-12
-------
fabric filters would be identified as the MACT floor technology,
and an emission limitation would be set based on the available
performance data for fabric filters.
4.6 Other Methods to Compute the MACT Floor
As future MACT standards are proposed or promulgated for
different source categories, more methods for determining the
MACT floor could be developed. The rea'der is referred to the
June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29196 et.seq.) in Appendix B and other
Federal Register notices to locate any other methods for
calculating the MACT floor that have been approved by the EPA and
used in developing a MACT standard under Section 112(d) or 112(h)
of the Act.
4-13
-------
4-14
-------
Chapter 5.0
The MA.CT Emission Limitation and Permit Conditions
5.1 MA.CT Emission Limitation
The MACT emission limitation established by the permitting
authority is based on the level of emission reductions that can
be obtained by the affected source when MACT is applied and
properly operated and maintained. The MACT emission limitation
should be based on an overall reduction of all HAP emissions.
The MACT emission limitation may need to account for differing
kinds of equipment within the affected source and may include
emission averaging provisions to allow such equipment to achieve
MACT in the most cost-effective -manner possible. The permitting
authority may establish a MACT emission limitation for an
individual HAP when the risk to human health and the environment
warrants such an emission limitation. If it is not practicable
to establish a specific numerical or efficiency limitation, then
a specific design, process, or control technology should be
designated as the MACT emission limitation. For example, a
floating roof with a primary and secondary seal on a storage
vessel or an equipment leak detection and repair practice could
be determined as MACT.
Determining the expected emission reductions from an add-on
control may require some engineering judgement. In some
5-1
-------
instances, the add-on control may achieve different levels of
reduction efficiency even when it is applied to the same type of
emission unit. Lower efficiency ratings may be due to different
operational parameters or poor maintenance practices. The MACT
emission limitation should be based on the level of control that
the technology is likely to obtain for all emission units
operating under good operational and maintenance practices.
Chapter 4 of this manual describes possible, methodologies
for calculating a MACT floor. It is likely that the regulatory
format of the MACT emission limitation will be'similar to the
format of the MACT floor. For instance, if the MACT floor is
computed to be a limit of 0.30 Ibs/ton of feed, the regulatory
format of the MACT emission limitation is also likely to be
express-ed as Ibs/ton of feed. The following sections provide
guidance, on calculating the MACT emission limitation for -a source
category or subcategory. These sections also discuss how a
permitting authority can determine what amount of control an '
individual source needs to achieve the required reductions.
When control efficiencies are used .to establish a MACT
floor, the MACT emission limitation could be expressed as this
efficiency. In other words, all sources could be required to
reduce emissions by some percent (i.e.', 90-percent reduction).
Additional terms and conditions would be necessary to make this
practically enforceable, but such an emission limitation may be
5-2
-------
appropriate when all emission units are operated relatively
homogeneously within the source category or subcategory. For
other source categories it may be appropriate to convert this
efficiency rating into another format. This can be accomplished
by multiplying the efficiency of MACT by the uncontrolled
emission level of the emission unit as follows:
MACT
Emission = Uncontrolled Emission Level * MACT efficiency
Limit
The uncontrolled emission level for an emission unit is the
maximum amount of HAP that could be emitted from the emission
unit using current design specifications at full capacity
utilization in the absence of controls. It could be computed-
using a variety of different formats, 'i.'e. tons/yr, Ibs/hr,
Ibs/ton, etc. The following sources of information may be
acceptable:
(1) Engineering calculation using material balance or
emission factors;
(2) Actual 'emission data from similar emission units;
(3) Average annual hourly emission rate multiplied by hours"
of operation;
(4) Emission limits and .test data from EPA documents, -
including background information documents;
5-3
-------
(5) State emission inventory questionnaires for comparable
sources;
(6) Federal or State enforceable permit limits; or,
. (7) For equipment leaks use, "Protocols fpr Equipment'Leak
.Emission Estimates," EPA-453/R-93-026. '
The selection of .the uncontrolled emission level will likely
require some engineering judgement on the part of the permitting
authority. Typical throughputs, flow rates, Concentrations, etc.
should be used to estimate a uncontrolled emission level that can
be applied to the source category or subcategory.
The definition of a control technology includes the use of
pollution prevention and source reduction strategies. The
permitting authority should take into consideration the use'of
such control measures when computing the uncontrolled emission
level for an emission unit. For example, some MACT emission
units in 'the source category or subcategory may use a high VOC
solvent as a process input to the emission unit. Other units may
use a lower VOC solvent as a process input to the same type of
emission unit. No distinction in the type of process inputs have
been made in designating the emission unit. The MACT for this
emission unit is identified as control technology X. If this
control technology was determined to have a control efficiency
rating of 90 percent, then the current design specifications for
.each emission unit in the category would require all sources to
5-4
-------
reduce emissions by 90 percent. However, this would not account
for the different baseline emissions from'different emission
units in the source category or subcategory. By calculating the
uncontrolled emission, level.for all emission units in the
category based on the high VOC process input, emission units with
inherently lower potentials to emit can take credit for the
emission reduction in the controlled emissions calculation and
the calculation of additional required control.
5.2 Alternative Ways to Comply
Once the permitting authority determines the MACT 'emission
limitation, the applicant will determine a control strategy that
allows the affected source to meet MACT. In many cases, this
will be through the application of the MACT technologies.
However, in some cases, the emission unit at the. major source may
already be controlled to some extent with an existing control
technology. The owner or operator could demonstrate that using
additional control strategies in combination with existing
controls will allow the emission unit to achieve the required
emission reductions. For instance, an emission unit may
currently be controlled with a baghouse. The MACT emission
limitation for the emission unit may be based on use of an
electrostatic precipitator. The emission unit'.may be able to
5-5
-------
meet the MACT emission limitation by installing a series of
baghouses in lieu of the electrostatic precipitator.
Owners or operators are reminded that the application of a
case-by-case MACT to an affected source does not exempt that
owner or operator from complying with any future emission
standards affecting that affected source. The applicability and
impact of subsequently promulgated MACT standards is addressed in
40 CFR 63.56. Owners or operators may wish to consider these
factors when selecting a control technology to meet the MACT
emission limitation.
5.3 Applicable Monitoring, Reporting and Recordkeeping, and
Compliance
The permitting authority should identify monitoring
parameters in consultation with the,applicant to assure
compliance with the MACT emission limitation. However, the
permitting authority is ultimately responsible for these
monitoring parameters, as well as reporting and recordkeeping
requirements at permit issuance. Section 2.2 of Chapter 2
discusses compliance provisions in greater detail.
5-6
-------
Chapter 6.0
Costs, Non-Air Health
and Environmental Impacts,
and Energy Impacts
Section 112(d) of the Act specifies that if control
technology alternatives are being considered to establish an
emission standard that would result in emission limitations more
stringent than the emission "floors," they must be evaluated by
considering costs, non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements associated with the expected
emission reductions.
The costs, non-air quality health and environmental impacts,
and energy requirements discussed below are illustrative only and
are not intended as an exclusive list of considerations for MACT.
determinations. Some of these factors may not be appropriate in.
all cases, while in other instances, factors which are not
included here may be relevant to the MACT determination. The
discussion does not address the evaluation of each factor nor the
weighing of any factor relative to another. Such determinations
should be made on a case-by-case basis by the owner/operator and
permitting authority. For the purpose of this guidance, terms
such as "emission control system" or "MAGT system" refer to
design, equipment-, or operating standards and inherently less
polluting processes, as'well as add-on control equipment.
6-1
-------
In general, the impact analyses for MACT determinations
should address the direct impacts of alternative control systems.
Indirect energy or environmental impacts are usually difficult to
assess, but may be considered when such impacts are found to be
significant and quantifiable. Indirect energy impacts include
such impacts as energy to produce raw materials for construction
of control equipment, increased use of imported oil, or increased
fuel use in the utility grid. Indirect environmental impacts
include such considerations as pollution at an off-site
manufacturing facility that produces materials needed to
construct .or operate a proposed control system. Indirect impacts
generally will not be considered in the MACT analysis since the
complexity of consumption and production patterns in the economy
makes those impacts difficult to.quantify. For example, since-
manufacturers purchase capital equipment and supplies from many
suppliers, who in turn purchase goods from other suppliers,
accurate assessment of indirect impacts may not be possible. Raw
materials may be needed to operate control equipment, and .
suppliers of these resources may change over time.. Similarly, it
is usually not possible to determine specific power stations and
fuel sources that would be used to satisfy demand over the
lifetime of a control device!
In most cases, duplicative analyses are not required in
preparing the MACT impact analyses. Any studies previously
6-2
-------
performed for Environmental Impact Statements, air permits, water
pollution permits, or other programs may be used when
appropriate. The permitting authority .also'may consider any
special economic or physical constraints that might, limit the
application of certain control techniques to an existing emission
unit, such as retro-fitting costs that, would not be borne by a
new unit, or the remaining useful life of the emission unit. The
*
result may be that the level of control required for an existing
emissions unit may not be as stringent as that which would be
required if the same unit were being newly constructed at an
existing plant or at a "greenfield" facility. However, in no
event shall the level of control yield an emission limit less
stringent than the MACT floor when information is available to
compute the MACT floor.
6.1 Cost Impacts
Cost impacts are the. costs associated with installing,
operating, and maintaining alternative emission control systems
(add-on emission control devices or process changes.) Normally,
the submittal of very detailed and comprehensive cost data is not
necessary. Presentation of the quantified costs of various
emission control systems (referred to as control costs,) coupled
with quantities of HAP emission reductions associated with each
of the emissions control systems, is usually sufficient.
6-3
-------
Once the control technology alternatives and emission
performance levels have been identified, total-capital investment
and total annual cost.should be developed. Total capital
investment (purchased equipment plus installation) and total .
annual costs of each emission control system should be presented
separately. Total annual costs are comprised of operation and
maintenance costs ("direct annual costs",) administrative charges
("indirect annual costs"), plus overhead, taxes, insurance, and
capital recovery costs minus recovery credits (credit for product
recovery and by-product sales .generated from the use of control
systems and other emission reduction credits.) These costs
should be reported in equal end-of-year payments over the time of
the equipment. Total annual costs should be reported oh an
overall basis, as well as an incremental basis. The various
emission control systems should be presented or arrayed in terms
of increasing total annual cost. The incremental annual cost of
a particular emission control system is the difference in its
cost and the cost of the next less stringent control.
A method for determining the acceptability of control costs
is .the comparison of the cost effectiveness of alternative
control systems. Average cost effectiveness is the ratio of
total annual costs (calculated using the above guidelines) to the
total amount (tons or Mg) of HAP removed. Incremental cost
effectiveness is calculated using the same procedure as outlined
6-4
-------
for calculating incremental annual cost. Generally, cost-
effectiveness values falling within the range of previously
acceptable MACT decisions are considered acceptable. Therefore,
consistency with the relative cost, or cost effectiveness, of a
past MACT determination for a similar source is an indication
that such a cost is reasonable for the MACT determination in
question.
For most MACT determinations, a cost analysis focusing on
incremental cost effectiveness of various MACT. alternatives is
sufficient. The analysis should include and distinguish 'the
various components used to calculate the incremental cost
effectiveness of the control alternatives (i.e., lifetime of the
equipment, total annual costs, tons of total HAP removed, etc.).
If there is reason to believe that the control costs place a
significant burden on the entity being controlled, then the cost
analysis should include financial or economic data that provide
an indication of the affordability of a control relative,to the
source. For example, if the per unit cost is a significant
portion of the unit price of,a product or if the economic status
of the industry is declining, then the cost analysis should
present the relevant economic or financial data. Financial or
economic data should include parameters such as after-tax income
or total liabilities.
6-5
-------
6.2 Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts concentrate on collateral
environmental impacts due to control of emissions of the
pollutant in question, such as solid or hazardous waste
generation, discharges of polluted water from a control device,
visibility impacts (e.g., visible steam plume), or emissions of
other air pollutants. The permitting authority should identify
any environmental impacts associated with a control alternative
that has the potential to affect the selection or rejection of
that control' alternative. Some control technologies may have
potentially significant secondary environmental impacts.
Scrubber effluent, for example, may 'affect water quality and land
use, .and, similarly, technologies .using cooling towers may affect
visibility. Other examples of secondary environmental impacts
could include hazardous waste discharges, such as spent catalysts
or contaminated carbon. Generally, these types of environmental
concerns become important when sensitive site-specific.receptors
exist or when the - incremental emissions reduction potential of
one control option is only marginally greater than the next most
effective option.
The procedure for conducting an analysis of environmental
»
impacts should be made based on a consideration .of site-specific
circumstances. In general, the analysis of environmental impacts
starts with the identification and quantification of .the solid,
6-6
-------
liquid, and gaseous discharges from the control device or devices
under review. Initially, a qualitative or semi-quantitative
screening can be performed to narrow the analysis to discharges
with potential, for causing adverse environmental effects. Next,
the mass and composition of any such discharges should be
assessed and quantified to the extent possible, based on readily
available information. As previously mentioned, the analysis
need only address those control alternatives with any
environmental impacts that have the potential to' affect the
selection or rejection of a control alternative. Pertinent
information about the public or environmental consequences of
releasing these materials should also be assembled. Thus, the
relative environmental impacts (both .positive and negative) of
the various alternatives can be compared with each other.
Also the generation or reduction of toxic and hazardous
emissions other than those for which the MACT determination is
being made and compounds not regulated under the Clean Air Act
are considered part of the environmental impacts analysis. A
permitting authority should take into account the ability of a
given control alternative for regulated pollutants to affect
emissions of pollutants not .subject to regulation under the Clean
Air Act in making MACT decisions. Consequently, the ability of a
given control alternative to control toxic or hazardous air
6-7
-------
contaminants other than those for which the MACT determination is
being made, should be considered in the MACT analysis.
6. .3 Energy Impacts '
Energy impacts should address energy use in terms of
penalties or benefits associated with a contro.l system and the
direct effects of such energy use on the facility. A source may,
for example, benefit from the combustion of a concentrated gas
stream rich in volatile organic compounds; on the other hand,
extra fuel or electricity is frequently required to power a
control device or incinerate a dilute gas stream. If such
benefits or penalties exist, they should be quantified to the
extent possible. '
In quantifying energy impacts, the direct energy impacts.of
the control alternative in units of energy consumption at.the
source (e.g., Btu, Kwh, barrels of oil, tons of.coal) should be
estimated. The energy requirements of the control options could
be shown in terms of total and/or incremental energy costs per
ton of pollutant removed. In many cases, because energy
penalties or benefits can usually be quantified in terms of
additional cost or income to the source, the energy impacts
analysis can be converted into dollar costs and, where
appropriate, be factored into the cost analysis.
6-8
-------
Indirect energy impacts (such as energy to produce raw
materials for construction of control equipment) are usually not
considered. However, if the reviewing agency determines, either
independently or based on a showing by the applicant, that an
indirect energy impact is unusual or significant, the indirect
impact may be considered. The energy impact should still,
however, relate to the application of the control alternative and
*
not to a concern over energy impacts associated with the project
in general.
The energy impact analysis may also address the concern over
the use of locally scarce fuels. The designation of a scarce
fuel may vary from region to region, but in general a scarce fuel
is one which is in short supply locally and can be better used
for alternative purposes, or one which may not be reasonably
available to the source either at the present time or in the near
future.
6-9
-------
6-10
-------
Chapter 7.0
Sources of Information
There are currently several programs under development to
house and disseminate toxics information. Some of these programs
are designed for specific, narrow purposes, while others are
employed in a broader range of uses. Most data collection
programs are designed to be compatible with the Aerometric
Information Retrieval System (AIRS)/AIRS Facil-ity Subsystem
(AFS).
The purpose of this chapter is to present various sources of
toxics information which may be of assistance to States and
industry in making MACT floor determinations. These sources of
toxic information are available in a database format. The EPA
believes the requirements of Section 112 (j) can be less
burdensome to both industry and States by employing a database
system to document similar-category sources and provide a
bibliography of information to make a sound MACT floor
determination. The MACT floor determinations and MACT must be
based on data demonstrating performance levels actually achieved
in practice by sources. Performance claims, expectations, design
plans, etc. should be substantiated by methods' representative of
those that sources will have to comply with.
7-1
-------
Another significant resource to aid permitting'authorities
in developing case-by-case MACT will be proposed regulations for
the subject source categories, or closely related regulations in
similar industries. Proposed regulations will contain what EPA
believes MACT is at the time of proposal. Although permitting
authorities are not required to adopt proposed MACT, and the
proposed rule should not be considered a default MACT, it can
still serve as a suggestion for what the latest thinking is and
would be the result of analysis of the largest body of
information.
In addition to the following sources of information, the EPA
home page on the World Wide Web includes a wealth of information,
including some of the data bases described below. The reader may
wish to consult the following websites for additional
information:
1. EPA: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/index.html
2. Office of Air and Radiation:
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oarhome.html
3. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards:
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps
4. Air Toxics Website: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
»
AEROMETRIC INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM (AIRS) TOXICS PROGRAM
7-2
-------
The AIRS is designed to accommodate the expansion of
emissions data. The AIRS/AFS is a National Data System currently
residing on the National Computer Center (NCC). The stationary
source component of this system replaced the old National
Emission Data System (NEDS) as the data repository for point
source data (e.g., electric utilities, industrial plants and
commercial enterprises). The AIRS/AFS system is expected to
eventually provide the capabilities needed to house information
from the Title V operating permits program.
Many States input their data directly into the AIRS and
perform calculations and retrievals. When a converter (an
interface between AIRS and the State system) is'used, the data
can be input directly to the State system and to the appropriate
fields in AIRS in a single" step. Data can also be retrieved from
AIRS directly, or into the State format using a converter.
Because many data sources are fed into AIRS/AFS, some of
this data may be useful for case-by-case MACT determinations and
MACT standards. This advantage is expected to become more
visible as the search for the 12-percent floor for a source
category or subcategory becomes a common' occurrence.
INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUESTS (ICR) DATA
For the national MACT standards program, the EPA is
currently involved in data collection activities for many of the
7-3.
-------
source categories on the list. These data collection activities
are designed to help answer, for.a given category, a number of
important questions:
- i '
What are the sources of emissions for the category?
Which HAPs are emitted and at what rates?
What alternatives are available to reduce those
. emissions?
-- What costs would be imposed for the control
alternatives, and what economic impacts .-would the
alternatives have on the business climate for the
industry? . '
Which alternatives meet or exceed the "MACT floor" (for
new sources, the "best controlled similar source;" for
existing sources, the level achievable by the "average.
of the best performing 12 percent" of sources in the
category)?
Given the alternatives available, which alternative
represents the "maximum degree of reduction
achievable," taking, into account costs, 'benefits, and
the constraints imposed by the "MACT floor?"
RACT/BACT/LAER CLEARINGHOUSE (RBLC)
The RBLC maintains a database consisting of 3,600 (and
growing) Reasonably Available,Control Technology (RACT), Best
Available Control Technology (BACT), and Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) determinations made by State and local
agencies for specific sources, as required by the Act. The RACT
determinations address emission requirements for. existing sources
located in nonattainment'areas. The BACT and LAER address
emission requirements for major new or modified sources located
7-4
-------
in attainment and nonattainment areas, respectively. Database
parameters include: facility information; process description;
pollutant information (including emission limit); pollution
prevention and/or control technology method; compliance
verification information; and cost information (if it exists).
The Act requires agencies to submit LAER determinations to the
RBLC. The RACT and BACT determinations are submitted on a
« _
voluntary basis.
The RBLC also maintains a regulation database that
summarizes Federal new source performance standards (NSPS),
national emission standards, for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP), and maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards. The regulation database parameters are similar to-
those in the RACT/BACT/LAER database, 'but also include Federal
Register and regulation background documentation information.
The RBLC can be accessed through the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS.) Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
electronic bulletin board system. For more information, access
the RBLC on the TTN or contact the EPA Information Transfer Group
at (919) 541-5547.
7-5
-------
GREAT WATERS PROGRAM
In order to provide information needed for decision making,
the Great Waters program is evaluating HAPs emission data,
especially for the Great Lakes region. (Sectioji 112 (c) (6)
requires national emission inventories for alkylated lead;
polycyclic organic matter; 'hexachlorobenzene; mercury; PCBs; '
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofurans; and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin.) Periodic reports to Congress are Required-to provide
information on: relative pollutant loading contributed to .
aquatic ecosystems from the atmosphere; adverse effects of that
loading on human health and the environment; whether the
atmospheric deposition causes or contributes to violations -of
water quality standards or criteria; and sources of the
atmospherically 'deposited pollutants. The goal of the program is
to determine if additional regulation is warranted, and if so,
what it should entail. For additional information on the Great
Waters Program, or for referral to related emission inventory
efforts, call the EPA Visibility and Ecosystem Protection Group
at 919-541-5531.
AIR TOXIC EMISSION FACTORS
Emission factors are used in lieu of emission estimates
based upon source testing, and they can be used to estimate the
emissions of a particular HAP per unit process rate (i.e., pounds
7-6
-------
of nickel emitted for each ton of nickel ore processed). These
emission factors can be based on controlled and uncontrolled
processes, and can, therefore, be used to help determine which
control measures are best suited to a particular process. The
EPA has developed screening methods for the development of air
toxics emission factors, and applies the screening methods to
test results as they become available for use.
The toxic emission factors available through the Factor
Information Retrieval System (FIRE) and the EPA document,
Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42) are rated A
(most reliable, based on several tests meeting high confidence
criteria) through E (least reliable, having limited available
information). Toxic emission factors are being developed for
about 170 the 189 HAPs on the Section 112(b) list, representing
many (but not all) processes in Section 112 source categories.
About 40 of the HAPs in FIRE have been targeted as
"critical" pollutants because they are found in a wide variety of
industries, and/or are especially toxic. Many of the emission
factors for this critical group have a rating of A or B, enabling
users to arrive at the most accurate emissions estimates
presently possible. For more information on FIRE, contact
INFOCHIEF at 919-541-5285.
STATE AIR OFFICE DATABASES
7-7
-------
Emission Standards Division (BSD) staff- have worked with
STAPPA/ALAPCO to better characterize the toxics information
available in database form and hard copy within the State air
offices.
Most States have compiled pollutant information in some form
in response to State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements.
Many States also have toxics information collection systems, as
well as State requirements for toxics programs. Most States find
that although internally their system is widely used .(intra-State
system), to down load or upload data on an inter-State basis is
nearly impossible (with the primary exception to this being
States within a transport region, and then usually under limited
circumstances). '
TRADE JOURNALS AND VENDOR INFORMATION
Caution should be taken when employing information in trade
journals and from vendors, especially in noting the method of
emissions estimation, number of tests that were used in
developing estimates, and the conditions under which tests were
conducted. Other factors that, may affect the emissions estimates
should also be identified, and the effects of their differences
quantified as accurately as possible. Because results applicable
to only one or a small group of facilities cannot be completely
accurate for other facilities, this source of information is not
7-8
-------
regarded as highly accurate, but may provide some useful
information on control alternatives.
Other sources of information that may be consulted in .making
MACT floor determinations are listed below. This list is not
inclusive, but may provide useful information. -
Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI). .December 1983.
Overview of PSD Regulations. EPA 450/2-82-008.
Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI). June 1983. Air
Pollution Control Systems for Selected Industries.
EPA 450/2-82-006.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). May 1992. Facility
Pollution Prevention Guide. EPA 600/R-92/088.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).' February 1992.
Documentation for Developing the Initial Source category or
subcateaorv List. EPA 450/3-91-030.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). June 1991.
Hazardous Waste TSDF - Background Information for Proposed
RCRA Air Emission Standards. EPA 450/3-89-023 (a) and (c).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). October, 1990. New
Source Review Workshop Manual. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
NC (Draft Document).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), January 1990. OAQPS
Control Cost Manual. EPA 450/3-90-006.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). June 1991. Control
Technologies' for Hazardous Air Pollutants'.
EPA 625/6-91/014.
7-9
-------
Air & Waste Management Association. 1992. Air Pollution
Engineering Manual. Van Norstrand Reinhold.
7-10
-------
-------
Appendix A
Examples of MACT Analyses
The following detailed examples presented in this manual are
I
for illustrative purposes only. Numbers and values presented in
this Appendix do not necessarily reflect any known cases and are
not meant to establish any official EPA position regarding MACT
determinations for a particular MACT-affected source. These
examples are hypothetical and are designed to highlight many of
the subtle aspects of the .MACT determination process. In many
cases, the scenarios and available control technologies have been
grossly oversimplified to streamline the presentation of the
examples.
The following examples are presented in this Appendix:
Example 1 - Determining the MACT Emission Unit
Example 2 - Using Control Efficiency Ratings to Determine
the MACT Floor '
Example 3 - When the MACT Floor is Determined Using Emission
Reduction Ratios
Example 4 - When the MACT Floor is Equal to "No Control"
A-l
-------
Example 1
Determining the MACT Emission Unit
This example illustrates possible grouping mechanisms, and
rationale for developing one or more MACT emission units at a
given facility subject to a MACT determination under
Section 112 (j).
Description of Source
In this example, a metal furniture manufacturer produces
military-specification office furniture for use in military
barracks. The plant currently operates 2,080 hr/yr and produces
12,000 units of furniture annually. The -facility is considered a
major source of HAP emissions.
Existing unit operations include:
1) Wood Processing
Raw wood and formica are glued together to form a laminate.
The glue is applied using an automatic application system.
Several laminates are then positioned in a press for glue curing.
Next, the boards undergo various woodworking operations
including, cutting, drilling, and routing. Boards are either
transferred to assembly or directly packaged and shipped.
Tetrachloroethylene is a component of the glue. Glue stations
are vented to emission stacks on the ceiling. The stacks are
currently.uncontrolled.
A-2
-------
The glue is stored in 50-gallon drums. Glue is transferred
to the application equipment through a pumping.mechanism.
Estimated yearly emissions of HAP from this operation is
0.50 tpy.
- *-
2) Metal Processing
Metal st.ock is cleaned by immersion in a toluene dip tank.
A toluene, grease, and dirt sludge is produced, which is pumped
from the bottom of the tank for disposal. After cleaning, the
metal undergoes various metalworking operations including
cutting, punching, folding, and welding. Pieces are partially
assembled, then transferred to one of two paint coating
operations. The dip tank is currently controlled with a
condensing unit and a freeboard ratio of 0.75. Yearly controlled
emissions .are estimated at 19 ton's/yr. Uncontrolled emissions
are estimated at 55 tpy.
3) Cleaning Operations
The spray coating operations begin with a five-stage
cleaning process. The first stage is an alkaline-wash'tank.
Next, parts are sprayed with an iron phosphate solution. The
fourth stage is a rinse-tank. Finally, parts are sprayed with a
rust preventive. After cleaning, the parts are conveyed,to a
dry-off oven and then to the' paint coating line. No HAP
emissions occur during this part of the operation.
4) Painting Operations
A-3
-------
There are currently four spray b'ooths in the paint coating
operation and one coating dip-tank. Large metal parts are coated
using the spray booths. A one-color coating is applied at a
coating depth of 1 ml. Two of the booths are equipped with
continuously recirculating water curtains to entrap paint
overspray. Entrapped paint solids and wastewater are dumped to a
holding tank periodically. Air filters are used in the two
remaining spray booths. The air filters are periodically
replaced. The used filters are'placed in storage drums for later
disposal.
All spray booths are equipped with hand-held spray guns.
Transfer efficiency is estimated at 45 percent for both types of
booths. The paint is a high solvent paint containing xylehe and
toluene with an estimated 35-percent solids content and
65-percent solvent content. The spray guns are periodically
sparged and rinsed 'with acetone to prevent clogging. The acetone
paint mixture is sent to storage tanks for later disposal.
Emissions from the booths are currently vented to the roof with
no control device.
After painting, parts are conveyed through a flash-off area
to one of two dry-off ovens and then to assembly. Small metal
parts are dip-painted in the coating dip-tank, allowed to air
dry, and then transferred to the assembly area.
A-4
-------
. Total annual HAP emissions from this area are estimated at
55 tpy. Each spray booth contributes 8 tpy and each drying oven
4 tpy. Estimated emissions from the coating dip-tank- are 15 tpy.
No emission estimates are available for the flash-off area.
From this description, the following emission points are
identified as potentially "affected emission points" by the
Section 112 (j) MACT determination process:
Glue storage drums
Glue stations (stack emissions)
--Application equipment
--Curing presses .
Toluene dip tank*
Toluene storage tanks*
Toluene/sludge waste storage tanks*
Spray booths (stack emissions)
Feed and waste lines
-- Application equipment
Coating dip-tank
Flash-off area (large parts)
Drying area (small parts)
Paint storage tanks
Solvent storage vessels
Paint sludge storage tanks
Drying ovens (stack emissions)
Air filter storage drums
* These units would be eliminated from any MACT emission
unit because the emission points would be part of the
degreasing source category or subcategory, not the
miscellaneous metal parts surface coating source category or
subcategory.
Possible MACT emission unit scenarios:
Scenario #1: Five.MACT emission units:
Wood processing
Spray coating operations
A-5
-------
Storage tanks
Storage drums ,
Equipment leaks
This scenario could make sense if a MACT floor could be
identified or control technologies could be applied to the
emission units. In wood processing, the emissions are vented to
a stack on the roof. These emissions could be controlled with a
variety of add-on control devices. The source could also
consider switching to a glue that has a lower concentration of a
HAP or does not contain any HAPs.
In the spray operations, the source could switch to a low-
solvent paint or water-based paint. This control option would
need to be weighed against controlling the individual emission
points. Other control options to consider would be an add-on
control device to control the stack emissions from the spray
booth and oven, increasing the transfer efficiency of the spray
application equipment, and controlling the drying., flash-off
areas, and the coating dip-tank with separate control
technologies.
Controlling the storage tanks as one'emission unit may allow
flexibility in meeting MACT. Some tanks could remain under
controlled while others could be over-controlled. This option
would need to be weighed against the cost effectiveness and
emission reductions of applying controls to all of the storage
A-6
-------
tanks. The storage drums could be placed in a contained area and
the emissions vented to one control device.
Equipment leaks are not suitable for combination with -other.
emission units because they are only controllable using ^ork
practice and other unquantifiable emissions reductions
procedures.
Scenario #2: Four MACT-affected emission units:
Stack emissions (spray booths, glue stations, drying
ovens) . '
Storage tanks and drums
Coating dip-tank .
Equipment leaks
In this scenario, the -stack emissions from the spray booths,
glue stations and drying oven could all be vented to a single
control device. This option would need to be weighed against the
emission reductions that could be obtained by applying pollution
prevention strategies to the individual operations. If the
storage' tanks and drums are stored in a common location, such
that.the emissions from the area could be vented to a.control- .
device, this emission point aggregation could make sense.. The
emission reduction would need 'to be weighed against controlling
the emission points separately. If greater emission reductions
could be obtained by controlling these points separately, this
aggregation of points may not be acceptable.
Scenario #3: Seven MACT emission units:
Each storage tank
Each spray booth .
A-7
-------
Stack emissions from glue stations and drying ovens
Equipment leaks
Each storage tank
Each storage drum.
Coating dip-tank . .
If detailed data are available for each of these individual
emissions units, then one approach would be to compile- that data
and develop a MACT floor data base for each type of emission
unit. This scenario would generally be acceptable unless a
* ;
pollution prevention method could be applied to one of the
processes that could obtain a greater degree of emission
reductions then point-by-point compliance.
Scenario #4: All emission points.
This scenario would generally be unacceptable because, as
described in Scenario #1, equipment leak emissions should not be
included in a source category- or subcategory-wide emission unit.
Scenario #5: Two MACT emission units:
Equipment leaks
Remaining emission points
This aggregation of emission units could be acceptable if
emissions information were available on HAP emissions or control
technologies from the source category or subcategory as a whole,
or if the nature of the industry demanded a large degree of
flexibility in the application of MACT.
A-8
-------
Example 2
Using Control Efficiency Ratings
to Determine the MACT Floor
" - - *..
Description of Source
In this example, a MACT determination is to be conducted on
a quenching process at a coke-by product plant'. Hazardous
emissions can be released when the hot coke in the quench car is
sprayed with water to decrease the coke's temperature. Phenol
and naphthalene emissions can occur in the gaseous state. Other
pollutants can sorb to particulate matter and be collectively
released. The permitting authority will need to conduct a MACT
analysis to determine the MACT emission limitation based on the
emission reduction that can be achieved by MACT. The permitting
authority will begin with the Tier I analysis.
Step 1: Identify the MACT emission unit(s)
MACT unit: quenching, tower.and coke car # of existing
sources: 36
The equipment used in this production process includes the
quenching tower, coke car, water delivery system, and water
storage system. The permitting authority decides that emission
points from the quenching tower and coke car should be considered
one MACT emission unit, and the water delivery system and water
A-9
-------
«
storage system as another MACT emission unit. The example will
be continued for only the quench tower/coke car emission unit.
Step 2: Make a MACT Floor Finding
Technology
1) Use clean water
to quench coke
with baffles at
the top of the:
quench tower
2) Use covered
quenched car.
Cool outside of
car. Water does
not impact coke.
Place car on.
cooling rack
after quenching
for additional
heat dissipation
3) Wet scrubber,
connected to
fixed duct system
4) Wet scrubber,
mobile unit
attached to coke
quench car
5) Dry quenching
with inert gases.
Heat transported
to waste-heat
boiler
Emission
control
# of plants using efficiency.
10
10
14
not
quantifiable
almost 100%
80-90%
80-90%
99-100%
The permitting authority decides to use the control
efficiency ratings to determine the MACT floor. There are a
A-10
-------
total of 36 existing sources. The MACT floor would be equivalent
to the arithmetic mean of the control efficiency ratings for the
best five sources. -If a specific control efficiency rating is
not available' for the best performing five sources, a median or
mode could be used to calculate the MACT'floor. Using the
information provided, the median of the best performing
12 percent of sources would be equal to 80-90 percent or control
technology 3 or 4. The mode would be technology number 4.
Step 3: Identify MACT .
Technologies 2, 3, 4, or 5 could be chosen as MACT.
Technology 1 could also be considered because its control
^efficiency is not quantifiable. If technology 1 is to be
considered further, a more detailed analysis would'be required to
prove that the technology could obtain an equal or greater amount
of emission reductions. In this case, the efficiency of
technology 1 will vary by the concentration of hazardous
constituents. Using clean water could result in a less toxic
release when the concentration of toxins in the hot coke are
less, but increased emissions could result with increased
concentrations. The other proposed technologies would operate at
a'relatively constant efficiency rate, regardless of the
pollutant 'concentration. Therefore, technology .1 would .be
considered inferior to the other technologies and should be
eliminated as a potential candidate.
A-ll
-------
The permitting authority should identify MACT based on the
control technology that achieves a maximum degree of emission
reduction with consideration of the costs, non-air quality health
and environmental impacts and energy requirements associated with
use of each control technology. After identifying MACT, the
permitting authority would proceed to Tier III of the analysis.
A-12
-------
Example 3
When the MACT floor is Determined
. Using Emission Reduction Ratios
Description of Source
A surface coating operation treats a product with its
existing equipment consisting of a dip-tank priming stage
followed by a two-step spray application and bake-on enamel
finish coat. The product is a specialized electronics component
(resistor) with strict resistance property specifications that
restrict the types of coatings that may be employed.
Step 1: Identify the MACT emission unit(s)
MACT emission units:
Dip-tank
Feed and waste lines in prime coating operation
Spray coat booth, spray "coat application equipment
Drying oven
Storage tank in prime coating operation
Storage tank in finish' coating line.
Paint supply system
There are two process units .within this source category or
subcategory: the prime coating line and the finish coating line.
Equipment within'the prime coating line that, have affected
emission points are a dip-tank, storage containers, feed line to
supply new coating into the dip-tank, and a waste line to drain
the dip-tank. Because the feed line and waste lines have
equipment leak emissions, these emission points should be
A-13
-------
combined to form a MACT emission unit. The permitting authority
will consider the dip-tank and each storage container a separate
affected emission unit. , Therefore, the three MACT emission units
in this process unit are the dip-tank, the storage container, and
the feed and waste lines.
The finish coating line consists of two spray booths, spray
application equipment, paint supply system, a storage container,
* , .
and a drying oven. The permitting authority decides to combine
affected emission points to form the following MACT emission
units: the spray application equipment and spray booths; the
paint supply system, the storage container, and the drying oven.
For simplicity of this example, the MACT analysis will be
continued for only the spray application equipment and spray
booths.
Step 2: Make a MACT floor finding
Parts A and B: Compute the Uncontrolled Emissions and
Controlled Emissions
Table 1 presents an overview analysis of emissions
information for similar emission units within the source category
or subcategory.*
Table 1.
The permitting authority should consider whether the process
constraints resulting from production specification or other requirements (see
Step 3) warrant subcategorization within the category for the purpose of MACT
determinations. For the purpose of this example, it is assumed that there
will be no subcategorization.
A-14
-------
TECHNOLOGY
1) Water-based coat
2) Low-VOC solvent/high solids
coat
3) Electrostatic spray application
to enhance transfer efficiency
4) Low-VOC solvent/high solids
coating with electrostatic spray
application
5) Powder coat paint with
electrostatic spray application
6) High-VOC solvent coating
Total:
# OF SOURCES
USING
2
4
7
8
1
7
29
Table 2 presents the detailed analysis of emission
information in this example.
Table 2. .
SOURCE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TECHNOLOGY
#
6
3
2
3
3
6
6
3
UNCONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
(TONS/YR)
10
26
48
86
98
26
35
78
CONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
(TONS/YR)
10
14.
22
56
55
22
34
55
EMISSION
REDUCTION
RATIO
0
.46
J54
.35
.44 .
.15
. 03
29
A-15
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
2
6
6
6
3
2
3
4
5
4
3
4
4
1
6
4
4
4
4
1
69
15
11
12
23
85
141
25
159
126
35
25
68
46
95
96
64
98
168
196
9 R R
25
11
11
12
22
52
89
20
100
11
14
16
22
10
10
16
25
31
45
63
9 £
.64
.27
0
0
.04
.39
.'39
.20
.37
.91
.6
.36
.70
.78
.89
.83
.61
.68
.73
.68
an
Table 3 presents the top 5 ranked sources,
Table 3.
SOURCE
18
29
23
24
22
TECHNOLOGY
#
5'
1
1
6
4
UNCONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
(TONS/YR)
126
255
95
96
46
CONTROLLED
EMISSIONS
(TONS/YR)
11
26
10
16
10
EMISSION
REDUCTION
RATIO
.91
.'90
.89
.83 .
.88
A-16
-------
Average of
Top 5
1
618
73
.88
Part C: Compute the Emission Reduction Ratio for the MACT.
Emission Unit * " .
One option is to calculate the MACT floor based on the.
average of the emission reduction ratio achieved by the top 5,
existing emission units. The top 5 sources' are used for -this
calculation because there are less than 30 sources in the source
category. In this case, the MACT floor would be equal to the
arithmetic mean of the emission reductions obtained by the top 5
sources in the source category or subcategory, or an 88 percent
emission reduction ratio [1 -'(sum of controlled emissions -^ sum
of uncontrolled emissions)]' or the emission reductions that can
be achieved-when control technologies 1, 4, or 5 are used at the
top-ranked sources.
Part D: Determine a MACT emission limitation (MEL)
Calculate an uncontrolled emission rate (UCEL) for the MACT
emission unit based, on the normal operation of the emission unit.
Emission reductions obtained through a pollution prevention
strategy would not be included in the UCEL calculation. The
permitting authority calculates the UCEL for this emission unit
to be 125 tons/yr total HAPs. Based on this UCEL, The MEL for
this emission unit would be
MEL = 125 tons/yr * (1-0.88)
A-17
-------
= 15 tons/yr
The permitting authority would advise the permit applicant
of the MEL and allow the applicant to determine how this level of
emission reductions will be achieved. .
Step 3: Select a control technology to meet the MACT Emission
Limitation
In this example, the nature of the product requires a
specific type of coating, and the applicant is unable to use any
of the reviewed technologies to meet the MEL. The owner and
operator will analyze other control technologies that are applied
to control similar emission points. In this example, the similar
emission points have operational losses. Review of control
technologies to control operational losses identifies add-on
control devices such as a carbon absorber, a thermal' or catalytic
incinerator, or a condenser. The owner or operator should
conduct a cost, non-air quality health and environmental impacts
and energy requirements analysis on the available control
technologies.
The major source already has a catalytic incinerator on
site. The emissions from the spray application equipment and
spray booth could be channeled to the incinerator. This would
require the installation of a venting system including a pump
mechanism. It would also require an increased volumetric flow
A-18
-------
rate to the incinerator and increase auxiliary fuel requirements.
The incinerator had been operating at a 90-percent efficiency.
With an increased volumetric flow rate, the efficiency is
projected to drop to 87-percent efficiency. The owner and
operator must obtain an. additional 1-percent emission reductions.
Possible control technologies include increasing the operating
temperature of the incinerator, or adding electrostatic
application to the spray process to enhance.transfer efficiency.
Limiting the hours of operation at the MACT emission unit could
be considered if the reduced production were part of an overall
source reduction program.
Use of the specialized coating in this operation will
increase the concentration of hazardous pollutants in the .water
used for the water curtain. The proposed control technology does
not affect the concentration of pollutants in the wastewater.
This could be considered a negative environmental impact and may
be reason to consider another control- technology to meet the MACT
emission limitation. In this instance, the owner or operator
will not violate the NPDES permit, so the control technology will
not be eliminated from consideration.
The owner or operator uses this step to demonstrate that
despite the increase in volumetric flow rate and the auxiliary
fuel requirement, a significant increase in C02 emissions does
A-19
-------
not occur. The owner or operator concludes that the impacts
associated with use of this technology are reasonable.
After reviewing the technologies the owner or operator
selects the incinerator with a limit on the hours of operation.
The owner or operator proposes to start a training program for
spray booth operators to decrease the error and product rejection
rate. By doing this, the owner or operator can reduce the hours
* ' '
of operation and still meet customer demands for the product.
This option is chosen over the other two because increasing the
incinerator's operating temperature would require additional
auxiliary fuel input, and enhancing the transfer efficiency with
electrostatic application would be cost prohibitive. The owner
or operator would document that use of the selected control .
technologies can reduce emissions to the required level.
A-20
-------
Example 4
When the MACT floor is Equal to "No Control"
Description of Source , *.
A commercial treatment storage and disposal facility
receives off-site wastes from various pesticide manufacturers. A
solvent/aqueous/pesticide mixed waste is passed through a
distillation column where the organic solvents' are' vaporized and
then condensed into a distillate receiver. The solvent is
transferred using tank cars to a tank farm that is located at
another .portion of the plant. The low-grade solvent is' then sold
to industrial users. The pesticide-laden .wastewater is then
passed through a series of carbon adsorbers where the. majority of
pesticide is removed from the water. The water is then
discharged to a . Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTW). The
carbon adsorbers are periodically steam stripped to regenerate
the carbon.
Tier I - Step 1: Identify the MACT emission unit(s)
MACT emission units:
Each storage tank
Distillation column, condenser, and distillate
receiver
Three carbon absorbers
Pumps, feed lines and transfer lines
Loading .racks
The two process units that contain emission points affected
by this modification are the recycling process and the tank farm.
A-21
-------
The equipment and apparatus associated with the affected emission
points are pumps, feed lines, a distillation column, a condenser,
a distillate receiving tank, three carbon absorber and transfer
lines, and a loading rack. -The permitting authority will
* ... .
consider the three carbon absorbers and the associated emission
points as one emission unit because a single control technology
could be practically designed to cover all. three affected
emission points. The permitting authority will also group the
distillation column, 'distillate receiver and condenser into one
MACT emission unit. The feed lines, pumps, and transfer 'lines
would have equipment leak emission losses and would be another
affected emission unit. The permitting authority -decides to
consider the emission points and equipment for the loading rack
and tanks as separate MACT emission'units. If all the tanks were
structurally similar in design one determination could be made
that would be applicable to all the tanks.
Step 2: Make a MACT floor finding
For simplicity of this example, the MACT analysis will only
be continued for a tank emission unit. All the storage tanks
will be structurally similar, so only one MACT determination will
be required. The permitting authority reviews existing .data
bases and determines that less than 12 percent of tanks in. the
source category or subcategory are controlled. Therefore the
A-22
-------
MACT floor.is equal to "no control". This i-s not automatically
an acceptable "control" measure, therefore Tier II of the MACT
analysis must be completed. In Tier II of the analysis control
technologies for similar emission points from outside the source
category or subcategory will also be considered.
Tier II - Step 1: List all available control technologies
The following technologies have been identified as possible
control technologies that can be applied to a storage tank to
control working and breathing emission losses:
Technology
1) . Fixed-roof
2) Fixed-roof plus internal' floating roof
3) Pressure tank
4) Fixed-roof vented to a carbon canister
5) Fixed-roof vented to a combustion device
6) Fixed-roof vented to a carbon absorber
Emission control
efficiency, %
93
96
96
98
' 99
100 '
Step 2: Eliminate technically infeasible control .technologies
All of the available control technologies are technically
feasible.
Step 3: Conduct a non-air quality health, environmental,
economic and energy impacts analysis
»
.The following series of tables illustrate a. non-air quality
health, environmental, cost and energy impacts analysis for each
control option.
A-23
-------
Table 1 presents information describing the secondary air
impacts and other resource demands of the various control
technologies that are technically feasible.
Table 2 presents the control options along with their costs
and emission reductions.- The average cost effectiveness of each
control option is also presented. The average cost effectiveness
is the ratio of,the total annual cost to the total amount of HAP
removed compared to the baseline. Note that the control options
are presented in terms of increasing emission reductions (i.e.,
A-24
-------
Table 1.
CONTROL OPTION
1) Fixed roof
2) Fixed roof +
internal roof
3) Pressure tank
4) Cover and
vented to
carbon canister
5) Cover and vent
to combustion
device
6) Cover and vent
to carbon
absorber
SECONDARY AIR
IMPACTS
None
None
None
Emissions if
carbon regenerated
Increased CO, NOx,
SOx, and
particulate
emissions
Emissions when
carbon regenerated
RESOURCE DEMANDS
None
None
None
Disposal of
container, solvents
for regeneration
Fuel source,
disposal of ash
Disposal of spent
carbon, solvents
for regeneration
Table 2.
CONTROL
OPTION
1
' 2
3
4
5
6
CONTROL
EFFICIENCY
93
96
96
98
99
100
ANNUAL COST
($)
85,000
113, 000
232,000
110,000
136,000
189,000
EMISSION
REDUCTION
(Mg/Yr)
72
88
88
92
103
117
AVERAGE
COST.
EFFECTIVENESS
($/Mg)a
1,181
1,284
2,636
1,196
1,320
1, 615
a Average cost effectiveness is the annual cost of each control
option divided by the annual emission reduction of that option
(e.g., $85,000/yr -f 72 Mg/yr = $1, 181/Mg) .
A-25
-------
control option 1 has the smallest emission reduction, control
option 2 has the second smallest emission reduction, etc.)
Using Table 2, several control options can be eliminated
from further consideration. Control option 3 should be
eliminated because control option 2 achieves the same amount of
HAP reductions, but at a lower cost. Control option 2 should be
eliminated^ because control option 4 achieves a greater degree of
emission reduction for lower cost. The elimination of control
options 2 and 3 reduces the number of technically feasible and
economically efficient options to four control technologies.
Table 3 presents the incremental cost effectiveness of the
remaining options. The incremental cost effectiveness of control
option 1 is the same as its average cost effectiveness, because
control option 1 is the first incremental option from the
baseline. The incremental cost effectiveness of control option 4
is the ratio of the difference in cost between options 1 and 4 to
the difference in HAP emission reductions between the two ratios.
A-26
-------
Table 3.
CONTROL
OPTION
1
4
5
6
ANNUAL COST
($)
85,000
110,000
136,000
189,000
EMISSION
REDUCTION
(Mg/Yr)
72
92
103
117
AVERAGE
COST
i.
EFFECTIVENESS
($/Mg)a
1,181 .
1,196
1,320'
1,615
INCREMENTAL
COST
EFFECTIVE-
NESS ($/Mg)b
1,181 '
1,250
2,364
3,786
a Average cost effectiveness calculated as described in Table 2.
b Incremental cost effectiveness is the difference in the annual
cost between two options divided by the difference in emission
reductions between the same, options (e.g., ($110,000/yr .-
$85,000/yr) -H (92 Mg/yr - 72 Mg/yr) = $l,250/Mg).
Tier III - Step 1: Identify MACT
Examination of the cost effectiveness of the remaining
control options can lead to the elimination of other control
options." Control option 6 is eliminated because the
incremental cost is deemed too high. The incremental cost of
control option 5 is deemed acceptable, but, upon closer
examination,' the secondary air and energy impacts make this
"Decisions" based on the cost-effectiveness values provided in this example
are for illustrative purposes only. In real life situations, cost
effectiveness would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the results of
one case would not determine absolute bounds on the circumstances under which
one would select a level of emission reduction beyond the floor.
A-2 7
-------
option undesirable. The incremental cost of both options 1 and 4
are deemed acceptable; however, control option 1 is eliminated
because other considerations (secondary air impacts, etc) do not
preclude the selection of control option 4 which achieves a
greater degree of emission reductions.
A-28
-------
Appendix B
Federal Register Notice on Determining an Average Emis-sion
Limitation for Existing Sources, June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29196).
B-l
-------
[Federal Register: June 6,1994]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPart63
[AD-FRL-4892-5]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Category: Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry and
Other Processes Subject to the Negotiated
Regulation for Equipment Leaks;
Determination of MACT "Floor"
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On December 31, 1992, the
EPA proposed standards to regulate the
emissions of certain organic hazardous air
pollutants from synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) production
processes and seven other processes which
are part of major sources under section 112
of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
(the Act). This rulemaking is commonly
called the Hazardous Organic NESHAP or
the HON. In the final action regarding the
December 31, 1992 proposal, which was
signed on February 28, 1994, and published
in the Federal Register on April 22,1994,
EPA deferred taking final action regarding
provisions applicable to medium storage
vessels due to the need to resolve an issue of
statutory interpretation of section
112(d)(3)(A) of the Act. On March 9, 1994,
EPA reopened the comment period to request
additional comment on the appropriate
interpretation of this statutory provision and
the effect of that interpretation on the
appropriate control requirements for medium
storage vessels at facilities subject to the
HON.
This action announces EPA's final
decision regarding the interpretation of
Clean Air Act section 112(d)(3)(A) for
purposes of the HON and the final decision
regarding control provisions applicable to
medium storage vessels in SOCMI facilities
subject to the HON. The decision announced
in this action regarding the interpretation of
Clean Air Act section 112(d)(3)(A) for
purposes of the HON will be presumptively
followed in subsequent MACT rulemakings,
but it will not be binding. Although EPA
believes that Congress intended one
interpretation-referred to as the "Higher
Floor Interpretation"in Clean Air Act
section 112(d)(3)(A), EPA also believes that
the Agency retains discretion in important
respects in setting Floors for MACT
standards. EPA intends to exercise its
discretion, within the statutory framework, to
promulgate MACT standards that best serve
the public interest.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 1994.
See Supplementary Information section
concerning judicial review.
/
ADDRESSES: Dockets. The following
dockets contain supporting information used
in developing the proposed provisions.
Docket Number A-90-19 contains general
information used to characterize emissions
and contrpl costs for the industry and Docket
A-90-21 contains information on storage
vessels. These dockets are available for
public inspection and copying between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at
the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Waterside Mall, room
M1500,401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: On technical issues, Dr. Janet S.
Meyer. Standards Development Branch,
Emission Standards Division (MD- 13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5254.
For further information on the legal issue
addressed in this notice, contact Michael S.
Winer, Assistant General Counsel, Air and
Radiation Division (2344), Office of General
Counsel. Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460,
telephone number (202) 260-7606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), judicial review of the actions
taken by this document is available only on
the filing of a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's
publication Of this rule. Under section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that
are subject to today's document may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Public Comment: Approximately 55
comment letters were received in response to
the March 9, 1994 (59 FR 11018) reopening
of the comment period. The majority of these
letters were from industries or industrial
trade associations, arguing in favor of the
less stringent "Lower Floor Interpretation."
Environmental groups, State or local
governments and labor unions argued almost
uniformly in favor of the more stringent
"Higher Floor Interpretation." The EPA
considered all public comments in framing
the final policy for MACT floor
determination and in selection of the
requirements for medium storage vessels.
The major issues raised by the comments are
addressed in this preamble. The EPA's
responses to all the comments can be found
in docket A-90-19, Subcategory VI-B.
I. Summary of Decision on MACT Floor
Determination
This section describes EPA's decision
with respect to the interpretation of Clean
Air Act section 112(d)(3)(A) for purposes of
this rulemaking. As set forth in more detail
below, EPA believes that one of the
interpretations of section
112(d)(3)(A)-referred to as the "Higher
Floor Interpretation"~is the better and more
natural reading of the statutory language.
A. Background
Section 112(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act
provides that Emissions standards
promulgated under this subsection for
existing sources * * * shall not be Jess
stringent * * * than
(A) The average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of existing sources * * * 42 U.S.C. section
7412(d)(3). Existing sources for which the
Administrator lacks emissions information
and those .that have recently achieved LAER
are excluded from consideration. Id. (For
categories or subcategories with fewer than
30 sources, standards may not be less
stringent than "the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 5
sources." CAA section 112(d)(3)(B)). The
minimum level of stringency defined by this
language has come to be known as the
MACT Floor.
In the March 9, 1994 Federal Register.
EPA published a notice soliciting comment
on "the appropriate interpretation of section
112(d)(3)(A). Two interpretations of section
112(d)(3)(A) were discussed. Under the first.
referred to as the "Higher Floor
Interpretation," EPA would look at emission
limitations achieved by each of the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources,
and average those limitations. "Average"
would be interpreted to mean a measure of
central tendency such as the arithmetic mean
or median. (The arithmetic mean of a set of
measurements is the sum of the
measurements divided by the number of
B-2
-------
measurements in the set. The median is the
value in a set of measurements below and
above which there are an equal number of
values, when the measurements are arranged
in order of magnitude).
Under the second, "Lower Floor
Interpretation," EPA would look at the
average emission limits achieved by each of
the best performing 12 percent of existing
sources, and take the lowest. This second
interpretation groups the words "average
emission limitation" into a single phrase, and
asks what "average emission limitation"
(accounting for variability over time, or
between different pollutants being emitted
from a facility) is "achieved by" all members
of the best performing 12 percent.
B. EPA's Interpretation of Section
The EPA believes that the "Higher
Floor Interpretation" is a better reading of
Clean Air Act section 1 12(d)(3)(A) than the
"Lower Floor Interpretation." This
conclusion is based on a review of the
statute, legislative history and comments
received in response to EPA's March 9
notice. 1 . The Statutory Language Section
1 12(d)(3)(A) requires that standards be no
less stringent than "* * * the average
emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources * *
*". The EPA believes that the most natural
and straightforward reading of this language
would have EPA first determine the emission
limitations achieved by sources within the
best performing 12 percent, and then average
those limitations. This is the method
described above as the "Higher Floor
Interpretation."
The EPA believes that if Congress had
intended the Lower Floor Interpretation,
language other than that actually used in
section 1 12(d)(3)(A) would have been far
more natural. For example, Congress could
easily have expressed the Lower Floor
Interpretation by requiring standards to be no
less stringent than "the emission limitation
achieved by all sources within the best
performing 12 percent." Similarly. Congress
could have required standards to be no less
stringent than "the average emission
limitation achieved by the worst performing
member of the best performing 12 percent,"
or "the emission limitation (averaged over
time to take account of variability in the
effectiveness of control) achieved by ail
sources within the best performing 12
percent." Any of such phrases would have
been a more natural way to convey the Lower
Floor Interpretation than the language
Congress chose. However, the actual
language of section 1 12(d)(3)(A) provides,
in straightforward fashion, that standards
may be no less stringent than the "average
emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent * * *". To glean the
Lower Floor Interpretation from this
language is a strain; words and concepts not
set forth in the statute must be added or
inferred.
The language of section 112(d)(3)(B)
makes this point even clearer. That section
requires that standards for existing sources-in
categories or subcategories with fewer than
30 sources be no less stringent than, "The
average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 5 sources * * *" 42 U.S.C.
7412(d)(3)(B).
If an interpretation parallel to the Lower
Floor Interpretation were intended, it would
have been more natural for this provision to
read "the emission limitation achieved by
the 5th best performing source."
2. The Legislative History
The legislative history lends strong
support to the view that, in passing section
112(d)(3)(A), Congress intended the Higher
Floor Interpretation.
On the House side, the language that
would eventually become section
112(d)(3)(A) was offered as a compromise
amendment by Rep. Dingell on the House
Floor on May 23, 1990. (The language of the
amendment was identical to section
112(d)(3)(A) as ultimately enacted into law;
only the numbers were different). Rep.
Dingell yielded time to Rep. Collins "for
purposes of explaining the amendment."
Legislative History of 1990 CAA
Amendments at 2896. In doing so, Rep.
Collins noted that she had originally
supported slightly more stringent numbers
than those included in the amendment, and
that under her original proposal
The average of emissions from
the 10 percent cleanest sources would be
the MACT standard. In cases where
there are less than 30 sources in a
category or subcategory, the average of
the 3 cleanest sources would determine
the standard.
Id. She went on to explain that under the
compromise amendment introduced by Rep.
Dingell
MACT for existing stationary
sources would be the average of the best
15 [percent] of technologies within each
category or subcategory. For categories
or subcategories where there are less
than 30 sources, the standard is based on
the average emissions from the best
performing 5 sources.
Legislative History of 1990 CAA
Amendments at 2897.
Rep. Collins' formulations are consistent
with the Higher Floor Interpretation, not the
Lower. The "average of the 3 cleanest
sources" cannot mean, as the Lower Floor
Interpretation would require, the level of
control achieved by all three of the "cleanest
sources." Nor can the "average of the best 15
[percent], of technologies'" mean a technology
as good as that used by all sources within the
top 15 percent.
Another discussion of section 112(d)(3)
is similar. On October 27, 1990, Sen.
Durenberger (a principal supporter of the
Clean Air Act Amendments) explained the
provision on the Senate floor. His
explanation was as follows:
The standard may not be less
stringent than the average of the
emission levels achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing
sources within the category* * * The
Administrator is to exclude from the
calculation of the average of top 12
percent any source which met the
following conditions* * *
Legislative History of 1990 CAA
Amendments at 870 (Cong. Rec. S16929-
Oct. 27, 1990). The second sentence of Sen.
Durenberger's statement, in particular, is
inconsistent with the Lower Floor
Interpretation. Sen. Durenberger makes clear
that the "average" called for in the statute is
of the "top 12 percent," not the emission
limitations achieved over time at each
individual source.
No legislative history was found that
supports the Lower Floor Interpretation. The
EPA believes that the legislative history
indicates thai individual
legislatorsincluding those central to the
drafting of section 112(d)(3)~undersfood the
word "average" to mean that once the
emission limitations achieved by the best
performers in a category had been
determined, those results should be averaged.
This is the method of the Higher Floor
Interpretation, not the Lower.
3. Issues Raised in Public Comment
a. Arguments Concerning the Statutory
Language.
(i) Plain Meaning of the Statute. Several
commenters argued that the meaning of the
statute was plain on its face and that
Congress clearly intended the Higher Floor
Interpretation. These commenters argued that
when section 112(d)(3)(A) is read as a whole
in its most natural way, the Congressional
intent in favor of the Higher Floor
B-3
-------
Interpretation is clear. They argued that if
Congress had intended the Lower Floor
Interpretation, it would have used different
language in the statute.
The EPA agrees with these comments.
As set forth in greater detail above, EPA
believes the plain statutory language strongly
favors the Higher Floor Interpretation.
(ii) Congress" Failure to Use the Words
"of the". Several commenters argued that if
Congress had meant the Higher Floor.
Interpretation, it would have added the words
"of the" to the statute, so that section
112(d)(3)(A) would read "the average of the
emission limitations achieved by the best
performing 12 percent." These commenters
saw the absence of the words "of the" in the
statute as evidence that Congress intended
the Lower Floor Interpretation.
The EPA agrees that the statute would
be more clear if Congress had used the words
"of the," but disagrees with the conclusion
drawn by these commenters for two reasons.
First, standard English usage often permits
dropping the prepositions "of the" without
changing the meaning of a phrase. (For
example, "the biggest mountain in North
America" has the same meaning as "the
biggest of the mountains in North America."
"Best singer in the band" has the same
meaning as "best of the singers in the
band.") The same cannot be said, however,
for the various phrases and concepts that
must be read into section 112(d)(3)(A) in
order to arrive at the Lower Floor
Interpretation. Phrases like "the worst
performing member of..." or "averaged over
time..." simply are not dropped as part of
standard English. Their absence from section
112(d)(3)(A)-unlike the absence of the
words "of the"must be considered
significant in interpreting the provision.
Second, although the words "of the" do not
appear in section 112(d)(3)(A), they were
used by key legislators in summarizing that
section prior to passage of the 1990 Clean
Air"Act Amendments. As noted above, when
Sen. Durenberger (a principal supporter of
the Clean Air Act Amendments) spoke on
the Senate floor on October 27,1990, he
explained section 112(d)(3)(A) as follows:
The standard may not be less
stringent than the average of the
emission levels achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing
sources within the category* * *
Legislative History of 1990 CAA
Amendments at 870 (Cong. Rec. S16929-
Oct. 27, 1990) (emphasis added). As also
noted above, when Rep. Collins introduced
the provision in the House, she described it
as follows:
The average of emissions from
the 10 percent cleanest sources would be
the MACT standard. In cases where
there are less than 30 sources in a
category or subcategory, the average of
the 3 cleanest sources would determine
the standard.
Legislative History of 1990 CAA
Amendments at 2896 (emphasis added)
(describing a provision with identical
language but different numbers than the one
ultimately enacted into law).
In EPA's view, the fact that Congress
did not use the words "of the" in section
112(d)(3)(A) is folly consistent with standard
English. However, the fact that key
legislators did use these words in describing
the provision to their colleagues, in
combination with the failure of those
legislators to use the phrases on which the
Lower Floor Interpretation depends, provides
a strong indication that Congress intended
the Higher Floor Interpretation in enacting
section 112(d)(3)(A).
(iii) Purpose of the Word "Average".
Several commenters argued that the word
"average" in section 112(d)(3)(A) should be
read to require averaging not of emissions
from different sources within the top 12
percent, but instead of emissions from
individual sources at different times, or from
different emission points, or made up of
different HAP. The EPA does not agree that
the word "average" in section 112(d)(3)(A)
can reasonably be read to serve this purpose.
First, such a reading is difficult, if not
impossible, to reconcile with the provision of
section 112(d)(3) establishing a "floor" for
new sources. Under those provisions, new
source standards may not be less stringent
than
The emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar source.
42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(3). Notably, Congress did
not use the word "average" in this provision.
If the word "average" in section
112(d)(3)(A) was intended to refer to
averages across time, or between emission
points, or among different HAP, then
Congress must have intended that such
averaging would take place for existing
source standards, but not for new source
standards. There is no reason to believe
Congress intended this implausible result.
There is a much more likely explanation:
That to the extent Congress contemplated
that averaging across time, or between
emission points, or among HAP would play a
role in either existing or new source MACT
standards, it considered the terms "emission
limitation" and "emission control" fully
adequate to reflect that fact. In EPA's air
program, emission limitations have routinely
been expressed in terms of averages across
time, for example, without any special
statutory direction or authority. There is no
reason to believe that Congress would have
thought that special instructions were needed
to ensure that EPA continued this practice,
and even less reason to believe Congress
would have thought special instructions were
needed with respect to existing source
standards, but not new source standards.
Furthermore, the legislative history of
section 112 casts doubt on the interpretation
of the word "average" offered by these
commenters. When Congress
comprehensively revised section 112 in the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it based
the revisions in substantial part on the Clean
Water Act's effluent guidelines program.
(See, e.g., Remarks of Sen. Durenberger,
Cong. Rec. S516 (January 30, 1990) ("** *
this approach to regulation of toxic air
pollutants is not without precedent. A
program very similar to the one I have just
described has already been implemented
under the Clean Water Act").) Under that
program, certain limits (known as "BPT
limits") have long been based on the
"average of the best" performance at existing
facilities. (See generally Remarks of Sen.
Muskie, Legislative History of Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972 at 169-70
("The Administrator should establish the
range of'best practicable' levels based upon '
the average of the best existing performance
by plants of various sizes, ages and unit
processes.")) In determining "average of the
best" under the Clean Water Act, EPA -has
historically identified the best performers in
an industrial category, and then averaged
their performances. This methodology is
consistent with the Higher Floor
Interpretation and not the Lower.
(iv) Proximity of the Word "Average" to
the Words "Emission Limitation". Several
commenters argued that the proximity of the
word "average" to the words "emission
limitation" suggests that "average" modifies
"emission limitation," and not the entire
phrase following those words. The EPA does
not agree with this argument. In English,
adjectives often modify not only the noun
immediately following, but an entire phrase.
In the phrase "the biggest mountain in North
America climbed by members of the
Washington. D.C. Climbing Club," for
example, the adjective "biggest" modifies
the entire remainder of the phrase. There is
no reason to conclude that the word
"average" in section 112(d)(3)(A) plays a
different role.
(v) Use of the Words "Achieved By".
Several commenters argued that the use of
the words "achieved by" in the statute
B-4
-------
indicates that all sources within the top 12
percent must be achieving the emission
limitations used to set the MACT Floor.
The EPA does not agree with this
argument. The EPA believes the argument
depends both on inferring the presence of the
word "all" in section 112(d)(3)(A), and (as
discussed above) on ignoring, or incorrectly
construing, the meaning of the word
"average." Section 112(d)(3)(A) simply does
not say "the emission limitation achieved by
all sources within the best performing 12
percent* * *". Congress' use of the words
"achieved by" cannot reasonably be
stretched to accomplish such a rewriting of
the statute.
b. Arguments Concerning Structure of
the Statute. Several commenters argued that
elements of the statute's structure support the
Lower Floor Interpretation. For example,
some commenters argued that the Lower
Floor Interpretation best reflects EPA's
authority to consider cost and other factors in
setting standards more stringent than MACT
Floor. Other commenters argued that the
Lower Floor Interpretation best reflects the
distinction between existing source MACT
and new source MACT.
The EPA does not agree with these
arguments. In fact, the Higher Floor
Interpretation fully preserves both of these
structural elements of the statute. With the
Higher Floor Interpretation, just as with the
Lower, EPA still has authority to establish
existing source standards more stringent than
the Floor based on enumerated criteria. With
the Higher Floor Interpretation, just as with
the Lower, there is still a distinction between
the Floor for existing sources and the level of
control required for new sources. (Under
section 112(d)(3), standards for new sources
must be at least as stringent as "the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the
best controlled similar source"). The fact that
there may be "less distance" to travel above
the Floor with the Higher Floor Interpretation
does not establish an inconsistency between
that interpretation and other parts of the
statute, nor does it mean that the
interpretation is flawed in any way.
Furthermore, structural arguments tend
to favor the Higher Floor Interpretation more
strongly than the Lower. Section 112 was
passed in its current form to ensure quick
and dramatic reductions in air toxics
emissions. Congress was frustrated with the
slow pace of toxics control prior to 1990,
and many members in part blamed EPA for
weak controls. See, e.g., H. Comm. Rep.
101-490 at 150-54, 322-23; S. Rpt. 101-228
at 128-33. The structure and purpose of
section 112 as a whole indicates that section
112(d)(3)(A) was intended to establish a
stringent minimum level of control for
hazardous air pollutants.
c. Additional Arguments. Several
commenters argued that the Higher Floor
Interpretation would require EPA to.set
MACT Floors that failed to correspond to
real-world control technologies.
The EPA does not agree with this
argument The EPA believes that the
argument depends upon a flawed premise:
That the word "average" can only mean
"arithmetic mean." In fact, there are a
number of conventional methods for
determining the average of a data set,
including the median. Congress did not
mandate a particular method of determining
"average" or central tendency in section
112(d)(3)(A), and the choice of
methodologywhether median, mean, or
some other measurecan often change the
results markedly. For example, if the five
facilities that make up the top 12 percent of a
source category are achieving reductions
equal to 99 percent, 98 percent, 95 percent,
94 percent and 93 percent, EPA need not set
the MACT Floor equal to the arithmetic
mean of these values, which is 95.8 percent.
Using the Higher Floor Interpretation, EPA
could set the MACT Floor equal the median
of these values, which is 95 percent.
This discussion responds to the most
significant comments on legal issues
received in response to the March 9. 1994
Federal Register document. Other comments
on legal issues are addressed in item number
VI-B-61 in docket A-90-19.
C. Conclusion
The EPA believes that Congress spoke
with clarity in section 112(d)(3)(A) of the
Clean Air Act. That provision-requiring
standards to be no less stringent than "the
average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of existing
sources'lends little support for an
interpretation under which standards might
be set at the emission limitation achieved by
the worst performing member of the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources.
The legislative history offers no support for
such an interpretation, and indeed points
strongly in the opposite direction. The EPA
believes that the Higher Floor Interpretation
represents the best reading of the statutory
language.
II. Discretion in Setting Floors for MACT
Standards
In today's notice, EPA announces its
conclusion that Congress intended the
Higher Floor Interpretation. The effect of this
decision, however, is not to identify any
particular number (e.g. the 94th percentile)
as the Floor for all MACT standards. EPA
retains discretion in important respects in
setting Floors for MACT standards, and
intends to exercise its discretion, within the
statutory framework, to promulgate MACT
standards that best serve the public interest
EPA believes the Agency retains
substantial discretion, within the statutory
framework, to set MACT Floors at
appropriate levels. For example, because
Congress did not define the term."average"
in section 112(d)(3), or in the legislative
history, it implicitly delegated the authority
to EPA to do so. The choice of
methodology whether mean, median, mode,
or some other measurecan often change the
results. (The mean of a set of measurements
is the sum of the measurements divided by
the number of measurements in the set. The
median is the value in a set of measurements
below and above which there are an equal
number of values, when the measurements
are arranged in order of magnitude. The
mode is the value that occurs most often in a
set of measurements). As some commenters
noted, the "average of the best performing
12%" corresponds to the 94th percentile
when the word "average" is construed to be
the "median." If, however, "average" is
construed to be the "arithmetic mean" or
"mode," a different result may obtain. EPA
construes the word "average" in section
112(d)(3) to authorize the Agency to use any
reasonable method, in a particular factual
context, of determining the central tendency
of a data set. In addition'. EPA has discretion
to use its best engineering judgment in
collecting arid analyzing the data, and in
assessing the data's comprehensiveness,
accuracy and variability, in order to
determine which sources achieve the best
emission reductions. EPA also has discretion
in determining how to analyze the data, and
thus in determining the appropriate
average" in each category or subcategory.
There are other important ways that EPA
retains discretion in setting MACT floors.
For example. Congress authorized EPA 10
subcategorize source categories based on
classes, types and sizes of sources, which
will result in different Floors for different
subcategories. CAA section 112(d)(l). Using
this authority, EPA can tailor standards to
certain characteristics of particular emission
units and sources. EPA retains flexibility, for
example, to conclude that the production
processes used at particular sources in the
relevant category are sufficiently different
from processes used at other sources in the
same category to justify the creation of a new
subcategory.
These examples are not meant to be
exhaustive. EPA has only begun the process
of setting MACT standards. As EPA gains
experience in setting MACT Floors, other
issues may arise that will require EPA to
exercise its discretion in determining, for
B-5
-------
each case, what represents the average
emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12% of existing sources (or the
best performing five sources, in categories or
subcatcgories with fewer than 30 sources).
HI. Precedential Impact of Today's
Determination
In its March 9,1994 document, EPA
stated that "the MACT floor decision * * *
in this rulemaking will have broad
precedential effect, and will be
presumptively followed in subsequent
MACT rulemakings." 59 FR 11018. Several
commenters objected this statement, arguing
that the issue of how best to interpret section
112(d)(3)(A) should have been addressed in
a separate, generally applicable rulemaking.
The EPA wishes to emphasize that,
although today's decision concerning the
interpretation of Clean Air Act section
112(d)(3) for purposes of the HON will be
precedential for future rulemakings, it will
not be binding. Specifically, EPA will fully
consider all comments on individual MACT
standards, including those regarding the
proper interpretation of the language in sec.
112(d)(3)(A), received on or before the close
of the comment periods for those standards.
IV. Application of MACT Floor Decision to
Medium Storage Vessels at Facilities Subject
to the HON
As described in the March 9, 1994
Federal Register reopening the comment
period, EPA requested comment on whether
the control requirements for medium storage
vessels previously proposed by EPA would
be appropriate in the event those proposed
controls were to be determined to be more
stringent than the floor. Only four
commenters addressed the question of the
appropriate controls requirement for medium
storage vessels and provided rationale for
their opinions. Of these commenters, only
one submitted information which purported
to represent control information for SOCMI
storage vessels. This information was
reviewed and found to not provide any
information on control performance and to
represent storage vessels associated with
non-SOCMI processes (i.e., other source
categories) as well as SOCMI processes.
Therefore, the submitted information could
not be used to revise the database. The EPA
review of this information is contained in
item VI-B-62 in docket A-90-19. This
section of the preamble, therefore, only
presents the basis for the final decision on
control requirements for medium sized
storage vessels.
For medium vessels, about 8 percent of
the vessels are controlled with either a
90-percent efficient control device or an IFR
or EFR with a continuous seal. All of the
controlled medium-sized vessels contained .
liquids with vapor pressures of 13.1 kPa (1.9
psia). Because the arithmetic mean
characteristics of the top 12 percent of the
medium vessels would not represent the
performance of any known technology, the
EPA used the median as the average for
these vessels. Thus, for medium-sized
storage vessels, the floor determined by the
average characteristics of the top 12 percent
of the sources would require control of
vessels storing liquids with vapor pressures
of 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia) by either a 90-percent
efficient control device or an IFR or EFR
with a continuous seal.
In selection of the control provisions for
medium-sized storage vessels, EPA
considered the regulatory alternatives that
were presented in the April 22, 1994 Federal
Register document. These alternatives
reflected a combination of: (1) The floor
control for medium-sized storage vessels,
which at the time of proposal, were equipped
with the floor controls and (2) the proposed
control provisions for medium-sized storage
vessels which were equipped with no control
or less efficient controls than the
performance of the revised floor component
for the source-wide floor. The EPA did not
develop a regulatory alternative
corresponding to application of the revised
floor control level to all storage vessels. Such
an alternative would have essentially the
same control costs as the proposed control
provisions, but would result in a lower
emission reduction. Because the floor control
would represent a less economically efficient
option and would add to the complexity of
the rule, this option was not formally
evaluated.
For medium storage vessels at existing
sources, control at the regulatory alternative
used to represent the floor control was
estimated to cost $2.4 million/yr and to result
in an emission reduction of 370 Mg/yr (110
tons/yr). The regulatory option for control
level beyond the floor component is
estimated to further reduce emissions by less
than 100 Mg/yr (110 tons/yr) at an additional
cost of $4 million/yr, or S48,000/Mg for
each additional Mg of emission reduction.
Due to the relatively high incremental costs
and low emission reductions of this
alternative, the EPA believes that the control
level for the medium storage vessels
component of the source- wide floor
represented the maximum reduction
achievable considering cost and other
impacts.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete
file of all the information submitted to or
otherwise considered by EPA in the
development of this rulemaking. The
principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To
allow interested parties to identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively
participate in the rulemaking process and (2)
to serve as the record in case of judicial
review (except for interagency review
materials) (Section 307(d)(7)(A)).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements
of these provisions in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. An Information Collection Request
document has been prepared by the EPA
(ICRNo. 1414.02), and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information
Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,
(2136), Washington, DC 20460, or by
calling (202) 260- 2740. These requirements
are not effective until OMB approves them
and a technical amendment to that effect is '
published in the Federal Register.
The reporting and recbrdkeeping burden
of the information collection requirements of
the provisions for medium sized storage
vessels are included in the estimate of the
overall reporting burden, which is presented
in ICRNo. 1414.02. The information
collection requirements for the entire rule has
an estimated annual reporting burden
averaging 1,400 hours per response, and an
estimated annual recordkeeping burden
averaging 5,400 hours per respondent. These
estimates include time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed.
and completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden, to Chief, Information
Policy Branch, EPA: 401 M Street, SW.,
(Mail code 2136); Washington, DC 20460:
and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
C. Executive Order 12866
This final action regarding provisions
applicable to medium sized storage vessels in
facilities subject to the HON has been
reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12866. Under the terms of the Order,
the Administrator has assessed the potential
costs and benefits of the regulatory action.
The methods for and results of these cost and
B-6 -
-------
benefit analyses are described in the HON's
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).,The RIA
was included in the HON docket at proposal,
and thus it was made available for public
comment.
Executive Order 12866 also requires
that the record for "significant" rules include
an assessment of the potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives to the
planned action. The potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives to the control
requirements in the HON were also analyzed
as part of the rule development process. The
methods for and results of these analyses are
described in the HON's Background
Information Document (BID). The BID was
included in the HON docket at proposal, and
thus it was also available for public
comment. In addition, many of the
alternative requirements considered by the
Administrator were described in the
preamble for the HON proposal.
The potential costs associated with
selection of the final provisions are primarily
the result of statutory requirements. All
elements of the cost that are not directly
attributable to statutory requirements were
deemed appropriate because the
Administrator determined that they were
necessary for administering this program
effectively and efficiently. In assessing the
potential costs and benefitsboth
quantitative and qualitative--of this rule, the
Administrator has determined that the
benefits justify the costs.
The Administrator has also determined
that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) requires the EPA to consider
potential impacts of Federal regulations on
small business entities. If a preliminary
analysis indicates that a proposed regulation
would have a significant economic impact
on 20 percent or more of small entities, then
a regulatory flexibility analysis must be
prepared.
Regulatory impacts are considered
significant if any of the following criteria are
met: (1) Compliance increases annual
production costs by more than 5 percent.
assuming costs are passed on to consumers;
(2) compliance costs as a percentage of sales
for small entities are at least 10 percent more
than compliance costs as a percentage of
sales for large entities; (3) capital costs of
compliance represent a "significant" portion
of capital available to small entities,
considering internal cash flow plus external
financial capabilities; or (4) regulatory
requirements are likely to result in closures
of small entities. ,
The potential .Costs of the requitements
for medium sized storage vessels were
considered as part of the economic impact
analysis for the entire regulation. The
assessment of the economic impacts of the
overall regulation were presented in the April
22, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 19449).
Therefore, the addition of the final
provisions to the standard does not alter the
conclusion that the standard is not expected
to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small firms.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this attached rule
will not have an economic impact on small
entities because no additional costs will be
incurred.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution
control, Hazardous substances, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 27, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble,
part 63, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63~[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 101. 112, 114, 116,
and 301 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401, et seq., as amended by Pub. L.
101-549, 104 Stat. 2399).
Subpart G~National Emission Standards for
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry Process Vents, Storage Vessels.
Transfer Operations, and Wastewater
2. Table 5 of the appendix to subpart G
is revised to read as follows:
Table 5.-Group 1 Storage Vessels at
Existing Sources
'Maximum true'vapor pressure of total
organic HAP at storage temperature.
[FR Doc. 94-13666 Filed 6-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Vessel capacity
(cubic meters)
75 i capacity < 151
151 s capacity
Vapor Pressure1
(kilopascals)
a 13.1
* 5.2
B-7
-------
B-8
-------
Appendix C
EXAMPLE NOTICE OF MACT APPROVAL
Notice of MACT Approval
CFR 40, Part 63, Subpart.B
Maximum Achievable Control Technology Emission Limitation
- . '. for
Constructed and Reconstructed Sources
under Section 112 (j)
This notice establishes practicable, enforceable maximum -
achievable control technology emission limitation(s) and
requirements for Name of major source for the MACT-affected
emission unit(s) located at location of all MACT-affected
emission units. The emission limitations and requirements,set
forth in this document are enforceable on effective date of
notice.
A. Major Source Information
1. Mailing address of owner or operator:
2. Mailing address for location of major source:
3. Source category or subcategory for major source:
4. MACT-affected emission unit(s): List' all emission unit (s)
subject to this Notice of MACT Approval along, with the
source identification number if applicable.
5. Type of construction or reconstruction: Describe the action
taken by the owner or operator of the major source that
qualifies as the construction of a new affected source or
reconstruction of an affected source under the requirements
of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart B, sections 63.50-63.56
6. Anticipated commencement date for construction or
reconstruction:
7. Anticipated start-up date of construction or reconstruction:
8. List of the hazardous, air , pollutants emitted by MACT-
af fected emission unit(s): List all hazardous air
pollutants that are or will be emitted from the affected'.
C-l
-------
emission unit(s). Any pollutant not listed in this section
cannot be emitted by the emission unit without an amendment
to the Notice of MACT Approval.
B. MACT Emission Limitation
1. The above stated owner or operator shall not exceed the
following emission limitation(s) for the above stated MACT-
affected emission unit(.s). Write in emission standard or
MACT emission limitation for .overall hazardous air pollutant
emissions from each affected emission unit. -If the
permitting authority determines that an individual pollutant
emission limitation is appropriate, it should also be listed
in this section.
2. The above stated owner or operator shall install and operate
the following control technology(s), specific design,
equipment, work practice, operational standard, or
combination thereof to meet the emission standard or MACT
emission limitation listed in paragraph 1 of this section.
List all control technologies to be installed by the owner
or operator and which emission units to which the control
technologies apply.
3. The above stated owner or operator shall adhere to the
following production or operational parameters for the
technologies listed in paragraph 2 of this section. State
all production or operational parameters. For-'example:
The owner or operator may, subject to [name of agency]
approval, by-pass the emission control device for a
limited period of time for purposes such as maintenance
of thecontrol device.
The owner or operator shall operate and maintain the
control equipment such that it has a 95% hazardous air
pollutant destruction efficiency.
The owner or operator shall not operate the MACT-
affected emission unit for greater than 6 hours in any
24-hour period of time.
C. Monitoring Requirements
For each MACT emission limitation and operational requirement
established in Section B (MACT emission limitation) the above
C-2
-------
stated owner or operator shall comply with the following
monitoring requirements. State all itionitoring requirements.
For example:
After installing the control equipment required to comply
with Section B.I visually inspect the internal floating
roof, the primary seal, and the secondary seal, before
filling the storage vessel -.
The owner, or operator shall calibrate, maintain and operate
a continuous monitoring system for the measurement of
opacity of emissions discharged from the control device
required in Section B.2 according to the following
procedures: etc.
D. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
List all reporting and recordkeeping requirements in this
section. For example:
The owner or operator shall maintain at the source for a
period of at least 5 years records of the visual
inspections, maintenance and repairs performed on each
secondary hood system as required in Section B.2.
E. Other Requirements
1. The above stated owner or operator shall comply with the
General Provisions set forth in Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 63,
as specified in 40 CFR 63.1 (a) and as specified herein by
the permitting authority.
2. In addition to the requirements stated in paragraph 1 of
this section, the owner or operator will be subject to the
following additional requirements. If there are any
specific requirements that the reviewing agency would like
to clarify or add, those requirements should' also be stated
in this paragraph. This paragraph could also include
requirements for emergency provisions and start-up and shut-
down procedures .
F. Compliance Certifications
The above stated owner or operator shall certify compliance
with the terms and conditions of this notice according to the
following .procedures: This section 'should include a
C-3
-------
description of the terms and conditions that the owner or
operator will use to certify compliance, as well as the format
and frequency of the certification.
C-4
-------
Appendix D
Federal Register Notice on Final Amendments to Regulations
Governing Equivalent Emission Limitations by Permit.
Also see: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112j/112jaypg.html
D-l
-------
Friday,
April 5, 2002
Part
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories: General Provisions; and
Requirements for Control Technology
Determinations for Major Sources in
Accordance With Clean Air Act Sections,
Sections 112(g) and 112(j); Final Rule
-------
16582
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7155-8]
RIN 2060AF31
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories: General Provisions; and
Requirements for Control Technology
Determinations for Major Sources in
Accordance with Clean Air Act
Sections, Sections 112(g) and 1120)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
SUMMARY: On March 16,1994, the EPA
promulgated General Provisions for
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) and
other regulatory requirements that are
established under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). In today's action,
we are promulgating amendments to the
General Provisions that revise and
clarify several of the current provisions.
We are promulgating these
amendments, in part, as a result of
decisions reached in settlement
negotiations conducted between
petitioners who filed for review of the
General Provisions and the EPA, as well
as internal EPA discussions on issues
regarding implementation of the General
Provisions. The promulgated
amendments also reflect our response to
public comments.
In a separate action in today's Federal
Register, we are also amending
regulations on National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil
Production, in a direct final rule in
order to resolve inconsistencies between
that rule and these amendments to the
General Provisions.
In addition, in today's action, we are
promulgating amendments to the rule
that establishes equivalent emission
limitations by permit under section
112(j) of the CAA. The "section 112(j)"
rule establishes requirements and
procedures for owners or operators of
major sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) and permitting
authorities to comply with section
112(j). The section 112(j) rule was
promulgated on May 20, 1994.
These amendments have been
developed in response to settlement
negotiations conducted between
petitioners who filed for review of the
section 112(j) rule and the EPA, as well
as internal EPA discussions regarding
implementation of the section 112(j)
rule. The promulgated amendments to
the section 112 (j) rule also reflect our
response to public comments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-2001-02, Part
63 General Provisions (Subpart A) and
Section 112(j) Regulations (Subpart B)
Litigation Settlement Amendments,
contains supporting information used in
developing these amendments. This
docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401
M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 in
room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground
floor), and is available for public
inspection and copying from 8:30 a.m.
through 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON1ACT: For
information concerning applicability
and rule determinations, contact your
State or local permitting agency '
representative or the appropriate EPA
Regional Office representative. For
further information concerning the
development of these rule amendments,
contact Mr. Rick Colyer, U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Minerals and Inorganic
Chemicals Group, C504-05, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711,
telephone (919) 541-5262, e-mail
colyer.rick@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket.
The docket is an organized and
complete file of the record compiled by
EPA in the development of this.
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic
file because material is added
throughout the rulemaking process. The
docketing system is intended to allow
members of the public and industries
involved to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively
participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the background information
document and'the proposal and
promulgation preamble and standards
for this rulemaking, the contents of the
docket will serve as the record in the
case of judicial review. (See section
307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) All these
materials are available for review in the
docket or copies may be mailed on
request from the Air Docket by calling
(202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may
be charged for copying docket materials.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition
to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of today's promulgated
rule amendments will also be available
on the WWW through the Technology
Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the
rule will be posted on the TTN's policy
and guidance page for newly proposed
or promulgated rules: http://
. www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air
pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the
TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entitle^. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this .
action include all section 112 source
categories listed under section 112{c) of
the CAA.
Industry Group: Source Category
Fuel Combustion
Combustion Turbines
Engine Test Facilities
Industrial Boilers
Institutional/Commercial Boilers
Process Heaters
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
Rocket Testing Facilities
Non-Ferrous Metals Processing
Primary Aluminum Production
Primary Copper Smelting
Primary Lead Smelting
Primary Magnesium Refining
Secondary Aluminum Production
Secondary Lead Smelting
Ferrous Metals Processing
Coke By-Product Plants
Coke Ovens: Charging, Top Side, and Door
Leaks
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks
Ferroalloys Production: Silicomanganese and
Ferromanganese
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Iron Foundries Electric Arc Furnace (EAF)
Operation
Steel Foundries
Steel PicklingHC1 Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration
Mineral Products Processing
Alumina Processing
Asphalt Concrete Manufacturing
Asphalt Processing
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
Asphalt/Coal Tar ApplicationMetal Pipes
Clay Products Manufacturing
Lime Manufacturing
Mineral Wool Production
Portland Cement Manufacturing
Refractories Manufacturing
Taconite Iron Ore Processing
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and
Refining
Oil and Natural Gas Production -
Natural Gas Transmission and Storage
Petroleum RefineriesCatalytic Cracking
(Fluid and other) Units, Catalytic
Reforming Units, and Sulfur Plant Units
Petroleum RefineriesOther Sources Not
Distinctly Listed
Liquids Distribution
Gasoline Distribution (Stage 1)
Marine Vessel Loading Operations
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16583
Surface Coating Processes
Aerospace Industries
Auto and Light Duty Truck
Largo Appliance
Magnetic Tapes
Manufacture of Paints, Coatings, and
Adhesives
Motal Can
Metal Coil
Metal Furniture
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Paper and Other Webs
Plastic Parts and Products
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
Printing/Publishing
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Wood Building Products
Wood Furniture
Waste Treatment and Disposal
Hazardous Waste Incineration
Municipal Landfills
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
Emissions
Sewage Sludge Incineration
Site Remediation
Solid Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities (TSDF)
Agricultural Chemicals Production
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
Fibers Production Processes
Acrylic Fibers/Modacrylic Fibers Production
Rayon Production
Spandex Production
Food and Agriculture Processes
Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast
Cellulose Food Casing Manufacturing
Vegetable Oil Production
Pharmaceutical Production Processes
Pharmaceuticals Production
Polymers and Resins Production
Acetal Resins Production
Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production
Alkyd Resins Production
Amino Resins Production
Boat Manufacturing
Butyl Rubber Production
Carboxymethylcellulose Production
Cellophane Production
Cellulose Ethers Production
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production
Epoxy Resins Production
Ethylene-Propylene Rubber Production
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production
Hypalon (tm) Production
Maleic Anhydride Copolymers Production
Methylcellulose Production
Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-
Butadiene-Styrene Production
Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene
Terpolymers Production
Neoprene Production
Nitrlle Butadiene Rubber Production
Nitrile Resins Production
Non-Nylon Polyamides Production
Phenolic Resins Produqtion
Polybutadiene Rubber Production
Polycarbonates Production
Polyester Resins Production
Polyether Polyols Production
Polyethylene Terephthalate Production
Polymerized Vinylidene Chloride Production
Polymethyl Methacrylate Resins Production
Polystyrene Production
Polysulfide Rubber Production
Polyvinyl Acetate Emulsions Production
Polyvinyl Alcohol Production
Polyvinyl Butyral Production
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers
Production
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production
Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production
Production of Inorganic Chemicals
Ammonium Sulfate Production
Caprolactam By-Product Plants
Carbon Black Production
Chlorine Production
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
Fumed Silica Production
Hydrochloric Acid Production
Hydrogen Fluoride Production
Phosphate Fertilizers Production
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing
Uranium Hexafluoride Production
Production of Organic Chemicals
Ethylene Processes
Quaternary Ammonium Compounds
Production
Synthetic Organic Chemical
Miscellaneous Processes
Benzyltrimethylammonium Chloride
Production
Butadiene Dimers Production
Carbonyl Sulfide Production
Cellulosic Sponge Manufacturing
Chelating Agents Production
Chlorinated Paraffins
Chromic Acid Anodizing
Commercial Dry Cleaning
(Perchloroethylene)Transfer Machines
Commercial Sterilization Facilities
Decorative Chromium Electroplating
Dry Cleaning (Petroleum Solvent)
Ethylidene Norbornene Production
Explosives Production
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication
Operations
Friction Products Manufacturing
Halogenated Solvent Cleaners
Hard Chromium Electroplating
Hydrazine Production
Industrial Dry Cleaning
(Perchloroethylene)Dry-to-Dry Machines
Industrial Dry Cleaning
(Perchloroethylene)Transfer Machines
Industrial Process Cooling Towers
Leather Tanning and Finishing Operations
OBPA/l,3-Diisocyanate Production
Paint Stripping Operations
Photographic Chemicals Production
Phthalate Plasticizers Production
Plywood and Composite Wood Products
Polyether Polyols Production
Pulp and Paper Production
Rubber Chemicals Manufacturing
Rubber Tire Manufacturing
Semiconductor Manufacturing
Symmetrical Tetrachloropyridine Production
Categories of Area Sources
Chromic Acid Anodizing
Commercial Dry Cleaning
(Perchloroethylene)Dry-to-Dry Machines
Commercial Dry Cleaning
(Perchloroethylene)Transfer Machines
Comiriercial Sterilization Facilities
Decorative Chromium Electroplating
Halogenated Solvent Cleaners
Hard Chromium Electroplating
Secondary Lead Smelting
This list is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. To determine
whether you are regulated by this
action, you should examine the section
112(d) regulation for your source
category. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Only
source categories for which standards
have not been promulgated by May 15,
2002, are affected by the section 112(j)
regulation.
Judicial Review. The amendments to
the General Provisions and the section
112(j) provisions were proposed on
March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16318). Today's
action announces EPA's final decision
on the amendments. Under section
307(b)(l) of the CAA, judicial review of
these amendments is available only by
filing a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by June 4, 2002. Under
section 307[d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only
those objections to this rule that were
raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
may be raised during judicial review.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the
CAA, the requirements that are the
subject of today's final rule may not be
challenged separately in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by the
EPA to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The information presented in
this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background '-
A. General Provisions
B. Section 112(j) Provisions
II. What significant comments did we
consider and what are the major changes
to the proposed amendments to the
General Provisions?
A. Comments and Changes in Response to
Our Requests for Comments
B. Other Comments and Changes
III. What significant comments did we
consider and what are the major changes
to the proposed amendments to the
section 112(j) provisions?
A. Impact of Missing the Section 112(j)
Deadline
B. Comments and Changes in Response to
our Requests for Comments
C. Other Comments and Changes
IV. What is the section 112(j) process?
A. If I am an owner or operator of a source,
what must I do?
-------
16584
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
B. If I am the permitting authority for a
source subject to section 112(j), what
must I do?
C. What happens when a rule comes out
after the hammer date for a given source
category?
V. What are the environmental, energy, cost,
and economic impacts of this rule?
VI. What are the administrative requirements
for this'rule? ,
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and.Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as
Amended by Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seg.
G. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Congressional Review Act
J. Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. Background
A. General Provisions
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to
list categories and subcategories of
major sources and area sources of HAP
and to establish NESHAP for the listed
source categories and subcategories.
Major sources of HAP are those that
have the potential to emit greater than
10 tons per year of any one HAP or 25
tons per year of any combination of
HAP. Area sources of HAP are those
sources that do not have potential to
emit greater than 10 tons per year of any
one HAP and 25 tons per year of any
combination of HAP. The General
Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 establish
the framework for emission standards
and other requirements developed
pursuant to section 112(d) of the CAA.
The General Provisions eliminate the
repetition of general information and
requirements in individual NESHAP by
consolidating all generally applicable
information in one location. They
include sections on applicability,
definitions, compliance dates and
requirements, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting, among
others. In addition, they include
administrative sections concerning
actions that the EPA (or delegated
authorities) must take, such as making
determinations of applicability,
reviewing applications for approval of
new construction, responding to
requests for extensions or waivers of
applicable requirements, and generally
enforcing national standards for ;
controlling toxic air pollutants. The
General Provisions become applicable to
a section 112(d) source category rule
when the source category rule is
promulgated and becomes effective.
The General Provisions to part 63
were developed in a collaborative
process that included input from
industry and other interested parties.
On August 11,1993, we proposed the
General Provisions in the Federal
Register (58 FR 42760). We received
numerous comments on that proposal
from industry groups, environmental
groups, and State and local agencies.
Those comments addressed a wide
range of issues and requirements in the
proposed rulemaking. We published our
final decisions regarding the General
Provisions in the Federal Register on
March 16, 1994 (59 FR 12408). In the
preamble to the promulgated rule, we
discussed major comments on the
proposal and our responses to those
comments. We addressed other
comments in the Background
Information Document (BID) for the
promulgated rulemaking (EPA-450/3
91019b). In responding to comments,
we made some changes and some
clarifications to the final package and
retained other provisions where the
Agency believed it was appropriate to
do so.
On May 16,1994, six petitioners filed
for review of the General Provisions.
They cited a variety of issues raised in
comments on the proposed rule whose
resolution they believed to be
inappropriate. In addition, we identified
other changes that would clarify the
EPA's original intent. On March 23,
2001 (66 FR 16318), we proposed
changes to the General Provisions based
on the outcome of settlement
negotiations between the EPA and the
petitioners, as well as on other internal
EPA deliberations. We received 27
public comment letters in response to
our proposal. In section II of this
preamble, we discuss our responses to
these public comments and the specific
changes that were made to the proposed
amendments to reflect our responses.
The amendments to the General
Provisions being promulgated today
reflect decisions which we made in
connection with settlement negotiations
between the EPA and the petitioners,
and our responses to the public
comments on the proposed
amendments.
In a separate action, we are
promulgating changes to the Vegetable
Oil NESHAP in response to public
comments on the proposed amendments
to the General Provisions. These
changes are discussed briefly in section
II of this preamble and more extensively
in the preamble to the direct final action
on the Vegetable Oil NESHAP.
The amendments finalized with
today's action clarify and alter certain
sections of the General Provisions.
B. Section 112(j) Provisions
The 1990 Amendments to section 112
of the CAA included a new section
112(j) which is entitled "Equivalent
Emission Limitation by Permit." Section
112(j)(2) provides that the provisions of
section 112(j) apply if the EPA misses a
deadline for promulgation of a standard
under section 112(d) established in the
source category schedule for standards.
After the effective date of a title V
pe.rmit program in a State, section
112(j)(3) requires the owner or operator
of a major source in a source category
for which the EPA failed to promulgate
a section 1.12 (d) standard to submit a
permit application 18 months after the
missed promulgation deadline. Section
112(j)(5) also specifies that if the
applicable criteria for voluntary early
reductions established under section
112(i)(5) are met, then this alternative
emission limit satisfies the requirements
of section 112(j), provided that the
emissions reductions are achieved by
the missed promulgation date.
The rule proposing to'implement
section 112(j) of the CAA was published
on July 13, 1993 (58 FR 37778). Public
comments received on the proposed
rule were considered, and changes we
deemed appropriate were made in
developing a final rule.
On May 20, 1994 (59 FR 26429), we :
issued a final rule for implementing
section 112(j). That rule requires major
source owners or operators to submit a
permit application by the date 18
months after a missed date on the
regulatory schedule. As required under
section 112(j) of the CAA, the section
112(j) rule establishes requirements for
the content of permit applications,
contains provisions governing the
establishment of the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)-
equivalent emission limitations by the
permitting authority, includes the
criteria for the reviewing authority to
determine completeness, and allows the
applicant up to 6 months to revise and
resubmit the application. As required in
section 112(j)(5) of the CAA, the rule
also establishes compliance dates:
No such pollutant may be emitted in
amounts exceeding an emission limitation
contained in a permit immediately for new
sources and, as expeditiously as practicable,
but not later than the date 3 years after the
permit is issued for existing sources or such
other compliance date as would apply under
subsection (i).
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16585
Several petitioners filed for review of
several provisions of the section 112(j)
rule that they believed needed to be
clarified or streamlined. On March 23,
2001 (66 FR 16318), we proposed
changes to the section 112(j) rule based
on the outcome of settlement
negotiations between the EPA and the
petitioners, as well as on other internal
EPA deliberations. We received 27
public comment letters in response to
our proposal. In section III of this
preamble, we discuss our responses to
these public comments and the specific
changes that were made to the proposed
section 112(j) amendments to reflect
those public comments. The
amendments to the section 112(j) rule
being promulgated today reflect
decisions which we made in connection
with settlement negotiations between
the EPA and the litigants, as well as our
response to the public comments on the
proposed amendments.
II. What Significant Comments Did We
Consider and What Are the Major
Changes to the Proposed Amendments
to the General Provisions?
While we received many comments
on the proposed amendments to the
General Provisions, most commenters
expressed general support for the
proposed changes. For this reason, the
majority of amendments were
promulgated as proposed. A
comprehensive summary of public
comments and responses can be found
in "National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories: General Provisions and
Requirements for Control Technology
Determinations for Major Sources in
Accordance with Clean Air Act
Sections, Sections 112(g) and 112(j)
Background Information for Standards,"
(EPA 453/R-02-002). This preamble
discusses the significant comments
received and major changes made.
Additional minor changes and
clarifications are discussed in the
Background Information Document
(BID) cited above. In the proposed
amendments to the General Provisions,
we specifically discussed and solicited
comments on certain issues. In addition,
we received comments on other
proposed amendments to the General
Provisions.
A. Comments and Changes in Response
to Our Requests for Comments
In the proposal preamble, we
discussed the presumptive applicability
of the General Provisions, which has
been an issue of concern for industry
petitioners. We believe that the
presumptive applicability of the General
Provisions serves an important and
valid purpose by eliminating the
repetition of common provisions in
individual NESHAP. While we
reiterated that, the General Provisions do
apply unless specifically overridden, we
acknowledged the potential for
confusion regarding the actual
requirements for sources when General
Provisions requirements are not tailored
to specific source categories. For several
years, we have included a table for most
part 63 subparts that indicates the
applicability of each provision of the
General Provisions to a particular
subpart. To codify this practice, we
proposed to amend the General
Provisions to require individual
subparts to explicitly state which
General Provisions requirements are
included in the relevant standard and
which are not.
In addition, we requested comment
on "any conflicts * * * that result
solely from applying these proposed
amendments to the General Provisions
to promulgated part 63 subparts." One
commenter identified such a conflict
between the startup, shutdown,
malfunction (SSM) provisions of the
Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP and
those provisions in the General
Provisions. Specifically, the commenter
noted that proposed 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3)(iv), which requires reporting
of actions inconsistent with the Startup,
Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan
(SSMP) if the emissions exceed the
relevant standard, does not comport
with subpart GGGG. The Vegetable Oil
NESHAP require reporting of such
actions regardless of whether the
standard was exceeded. The commenter
also specifically noted that proposed 40
CFR 63.6(e)(3)(viii), the requirement to
report modifications to the SSMP in the
semiannual report, should not apply to
sources subject to subpart GGGG, as
subpart GGGG does not require a
semiannual report.'
We agree that the proposed
amendments would have had a
substantive impact on the Vegetable Oil
NESHAP. However, the commenter has
misinterpreted the intent of the changes,
which was to reduce burden.
We agree with the commenter's
assessment that certain SSM provisions
in the proposed amendments are
inconsistent with the promulgated
Vegetable Oil NESHAP. We had
previously reviewed the existing rules
and did not identify any substantive
problems. However, the Vegetable Oil
NESHAP were promulgated after our
review and subsequent proposal of the
amendments. We have discussed the
implications with the commenter and as
a result, we are amending, in a separate
Federal Register notice, several
provisions in the Vegetable Oil NESHAP
related to SSM requirements to
eliminate unintended inconsistencies.
The Vegetable Oil NESHAP include
specifically tailored SSM provisions
and, thus, sources covered by the
Vegetable Oil NESHAP should look to
that rule for then- applicable SSM
provisions.
Specifically, we are correcting the
explanation column of Table 1 of 40
CFR 63.2870 as it applies to 40 CFR
63.6(e) to state, "implement your plan
as specified in § 63.2852." Table 1 also
now indicates specifically that 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3)(iii), (iv), and (viii) do not
apply to Vegetable Oil NESHAP affected
sources; this clarifies that not all of 40
CFR 63.6(e) applies, as die rule was
originally promulgated.
We are also amending the first
sentence of 40 CFR 63.2861(d) to clarify.
that owners or operators must submit an
immediate SSM report if an SSM is
handled differently from the procedures
in the SSM plan and the emission
standards are exceeded. We are also
amending the third sentence of 40 CFR
63.2852 to clarify that the SSMP does
not have to be incorporated into the title
V permit, consistent with the General
Provisions amendments..
These changes will ensure the
minimization of emissions at all times,
clarify the SSM requirements, and
specify the relationship of the General
Provisions to Vegetable Oil NESHAP
affected sources.
B. Other Comments and Changes
1. Substantially Equivalent State
Preconstruction Review
We proposed substantive
amendments to the ^reconstruction
review program, which were designed
to clarify and streamline existing
requirements. Included in these
amendments was a provision that
allows States or local agencies to use
preconstruction review procedures used
for otiier purposes for purposes of 40
CFR 63.5, provided their procedures are
"substantially equivalent."
While one commenter generally
supported this concept, a few
commenters disagreed with the specific
provisions in proposed 40 CFR
63.5(f)(lHi) and (ii), which they
interpreted as requiring each owner or
operator to demonstrate that the State or
local agency review is substantially
equivalent to the relevant requirements
in 40 CFR 63.5. The commenters instead
believed that EPA should determine
which State or local air permit programs
have substantially equivalent
preconstruction review requirements.
One commenter noted that if EPA has
-------
16586
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
delegated authority to a State or local
agency to implement subpart A of part
63 and part 70, then EPA has already
agreed that the preconstruction review
and approval process is substantially
equivalent to the Federal requirements.
We agree that a State or local agency
that has taken delegation of part 63
standards has already demonstrated that
their preconstruction review process is
substantially equivalent to the Federal
requirements. When a State is the
delegated authority, the State
implements 40 CFR 63.5; we do not
require two preconstruction review
processes.
The intent of the provisions of 40 CFR
63.5(f) is not to place the burden on the
source to demonstrate equivalency of a
State preconstruction review program.
The'intent of the provisions is to allow
owners or operators of affected sources
to notify the EPA's Regional Office of a
State's finding that their preconstruction
review program requirements are
substantially equivalent to the General
Provisions' preconstruction review
requirements. We agree that the
proposed language in 40 CFR 63.5(f)(l)
could lead to potential confusion.
Therefore, in order to eliminate any
potential for confusion, we have
amended 40 CFR 63.5(0(1) to no longer
require that an owner or operator
demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that the conditions of 40
CFR 63.5(fXl)(i) and (ii) are met.
Instead, 40 CFR 63.5(f)(l) specifies that
the Administrator will approve an
application for construction or
reconstruction if an owner or operator
meets the conditions of 40 CFR
63.5(f)(l)(i) and (ii). Additionally, 40
CFR 63.5(f)(l)(ii) has been amended to
require that an owner or operator
provide a statement from "the State or
other evidence (such as State
regulations) that it considered the
factors specified in 40 CFR 63.5(e)(l)"
rather than requiring "the State (in it's
finding) consider factors substantially
equivalent to those specified in
§63.5(e)(l)."
Paragraph (f)(l) of 40 CFR 63.5 states
that preconstruction review procedures
that a State utilizes for other purposes
may be utilized if the procedures are
substantially equivalent to those
specified in the General Provisions. We
believe this adequately refers to 40 CFR
63.5(e)(l) where the criteria for approval
of construction or reconstruction are
described.
Finally, we do not agree with the
suggestion that we should determine
which State or local programs have
substantially equivalent preconstruction
review requirements. Individual States
or local agencies.are in a better position
to make such a determination: ~ °^*
2. Revisions to the Startup, Shutdown,
and Malfunction Plan
We received several comments
regarding SSM and SSMP reporting
requirements. A few commenters
opposed the requirement in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3)(viii) that revisions to the
SSMP be reported to the permitting
authority in the semiannual report.
Another commenter considered the new
requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(viii)
to be burdensome and duplicative. The
commenter believed that the
requirements to submit reports of
actions taken that are consistent or
inconsistent with the SSMP, to revise
the SSMP, and to keep copies of
superseded SSMP on site were
sufficient to ensure that the permitting
authority is kept informed of changes to
the SSMP.
One commenter stated that if the
owner or operator of a source can revise
the plan without prior approval, it
makes no sense to require an owner or
operator to send a file copy to EPA. The
commenter expressed that the
requirement for plan revisions to be
maintained on'site in 40 CFR
63.6{e)(3)(v) should suffice. The
commenter suggested that if the EPA
wants a revised SSMP to be submitted,
they should provide more details on
how it should be formatted, including
how the specific procedure or
methodology relates to a particular SSM
event. The commenter also
recommended that the date on the new
SSMP be its effective date. If the EPA
only wants a notice that the SSMP has
been revised in the semiannual report,
the commenter suggested that 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3)(viii) be revised to state that.
The commenter also requested
clarification on what the "scope of
activities" in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(viii)
means.
We disagree with the commenters that
the requirements in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3)(viii) are burdensome. This
section requires that EPA be notified in
the semiannual report that revisions
were made to the SSMP, but it does not
require that a file copy of the entire
revised plan be submitted.
We also disagree with the suggestion
that a clarification in the rule of the
meaning of "scope of activities" is
necessary. It is the owner or operator's
responsibility to define the specific
scope of activities that the SSMP covers,
as this is source-dependent. Moreover,
these provisions are designed to give the
source owner or operator flexibility.
Generally, the scope of activities would
include all operations and equipment
specified by the owner or operator that
should be included in the SSMP. To the
extent that these activities are changed
in the plan, we are requiring that the
permitting authority be notified.
One commenter recommended that
we explain how malfunctions that meet
the definition of SSM under 40 CFR
63.2, but are not covered in the existing
SSMP, should be reported. The
commenter believed that we should add
language to 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3}{viii) to
cover this situation. Another commenter
requested that EPA require that facilities
provide the number and a description of
malfunctions that occurred in the
semiannual report. The commenter
stated that this information would be
necessary to evaluate a facility's
compliance with the SSMP, as regular
site visits are infeasible due to limited
resources.
To comply with the rule, sources
must either meet the standard or comply
with the SSMP. If a malfunction not
covered by the SSMP occurs and the
source meets the standard, there is no
need to report. If a malfunction'not
covered by the SSMP occurs and the
source does not meet the standard, the
deviation must be reported. In any case,
when a malfunction occurs that was not
included in the SSMP, the plan should
be revised to include the previously
unincluded malfunction.
However, we agree with the,
commenter who suggested that the
number and description of malfunctions
is necessary to evaluate compliance
with the SSMP. Therefore, we have
modified the provisions at 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) to state "Periodic startup,
shutdown, and malfunction reports.
* * * Reports shall only be required if
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction
occurred during the reporting period,
and they shall include the number,
duration, and a brief description of each
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
* * *" This change provides the
implementing agency with adequate
information without placing an undue
additional burden on the source. The
types of malfunctions will already have
been identified in the SSMP so a brief
description could consist of simply
identifying which types of malfunctions
occurred during the reporting period, as
well as the number and the duration of
each.
Also, two commenters requested that
we remove the last sentence of the
proposed 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(ix), which
states that none of the SSMP procedures
fall within the permit shield. The
commenter believed the sentence could
be misconstrued to mean that the SSMP
is part of the title V permit and yet
ineligible for the permit shield.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16587
Concerning the applicability of the
permit shield, these commenters have
misinterpreted the provisions of the
rule. The proposed amendments to the
General Provisions concerning SSM
plans were intended in part to address
concerns expressed by the petitioners,
who believe that the language in the
current General Provisions requiring
that the SSM plan be "incorporated by
reference into the source's Title V
permit" could be construed to require
that permit revision procedures be
followed whenever an SSM plan is
revised. We do not construe the existing
General Provisions in this manner, but
we understand the concern expressed
by the petitioners. The amendments
indicate that the permit must require
that the owner or operator adopt an
SSM plan and then operate and
maintain the source in accordance with
the plan, but they cannot reasonably be
construed as requiring that each element
of the SSM plan be made an element of
the permit. The provisions within the
SSM plan will not be terms and
conditions of the permit except in the
limited instance where a permitting
authority elects to incorporate them.
Since the SSM plan is not itself part of
the operating permit, and it can be
revised without revision of the permit,
the SSM plan is not eligible for the
permit shield.
A few commenters strongly opposed
the statements in the proposal preamble
that the SSMP must be submitted to the
permitting authority and made publicly
available if someone requests it. One of
the commenters believed it would be
burdensome to prepare a SSMP without
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
in it. The commenter also expressed that
such a plan would be uninformative
without CBI. Two other commenters
stated that they preferred that the rule
specifically state that the permitting
agency has the authority to request a
copy of the facility's SSMP and to
review and comment on it. One
commenter also preferred that State and
local agencies have discretion to
approve or disapprove the SSMP.
We believe that the proposal preamble
discussion accurately reflects 40 CFR
70.4(b)(3)(viii) of the title V permit
program, which requires that the
permitting authority has legal authority
to: "Make available to the public any
permit application, compliance plan,
permit, and monitoring and compliance
certification report pursuant to section
503(e) of the Act, except for information
entitled to confidential treatment
pursuant to section 114(c) of the Act.
The contents of a part 70 permit shall
not be entitled to protection under
section 114(c) of the Act." For this
reason, we do not agree with the
commenters who oppose the
requirements for the SSMP to be made
publicly available if requested. Owners
or operators may still identify the
portions of the SSMP that are
considered CBI; material claimed as CBI
would not be available for public
disclosure except as provided under the
process established by 40 CFR Part 2.
We further believe, pursuant to 40 CFR
70.4(b)(3)(viii), that the authority for
permitting agencies to request a
facility's SSMP already exists.
Therefore, we do not believe it is
appropriate at the present time to revise
the rule as the commenters requested.
3. Compliance Extension Request 120
Days Before Compliance Date
The proposed amendments to the
compliance extension provisions were
met with favor by commenters. Several
commenters supported the change to
allow compliance extension requests to
be submitted as late as 120 days before
the compliance date, rather than 1 year
in advance.
One commenter expressed that this
change would reduce the number of
compliance extension requests. Another
commenter outlined circumstances that
could arise that would necessitate a late
request for a compliance extension (e.g.,
vendor strikes, acts of God, or damaged
equipment).
One commenter specifically
supported the proposed provision in 40
CFR 63.6(i)(4)(iKB) postponing the
applicability of MACT standards until
the permitting authority either approves
or denies a compliance extension
request. This commenter noted that the
proposed compliance extension
revisions were particularly important
for sources subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEE, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Hazardous Waste Incinerators.
Amendments to the performance test
requirements of Hazardous Waste
Incinerators rule have not been
completed. The commenter noted that ,
the amendments would have had to be
promulgated by December 2001 for
facilities to complete their
comprehensive performance test plans
by the March 2002 deadline. The ability
to apply for a compliance extension
would be critical if the amendments
were not final by December 2001.
4. Readily Accessible Readout
The proposed amendments clarified
the owner or operator's obligations with
respect to the accessibility of readouts
from monitoring systems required for .
compliance. Two commenters
supported the requirement for such
readouts to be readily accessible.
However, several commenters proposed
deleting the requirement that the
readout from the monitoring equipment
be "readily accessible onsite for
operational control or inspection by the
operator of the equipment." One
commenter maintained that the
provision was unnecessary because 40
CFR 63.10(b) already requires files of all
information to be readily available. A
few of the commenters maintained that
this requirement was technically
infeasible, as the readout depends on
the configuration of the source, type of
control equipment, frequency, and
whether monitoring data are read in
central control booths or computers.
One commenter stated that the optimal
location of the readout should be left to
the source. Another commenter stated
that if EPA does not remove the phrase,
it should be reworded to change the
regulatory text from "readout" to
"indication of operation," as audible or
visual alarms may also alert the operator
that a problem has occurred with the
continuous monitoring system (CMS).
The commenter further suggested
removing the terms "in plain view" and
"close proximity," as CMS readouts . .
may be readily accessible but may not
meet these requirements. For example,
they may be in the control room but not
in the line-of-sight of an operator, in the
process unit operating block but not
where the "operators are normally
operated," or operated by a different
process unit and monitoring unit.
We recognize the commenters'
concerns with the provisions governing
the availability of information from
monitoring equipment. To address this
issue, -we have revised 40 CFR
63.8(c)(2)(ii) to refer to "readout or other
indication of operation." This addresses
the point that audible or visual alarms
may be in use rather than a "readout."
The terms "plain view" and "close
proximity" were used in the proposal
preamble, although not in the regulatory
text, to explain what was meant by
readily accessible and to assure that
inspectors would have easy access to
monitoring information. However, we
agree with the commenter that the
required information may be readily
accessible although not in plain view.
"Readily accessible", is the source
owner or operator's responsibility to
ensure that monitoring information is
easily available. For this reason, we
made no further rule changes to explain
"readily accessible."
5. Zero and High Level Calibration
Checks
A few commenters suggested that EPA
revise 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) to clarify that
-------
16588
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
the zero and high-level calibration
checks only apply to continuous
emission monitoring Systems (GEMS)
and continuous opacity monitoring
systems (COM3), not to all CMS. Some
continuous parameter monitoring
systems (CPMS), such as thermocouples
and weight devices, cannot be
autqmatically calibrated.
One commenter requested that EPA
delete 40 CFR 63,8(c)(6), as promulgated
MACT standards already contain
calibration requirements and daily
system checks for CPMS. The
commenter cited §§ 63.118(a)(2) and
63.152(f) of 40 CFR part 63.
To address the commenters' concern
about CPMS that cannot be
automatically calibrated, we have
revised 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) as follows:
"The owner or operator of a CMS that
is not a CPMS, which is installed in
accordance with the provisions of this
part. ..." The calibration
specifications for a CPMS are described
in the last sentence of this paragraph.
We do not agree it is appropriate to
delete 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) as requested by
one of the commenters. Individual
standards may change this as
appropriate or necessary, but these
monitoring provisions will remain in
the General Provisions.
6. Definition of Affected Source and
New Affected Source
We proposed a new process for
defining "affected source" and "new
affected source" in future MACT
standards. Over the period that EPA has
been promulgating MACT standards, we
have typically used the term "affected
source" as an indication of the
collection of processes, activities, or
equipment to which each MACT
standard will apply. We have adopted a
broader or narrower definition of
affected source depending oh the nature
of particular MACT requirements and
the strategies available for meeting
them. In some instances, we have
adopted a definition as narrow as a
single machine and in others, we have
defined all processes, activities, and
equipment at a source within the
specified category or subcategory as the
affected source. A broader definition of
affected source permits emission
requirements to apply to a larger group
of processes, activities, and equipment,
and may thereby facilitate more
innovative and economically efficient
control strategies.
In those instances where we have
previously adopted a broader definition
of affected source, we have sometimes
established a narrower definition of the
processes, activities, or equipment to
which new source MACT will apply. In
some instances, we believe it is both
practicable and reasonable to Spply new
source MACT controls to a narrower set
of constructed or reconstructed
equipment or activities and retaining a
broad definition would operate to
subvert the statutory intent to require
more stringent controls for new sources.
When we have adopted a broader
definition of affected source, we have
still determined the MACT floor for the
entire affected source by evaluating
emissions and the feasibility of controls
separately for particular types of
"emission units" within the affected
source. This approach can afford owners
and operators the option of
demonstrating separate compliance by
individual emission units within the
affected source or by adopting more
flexible control strategies and
demonstrating compliance for the
affected source as a whole. Moreover, a
standard for a larger affected source may
still be a composite of sublimits or other
elements expressly directed at particular
types of equipment or activities.
In light of this flexibility, we agreed
with the industry petitioners that it
would be feasible to adopt a broader
definition of affected source on a more
consistent basis. Thus, we proposed to
change the General Provisions to
indicate that future MACT standards
will generally adopt a definition of
affected source which consists of all
existing HAP-emitting equipment and
activities which are at a single
contiguous site and are within a specific
category or subcategory. We do riot
believe we are required to adopt this
. policy, but we agree with the industry
petitioners that it will foster greater
predictability and consistency in
regulatory outcomes.
We also proposed to permit a
narrower definition of affected source in
particular future MACT standards when
a broad definition will result in
significant administrative, practical, or
implementation problems, and a
narrower definition would resolve these
problems. For example, in some
instances, the facilities within a
category or subcategory which must
develop appropriate compliance
strategies may consider a broader
definition of affected source to be
confusing. In other instances, the
facilities may operate dissimilar
equipment or processes which do not
emit the same HAP or type of HAP, and
a broader definition will have little or
no utility in promoting more flexible or
efficient control strategies. These
examples are only illustrative and are
not intended to limit our discretion to
adopt a narrower affected source
definition in particular future MACT
standards. However, when we adopt a
.narrower definition of "affected
source," we will identify the specific
problems created by the broader
definition and specify why a narrower
definition will resolve them.
We also proposed to develop and
adopt a separate definition of "new
affected source" for each future MACT
standard after evaluating facilities in the
category or subcategory according to
eight factors. These eight factors are: (1)
Emission reduction impacts of
controlling individual sources versus
groups of sources, (2) cost effectiveness
of controlling individual equipment, (3)
flexibility to accommodate common
control strategies, (4) cost/benefits of
emissions averaging, (5) incentives for
pollution prevention, (6) feasibility and
cost of controlling processes that share
common equipment, (7) feasibility and
cost of monitoring, and (8) other
relevant factors. Under this process, the
definition of "new affected source" for
a particular MACT standard may be the
same as "affected source" or it may
differ. The factors which we deem most
important in this assessment will differ
from standard to standard. When we
deem it appropriate based on our
evaluation of the eight factors to
establish a definition of "new affected
source" less inclusive than "affected
source," we will do so.
We did not receive any comments
opposing the new definitions and
procedures for specifying the affected
source and new affected source for
future MACT standards. Accordingly,
we have decided to adopt these
definitions and procedures as proposed.
Each future MACT standard subject to
these new procedures will explicitly
define "affected source" and "hew
affected source." Any decision to adopt
a narrower definition of affected source
or to adopt a definition of new affected
source differing from the definition of
affected source will be explained in the
individual standard.
Our proposal made it clear that we
only intend to apply this new approach
prospectively. We will not reconsider or
revise previously promulgated MACT
standards according to the new
definitions and procedures. However,
our proposal did not .specify an effective
date or a specific transitional process for
implementation of these new definitions
and procedures. We anticipated that
there could be inconsistencies between
some of the new General Provisions and
previously promulgated MACT
standards, and that a variety of
provisions might need to be solely
prospective in application or require
some sort of transitional process. We
specifically solicited comment on this
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16589
issue. However, the only other problem
in applying the new rule to existing
MACT standards which was identified
in comments concerns the provisions
for SSM plans in this rule and in our
previously promulgated vegetable oil
MACT rule, which we discuss
elsewhere in this preamble.
In selecting an appropriate effective
date for the new definitions and
procedures for specifying the affected
source and new affected source, we note
that our past practice has been
considerably less uniform than the one
we are adopting today. While we believe
it is appropriate to bring greater clarity
and consistency to this process in future
MACT standards, we also note that EPA
typically begins working with affected
facilities to devise an appropriate
structure for MACT standards well
before they are proposed, and that this
process is well advanced for many
MACT standards currently under
development. We do not believe it
would be practicable to require all such
standards to immediately conform to the
new definitions and procedures we are
adopting today. Therefore, we have
decided that these new definitions and
procedures will be mandatory only with
respect to those MACT standards which
are proposed after June 30, 2002.
However, we note that many standards
presently in development already utilize
a similar approach, and that it may also
be feasible to adopt a similar approach
for additional standards during the
pendency of future rulemakings on
individual MACT standards.
III. What Significant Comments Did We
Consider and What Are the Major
Changes to the Proposed Amendments
to the Section 112(j) Provisions?
A comprehensive summary of public
comments on the proposed section
112(j) provisions can be found in
"National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories: General Provisions and
Requirements for Control Technology
Determinations for Major Sources in
Accordance with Clean Air Act
Sections, Sections 112(g) and 112(j)
Background Information for Standards,"
(EPA 453/R-02-002). This section
discusses the significant comments
received on and major changes made to
the section 112(j) provisions.
A. Impact of Missing the Section 112(j)
Deadline
Several commenters expressed serious
concern over the potential impact of
EPA's failure to promulgate the 10-year
MACT standards by the section 112(j)
hammer date. Some commenters noted
that there would be significant effort
expended to develop the Parts 1 and 2
permit applications and case-by-case
permits and observed that this effort
would be for naught if the standards
were issued prior to the permit. Others .
offered suggestions on how to extend or
delay applications such that the burden
is minimized. All commenters urged
EPA to issue the MACT standards prior
to the hammer date to eliminate the
impact of section 112(j).
We appreciate the commenters'
concerns, and we are making every
effort to promulgate the remaining
MACT standards as soon as possible.
However, we note that the previous
permit application extensions for the 4-
and 7-year MACT rules were established
because the standards were to be issued
very shortly after the deadline. This is
not the situation now, with a significant
number of the 10-year MACT standards
not scheduled for promulgation until
well after the deadline. The intent of the
2-part section 112(j) application process
which we proposed was to alleviate
unnecessary burdens by deferring the
collection of the more detailed
information necessary for a complete
case-by-case MACT application until
after the "hammer" date had passed.
However, it is now apparent that the
process for submission of section 112(j)
applications as we proposed it will not
significantly alleviate die burden on
sources and permitting authorities.
Section 112(j) of the CAA was
designed to be a "backstop" to our
failure to issue MACT standards.
Clearly, we will not complete
promulgation of all MACT standards in
the 10-year bin by the section 112(j)
deadline of May 15, 2002, and in fact,
we will miss the schedule for numerous
source categories. The task to develop
MACT standards on schedule to cover
all the listed source categories has been
enormous, and our past schedules
projecting issuance by the hammer date
have proved to be unduly optimistic.
However, we are still committed to
completing all MACT standards in as
timely a manner as practicable.
Although numerous standards will be
late, we currently anticipate that many
of the remaining standards in the 10-
year bin will be proposed before the
hammer date, and that all standards in
that bin will be promulgated before any
case-by-case MACT determinations
would be required under the 24 month
timetable for permit issuance which we
proposed (consisting of 6 months for
submission of the Part 2 application and
18 additional months for action by the
permitting authority).
We agree with the commenters that a
process in which the source must gather
detailed information and then prepare
and submit a Part 2 title V permit
application and the permitting
authorities must then review each of the
submitted applications and prepare for
issuance of a case-by-case MACT
determination represents an
unnecessary burden if all MACT
standards will be promulgated before
any actual permits will be issued. We
conclude that such resources would be
better spent preparing for and .
implementing the MACT standards
when they are promulgated. Thus, we
have decided to revise the proposed rule
to extend the amount of time between
the Part 1 and Part 2 section 112(j)
application to 24 months which
coincides with the time period in which
we expect to promulgate MACT
standards for the remaining categories.
As the preamble to our proposal
makes clear, we based our proposal to
provide a 6 month period between the
Part 1 and Part 2 applications in part on
the concept that every applicant would
automatically be given the maximum
extension to supplement an incomplete
application which is explicitly provided
for by CAA section 112(j)(4). However,
as one commenter noted, there is
another provision in the statute which
may be construed as providing authority
to establish an incremental process for
the submission of section 112(j]
applications. The hammer provision in
section 112(j)(2) itself establishes the
requirement to submit permit
applications "beginning 18 months
after" the statutory date for
promulgation of a standard. Reading
this provision in context, we believe
that the statute can be reasonably
construed as authorizing us to provide
a period of time after the hammer date
in which the information necessary for
a fully informative section 112(j)
application can be compiled. This
alternate construction also makes more
practical sense because it retains the
statutory process in which the permit
authority can determine whether or not
an application is complete and provides
the applicant the extension of up to 6
months contemplated by section
112(j)(4). This assures that the time
required to supplement an incomplete
application will not be deducted from
the time in which the permitting
authority must complete its work.
While we recognize that compilation
of the information needed for a Part 2
application is not likely to take 24
months, we are nevertheless reluctant to
mandate that significant resources be
devoted to an exercise which will
ultimately be futile and unproductive.
The burden of compiling a Part 2
application for simple sources
containing only a small number of
-------
16590
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
emission points may not be particularly
onerous, but the burden on more
complex sources containing numerous
sources and emission points could be
significant. The sheer number of
affected sources that would have to
submit a Part .2 application by
November 15, 2002, under the rule as
proposed is very large, estimated at over
80,000. Such an exercise would also
needlessly divert resources needed for
other critical tasks at already
overworked permitting authorities. We
do not believe such an outcome was
envisioned or intended by the drafters
of section 112(j), particularly in the
circumstance where the Federal MACT
standards will actually be issued prior
to the deadline for issuance of the case-
by-case MACT determinations by the
permitting authorities.
Accordingly, we have decided to
revise our proposal to provide for a 24-
month period between submission of
the Part 1 application and submission of
the Part 2 application. The 18-month
period for issuance of the permit after
receipt of a complete application which
is provided by the current section 112(j)
rule and by section 503 (c) of title V will
be retained. We are also restoring the
statutory process in which the
permitting authority may review the
application for completeness and grant
an extension of up to 6 months to
remedy any deficiencies.
We received no adverse comment on
requiring that the first portion (Part 1)
of the section 112(j) application be due
on the hammer date. We think that this
is the minimum required by the-statute.
The Part 1 application is very short and
simple, and we believe the burden is
minimal. The Part 1 application will
also help permitting authorities to
identify sources potentially subject to
the upcoming MACT standards. Sources
must note that our decision to extend
the time between the Part 1 and Part 2
applications is no excuse for not
submitting a Part 1 application if the
source can reasonably determine it is in
one of the source categories or
subcategories subject to the section
112(j) requirements. Failure to meet the
section 112(j) requirements, including
failure to make a timely Part 1
application, can lead to enforcement
action. If a source is unsure about its
applicability, it should submit a Part 1
application requesting an applicability
determination to the permitting
authority, which will then make a
determination of MACT applicability.
B. Comments and Changes in .Response
to Our ReqiiestS for Comments^: .-
1. Notification by Permitting Authority
Within 120 Days of Section 112(j)
Hammer Date
In the preamble to the proposed
section 112(j) amendments, we
discussed changes made to clarify
obligations for sources and permitting
agencies when the section 112(j)
deadline passes. Among the provisions
included was the requirement that an
owner or operator submit a Part 1
permit application within 30 days of
being notified by the permitting agency
that one or more sources at the major
source belong to a section 112(j)
category or subcategory. The permitting
authority would have been required to
make any such notification within 120
days after the section 112(j) deadline.
We specifically requested comment on
whether 120 days was sufficient time for
permitting authorities to act.
In response, a few commenters
expressed serious concerns about this
requirement. These commenters noted
that States do not always have up-to-
date information on sources and that
120 days is not sufficient time for such
notifications. Furthermore, these
commenters recommended that this
requirement be deleted because States
may choose to identify and notify
affected sources but should riot be
required to do so. A few commenters
recommended that the final rule specify
that owners or operators of affected
sources must submit a title V permit
application whether or not they receive
notification.
We agree with the commenters that it
is the responsibility of the affected
source to submit a title V permit
application regardless of notification if
it can reasonably determine that it falls
within a source category for which a
standard has not been promulgated by
the section 112(j) deadline. We believe,
in most instances, that the owner or
operator will be able to reasonably
determine whether the source is in the
category or subcategory subject to
section 112(j) from provisions specified
in the proposed rule for the category or
subcategory. If an owner or operator is
unable to make this determination, they
may at their discretion contact the
permitting authority for assistance in
making the determination or submit a
Part 1 applicability determination
request. If there is doubt, the owner or
operator should submit the Part 1
application. Most MACT standards will
be proposed by the section 112(j)
deadline of May 15, 2002, and
applicability criteria will be specified in
those proposals. In addition, we are
posting applicability criteria on EPA's
Air Toxics Website for all source
categories for which MACT standards
have not yet been proposed (see
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/eparules.html}.
The EPA project leads may also be
directly contacted for additional
information. Thus, owners or operators
should know for all source categories
whether or not their sources will be
subject to the section 112(j)
requirements. Therefore, we are
retaining 40 CFR 63.52(a)(l) as
proposed, which requires an owner or
operator to submit an application for a
title V permit or permit revision if the
owner or operator can reasonably ,
determine that one or more sources at
the major source belong in the category
or'subcategory subject to section li2(j).
The obligation is on the source owner or
operator to submit the application.
Failure to submit a Part 1 application
when it can reasonably be determined
the source is in an applicable source
category would be considered a
violation.
Moreover, we also agree with the
commenters that 120 days may not be
sufficient time to notify owners or
operators of affected sources subject to
section 112(j) if those sources did not
submit a title V permit application
because they could not reasonably
determine.if they were part of a source
category on which the section 112(j)
"hammer" fell. As the commenter
pointed out, State agencies do not
necessarily have this information and
would not be able to identify each and
every affected source within 120 days,
especially those in source categories
that contain thousands of sources. We
do not want to create an opportunity to
potentially circumvent the requirements
of the rule when the State fails to notify
the source owner or operator by a
specified time because it does not have
adequate information. Therefore, in the
final rule amendments, we have
removed the requirement that the
permitting authority must notify the
owner or operator that one or more
sources at the major source belong to
such category or subcategory within 120
days after the section 112(j) deadline.
States may still choose to identify and
notify affected sources, and we
encourage them to do so when they
have the available information.
The Part 1 application is intentionally
brief so that completing it will not be a
complicated, burdensome requirement.
If there are isolated instances where a
Part 1 application is erroneously
submitted where none is required, it
would be the responsibility of the
permitting authority to notify the owner
or operator that the source is not in a
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16591
category or subcategory subject to
section 112(j). In addition, permitting
authorities have the obligation to
determine MACT applicability if
requested in a Part 1 application.
2. Prohibition on Backsliding
Several commenters disagreed with
EPA's proposed prohibition on
backsliding, which prevents a State
from adopting any section 112(d)
emission limitations that are less
stringent than the case-by-case MACT
determinations by the permitting
authority under section 112(j). The
commenters maintained that this policy
is inconsistent with the plain language
of the CAA and prior EPA policy. The
commenters stated that this policy
should not be adopted. Instead, one
commenter proposed that the rule be
revised to require States to revise
permits to conform to MACT standards
issued after other emission limitations
have been adopted. This commenter
believed that the prohibition on
backsliding would create unnecessary
burden and uncertainty because
permitting authorities and sources
would have to spend significant time
and resources, to determine when a
MACT standard is less stringent. One
commenter maintained that
implementing the anti-backsliding
policy would result in uneven
requirements for similar industries in
different States and would also require
Federal enforcement of regulations that
xvere not subject to national review.
The current section 112(j) rule does
not include any prohibition on
backsliding, and the current 40 CFR
63.56(c) allows the permitting authority
to exercise its discretion in determining
whether or not to retain more stringent
provisions from a prior section 112(j)
MACT determination in the operating
permit. Similarly, the rule governing
case-by-case MACT determinations
under section 112(g) does not contain
any prohibition on backsliding, and 40
CFR 63.44(c) provides that the
permitting authority may exercise its
discretion in deciding whether or not to
retain more stringent provisions from a
section 112(g) case-by-case MACT
determination as applicable
requirements in the operating permit.
After considering the concerns raised
by the commenters, we have decided
that it is best to retain this basic policy
in the amended section 112(j) rule. As
reflected by the provisions in the
existing section 112(j) rule, we do not
agree with the argument by some
commenters that the statute requires the
permitting authority to backslide, but
we do believe that the decision whether
or not to retain any more stringent
provisions of a section 112[j)
determination as applicable legal
requirements following issuance of a
section 112(d) standard should be
committed to the discretion of the
permitting authority that made the case-
by-case determination in the first place.
Accordingly, we have amended the
proposed language to delete the
prohibition on backsliding and to afford
the permitting authority the discretion
to determine whether or not backsliding
is appropriate. The revisions in the
language we proposed make it
essentially identical to the language we
adopted previously for section 112(g)
determinations.
C. Other Comments and Changes
A few commenters strongly
encouraged EPA to continue striving to
meet all the section 112(d) or (h)
deadlines so that the provisions of
section 112(j) might never be necessary.
A few commenters specifically urged
EPA to meet the deadlines for
promulgating the section 112(d)
standards for various combustion
sources before the "hammer" drops for
these standards. One commenter
emphasized that meeting the deadlines
for standards would be the most
efficient use of EPA resources with the
greatest public benefit and that avoiding
use of section 112(j) should be .the EPA's
top priority. One commenter hoped that
these provisions might never be
implemented, but expressed concerns
about their implementation if they are
necessary.
We appreciate the commenters'
concerns, and we are making every
effort to meet the statutory deadlines so
that section 112(j) is not triggered.
Nevertheless, at this point, it will not be
feasible for us to complete all the MACT
standards by the section 112 (j) deadline.
For an update on the status of section
112 rulemakings, see our website at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
eparules.html.
One commenter maintained that most
agencies would want to receive the
information listed in 40 CFR 63.53(b)(2)
and wondered why EPA had designated
it as an'optional part of the'Part 2 MACT
application.
The information listed in 40 CFR
63.53(b)(2) includes information about
appropriate emission limitations and
control technologies to meet those
limitations. While the source owner or
operator may choose to submit this
information, it is not their responsibility
to conduct the research and analysis
necessary to make MACT
determinations. This responsibility
resides with the State or other
designated permitting authority. For this
reason, it is appropriate that the
information listed in this paragraph be
an optional part of the Part 2 MACT
application.
IV. What Is the Section 112(j) Process?
Since we proposed amendments to
section 112(j), we have received many
questions regarding the provisions. The
following paragraphs provide a general
overview of the section 112(j) program.
A. If I Am an Owner or Operator of a
Source, What Must I Do?
If you are an owner or operator of a
major source in a source Category or
subcategory for which the statutory
deadline for a section 112(d) emission
standard is missed by 18 months, you
are subject to the provisions of section
112(j). If you are unsure whether you are
subject to section 112(j), you should
review the appropriate proposed MACT
rule to which you may be subject, you
should review information on EPA's Air
Toxics Website at http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/atw/eparules.html, you may contact
the EPA project lead directly, or you
may submit a Part 1 MACT application
to ask the State for an applicability
determination. If the section 112(j)
deadline arrives before you can
determine your applicability, you
should submit a Part \ application. In
most cases, even if the section 112(d)
emission standard statutory" deadline is
missed by 18 months, there will be
published proposed standards that you
can refer to that will assist you in
determining whether your source is
subject to the provisions of section
If you are subject to the provisions of
section 112(j), you must apply for a title
V permit or permit revision. The content
of the required applications, details of
the application approval process, timing
of submittals, reviews, and permit
issuance are specified in §§ 63.52 and
63.53 of 40 CFR part 63. The application
process is a two-part process. Part 1 of
the permit application requests very
basic information about the affected
source; the substantive information
required by the permitting authority to
make its MACT determination is tied to
submittal of the Part 2 permit
application. The Part 1 permit
application must be submitted to the
permitting authority by the section
112(j) deadline if it can reasonably be
determined the source is' in the source
category or subcategory, or within 30
days after being notified in writing by
the permitting authority that one or
more sources at the major source belong
in a subject category or subcategory.
The application content for a MACT
determination is contained in 40 CFR
-------
16592
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
63.53. Information available as of the
date on which the first Part 2 MACT
application is filed for a source in the
relevant source category or subcategory
in the State or jurisdiction will be
considered by the permitting authority
in making its case-by-case MACT
determination. The definition of
"available information" in 40 CFR 63.51
specifies-the type of information and
sources of information available to the
affected source owner or operator for
use in completing the application.
Your Part 1 application for a MACT
determination must contain the
following information:
The name and address (physical
location) of your source.
A brief description of the major
source and an identification of the
relevant source category.
An identification of the types of
emission points belonging to the
relevant source category.
An identification of any affected
sources for which a section 112(g)
MACT determination has been made.
As mentioned previously, if you are
unsure whether you are subject to
section 112(j), you should submit a Part
1 MACT application to ask the State for
an applicability determination. If you
have not submitted a Part 1 MACT
application and the permitting authority
notifies you that you are subject to
section 112(j), you must submit an
application for a title V permit or for a
revision to an existing title V permit or
pending title V permit within 30 days of
being notified.
Your Part 2 Application for a MACT
determination must contain the
following information:
For new affected sources, the
anticipated date of startup of operation.
The HAP emitted by each affected
source in the relevant source category
and an estimated total uncontrolled and
controlled emission rate for HAP from
the affected source.
Any existing Federal, State, or local
limitations or requirements applicable
to the affected source.
For each affected emission point or
group of affected emission points, an
identification of control technology in
place.
Information relevant to establishing
the MACT floor, and, at the option of
the owner or operator, a recommended
MACT floor.
Any other information reasonably
needed by the permitting authority
including, at the discretion of the
permitting authority, information
required pursuant to subpart A of 40
CFR part 63.
Your Part 2 MACT application may
also, but is not required to, include'the
following: :
Recommended emission limitations
for the affected source and support
information consistent with 40 CFR
63.52(f). You may recommend a specific
design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination
thereof, as an emission limitation.
A description of the control
technologies that you would apply to
meet the emission limitation including
technical information on the design,
operation, size, estimated control
efficiency and any other information
deemed appropriate by the permitting
authority, and identification of the
affected sources to which the control
technologies shall be applied.
Relevant parameters to be
monitored and frequency of monitoring
to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the MACT emission limitation over
the applicable reporting period.
You are required to submit your Part
2 MACT application within 24 months
after submittal of your Part 1 MACT
application.
B. If I Am the Permitting Authority for
a Source Subject to Section 112(j), What
Must I Do?
As the permitting authority for a
source subject to section 112(j), you
may, but are not required to, notify an
owner or operator of a source of their
applicability when you have available
information that allows you to identify
subject sources. In such cases, you
should submit the notification prior to
the source's Part 1 MACT application
deadline. Sources that can reasonably
determine they are subject must submit
a Part 1 application, regardless of any
notification (or lack thereof). You may
notify a source that has not submitted a
Part 1 application to do so, but your
discretion to do this does not relieve the
source of its obligation to submit an
application in the absence of such a
notification. You also have the
responsibility of notifying owners or
operators of sources that erroneously
submit a Part 1 MACT application (i.e.,
the source is not subject to section
112(j)) that they are not subject to
section 112(j), as well as notifying
owners or operators of sources of their
applicability when requested by an
owner or operator of a source with their
Part 1 MACT application.
Once you have received a Part 2
MACT application from a source, you
must notify the owner or operator of the
source in writing whether the
application is complete or incomplete
within 60 days. If you do not notify the
owner or operator in writing within 60
days after the submittal, it will be
assumed that the application is
complete.
Potential sources that would be
affected by section 112(j) would be
those categories or subcategories of
major sources listed for regulation under
section 112(c) of the CAA for which the
statutory deadline for a section 112(d)
emission standard is missed by 18
months. You should start the affected
source identification by first identifying
those source categories and
subcategories for which a section 112(d)
emission standard has been missed.
Using available information from the
EPA obtained in the rule development
process for subject sources, and other
available information (e.g., EPA
databases, State inventories, available
literature), you should be able to
identify sources subject to section 112(j)
within your jurisdiction.
If you are the permitting authority for
a source subject to section 112(j), you
must determine case-by-case MACT for
the source. You should use all available
information, as described in 40 CFR
63.51. The most prominent and useful
piece of information will be the
proposed MACT rule and its supporting
documentation. You can also
supplement that information with
whatever other information is available,
including information submitted by the
source itself.
Permitting authorities must determine
a MACT emission limitation equivalent
to the limitation that would apply had
the MACT standard been promulgated
on time. You may conduct an
independent analysis to determine
MACT using available information to
identify the 12 percent of the best
performing sources (if there are 30 or
more sources) or the best performing 5
(if less than 30 sources). Alternately,
you may simply look to the proposed
MACT standard and use the information
and analysis already prepared by EPA.
Regardless of the approach adopted to
issue or revise the source's title V
permit under section 112(j), you must
determine MACT as an equivalent
emission limitation on a case-by-case
basis for each category of sources.
Guidance to assist you in your case-by-
case MACT determination is presented
in "Guidelines for MACT
Determinations under Section 112(j)
Requirements," (EPA 453/R-02-001).
For sources in existence and subject
to section 112(j) at the deadline, sources
that become subject to section 112(j)
after the section 112(j) deadline, and
sources that make a change subject to
section 112(j) after a permit is issued,
you are required to issue a section 112(j)
permit or a revised section 112(j) permit
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16593
with case-by-case MACT within 18
months after receiving a complete Part
2 application.
C. What Happens When a Rule Comes
Out After the Hammer Date for a Given
Source Category?
If the EPA promulgates emission
standards under section 112(d) for a
source category before the date a permit
application is approved by the
permitting authority, the title V permit
must contain the promulgated standards
rather than the section 112(j) case-by-
case MACT level of control. If, however,
the EPA promulgates emission
standards under section H2(d) for a
source after the date a permit
application is approved by the
permitting authority, the permitting
authority must incorporate the
requirements of the promulgated
standards in the title V permit upon its
next renewal. In such cases, the
permitting authority must establish a
compliance date in the revised permit
that assures that the owner or operator
shall comply with the promulgated
standards within a reasonable time, not
to exceed 8 years after the standards are
promulgated. The permitting authority
is not required to revise the emission
limit in the permit to reflect the
promulgated standards if it determines
that the level of control required by the
emission limitation in the permit is
substantially as effective as that
required by the promulgated standards.
If the requirements you established in a
case-by-case determination under
section 112(j) are more stringent than
the standards promulgated under
section 112(d), you may elect to revise
the permit to incorporate the less
stringent requirements but you are not
required to do so.
V. What Are the Environmental,
Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts of
This Rule?
The General Provisions do not apply
until specific relevant standards are
promulgated. At that time, the impacts
of the individual NESHAP will be
analyzed, including the impacts of the
General Provisions requirements.
The section 112(j) rule provides
general guidance and procedures
concerning the implementation of an
underlying statutory requirement. We
estimate that approximately 84,000
affected sources may have to prepare
and submit a Part 1 permit application.
The total estimated cost of this 1-time
event is about $9,000,000. We currently
anticipate no other impacts since we
plan to promulgate all the 10-year
MACT standards before the need to
submit a Part 2 permit application.
VI. What Are the Administrative
Requirements for This Rule?
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4,1993), we must
determine whether a regulatory action is
"significant" and, therefore, subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Executive
Order defines "significant regulatory
action" as one that is likely to result in
a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public'health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that the
amendments are not a "significant
regulatory action" under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 and are,
therefore, not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., the OMB must approve any
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that qualify as an
information collection request (ICR)
under the PRA.
Approval of an ICR is not required for
the General Provisions because, for
sources affected by CAA section 112
only, the General Provisions do not
require any activities until source
category-specific standards have been
promulgated or until title V permit
programs become effective. The actual
recordkeeping and reporting burden that
would be imposed by the General
Provisions for each source category
covered by part 63 will be estimated
when standards applicable to such
category are promulgated.
However, approval of an ICR is
required for the section 112(j) rule. The
information collection requirements in
today's amendments to the final section
112(j) rule have been submitted to OMB
for approval under the provisions of the
PRA. The EPA has prepared an ICR
document (ICR No. 1648.04), and you
may obtain a copy from Sandy Farmer
by mail at Office of Environmental
Information, Collection Strategies
Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20460, by email at
farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling
(202) 260-2740. You may also
download a copy off the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information
requirements are not effective until
OMB approves them.
The collection of information required
by today's amendments to the final
section 112(j) rule have an estimated
nationwide recordkeeping and reporting
burden of 172,480 hours ($8,984,976).
This burden is a short l-time permit
application.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to (1) review instructions; (2)
develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes
of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; (3) adjust
the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; (4) train personnel to be
able to respond to a collection of
information; (5) search data sources; (6)
complete and review the collection of
information; and (7) transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor; and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires the EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
"meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications." Policies that have
federalism implications is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have "substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between
the national Government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government."
Executive Order 13132 identifies 2
types of rules with Federalism
implicationsrules that impose
substantial compliance costs, unless
-------
16594
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
they are expressly required by statute or
there are federal funds available to cover
. the costs, and rules that preempt State
or local law. The EPA has interpreted
that rules containing "substantial
compliance costs" are those that contain
a "significant federal intergovernmental
mandate" under Section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)i.e., it is likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments in the aggregate of $100
million or more in any one year. In
addition, EPA will conclude a rule also
has Federalism implications if the
impacts of the rule on small
governments is likely to equal or exceed
1% of their revenues.
Because these final amendments do
not exceed either threshold for
substantial costs described above or
preempt State or local law, they do not
have federalism implications and will
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of Government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Nevertheless, in
the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and
consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA, State
and local governments, EPA specifically
solicited comment on the rule
amendments from State and local
officials.
D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 6, 2000) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure "meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications." "Policies that have tribal
implications" are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have "substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, 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."
These final rule amendments do not
have tribal implications. They will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, or 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.
There are currently no tribal
governments that have approved title V
permit programs to which sources
would submit permit applications on
May 15, 2002. Accordingly, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply
action.
i not apply to this
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any 1 year. Before promulgating
an EPA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the
UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of
the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent
with applicable law. Moreover, section
205 allows the EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least-costly,
most cost-effective, or least-burdensome
alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that these
final amendments do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any 1 year. These amendments will
clarify existing requirements and reduce
regulatory burden. The EPA has
determined that this action is not a
"significant" regulatory action within
the meaning of Executive Order 12866,
and it does not impose any additional
Federal mandate on State, local and
. tribal governments or the private sector
within the meaning of the UMRA. Thus,
today's final rule amendments are not
subject to the requirements of sections
202, 203, and 205 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
Amended by the Sn^all Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
The EPA has determined that it is not
necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with
these final amendments. The EPA has
also determined that these amendments
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For purposes of assessing the
impact of today's rule amendments on
small entities, small entities are defined
as: (1) A small business whose parent
company has fewer than 1,000
employees; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; or (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today's final amendments on
small entities, EPA has concluded that
this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
A regulatory flexibility analysis is not
necessary for the General Provisions
amendments because it is unknown at
this time which requirements from the
General Provisions will be applicable to
any particular source category, whether
such category includes small
businesses, and how significant the
impacts of those requirements would be
on small businesses. Impacts on small
entities associated with the General
Provisions will be assessed when
specific emission standards affecting
those sources are developed. "Small
entities" will be defined in the context
of the applicability of those standards.
Similarly, no analysis has been
prepared for the amendments to the
section 112(j) rule. The rule provides
general guidance and procedures
concerning the implementation of an
underlying statutory requirement, but it
does not by itself impose any regulatory
requirements other than a permit
application to the permitting authority
or prescribe the specific content of any
case-by-case determination which might
be made under section 112(j). Although
the final amendments will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16595
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the
impact of the rule amendments on small
entities. We have extended the time
between application deadlines for the
Part 1 and Part 2 submittals so that all
10-year MACT standards would be
promulgated before any Part 2
applications are due. We have also
minimized the required information in
the Part 1 permit application. Although
we expect some small businesses to be
affected by the section 112(j) permit
application requirement, we cannot
determine how many. In any event, the
impact would be insignificant.
Furthermore, the net effect of these rule
amendments to the existing rule will be
to reduce potential regulatory burdens.
G. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Public Law No.
104-113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices) developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs
the EPA to provide Congress, through
annual reports to OMB, with
explanations when an agency does not
use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
The final amendments to the General
Provisions do not include any technical
standards; they consist primarily of
revisions to the generally applicable
procedural and administrative
requirements that the General
Provisions overlay on NESHAP. The
final amendments to the section 112(j)
rule, which establishes requirements
and procedures for owners or operators
of major sources of HAP and permitting
authorities to follow if the EPA misses
the deadline for promulgation of section
112(d) standards, clarify and amend
current procedural and administrative
provisions to establish equivalent
emissions limitations by permit.
Therefore, section 112(j) is also not a
vehicle for the application of voluntary
consensus standards.
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks ana Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23,1997) applies to any rule that
(1) is determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that.
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonable alternatives considered
by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. The final
amendments to the General Provisions
are not subject to Executive Order 13045
because the provisions provide general
technology performance and
compliance guidelines for section
112(d) standards, which are not based
on health or safety risks. Likewise, the
final amendments to the section 112(j)
rule are not subject to Executive Order
13045 because they establish the
process for developing case-by-case
MACT, and thus are based on
technology performance and not on
safety or health risks.
I. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
SBREFA, generally provides that before
a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Therefore, we will submit
a report containing the final
amendments and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
These final amendments are not a
"major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2), and therefore will be effective
April 5, 2002.
/. Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
The final amendments are not subject
to Executive Order 13211, "Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. ;
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, .Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 5, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons cited in the preamble,
part 63, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 63 [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A [Amended]
2. Section 63.1 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (4);
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs
(a)(7) and (a)(8);
c. Removing paragraphs (a)(l3) and
(14);
d. Removing and reserving paragraph
e. Revising paragraph (b)(3);
f. Revising paragraphs (c)(l), (c)(2)
introductory text and (c)(2)(iii);
g. Removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(4); and .
h. Revising paragraph (e).
The revisions read as follows:
§63.1 Applicability.
(a)* * * '
(3) No emission standard or other
requirement, established under this part
shall be interpreted, construed, or
applied to diminish or replace the
requirements of a more stringent
emission limitation or other applicable
requirement established by the
Administrator pursuant to other
authority of the Act (section 111, part C
or D or any other authority of this Act),
or a standard issued under State
authority. The Administrator may
specify in a specific standard under this
part that facilities subject to other
provisions under the Act nee'd only
comply with the provisions of that
standard.
(4)(i) Each relevant standard in this
part 63 must identify explicitly whether
each provision in this subpart A is or is
not included in such relevant standard.
(ii) If a relevant part 63 standard
incorporates the requirements of 40 CFR
part 60, part 61 or other part 63
standards, the relevant part 63 standard
-------
16596
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
must identify explicitly the applicability
of each corresponding part 60, part 61,
or other part 63 subpart A (General)
provision.
(iii) The General Provisions in this
subpart A do not apply to regulations
developed pursuant to section 112(r) of
the amended Act, unless otherwise
. specified in those regulations.
* * * * *
(7) [Reserved]
(8) [Reserved]
*****
(b) * * *'
(2) [Reserved]
(3) An owner or operator of a
stationary source who is in the relevant
source category and who determines
that the source is not subject to a
relevant standard or other requirement
established under this part must keep a
record as specified in § 63.10(b)(3).
(c) * * *
(1) If a relevant standard has been
established under this part, the owner or
operator of an affected source must
comply with the provisions of that
standard and of this subpart as provided
in paragraph (a) (4) of this section.
(2) Except as provided in
§ 63.10(b)(3), if a relevant standard has
been established under this part, the
owner or operator of an affected source
may be required to obtain a title V
permit from a permitting authority in
the State in which the source is located.
Emission standards promulgated in this
part for area sources pursuant to section
112 (c) (3) of the Act will specify
whether
***,**
(iii) If a standard fails to specify what
the permitting requirements will be for
area sources affected by such a standard,
then area sources that are subject to the
standard will be subject to the
requirement to obtain a title V permit
without any deferral.
*****
(4) [Reserved]
* * * * . *
(e) If the Administrator promulgates
an emission standard under section
112(d) or (h) of the Act that is applicable
to a source subject to an emission
limitation by permit established under
section 112(j) of the Act, and the
requirements under the section 112(j)
emission limitation are substantially as
effective as the promulgated emission
standard, the owner or operator may
request the permitting authority to
revise the source's title V permit to
reflect that the emission limitation in
the permit satisfies the requirements of
the promulgated emission standard. The
process by which the permitting
authority determines whether the
section 112(j) emission limitation is
substantially as effective as the f.»
promulgated emission standard must
include, consistent with part 70 or 71 of
this chapter, the opportunity for full
public, EPA, and affected State review
(including the opportunity for EPA's
objection) prior to the permit revision
being finalized. A negative
determination by the permitting
authority constitutes final action for
purposes of review and appeal under
the applicable title V operating permit
program.
3. Section 63.2 is amended by:
a. Revising the definition of Affected
source;
b. Revising the definition of
Commenced;
c. Revising the definition of
Construction;
d. Revising paragraph (2) in the
definition of Effective date;
e. Revising the definition of
Equivalent emission limitation;
f. Revising paragraph (6) in the
definition of Federally enforceable;
g. Revising the first sentence in the
definition of Malfunction;
h. Revising the definition of New
source;
i. Revising the introductory text in the
definition of Reconstruction;
j. Amending the definition of Relevant
standard by revising the first sentence
of paragraph (4); running the'
undesignated paragraph at the end of
paragraph (4) into pargraph (4), and
revising the last sentence of newly
designated text in paragraph (4);
k. Revising the definition of
Shutdown;
1. Revising the definition of Startup;
m. By adding in alphabetical order
definitions for Monitoring, New affected
source, and Working day, and
n. By removing definitions for
Compliance plan, Lesser quantity, and
Part 70 permit.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§63.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Affected source, for the purposes of
this part, means the collection of
equipment, activities, or both within a
single contiguous area and under
common control that is included in a
section 112(c) source category or
subcategory for which a section 112(d)
standard or other relevant standard is
established pursuant to section 112 of
the Act. Each relevant standard will
define the "affected source," as defined
in this paragraph unless a different
definition is warranted based on a
published justification as to why this
definition would result in significant
administrative, practical, or
implementation problems and why the
different definition would resolve those
problems. The term "affected source,"
as used in this part, is separate and
distinct from any other use of that term
in EPA regulations such as those .
implementing title IV of the Act.
Affected source may be defined
differently for part 63 than affected
facility and stationary source in parts 60
and 61, respectively. This definition of
"affected source," and the procedures
for adopting an alternative definition of
"affected source," shall apply to each
section 112(d) standard for which the
initial proposed rule is signed by the
Administrator after June 30, 2002.
******
Commenced means, with respect to
construction or reconstruction of an
affected source, that an owner or
operator has undertaken a continuous
program of construction or
reconstruction or that an owner or
operator has entered into a contractual
obligation to undertake and complete,
within a reasonable time, a continuous
program of construction or
reconstruction.
*****.
Construction means.the on-site
fabrication, erection-, or installation of
an affected source. Construction does
not include the removal of all
equipment comprising an affected
source from an existing location and
reinstallation of such equipment at a
new location. The owner or operator of
an existing affected source that is
relocated may elect not to reinstall
minor ancillary equipment including,
but not limited to, piping, ductwork,
and valves. However, removal and
reinstallation of an affected source will
be construed as reconstruction if it
satisfies the criteria for reconstruction as
defined in this section. The costs of
replacing minor ancillary equipment
must be considered in determining
whether the existing affected source is
reconstructed.
*****
Effective date means: * * *
(2) With regard to an alternative
emission limitation or equivalent
emission limitation determined by the
Administrator (or a State with an
approved permit program), the date that
the alternative emission limitation or
equivalent emission limitation becomes
effective according to the provisions of
this part.
*****
Equivalent emission limitation means
any maximum achievable control
technology emission limitation or
requirements which are applicable to a
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16597
major source of hazardous air pollutants
and are adopted by the Administrator
(or a State with an approved permit
program) on a case-by-case basis,
pursuant to section 112(g) or (j) of the
Act.
*****
Federally enforceable * * *
(6) Limitations and conditions that are
part of an operating permit where the
permit and the permitting program
pursuant to which it was issued meet all
of the following criteria:
(i) The operating permit program has
been submitted to and approved by EPA
into a State implementation plan (SIP)
under section 110 of the CAA;
(ii) The SIP imposes a legal obligation
that operating permit holders adhere to
the terms and limitations of such
permits and provides that permits
which do not conform to the operating
permit program requirements and the
requirements of EPA's underlying
regulations may be deemed not
"federally enforceable" by EPA;
(iii) The operating permit program
requires that all emission limitations,
controls, and other requirements
imposed by such permits will be at least
as stringent as any other applicable
limitations and requirements contained
in the SIP or enforceable under the SIP,
and that the program may not issue
permits that waive, or make less
stringent, any limitations or
requirements contained in or issued
pursuant to the SIP, or that are
otherwise "federally enforceable";
(iv) The limitations, controls, and
requirements in the permit in question
are permanent, quantifiable, and
otherwise enforceable as a practical
matter; and
(v) The permit in question was issued
only after adequate and timely notice
and opportunity for comment for EPA
and the public.
*****
Malfunction means any sudden,
infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution
control and monitoring equipment,
process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual
manner.* * *
Monitoring means the collection and
use of measurement data or other
information to control the operation of
a process or pollution control device or
to verify a work practice standard
relative to assuring compliance with
applicable requirements. Monitoring is
composed of four elements:
(1) Indicator(s) of performancethe
parameter or parameters you measure or
observe for demonstrating proper
operation of the pollution control
measures or compliance with the
applicable emissions limitation or'
standard. Indicators of performance may
include direct or predicted emissions
measurements (including opacity),
operational parametric values that
correspond to process or control device
(and capture system) efficiencies or
emissions rates, and recorded findings
of inspection of work practice activities,
materials tracking, or design
characteristics. Indicators may be
expressed as a single maximum or
minimum value, a function of process
variables (for example, within a range of
pressure drops), a particular operational
or work practice status (for example, a
damper position, completion of a waste
recovery task, materials tracking), or an
interdependency between two or among
more than two variables.
(2) Measurement techniquesthe
means by which you gather and record
information of or about the indicators of
performance. The components of the
measurement technique include the
detector type, location and installation
specifications, inspection procedures,
and quality assurance and quality
control measures. Examples of
measurement techniques include
continuous emission monitoring
systems, continuous opacity monitoring
systems, continuous parametric
monitoring systems, and manual
inspections that include making records
of process conditions or work practices.
(3) Monitoring frequencythe
number of times you obtain and record
monitoring data over a specified time
interval. Examples of monitoring
frequencies include at least four points
equally spaced for each hour for
continuous emissions or parametric
monitoring systems, at least every 10
seconds for continuous opacity
monitoring systems, and at least once
per operating day (or week, month, etc.)
for work practice or design inspections.
(4) Averaging timethe period over
which you average and use data to
verify proper operation of the pollution
control approach or compliance with
the emissions limitation or standard.
Examples of averaging time include a 3-
hour average in units of the emissions
limitation, a 30-day rolling average
emissions value, a daily average of a
control device operational parametric
range, and an instantaneous alarm.
New affected source means the
collection of equipment, activities, or
both within a single contiguous area and
under common control that is included
in a section 112(c) source category or
subcategory that is subject to a section
112(d) or other relevant standard for
new sources. This definition of "new
affected source," and the criteria to be
utilized in implementing it, shall apply
to each section 112(d) standard for
which the initial proposed rule is signed
by the Administrator after June 30,
2002. Each relevant standard will define
the term "new affected source," which
will be the same as the "affected
source" unless a different collection is
warranted based on consideration of
factors including:
(1) Emission reduction impacts of
controlling individual sources versus
groups of sources;
(2) Cost effectiveness of controlling
individual equipment;
(3) Flexibility to accommodate
common control strategies;
(4) Cost/benefits of emissions
averaging; ;
(5) Incentives for pollution .
prevention;
(6) Feasibility and cost of controlling
processes that share common equipment
(e.g., product recovery devices);
(7) Feasibility and cost of monitoring;
and
(8) Other relevant factors.
New source means any affected source
the construction or reconstruction of
which is commenced after the
Administrator first proposes a relevant
emission standard under this part
establishing an emission-standard
applicable to such source.
* * * * ; *
Reconstruction, unless 'otherwise
defined in a relevant standard, means
the replacement of components of an
affected or a previously nonaffected
source to such an extent that:
* * * * *
Relevant standard means: * * *
(4) An equivalent emission limitation
established pursuant to section 112 of
the Act that applies t'o the collection of
equipment, activities, or both regulated
by such standard or limitation. * * *
Every relevant standard established
pursuant to section 112 of the Act
includes subpart A of this part, as
provided by § 63.1(a)(4), and all
applicable appendices of this part or of
other parts of this chapter that are
referenced in that standard.
* * * * ' *
Shutdown means the cessation of
operation of an affected source or
portion of an affected source for any
purpose.
* * * ' * . *
Startup means the setting in operation
of an affected source or portion of an
affected source for any purpose;
* * * * *
Working day means any day on which
Federal Government offices (or State
government offices for a State that has
obtained delegation under section
-------
16598
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
112(1)) are open for normal business.
Saturdays, Sundays, and official Federal
(or where delegated, State) holidays are
not working days.
4. Section 63.3 is amended by adding
the abbreviation for standard cubic
meter per minute in paragraph (b).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 63.3 Units and abbreviations.
*****
(b) * * *
scmm = cubic meter at standard
conditions per minute
*****
5. Section 63.4 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(l);
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs
(a)(3) through (a)(5);
c. Removing paragraph (b)(3); and
d. Revising paragraph (c).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 63.4 Prohibited activities and
circumvention.
(a) * * * (1) No owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this part
must operate any affected source in
violation of the requirements of this
part. Affected sources subject to and in
compliance with either an extension of
compliance or an exemption from
compliance are not in violation of the
requirements of this part. An extension
of compliance can be granted by the
Administrator under this part; by a State
with an approved permit program; or by
the President under section 112(i)(4) of
the Act.
* * * * *
. (3)-(5) [Reserved]
*****
(c) Fragmentation. Fragmentation
after November 15, 1990 which divides
ownership of an operation, within the
same facility among various owners
where there is no real change in control,
will not affect applicability. The owner
and operator must not use fragmentation
or phasing of reconstruction activities
(i.e., intentionally dividing
reconstruction into multiple parts for
purposes of avoiding new source
requirements) to avoid becoming subject
to new source requirements.
6. Section 63.5 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading;
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(l) and (2);
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(l), (b)(3)
and (4);
d. Removing and reserving paragraph
e. Revising paragraph (b)(6);
f. Revising paragraphs (d)(l)(i),
B), and (d)(l)(ii)(E);
g. Removing and reserving paragraph
h. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
i. Revising paragraph (d)(3)(vi); and
j, Revising paragraphs (f)(l);and (f)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 63.5 Preconstruction review and
notification requirements.
(a)*-**
(1) This section implements the
preconstruction review requirements of
section 112(i)(l). After the effective date
of a relevant standard, promulgated
pursuant to section 112(d), (f), or (h) of
the Act, under this part, the
preconstruction review requirements in
this section apply to the owner or
operator of new affected sources and
reconstructed affected sources that are
major-emitting as specified in this
section. New and reconstructed affected
sources that commence construction or
reconstruction before the effective date
of a relevant standard are not subject to
the preconstruction review
requirements specified in paragraphs
(b)(3), (d), and (e) of this section.
(2) This section includes notification
requirements for new affected sources
and reconstructed affected sources that
are not major-emitting affected sources
and that are or become subject to a
relevant promulgated emission standard
after the effective date of a relevant
standard promulgated under this part.
(b) Requirements for existing, newly
constructed, and reconstructed affected
sources. (1) A new affected source for
which construction commences after
proposal of a relevant standard is
subject to relevant standards for new
affected sources, including compliance
dates. An affected source for which
reconstruction commences after
proposal of a relevant standard is
subject to relevant standards for new
sources, including compliance dates,
irrespective of any change in emissions
of hazardous air pollutants from that
source.
*****
(3) After the effective date of any
relevant standard promulgated by the .
Administrator under this part, no
person may, without obtaining written
approval in advance from the
Administrator in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraphs (d)
and (e) of this section, do any of the
following:
(i) Construct a new affected source
that is major-emitting and subject to
such standard;
(ii) Reconstruct an affected source that
is major-emitting and subject to such
standard; or
(iii) Reconstruct a major source such
that the source becomes an affected
source that is major-emitting and subject
to the standard.
(4) After the effective date of any
relevant standard promulgated by the
Administrator under this part, an owner
or operator who constructs a new
affected source that is not major-
emitting or reconstructs an affected
source that is .not major-emitting that is
subject to such standard, or reconstructs
a source such that the source becomes
an affected source subject to the
standard, must notify the Administrator
of the intended construction or
reconstruction. The notification must be
submitted in accordance with the
procedures in §63.9(b).
(5) [Reserved]
(6) After the effective date of any
relevant standard promulgated by the
Administrator under this part,
equipment added (or a process change)
to an affected source that is within the
scope of the definition of affected source
under the relevant standard must be
considered part of the affected source
and subject to all provisions of the
relevant standard established for that
affected source.
*****
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) An owner or operator who is
subject to the requirements of paragraph
(b)(3) of this section must submit to the
Administrator an application for
approval of the construction or
reconstruction. The application must be
submitted as soon as practicable before
actual construction or reconstruction
begins. The application for approval of
construction or reconstruction may be
used to fulfill the initial notification
requirements of § 63.9(b)(5). The owner
or operator may submit the application
for approval well in advance of the date
actual construction or reconstruction
begins in order to ensure a timely
review by the Administrator and that
the planned date to begin will not be
delayed.
(ii) * * *
(B) A notification of intention to
construct a new major affected source or
make any physical or operational
change to a major affected source that
may meet or has been determined to
meet the criteria for a reconstruction, as
defined in § 63.2 or in the relevant
standard;
* '* * * *
(E) The expected date of the beginning
of actual construction or reconstruction;
*****
(G) [Reserved]
*****
(2) Application for approval of
construction. Each application for
approval of construction must include,
in addition to the information required
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16599
in paragraph (d)(l)(ii) of this section,
technical information describing the
proposed nature, size, design, operating
design capacity, and method of
operation of the source, including an
identification of each type of emission
point for each type of hazardous air
pollutant that is emitted (or could
reasonably be anticipated to be emitted)
and a description of the planned air
pollution control system (equipment or
method) for each emission point. The
description of the equipment to be used
for the control of emissions must
include each control device for each
hazardous air pollutant and the
estimated control efficiency (percent)
for each control device. The description
of the method to be used for the control
of emissions must include an estimated
control efficiency (percent) for that
method. Such technical information
must include calculations of emission
estimates in sufficient detail to permit
assessment of the validity of the
calculations.
(3) * * *
(vi) If in the application for approval
of reconstruction the owner or operator
designates the affected source as a
reconstructed source and declares that
there are no economic or technical
limitations to prevent the source from
complying with all relevant standards or
.other requirements, the owner or
operator need not submit the
information required in paragraphs
(d)(3)(iii) through (d)(3)(v) of this
section.
(1) Preconstruction review procedures
that a State utilizes for other purposes
may also be utilized for purposes of this
section if the procedures are
substantially equivalent to those
specified in this section. The
Administrator will approve an'
application for construction or
reconstruction specified in paragraphs
(b)(3) and (d) of this section if the owner
or operator of a new affected source or
reconstructed affected source, who is
subject to such requirement meets the
following conditions:
(i) The owner or operator of the new
affected source or reconstructed affected
source has undergone a preconstruction
review and approval process in the State
in which the source is (or would be)
located and has received a federally
enforceable construction permit that
contains a finding that the source will
meet the relevant promulgated emission
standard, if the source is properly built
and operated.
(ii) Provide a statement from the State
or other evidence (such as State
regulations) that it considered the
factors specified in paragraph (e)(l) of
this section.
(2) The owner or operator must
submit to the Administrator the request
for approval of construction or
reconstruction under this paragraph
(f)(2) no later than the application
deadline specified in paragraph (d)(l) of
this section (see also § 63.9(b)(2)). The
owner or operator must include in the
request information sufficient for the
Administrator's determination. The
Administrator will evaluate the owner
or operator's request in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph
(e) of this section. The Administrator
may request additional relevant
information after the submittal of a
request for approval of construction or
reconstruction under this paragraph
(0(2).
7. Section 63.6 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(l)
introductory text;
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(l), (b)(2),
(b)(3)(i), (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(7);
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) and
d. Revising paragraphs (e)(l)(i) and
(ii):
e. Removing and reserving paragraph
f. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(i)
introductory text, (e)(3)(i)(A), (e)(3)(ii),
the first three sentences of (e)(3)(iii) and
(e)(3)(v), revising paragraphs (e)(3)(iv),
(e)(3)(vii)(B), (e)(3)(vii)(C), adding
paragraph (e)(3)(vii)(D), revising
paragraph (e)(3)(viii) and adding
paragraph (e)(3)(ix);
g. Revising paragraphs (f)(l),
(f)(2)(iii)(D), and (f)(3);
h. Revising paragraph (h)(l);
i. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(C);
j. Revising paragraph (i)(4)(i)(B);
k. Revising the last sentence of
paragraph (i)(4)(ii);
1. Revising paragraphs (i)(6)(i)(B)(^)
and (2) and removing and reserving
paragraphs (i)(6)(i)(C) & (D);
m. Revising paragraph (i)(12)(i);
n. Revising paragraph (i)(14); arid
o. Adding paragraph (i)(4)(i)(C).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 63.6 Compliance with standards and
maintenance requirements.
(a)* * *
(1) The requirements in this section
apply to the owner or operator of
affected sources for which any relevant
standard has been established pursuant
to section 112 of the Act and the
applicability of such requirements is set
out in accordance with § 63.1(a)(4)
unless
(b) Compliance dates for new and
reconstructed affected sources. (1)
Except as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)
and (4) of this section, the owner or
operator of a new or reconstructed
affected source for which construction
or reconstruction commences after
proposal of a relevant standard that has
an initial startup before the effective
date of a relevant standard established
under this part pursuant to section
112(d), (f), or (h) of the Act must comply
with such standard not later than the
standard's effective date.
(2) Except as specified in paragraphs
(b)(3) and (4) of this section, the owner
or operator of a new or reconstructed
affected source that has an initial
startup after the effective date of a
relevant standard established under this
part pursuant to section 112(d), (f), or
(h) of the Act must comply with such
standard upon startup of the source.
(3)* * *
(i) The promulgated standard (that is,
the relevant standard) is more stringent
than the proposed standard; for
purposes of this paragraph, a finding
that controls or compliance methods are
"more stringent" must include control
technologies or performance criteria and
compliance or compliance assurance
methods that are different but are
substantially equivalent to those
required by the promulgated rule, as
determined by the Administrator (or his
or her authorized representative); and
*' * * * *
(4) The owner or operator of an
affected source for which construction
or reconstruction is commenced after
the proposal date of a relevant standard .
established pursuant to section 112(d) of
the Act but before the proposal date of
a relevant standard established pursuant
to section 112(f) shall not be required to
comply with the section 112(fJ emission
standard until the date 10 years after the
date construction or reconstruction is
commenced, except that, if the section
112 (f) standard is promulgated more
than 10 years after construction or
reconstruction is commenced, the
owner or operator must comply with the
standard as provided in paragraphs
(b)(l) and (2) of this section.
(5) The owner or operator of a new
source that is subject to the compliance
requirements of paragraph (b)(3) or (4)
of this section must notify the
Administrator in accordance with
§63.9(d).
*****
(7) When an area source becomes a
major source by the addition of
equipment or operations that meet the
definition of new affected source in the
relevant standard, the portion of the
-------
16600
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
existing facility that is a new affected
source must comply with all
requirements of that standard applicable
to new sources. The source owner or
operator must comply with the relevant
standard upon startup.
(c) * * *
(2) If an existing source is subject to
a standard established under this part
pursuant to section 112(f) of the Act, the
owner or operator must comply with the
standard by the date 90 days after the
standard's effective date, or by the date
specified in an extension granted to the
source by the Administrator under
paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this section,
whichever is later.
*****
(5) Except as provided in paragraph
(b)(7) of this section, the owner or
operator of an area source that increases
its emissions of (or its potential to emit)
hazardous air pollutants such that the
source becomes a major source shall be
subject to relevant standards for existing
sources. Such sources must comply by
the date specified in the standards for
existing area sources that become major
sources. If no such compliance date is
specified in the standards, the source
shall have a period of time to comply
with the relevant emission standard that
is equivalent to the compliance period
specified in the relevant standard for
existing sources in existence at the time
the standard becomes effective.
*****
(e)* * *
(l)(i) At all times, including periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction,
the owner or operator must operate and
maintain any affected source, including
associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment,-
in a manner consistent with safety and
good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions to the levels
required by the relevant standards, i.e.,
meet the emission standard or comply
with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. Determination of.
whether such operation and
maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information available
to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to,
monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures (including
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan required in paragraph (e)(3) of this
section), review of operation and
maintenance records, and inspection of
the source.
(ii) Malfunctions must be corrected as
soon as practicable after their
occurrence in accordance with the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan required in paragraph (e)(3) of this
section. To the extent that an -.
unexpected eveiit arises during a *
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, an
owner or operator must comply by
minimizing emissions during such a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
event consistent with safety and good
air pollution control practices. .
*****
(2) [Reserved]
(3) * *' *
(i) The owner or operator of an
affected source must develop and
implement a written startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan that describes, in
detail, procedures for operating and
maintaining the source during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction;
a program of corrective action for
malfunctioning process; and air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment used to comply with the
relevant standard. This plan must be
developed by the owner or operator by
the source's compliance date for that
relevant standard. The purpose of the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan is to
(A) Ensure that, at all times, the
owner or operator operate and maintain
affected sources, including associated
air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions to
the levels required by the relevant
standards;
*****
(ii) During periods of startup,.
shutdown, and malfunction, the owner
or operator of an affected source must
operate and maintain such source
(including associated air pollution
control and monitoring equipment) in
accordance with the procedures
specified in the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan developed under
paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section.
(iii) When actions taken by the owner
or operator during a startup, shutdown,
or malfunction (including actions taken
to correct a malfunction) are consistent
with the procedures specified in the
affected source's startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, the owner or operator
must keep records for that event which
demonstrate that the procedures
specified in the plan were followed.
These records may take the form of a
"checklist," or other effective form of
recordkeeping that confirms
conformance with the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan for
that event. In addition, the owner or
operator must keep records of these
events as specified in § 63.10(b),
including records of the occurrence and
duration of each startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of operation and each
malfunction of the air pollution control
and monitoring equipment. * * *
(iv) If an action taken by the owner or
operator during a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction (including an action taken
'to correct a malfunction) is not
consistent with the procedures specified
in the affected sourde's startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, and
the source exceeds the relevant
emission standard, then the owner or
operator must record the actions taken
for that event and must report such
actions within 2 working days after
commencing actions inconsistent with
. the plan, followed by a letter within 7
working days after the end of the event,
in accordance with §63.10(d)(5) (unless
the owner or operator makes alternative
reporting arrangements, in advance,
with the Administrator).
(v) The owner or operator must
maintain at the affected source a current
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan and must make the plan available
upon request for inspection and copying
by the Administrator. In addition, if the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan is subsequently revised as
provided in paragraph (e)(3)(viii) of this
section, the owner or operator must
maintain at the affected source each
previous (i.e., superseded) version of the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan, and must make each such
previous version available for
inspection and copying by the
Administrator for a period of 5 years
after revision of the plan. If at any time
after adoption of a startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan the affected
source ceases operation or is otherwise
no longer subject to the provisions of
this part, the owner or operator must
retain a copy of the most recent plan for
5 years from the date the source ceases
operation or is no longer subject to this
part and must make the plan available
upon request for inspection and copying
by the Administrator. * * *
* * * * *
(vii) * * *
(B) Fails to provide for the operation
of the source (including associated air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment) during a startup, shutdown,
or malfunction evenHn a manner
consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions to the levels
required by the relevant standards;
(C) Does not provide adequate
procedures for correcting
malfunctioning process and/or air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment as quickly as practicable; or
(D) Includes an event that does not
meet the definition of startup,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16601
shutdown, or malfunction listed in
§63.2.
(viii) The owner or operator may - '
periodically revise the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan for the
affected source as necessary to satisfy
the requirements of this part or to reflect
changes in equipment or procedures at
the affected source. Unless the
permitting authority provides otherwise,
the owner or operator may make such
revisions to the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan without prior
approval by the Administrator or the
permitting authority. However, each
such revision to a startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan, must be reported
in the semiannual report required by
§63.10(d)(5). If the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan fails to address or
inadequately addresses an event that
meets the characteristics of a
malfunction but was not included in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction .
plan at the time the owner or operator
developed the plan, the owner or
operator must revise the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan within
45 days after the event to include
detailed procedures for operating and
maintaining the source during similar
malfunction events and a program of
corrective action for similar
malfunctions of process or air pollution
control and monitoring equipment. In
the event that the owner or operator
makes any revision to the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan which
alters the scope of the activities at the .
source which are deemed to be a
startup, shutdown, malfunction, or
otherwise modifies the applicability of
any emission limit, work practice
requirement, or other requirement in a
standard established under this part, the
revised plan shall not take effect until
after the owner or operator has provided
a written notice describing the revision
to the permitting authority.
(ix) The title V permit for an affected
source must require that the owner or
operator adopt a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan which conforms to the
provisions of this part, and that the
owner or operator operate and maintain
the source in accordance with the
procedures specified in the current
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan. However, any revisions made to
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan in accordance with the procedures
established by this part shall not be
deemed to constitute permit revisions
under part 70 or part' 71 of this chapter.
Moreover, none of the procedures
specified by the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan for an affected source
shall be deemed to fall within the
permit shield provision in section 504(f)
of the Act.
ffl * * * . .
(1) Applicability. The non-opacity
emission standards set forth in this part .
shall apply at all times except during
periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, and as otherwise specified
in an applicable subpart. If a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction of one
portion of an affected source does not
affect the ability of particular emission
points within other portions of the
affected source to comply with the non-
opacity emission standards set forth in
this part, then that emission point must
still be required to comply with the non-
opacity emission standards and other
applicable requirements.
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) The performance test was
appropriately quality-assured, as
specified in § 63.7(c).
*****
(3) Finding of compliance. The
Administrator will make a finding
concerning an affected source's
compliance with a non-opacity emission
standard, as specified in paragraphs
(fKl) and (2) of this section, upon
obtaining all the compliance
information required by the relevant
standard (including the written reports
of performance test results, monitoring
results, and other information, if
applicable), and information available to
the Administrator pursuant to paragraph
(e)(l)(i) of this section.
*****
(h)* * *
(1) Applicability. The opacity and
visible emission standards set forth in
this part must apply at all times except
during periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction, and as otherwise
specified in an applicable subpart. If a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction of
one portion of an affected source does
not affect the ability of particular
emission points within other portions of
the affected source to comply with the
opacity and visible emission standards
set forth in this part, then that emission
point shall still be required to comply
with the opacity and visible emission
standards and other applicable
requirements.
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(C) The opacity or visible emission
test was conducted and the resulting
data were reduced using EPA-approved
test methods and procedures, as
specified in § 63.7(e); and
(i}
(B) Any request under this paragraph
for an extension of compliance with a
relevant standard must be submitted in
writing to the appropriate authority no
later than 120 days prior to the affected
source's compliance date (as specified
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section),
except as provided for in paragraph
(i)(4)(i)(C) of this section. Nonfrivolous
requests submitted under this paragraph
will stay the applicability of the rule as
to the emission points in question until
such time as the request is granted or
denied. A denial will be effective as of
the date of denial. Emission standards
established under this part may specify
alternative dates for the subrnittal of
requests for an extension of compliance
if alternatives are appropriate for the
source categories affected by those
standards. .
(C) An owner or operator may submit
a compliance extension request after the
date specified in paragraph (i)(4)(i)(B) of
this section provided the need for the
compliance extension arose after that
date, and before the otherwise
applicable compliance date and the
need arose due to circumstances beyond
reasonable control of the owner or
operator. This request must include, in
addition to the information required in
paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section, a
statement of the reasons additional time
is needed and the date when the owner
or operator first learned of the problems.
Nonfrivolous requests submitted under
this paragraph will stay the applicability
of the rule as.to the emission points in '
question until such time as the request
is granted or denied. A denial will be
effective as of the original compliance
date.
(ii) * * * Any request for an
extension of compliance with a relevant
standard under this paragraph must be
submitted in writing to the
Administrator not later than 90 calendar
.days after the effective date of the
relevant standard.
* * * * : *
(6)(i)* * * ;
(B) * * *
(1) The date by which on-site
construction, installation of emission
control equipment, 01; a process change
is planned to be initiated; and
(2) The date by which final
compliance is to be achieved.
(C) [Reserved]
(D) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(12)(i) The Administrator (or the State
with an approved permit program) will
notify the owner or operator in writing
of approval or intention to deny
approval of a request for an extension of
compliance within 30 calendar days
-------
16602
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2 002/Rules and Regulations
after receipt of sufficient information to
evaluate a request submitted under
paragraph (i)(4)(i) or (i)(5) of this
section. The Administrator (or the State]
will notify the owner or operator in
writing of the status of his/her
application, that is, whether the
application contains sufficient
' information to make a determination,
within 30 calendar days after receipt of
the original application and within 30
calendar days after receipt of any
supplementary information that is
submitted. The 30-day approval or
denial period will begin after the owner
or operator has been notified in writing
that his/her application is complete.
*****
(14) The Administrator (or the State
with an approved permit program) may
terminate an extension of compliance at
an earlier date than specified if any
specification under paragraph (i)(10)(iii)
or (iv) of this section is not met. Upon
a determination to terminate, the
Administrator will notify, in writing,
the owner or operator of the
Administrator's determination to
terminate, together with:
(i) Notice of the reason for
termination; and
(ii) Notice of opportunity for the
owner or operator to present in writing,
within 15 calendar days after he/she is
notified of the determination to
terminate, additional information or
arguments to the Administrator before
further action on the termination.
(iii) A final determination to
terminate an extension of compliance
will be in writing and will set forth the
specific grounds on which the
termination is based. The final
determination will be made within 30
calendar days after presentation of
additional information or arguments, or
within 30 calendar days after the final
date specified for the presentation if no
presentation is made.
*****
8. Section 63.7 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2)
introductory text;
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (viii);
c. Revising paragraph (b)(l);
d. Revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b)(2);
e. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(A)
through (B);
f. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(i);
g. Revising paragraphs (e)(2)(i)
through (iii);
h. Revising paragraph (f)(l);
i. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through
(ii); and
j. Revising paragraph (f)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
§63.7 Performance testing requirements.
(a)* * * ;, ', " !y? '
(1) The applicability of this section is
setoutin§63.1(a)(4).
(2) If required to do performance
testing by a relevant standard, and
unless a waiver of performance testing
is obtained under this section or the
conditions of paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of
this section apply, the owner or operator
of the affected source must perform
such tests within 180 days of the
compliance date for such source.
(i)(viii) [Reserved]
*****
(b) * * *
(l) The owner or operator of an
affected source must notify the
Administrator in writing of his or her
intention to conduct a performance test
at least 60 calendar days before the
performance test is initially scheduled
to begin to allow the Administrator,
upon request, to review an approve the
site-specific test plan required under
paragraph (c) of this section and to have
an observer present during the test.
(2) In the event the owner or operator
is unable to conduct the performance
test on the date specified in the
notification requirement specified in
paragraph (b)(l) of this section due to
unforeseeable circumstances beyond his
or her control, the owner or operator
must notify the Administrator as soon as
practicable and without delay prior to
the scheduled performance test date and
specify the date when the performance
test is rescheduled. * * *
(c)* * *
(3)* * *
(ii)* * *
(A) If the owner or operator intends to
demonstrate compliance using the test
method(s) specified in the relevant
standard or. with only minor changes to
those tests methods (see paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section), the owner or
operator must conduct the performance
test within the time specified in this
section using the specified method(s);
(B) If the owner or operator intends to
demonstrate compliance by using an
alternative to any test method specified
in the relevant standard, the owner or
operator is authorized to conduct the
performance test using an alternative
test method after the Administrator
approves the use of the alternative
method when the Administrator
approves the site-specific test plan (if
review of the site-specific test plan is
requested) or after the alternative
method is approved (see paragraph (f) of
this section). However, the owner or
operator is authorized to conduct the
performance test using an alternative
method in the absence of notification of
approval 45 days after submission of the
site-specific test plan or request to use
an alternative method. The owner or
operator is authorized to conduct the
performance test within 60 calendar
days after he/she is'authorized to
demonstrate compliance using an
alternative test method.
Nobtfithstanding the requirements in
the preceding three sentences, the
owner or operator may proceed to
conduct the performance test as
required in this section (without the
Administrator's prior approval of the
site-specific test plan) if he/she
subsequently chooses to use the
specified testing and monitoring
methods instead of an alternative..
* . * * * *
(4)(i) Performance test method audit
program. The owner or operator must
analyze performance audit (PA) samples
during each performance test. The
owner or operator must request
performance audit materials 30 days
prior to the test date. Audit materials
including cylinder audit gases may be
obtained by contacting the appropriate
EPA Regional Office or the responsible
enforcement authority.
*****
(e) *'**'.
(2)* * *
(i) Specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a test method with
minor changes in methodology (see
definition in § 63.90(a)). Such changes
may be approved in conjunction with
approval of the site-specific test plan
(see paragraph (c) of this section); or
(ii) Approves the use of an
intermediate or major change or
alternative to a test method (see
definitions in § 63.90(a)), the results of
which the Administrator has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific affected source is in
compliance; or
(iii) Approves shorter sampling times
or smaller sample volumes when
necessitated by process variables or
other factors; or
*****
(f)*'* *
(1) General. Until authorized to use an
intermediate or major change or
alternative to a test method, the owner
or operator of an affected source
remains subject to the requirements of
this section and the relevant standard
(2) * -* *
(i) Notifies the Administrator of his or
her intention to use an alternative test
method at least 60 days before the
performance test is scheduled to begin;
(ii) Uses Method 301 in appendix A
of this part to validate the alternative
test method. This may include the use
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday,. April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16603
of specific procedures of Method 301 if
use of such procedures are sufficient to
validate the alternative test method; and
*****
(3) The Administrator will determine
whether the owner or operator's
validation of the proposed alternative
test method is adequate and issue an
approval or disapproval of the
alternative test method. If the owner or
operator intends to demonstrate
compliance by using an alternative to
any test method specified in the
relevant standard, the owner or operator
is authorized to conduct the
performance test using an alternative
test method after the Administrator
approves the use of the alternative
method. However, the owner or operator
is authorized to conduct the
performance test using an alternative
method in the absence of notification of
approval/disapproval 45 days after
submission of the request to use an
alternative method and the request
satisfies the requirements in paragraph
(f)(2) of this section. The owner or
operator is authorized to conduct the
performance test within 60 calendar
days after he/she is authorized to
demonstrate compliance using an
alternative test method.
Notwithstanding the requirements in
the preceding three sentences, the
owner or operator may proceed to
conduct the performance test as
required in this section (without the
. Administrator's prior approval of the
site-specific test plan) if he/she
subsequently chooses to use the
specified testing and monitoring
methods instead of an alternative.
*****
9, Section 63.8 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(l);
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(l)(i) and
(ii);
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) ancl
(ii);
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(l)(i)
through (iii);
e. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
f. Revising paragraph (c)(6);
g. Revising paragraph (f)(l);
h. Revising paragraphs (f)(4)(i)
through (ii);
i. Adding paragraph (f)(4)(iv);
j. Revising the heading of paragraph
(f)(5) and revising paragraph (f)(5)(i)
Introductory text;
k. Revising paragraph (g)(l); and
1. Revising paragraph (g)(5).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§63.8 Monitoring requirements.
(a)
(1) The applicability of this section is
setoutin§63.1(a)(4).
*****
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(i) Specifies or approves the use of
minor changes in methodology for the
specified monitoring requirements and
procedures' (see § 63.90(a) for
definition); or
(ii) Approves the use of an
intermediate or major change or
alternative to any monitoring
requirements or procedures (see
§ 63.90(a) for definition).
* * * * *
(2)(i) When the emissions from two or
more affected sources are combined
before being released to the atmosphere,
the owner or operator may install an
applicable CMS for each emission
stream or for the combined emissions
streams, provided the monitoring is
sufficient to demonstrate compliance
with the relevant standard.
(ii) If the relevant standard is a mass
emission standard and the emissions
from one affected source are released to
the atmosphere through more than one
point, the owner or operator must install
an applicable CMS at each emission
point unless the installation of fewer
systems is
*****
(c)* * *
(l)(i) The owner or operator of an
affected source must maintain and
operate each CMS as specified in
§63.6(e)(l).
(ii) The owner or operator must keep
the necessary parts for routine repairs of
the affected CMS equipment readily
available.
(iii) The owner or operator of an
affected source must develop and
implement a written startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan for CMS as
specified in § 63.6(e)(3).
(2)(i) All CMS must be installed such
that representative measures of
emissions or process parameters from
the affected source are obtained. In
addition, GEMS must be located
according to procedures contained in
the applicable performance
specification(s).
(ii) Unless the individual subpart
states otherwise, the owner or operator
must ensure the read out (that portion
of the CMS that provides a visual
display or record), or other indication of
operation, from any CMS required for
compliance with the emission standard
is readily accessible on site for
operational control or inspection by the
operator of the equipment.
*****
(6) The owner or operator of a CMS
that is not a CPMS, which is installed
in accordance with the provisions of
this part and the applicable CMS
performance specification(s), must
check the zero (low-level) and high-
level calibration drifts at least once
daily in accordance with the written
procedure specified in the performance
evaluation plan developed under
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii)'of this
section. The zero (low-level) and high-
level calibration drifts must be adjusted,
at a minimum, whenever the 24-hour
zero (low-level) drift exceeds two times
the limits of the applicable performance
specification(s) specified in 'the relevant
standard. The system shall allow the
amount of excess zero (low-level) and
high-level drift measured at the 24-hour
interval checks to be recorded and
quantified whenever specified. For
COM3, all optical and instrumental
surfaces exposed to the effluent gases
must be cleaned prior to performing the
zero (low-level) and high-level drift
adjustments; the optical surfaces and
instrumental surfaces must be cleaned
when the cumulative automatic zero
compensation, if applicable, exceeds 4
percent opacity. The CPMS must be
calibrated prior to use for the purposes
of complying with this section. The
CPMS must be checked daily for
indication that the system is
responding. If the CPMS system
includes an internal system-check,
results must be recorded and checked
daily for proper operation.
* * * * ' *
(f)* * *
(1) General. Until permission to use
an alternative monitoring procedure
(minor, intermediate, or major changes;
see definition in § 63.90(a)) has been
granted by the Administrator under this
paragraph (f)(l), the owner or operator
of an affected source;remains subject to
the requirements of this section and the
relevant standard.
***.**
(4)(i) Request to use alternative
monitoring procedure. An owner or
operator who wishes to use an
alternative monitoring procedure must
submit an application to the
Administrator as described in paragraph
(f)(4)(ii) of this section. The application
may be submitted at 'any time provided
that the monitoring procedure is not the
performance test method used to
demonstrate compliance with a relevant
standard or other requirement. If the
alternative monitoring procedure will
serve as the performance test method
that is to be used to demonstrate
compliance with a relevant standard,
the application must be submitted at
least 60 days before the performance
evaluation is scheduled to begin and
-------
16604
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
must meet the requirements for an
alternative test method under § 63.7(f).
(ii) The application must contain a
description of the proposed alternative
monitoring system which addresses the
four elements contained in the
definition of monitoring in § 63.2 and a
performance evaluation test plan, if
required, as specified in paragraph (e)(3)
of this section. In addition, the
application must include information
justifying the owner or operator's
request for an alternative monitoring
method, such as the technical or
economic infeasibility, or the
impracticality, of the affected source
using the required method.
* . * * * *
(iv) Application for minor changes to
monitoring procedures, as specified in
paragraph (b)(l) of this section, may be
made in the site-specific performance
evaluation plan.
(5) Approval of request to use
alternative monitoring procedure.
(i) The Administrator will notify the
owner or operator of approval or
intention to deny approval of the
request to use an alternative monitoring
method within 30 calendar days after
receipt of the original request and
within 30 calendar days after receipt of
any supplementary information that is
submitted. If a request for a minor
change is made in conjunction with site-
specific performance evaluation plan,
then approval of the plan will constitute
approval of the minor change. Before
disapproving any request to use an
alternative monitoring method, the
Administrator will notify the applicant
of the Administrator's intention to
disapprove the request together with
*****
(g) Reduction of monitoring data.
(1) The owner or operator of each
CMS must reduce the monitoring data
as specified in paragraphs (g)(l) through
(5) of this section.
*****
(5) Monitoring data recorded during
periods of unavoidable CMS
breakdowns, out-of-control periods,
repairs, maintenance periods,
calibration checks, and zero (low-level)
and high-level adjustments must not be
included in any data average computed
under this part. For the owner or
operator complying with the
requirements of §63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A) or
(B), data averages must include any data
recorded during periods of monitor
breakdown or malfunction.
10. Section 63.9 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (aHl);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv);
c. Removing and reserving paragraph
d. Revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b)(4);
e. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(i);
f. Removing and reserving paragraphs
(b)(4)(ii) through (iii).
g. Revising paragraph [b)(5);
h. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(i)(E); and
i. Revising the first sentence of
paragraph (h)(2)(ii);
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§63.9 Notification requirements.
(a)* * *
(1) The applicability of this section is
setoutin§63.1(a)(4).
*****
(b)* * *
(2)* * *
(iv) A brief description of the nature,
size, design, and method of operation of
the source and an identification of the
types of emission points within the
affected source subject to the relevant
standard and types of hazardous air
pollutants emitted; and
*****
(3) [Reserved]
(4) The owner or operator of a new or
reconstructed major affected source for
which an application for approval of
construction or reconstruction is
required under § 63.5(d) must provide
the following information in writing to
the Administrator:
(i) A notification of intention to
construct a new major-emitting affected
source, reconstruct a major-emitting
affected source, or reconstruct a major
source such that the source becomes a
major-emitting affected source with the
application for approval of construction
or reconstruction as specified in
§63.5(d)(l)(i);and
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) [Reserved]
******
(5) The owner or operator of a new or
reconstructed affected source for which
an application for approval of
construction or reconstruction is not
required under § 63.5(d) must provide
the following information in writing to
the Administrator:
(i) A notification of intention to
construct a new affected source,
reconstruct an affected source, or
reconstruct a source such that the
source becomes an affected source, and
(ii) A notification of the actual date of
startup of the source, delivered or
postmarked within 15 calendar days
after that date.
(iii) Unless the owner or operator has
requested and received prior permission
from the Administrator to submit less
than the information in § 63.5(d), the
notification must include the
information required on the application
for approval of construction or
reconstruction as specified in
(h)* * *
(2)(i) * * *
(E) If the relevant standard applies to
both major and area sources, an analysis
demonstrating whether the affected
source is a major source (using the
emissions data generated for this
notification);
*****
(ii) The notification must be sent
before the close of business on the 60th
day following the completion of the
relevant compliance demonstration
activity (or activities that have the same
compliance date) specified in the
relevant standard (unless a different
reporting period is specified in the
standard, in which case the letter must
be sent before the close of business on
the day the report of the relevant testing
or monitoring results is required to be
delivered or postmarked). * * *
* * * - * *
11. Section 63.10 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(l);
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)
through (b)(2)(v);
c. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and
d. Revising the second sentence of
paragraph (d)(5)(i).
The revisions read as follows:
§63.10 Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
(a)* * *
(1) The applicability of this section is
set out in §63.1(a)(4).
*****
(b) * *- *
. (2)* * * '
(ii) The occurrence and duration of
each malfunction of the required air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment;
(iii) All required maintenance
performed on the air pollution control
and monitoring equipment;
(iv) Actions taken during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(including corrective actions to restore
malfunctioning process and air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation) when such actions
are different from the procedures
specified in the affected source's
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan (see §63.6(e)(3));
, (v) All information necessary to
demonstrate conformance with the
affected source's startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (see § 63.6(e)(3)) when
all actions taken during periods of
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16605
startup, shutdown, and;malfunction
(including corrective actions to restore
malfunctioning process and air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation) are consistent with
the procedures specified in such plan.
(The information needed to demonstrate
conformance with the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan may be
recorded using a "checklist," or some
other effective form of recordkeeping, in
order to minimize the recordkeeping
burden for conforming events);
*****
(3) Recordkeeping requirement for
applicability determinations. If an
owner or operator determines that his or
her stationary source that emits (or has
the potential to emit, without
considering controls) one or more
hazardous air pollutants regulated by
any standard established pursuant to
section 112(d) or (f), and that stationary
source is in the source category
regulated by the relevant standard, but
that source is not subject to the relevant
standard (or other requirement
established under this part) because of
limitations on the source's potential to
emit or an exclusion, the owner or
operator must keep a record of the
applicability determination on site at
the source for a period of 5 years after
the determination, or until the source
changes its operations to become an
affected source, whichever comes first.
The record of the applicability
determination must be signed by the
person making the determination and
include an analysis (or other
information) that demonstrates why the
owner or operator believes the source is
unaffected (e.g., because the source is an
area source). The analysis (or other
information) must be sufficiently
detailed to allow the Administrator to
make a finding about the source's
applicability status with regard to the
relevant standard or other requirement.
irrelevant, the analysis must be
performed in accordance with
requirements established in relevant
subparts of this part for this purpose for
particular categories of stationary
sources. Ifrelevant, the analysis should
be performed in accordance with EPA
guidance materials published to as'sist
sources in making applicability
determinations under section 112, if
any. The requirements to determine
applicability of a standard under
§ 63.1(b)(3) and to record the results of
that determination under paragraph
(b)(3) of this section shall not by
themselves create an obligation for the
owner or operator to obtain a title V
permit.
*****
(d)* * *
(5)(i) * * * Reports shall only be
required if a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction occurred.during the
reporting period, and they must include
the number, duration, and a brief
description of each startup, shutdown,
or malfunction. * * *
*****
12. Section 63.11 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 63.11 Control device requirements.
(a) Applicability. The applicability of
this section is set out in § 63.1(a)(4).
Subpart B[Amended]
13. Section 63.50 is amended by:
1. Revising paragraph (a);
2. Revising paragraph (b); and
3. Removing and reserving paragraph
(c) as follows:
§63.50 Applicability.
(a) General applicability. (1) The
requirements of this section through
§ 63.56 implement section 112(j) of the
Clean Air Act (as amended in 1990).
The requirements of this section
through § 63.56 apply in each State
beginning on the effective date of an
approved title V permit program in such
State. The requirements of this section
through § 63.56 do not apply to research
or laboratory activities as defined in
§63.51.
(2) The requirements of this section
through § 63.56 apply to:
(i) The owner or operator of affected
sources within a source category or
subcategory under this part that are
located at a major source that is subject
to an approved title V permit program
and for which the Administrator has
failed to promulgate emission standards
by the section 112(j) deadlines. If title V
applicability has been deferred for a
source category, then section 112(j) is
not applicable for sources in that
category within that State, local or tribal
jurisdiction until those sources become
subject to title V permitting
requirements; and
(ii) Permitting authorities with an
approved title V permit program.
(b) Relationship to State and local
requirements. Nothing in §§ 63.50
through 63.56 shall prevent a State or
local regulatory agency from imposing
more stringent requirements, as a matter
of State or local law, than those
contained in §§ 63.50 through 63.56.
(c) [Reserved]
14. Section 63.51 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text of
this section;
b. Adding in alphabetical order the
definition of affected source;
c. In the definition of Available
information by revising the introductory
text and paragraphs (2) through (5);
d. Removing the definition of
emission point;
e. Removing the definition of
emission unit;
f. Revising the definition of enhanced
review;
g. Revising the definition of
equivalent emission limitation;
h. Removing the definition of existing
major source;
i. Revising paragraphs (l)(i) and (ii) of
the definition of maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) floor;
j. Adding in alphabetical order the
definition of new affected source;
k. Removing the definition of new
emission unit; '
1. Removing the definition of new
major source;
m. Adding in alphabetical order the
definition of research or laboratory
activities. ;
n. Revising the definition of section
112(j) deadline; ,
o. Revising the definition of similar
source; and i
p. Removing the definition of United
States;
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§63.51 Definitions.
Terms used in §§ 63.50 through 63.56
that are not defined in this section have
the meaning given to them in the Act,
or in subpart A of this part.
Affected source means the collection
of equipment, activities, or both within
a single contiguous area and under
common control that is in a section
112(c) source category or subcategory
for which the Administrator has failed
to promulgate an emission standard by
the section 112(j) deadline, and that is
addressed by an applicable MACT
emission limitation established
pursuant to this subpart.
Available information means, for
purposes of conducting a MACT floor
finding and identifying control
technology options under this subpart,
any information that is available as of
the date on which thje first Part 2 MACT
application is filed for a source in the
relevant source category or subcategory
in the State or jurisdiction; and,
pursuant to the requirements of this
subpart, is additional relevant
information that can be expeditiously
provided by the Administrator, is
submitted by the applicant or others
prior to or during the public comment
-------
16606
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
period on the section 112(j) equivalent
emission limitation for that source, or
information contained in the
information sources in paragraphs (1)
through (5) of this definition.
(1) * * *
(2) Relevant background information
documents for a draft or proposed
regulation.
(3) Any relevant regulation,
information or guidance collected by the
Administrator establishing a MACT
floor finding and/or MACT
determination.
(4) Relevant data and information
available from the Clean Air Technology
Center developed pursuant to section
112(l)(3)oftheAct.
(5) Relevant data and information
contained in the Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS).
*****
Enhanced review means a review
process containing all administrative
steps needed to ensure that the terms
and conditions resulting from the
review process can be incorporated
using title V permitting procedures.
Equivalent emission limitation means
an emission limitation, established
under section 112(j) of the Act, which
is equivalent to the MACT standard that
EPA would have promulgated under
section 112(d) or (h) of the Act.
*****
Maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) floor means:
(1) * * *
(i) The average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12
percent of the existing sources in the
United States (for which the
Administrator has emissions
information), excluding those sources
that have,.within 18 months before the
emission standard is proposed or within
30 months before such standard is
promulgated, whichever is later, first
achieved a level of emission rate or
emission reduction which complies, or
would comply if the source is not
subject to such standard, with the
lowest achievable emission rate (as
defined in section 171 of the Act)
applicable to the source category and
prevailing at the time, in the category or
subcategory, for categories and
subcategories of stationary sources with
30 or more sources; or
(ii) The average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing five
sources (for which the Administrator
has or could reasonably obtain .
emissions information) in the category
or subcategory, for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30
sources;
New affected source means the
collection of equipment, activities, or
both, that if constructed after the
issuance of a section 112(j) permit for
the source pursuant to § 63.52, is subject
to the applicable MACT emission
limitation for new sources/Each permit
must define the term "new affected
source," which will be the same as the
"affected source" unless a different
collection is warranted based on
consideration of factors including:
(1) Emission reduction impacts of
controlling individual sources versus
groups of sources;
(2) Cost effectiveness of controlling
individual equipment;
(3) Flexibility to accommodate
common control strategies;
(4) Cost/benefits of emissions
averaging;
(5) Incentives for pollution
prevention;
(6) Feasibility and cost of controlling
processes that share common equipment
(e.g., product recovery devices);
(7) Feasibility and cost of monitoring;
and
(8) Other relevant factors.
* * * * *
Research or laboratory activities
means activities whose primary purpose
is to conduct research and development
into new processes and products where
such activities are operated under the
close supervision of technically trained
personnel and are not engaged in the
manufacture of products for commercial
sale in commerce, except in a de
minimis manner; and where the source
is not in a source category, specifically
addressing research or laboratory
activities, that is listed pursuant to
section 112(c)(7) of the Act.
Section 112(j) deadline means the
date 18 months after the date for which
a relevant standard is scheduled to be
promulgated under this part, except that
for all major sources listed in the source
category schedule for which a relevant
standard is scheduled to be promulgated
by November 15,1994, the section
112(j) deadline is November 15, 1996,
and for all major sources listed in the
source category schedule for which a
relevant standard is scheduled to be
promulgated by November 15,1997, the
section 112(j) deadline is December 15,
1999.
Similar source means that equipment
or collection of equipment that, by
virtue of its structure, operability, type
of emissions and volume and,
concentration of emissions, is
substantially equivalent to the new
affected source and employs control
technology for control of emissions of
hazardous air pollutants that is practical
.for use on the new affected source.
**'***
15. Section 63.52 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 63.52 Approval process for new and
existing affected sources.
(a) Sources subject to section 112(j) as
of the section 112(j) deadline. The
requirements of paragraphs (a)(l) and
(2) of this section apply to major sources
that include, as of the section 112(j)
deadline, one or more sources in a
category or subcategory for which the
Administrator has failed to promulgate
an emission standard under this part on
or before an applicable section 112(j)
deadline. Existing source MACT
requirements (including relevant
compliance deadlines), as specified in a
title V permit issued to the source
pursuant to the requirements of the
subpart, must apply to such sources.
(l) The owner or operator must
submit an application for a title V
permit or for a revision to an existing
title V permit or a pending title V permit
meeting the requirements of § 63.53(a)
by the section 112(j) deadline if the
owner or operator can reasonably
determine that one or more sources at
the major source belong in the category
or subcategory subject to section 112(j).
(2) If an application was not
submitted under paragraph (a)(l) of this
section and if notified by the permitting
authority, the owner or operator must
submit an application, for a title V
permit or for a revision to an existing
title V permit or a pending title V permit
meeting the requirements of § 63.53(a)
within 30'days after being notified in
writing by the permitting authority that
one or more sources at the major source
belong to such category or subcategory.
Permitting authorities are not required'
to make such notification.
(3) The requirements in paragraphs
(a)(3)(i) through (ii) of this section apply
when the owner or operator has
obtained a title V permit that
incorporates a case-by-case MACT
determination by the permitting
authority under section 112(g) or has
submitted a title V permit application
for a revision that incorporates a case-
by-case MACT determination under
section 112(g), but has not submitted an
application for a title V permit revision
that addresses the emission limitation
requirements of section 112(j).
(i) When the owner or operator has a
title V permit that incorporates a case-
by-case MACT determination by the
permitting authority under section
112(g), the owner or operator must
submit an application meeting the
requirements of § 63.53(a) for a title V
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16607
permit revision within 30 days of the
section 112(j) deadline or within 30
days of being notified in writing by the
permitting authority that one or more
sources at the major source belong in
such category or subcategory. Using the
procedures established in paragraph (e)
of this section, the permitting authority
must determine whether the emission
limitations adopted pursuant to the
prior case-by-case MACT determination
under section 112[g) are substantially as
effective as the emission limitations
which the permitting authority would
otherwise adopt pursuant to section
112(j) for the source in question. If the
permitting authority determines that the
emission limitations previously adopted
to effectuate section 112(g) are
substantially as effective as the emission
limitations which the permitting
authority would otherwise adopt to
effectuate section 112(j) for the source,
then the permitting authority must
retain the existing emission limitations
in the permit as the emission limitations
to effectuate section 112(j). The title V
permit applicable to that source must be
revised accordingly. If the permitting
authority does not retain the existing
emission limitations in the permit as the
emission limitations to effectuate
section 112(j), the MACT requirements
of this subpart are satisfied upon
issuance of a revised title V permit
incorporating any additional section
112(j) requirements.
(ii) When the owner or operator has
submitted a title V permit application
that incorporates a case-by-case MACT
determination by the permitting
authority under section 112(g), but has
not received the permit incorporating
the section 112(g) requirements, the
owner or operator must continue to
pursue a title V permit that addresses
the emission limitation requirements of
section 112(g). Within 30 days of
issuance of that title V permit, the
owner or operator must submit an
application meeting the requirements of
§ 63.53(a) for a change to the existing
title V permit. Using the procedures
established in paragraph (e) of this
section, the permitting authority must
determine whether the emission
limitations adopted pursuant to the
prior case-by-case MACT determination
under section 112(g) are substantially as
effective as the emission limitations
which the permitting authority would
otherwise adopt pursuant to section
112(j) for the source in question. If the
permitting authority'determines that the
emission limitations previously adopted
to effectuate section 112(g) are
substantially as effective as the emission
limitations which the permitting
authority would otherwise adopt to
effectuate section 112(j) for the source,
then the permitting authority must
retain the existing emission limitations
in the permit as the emission limitations.
to effectuate section 112(j). The title V
permit applicable to that source must be
revised accordingly. If the permitting
authority does riot retain the existing
emission limitations in the permit as the
emission limitations to effectuate
section 112(j), the MACT requirements
of this subpart are satisfied upon
issuance of a revised title V permit
incorporating any additional section
112(i) requirements.
(b) Sources that become subject to
section 112(j) after the section 112(j)
deadline and that do not have a title V
permit addressing section 112(j)
requirements. The requirements of
paragraphs (b)(l) through (4) of this
section apply to sources that do not
meet the criteria in paragraph (a) of this
section on the section 112(j) deadline
and are, therefore, not subject to section
112(j) on that date, but where events
occur subsequent to the section 112(j)
deadline that would bring the source
under the requirements of this subpart,
and the source does not have a title .V
permit that addresses the requirements
of section 112(j).
(1) When one or more sources in a
category or subcategory subject to the
requirements of this subpart are
installed at a major source, or result in
the source becoming a major source due
to the installation, and the installation
does not invoke section 112(g)
requirements, the owner or operator
must submit an application meeting the
requirements of § 63.53(a) within 30
days of startup of the source. This
application shall be reviewed using the
procedures established in paragraph (e)
of this section. Existing source MACT
requirements (including relevant
compliance deadlines), as specified in a
title V permit issued pursuant to the
requirements of this subpart, shall apply
to such sources.
(2) The requirements in this
paragraph apply when one or more
sources in a category or subcategory
subject to this subpart are installed at a
major source, or result in the source
becoming a major source due to the
installation, and the installation does
require emission limitations to be
established and permitted under section
112(g), and the owner or operator has
not submitted an application for a title
V permit revision that addresses the
emission limitation requirements of
section 112(j). In this case, the owner or
operator must apply for and obtain a
title V permit that addresses the
emission limitation requirements of
section 112(g). Within 30 days of
issuance of that title V permit, the
owner or operator must submit an
application meeting the requirements of
§ 63.53(a) for a revision to the existing
title V permit. Using the procedures
established in paragraph (e) of this
section, the permitting authority must
determine whether the emission
limitations adopted pursuant to the
prior case-by-case MACT determination
under section 112(g) are substantially as
effective as the emission limitations
which the permitting authority would
otherwise adopt pursuant to section
112(j) for the source in question. If the
permitting authority determines that the
emission limitations previously adopted
to effectuate section il2(g) are
substantially as effective as the emission
limitations which the permitting
authority would otiierwise adopt to
effectuate section 112(j) for the source,
then the permitting authority must
retain the existing emission limitations
in the permit as the emission limitations
to effectuate section 112(j). The title V
permit applicable to that source must be
revised accordingly. If the permitting
authority does not retain the existing
emission limitations (in the permit as die
emission limitations [to effectuate
section 112(j), the MACT requirements
of this subpart are satisfied upon
issuance of a revised title V permit
incorporating any additional section
112(i) requirements.
(3J The owner or operator of an area
source that, due to a relaxation in any
federally enforceable emission
limitation (such as a restriction on hours
of operation), increases its potential to
emit hazardous air pollutants such that
the source becomes a major source that
is subject to this subpart, must submit
an application meeting the requirements
of § 63.53(a) for a title V permit or for
ah application for a title V permit
revision within 30 days after the date
that such source becomes a major
source. This application must be
reviewed using the procedures
established in paragraph (e) of this
section. Existing source MACT
requirements (including relevant
compliance deadlines), as specified in a
title V permit issued pursuant to the
requirements of this subpart, must apply
to such sources.
(4) On or after April 5, 2002, if the
Administrator establishes a lesser
quantity emission rate under section
112(a)(l) of the Act that results in an
area source becoming a major source
that is subject to this subpart, then the
owner or operator of such a major
source must submit an application
meeting the requirements of § 63.53(a)
for a title V permit or for a change to an
-------
16608
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
existing title V permit or pending title
V permit on or before the date 6 months
after the date that such source becomes
a major source. Existing source MACT
requirements (including relevant
compliance deadlines), as specified in a
title V permit issued pursuant to the
requirements of this subpart, shall apply
' to such sources.
(c) Sources that have a title Vpermit
addressing section 112(j) requirements.
The requirements of paragraphs (c)(l)
and (2) of this section apply to major
sources that include one or more
sources in a category or subcategory for
which the Administrator fails to
promulgate an emission standard under
this part on or before an applicable
section 112(j) deadline, and the owner
or operator has a permit meeting the
section 112(j) requirements, and where
changes occur at the major source to
equipment, activities, or both,
subsequent to the section 112(j)
deadline.
(1) If the title V permit already
provides the appropriate requirements
that address the events that occur under
paragraph (c) of this section subsequent
to the section 112(j) deadline, then the
source must comply with the applicable
new source MACT or existing source
MACT requirements as specified in the
permit, and the section 112(j)
requirements are thus satisfied.
(2) If the title V permit does not
contain the appropriate requirements
that address the events that occur under
paragraph (c) of this section subsequent
to the section 112(j) deadline, then the
owner or operator must submit an
application for a revision to the existing
title V permit that meets the
requirements of §63.53(a). The
application must be submitted within
30 days of beginning construction and
must be reviewed using the procedures
established in paragraph (e) of this
section. Existing source MACT
requirements (including relevant
compliance deadlines), as specified in a
title V permit issued pursuant to the
requirements of this subpart, shall apply
to such sources.
(d) Requests for applicability
determination or notice of MACT
approval.
(1) An owner or operator who is
unsure of whether one or more sources
at a major source belong in a category
or subcategory for which the
Administrator has failed to promulgate
an emission standard under this part
may, on or before an applicable section
112(j) deadline, request an applicability
determination from the permitting
authority by submitting an application
meeting the requirements of § 63.53(a)
by the applicable deadlines specified in
paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
(2) In addition to meeting the
requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) of this section, the owner or operator
of a new affected source may submit an
application for a Notice of MACT
Approval before construction, pursuant
to §63.54. ,
(e) Permit application review.
(1) Within 24 months after an owner
or operator submits a Part 1 MACT
application meeting the requirements of
§ 63.53(a), the owner or operator must
submit a Part 2 MACT application
meeting the requirements of § 63.53(b).
Part 2 MACT applications must be
reviewed by the permitting authority
according to procedures established in
§ 63.55. The resulting MACT
determination must be incorporated into
the source's title V permit according to
procedures established under title V,
and any other regulations approved
under title V in the jurisdiction in
which the affected source is located.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(l)
of this section, the owner or operator
may request either an applicability
determination or an equivalency
determination by the permitting
authority as provided in paragraphs
(e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) As specified in paragraph (d)(l) of
this section, an owner or operator may
request, through submittal of an
application pursuant to § 63.53(a), a
determination by the permitting
authority of whether one or more
sources at a major source belong in a
category or subcategory for which the
Administrator has failed to promulgate
an emission standard Under this part. If
the applicability determination is
positive, the owner or operator must
comply with the applicable provisions
of this subpart. The owner or operator
must submit a Part 2 MACT application
within 24 months after being notified of
the positive applicability determination.
If the applicability determination is
negative, then no further action by the
owner or operator is necessary.
(ii) As specified in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section, an owner or operator
may request, through submittal of an
application meeting the requirements of
§ 63.53(a), a determination by the
permitting authority of whether
emission limitations adopted pursuant
to a prior case^by-case MACT
determination under section 112(g) that
apply to one or more sources at a major
source in a relevant category or
subcategory are substantially as effective
as the emission limitations which the
permitting authority would otherwise
adopt pursuant to section 112(j) for the
source in question. The process for
determination by the permitting
authority of whether the emission
limitations in the prior case-by-case
MACT determination are substantially
as effective as the emission limitations
which the permitting authority would
otherwise adopt under section 112(j)
must include the opportunity for full
public, EPA, and affected State review
prior to a final determination. If the
permitting authority determines that the
emission limitations in the prior case-
by-case MACT determination are
substantially as effective as the emission
limitations which the permitting
authority would otherwise adopt under
section 112(j), then the permitting
authority must adopt the existing
emission limitations in the permit as the
emission limitations to effectuate
section 112(j) for the source in question.
If more than 3 years remain on the
current title V permit, the owner or
operator must submit an application for
a title V permit revision to make any
conforming changes in the permit
required to adopt the existing emission
limitations as the section 112(j) MACT
emission limitations. If less than 3 years
remain on the current title V permit, any
required conforming changes must be >
made when the permit is renewed. If the
permitting authority determines that the
emission limitations in the prior case-
by-case MACT determination under
section 112(g) are not substantially as
effective as the emission limitations
which the permitting authority would
otherwise adopt for the source in
question under section 112(j), the owner
or operator must comply with the
applicable provisions of this subpart.
The owner or operator must submit a
Part 2 MACT application within 24
months of being notified of such a
negative determination. A negative
determination under this section
constitutes final action for purposes of
judicial review under 40 CFR
70.4(b)(3)(x) and corresponding State
title V program provisions.
(3) Within 60 days of submittal of the
Part 2 MACT application, the permitting
authority must notify the owner or
operator in writing whether the
application is complete or incomplete.
The Part 2 MACT application shall be
deemed complete on the date it was
submitted unless the permitting
authority notifies the owner or operator
in writing within 60 days of the
submittal that the Part 2 MACT
application is incomplete. A Part 2
MACT application is complete if it is
sufficient to begin processing the
application for a title V permit
addressing section 112(j) requirements.
In the event that the permitting
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16609
authority disapproves a permit
application or determines that the
application is incomplete, the owner or
operator must revise and resubmit the
application to meet the objections of the
permitting authority. The permitting
authority must specify a reasonable
period in which the owner or operator
is required to remedy the deficiencies in
the disapproved or incomplete
application. This period may not exceed
6 months from the date the owner or
operator is first notified that the
application has been disapproved or is
incomplete.
(4) Following submittal of a Part 1 or
Part 2 MACT application, the permitting
authority may request additional
information from the owner or operator.
The owner or operator must respond to
such requests in a timely manner.
(5) If the owner or operator has
submitted a timely and complete
application as required by this section,
any failure to have a title V permit
addressing section 112(j) requirements
shall not be a violation of section 112(j),
unless the delay in final action is due
to the failure of the applicant to submit,
in a timely manner, information
required or requested to process the
application. Once a complete
application is submitted, the owner or
operator shall not be in violation of the
requirement to have a title V permit
addressing section 112(j) requirements.
(f) Permit content. The title V permit
must contain an equivalent emission
limitation (or limitations) for the
relevant category or subcategory
determined on a case-by-case basis by-
the permitting authority, or, if the
applicable criteria in subpart D of this
part are met, the title V permit may
contain an alternative emission
limitation. For the purposes of the
preceding sentence, early reductions
made pursuant to section 112(i)(5)(A) of
the Act must be achieved not later than
the date on which the relevant standard
should have been promulgated
according to the source category
schedule for standards.
(1) The title V permit must contain an
emission standard or emission
limitation that is equivalent to existing
source MACT and an emission standard
or emission limitation that is equivalent
to new source MACT for control of
emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
The MACT emission standards or
limitations must be determined by the
permitting authority and must be based
on the degree of emission reductions
that can be achieved if the control
technologies or work practices are
installed, maintained, and operated
properly. The permit must also specify
the affected source and the new affected
source. If construction of a new affected
source or reconstruction of an affected
source commences after a title V permit
meeting the requirements of section
112(j) has been issued for the source, the
new source MACT compliance dates
must apply.
(2) The title V permit must specify
any notification, operation and
maintenance, performance testing,
monitoring, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. In
developing the title V permit, the
permitting authority must consider and
specify the appropriate provisions of
subpart A of this part. The title V permit
must also include the information in
paragraphs (fj(2)(i} through (iii) of this
section.
(i) In addition to the MACT emission
limitation required by paragraph (f)(l) of
this section, additional emission limits,
production limits, operational limits or
other terms and conditions necessary to
ensure practicable enforceability of the
MACT emission limitation.
(ii) Compliance certifications, testing,
monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that are
consistent with requirements
established, pursuant to title V and
paragraph (h) of this section.
(iii) Compliance dates by which the
owner or operator must be in
compliance with the MACT emission
limitation and all other applicable terms
and conditions of the permit.
(A) The owner or operator of an
affected source subject to the
requirements of this subpart must
comply with the emission limitation(s)
by the date established in the source's
title V permit. In no case shall such
compliance date be later than 3 years
after the issuance of the permit for that
source, except where the permitting
authority issues a permit that grants an
additional year to comply in accordance
with section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act, or
unless otherwise specified in section
112 (i), or in subpart D of this part.
(B) The owner or operator of a new
affected source, as defined in the title V
permit meeting the requirements of
section 112(j), that is subject to the
requirements of this subpart must
comply with a new source MACT level
of control immediately upon startup of
the new affected source.
(g) Permit issuance dates.
The permitting authority must issue a
title V permit meeting section 112(j)
requirements within 18 months after
submittal of the complete Part 2 MACT
application.
(h) Enhanced monitoring. In
accordance with section 114(a)(3) of the
Act, monitoring shall be capable of
demonstrating continuous compliance
for each compliance period during the
applicable reporting period. Such
monitoring data shall be of sufficient
quality to be used as a basis for directly
enforcing all applicable requirements
established under this subpart,
including emission limitations.
(i) MACT emission limitations.
(1) The owner or operator of affected
sources subject to paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c) of this section must comply with
all requirements of this subpart that are
applicable to affected sources, including
the compliance date for affected sources
established in paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(A) of
this section.
(2) The owner or operator of new
affected sources subject to paragraph
(c)(l) of this section must comply with
all requirements of this subpart that are
applicable to new affected sources,
including the compliance date for new
affected sources established in
paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.
16. Section 63.53 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 63.53 Application content for case-by-
case MACT determinations.
(a) Port I MACT application. The Part
1 application for a MACT determination
must contain the information in
paragraphs (a)(l) through (4) of this
section.
(1) The name and address (physical
location) of the major source.
(2) A brief description of the major
source and an identification of the
relevant source category.
(3) An identification of the types of
emission points belonging to the
relevant source category.
(4) An identification of any affected
sources for which a section t!2(g)
MACT determination has been made.
(b) Part 2 MACT application.
(1) The Part 2 application for a MACT
determination must contain the
information in paragraphs (b)(l)(i)
through (vi) of this section.
(i) For a new affected source, the
anticipated date of startup of operation.
(ii) The hazardous air pollutants
emitted by each affected source in the
relevant source category and an
estimated total uncontrolled and
controlled emission rate for hazardous
air pollutants from the affected source.
(iii) Any existing Federal, State, or
local limitations or requirements
applicable to the affected source.
(iv) For each affected emission point
or group of affected emission points, an
identification of control technology in
place. !
(v) Information relevant to
establishing the MACT floor, and, at the
option of the owner or operator, a
recommended MACT floor.
-------
16610
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
(vi) Any other information reasonably
needed by the permitting authority
including, at the discretion of the
permitting authority, information
required pursuant to subpart A of this
part.
(2) The Part 2 application for a MACT
determination may, but is not required
to, contain the following information:
(i) Recommended emission
limitations for the affected source and
support information consistent with
§ 63.52(f). The owner or operator may
recommend a specific design,
equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination
thereof, as an emission limitation.
(ii) A description of the control
technologies that would be applied to
meet the emission limitation including
technical information on the design,
operation, size, estimated control
efficiency and any other information
deemed appropriate by the permitting
authority, and identification of the
affected sources to which the control
technologies must be applied.
(iii) Relevant parameters to be
monitored and frequency of monitoring
to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the MACT emission limitation over
the applicable reporting period.
17. Section 63.54 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading and
adding introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(l) through
(2);
c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory
text;
d. Revising paragraph (b)(6);
e. Revising paragraph (c)(3);
f. Revising paragraph (d);
g. Removing paragraph (e);
h. Removing paragraph (f);
i. Redesignating paragraph (g) as (e)
and revising newly designated
paragraph (e); and
j. Redesignating paragraph (h) as (f).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§63.54 Preconstruction review procedures
for new affected sources.
The requirements of this section
apply to an owner or operator who
constructs a new affected source subject
to § 63.52(cXl). The purpose of this
section is to describe alternative review
processes that the permitting authority
may use to make a MACT determination
for .the new affected source.
(a) Review process for new affected
sources. (1) If the permitting authority
requires an owner or operator to obtain
or revise a title V permit before
construction of the new affected source,
or when the owner or operator chooses
to obtain or revise a title V permit before
construction, the owner or operator
must follow the procedures established
under the applicable title V permit -
program before construction of the new
affected source.
(2) If an owner or operator is not
required to obtain or revise a title V
permit before construction of the new
affected source (and has not elected to
do so), but the new affected source is
covered by any preconstruction or
preoperation review requirements
established pursuant to section 112 (g) of
the Act, then the owner or operator
must comply with those requirements in
order to ensure that the requirements of
section 112(j) and (g) are satisfied. If the
new affected source is not covered by
section 112(g), the permitting authority,
in its discretion, may issue a Notice of
MACT Approval, or the equivalent, in
accordance with the procedures set
forth in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this
section, or an equivalent permit review
process, before construction or
operation of the new affected source.
* * * * *
(b) Optional administrative
procedures for preconstruction or
preoperation review for new affected
sources. The permitting authority may
provide for an-enhanced review of
section 112(j) MACT determinations for
review procedures and compliance
requirements equivalent to those set
forth in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this
section.
*****
(6) Approval of an applicant's
proposed control technology must be set
forth in a Notice of MACT Approval [or
the equivalent] as described in
§ 63.52(f).
(c) Opportunity for public comment
on notice of MACT approval. * * *
*****
(3) A notice by prominent
advertisement in the area affected of the
location of the source information and
analysis specified in § 63.52(f). The form
and content of the notice must be
substantially equivalent to that found in
§70.7 of this chapter.
*****
(d) Review by the EPA and affected
States. The permitting authority must
send copies of the preliminary notice (in
time for comment) and final notice
required by paragraph (c) of this section
to the Administrator through the
appropriate Regional Office, and to all
other State and local air pollution
control agencies having jurisdiction in
affected States. The permitting authority
must provide EPA with a review period
for the final notice of at least 45 days
and shall not issue a final Notice of
MACT Approval until EPA objections
are satisfied.
(e) Compliance with MACT
determinations. An owner or operator of
a major source that is subject to a MACT
determination must comply with
notification, operation and
maintenance, performance testing,
monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements established
under § 63.52(h), under title V, and at
. the discretion of the permitting
authority, under subpart A of this part.
The permitting authority must provide
the EPA with the opportunity to review
compliance requirements for
consistency with requirements
established pursuant to title V during
the review period under paragraph (d)
of this section.
18. Section 63.55 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 63.55 Maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) determinations for
affected sources subject to case-by-case
determination of equivalent emission
limitations.
(a) Requirements for permitting
authorities. The permitting authority
must determine whether the § 63.53(a)
Part 1 and § 63.53(b) Part 2 MACT
application is complete or an
application for a Notice of MACT
Approval is approvable. In either case,
when the application is complete or
approvable, the permitting authority
must establish hazardous air pollutant
emissions limitations equivalent to the
limitations that would apply if an
emission standard had been issued in a
timely manner under section 112(d) or
(h) of the Act. The permitting authority
must establish these emissions
limitations consistent with the
following requirements and principles:
(1) Emission limitations must be
established for the equipment and
activities within the affected sources
within a source category or subcategory
for which the section 112(j) deadline
has passed.
(2) Each emission limitation for an
existing affected source must reflect the
maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(including a prohibition on such
emissions, where achievable) that the
permitting authority, taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction and any non-air
quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements,
determines is achievable by affected
sources in the category or subcategory
for which the section 112(j) deadline
has passed. This limitation must not be
less stringent than the MACT floor
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 66/Friday, April 5, 2002/Rules and Regulations
16611
which must be established by the
permitting authority according to the
requirements of section 112(d)(3)(A) and
(B) and must be based upon available
information.
(3) Each emission limitation for a new
affected source must reflect the
maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(including a prohibition on such
emissions, where achievable) that the
permitting authority, taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction and any non-air
quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements,
determines is achievable. This.
limitation must not be less stringent
than the emission limitation achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar
source which must be established by the
permitting authority according to the
requirements of section 112(d)(3). This
limitation must be based upon available
information.
(4) The permitting authority must
select a specific design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard,
or combination thereof, when it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an
equivalent emission limitation due to
the nature of the process or pollutant. It
is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a
limitation when the Administrator
determines that hazardous air pollutants
cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to capture
such pollutant, or that any requirement
for, or use of, such a conveyance would
be inconsistent with any Federal, State,
or local law, or the application of
measurement methodology to a
particular class of sources is not
practicable due to technological and
economic limitations.
(5) Nothing in this subpart shall
prevent a State or local permitting
authority from establishing an emission
limitation more stringent than required
by Federal regulations.
(b) Reporting to EPA. The owner or
operator must submit additional copies
of its Part 1 and Part 2 MACT
application for a title V permit, permit
revision, or Notice of MACT Approval,
whichever is applicable, to the EPA at
the same time the material is submitted
to the permitting authority.
19. Section 63.56 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 63.56 Requirements for case-by-case
determination of equivalent emission
limitations after promulgation of
subsequent MACT standard.
(a) If the Administrator promulgates a
relevant emission standard that is
applicable to one or more affected
sources within a major source before the
date a permit application under this
paragraph (a) is approved, the title V
permit must contain the promulgated
standard rather than the emission
limitation determined under § 63.52,
and the owner or operator must comp.ly
with the promulgated standard by the
compliance date in the promulgated
standard.
(b) If the Administrator promulgates a
relevant emission standard under
section 112(d) or (h) of the Act that is
applicable to a source after the date a
permit is issued pursuant to § 63.52 or
§ 63.54, the permitting authority must
incorporate requirements of that
standard in the title V permit upon its
next renewal. The permitting authority
must establish a compliance date in the
revised permit that assures that the
owner or operator must comply with the
promulgated standard within a
reasonable time, but not longer than 8
years after such standard is promulgated
or 8 years after the date by which the
owner or operator was first required to
comply with the emission limitation
established by the permit, whichever is ,
earlier. However, in no event shall the
period for compliance for existing
sources be shorter than that provided for
existing sources in the promulgated
standard.
(c) Notwithstanding the requirements
of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(l) and
(2) of this section shall apply.
(1) If the Administrator promulgates
an emission standard under section
112(d) or (h) that is applicable to an
affected source after the date a permit
application under this paragraph is
approved under § 63.52 or § 63.54, the
permitting authority is not required to
change the emission limitation in the
permit to reflect the promulgated
standard if the permitting authority
determines that the level of control
required by the emission limitation in
the permit is substantially as effective as
that required by the promulgated
standard pursuant to § 63.1(e).
(2) If the Administrator promulgates
an emission standard under section
112(d) or (h) of the Act that is applicable
to an affected source after the date a
permit application is approved under .
§ 63.52 or §63.54, and the level of
control required by the promulgated
standard is less stringent than the level
of control required by any emission '
limitation in the prior MACT
determination, the permitting authority
is not required to incorporate any less
stringent emission limitation of the
promulgated standaird in the title V
permit and may in its discretion
consider any more stringent provisions
of the MACT determination to be
applicable legal requirements when
issuing or revising such a title V permit. ;
[FR Doc. 02-5861 Fileil 3-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. ,2.
EPA-453/R-02-001
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Guidelines for MACT Determinations under Section 112(j)
Requirements
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Emission Standards Division (C504-03)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
February 2002
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
1
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 1 . CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D1-0118
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The section 112(j) rule, 40 CFR 63 subpart B, requires that permitting authorities develop case-by-case
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for major sources in source categories for which
standards are not promulgated within 18 months after the date established under section 112(e). This
document provides guidance to those permitting authorities on how to develop case-by-case MACT
17- KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Hazardous Air Pollutants
General Provisions
Section 112G)
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Groun
Air. Pollution Control
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 170
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page) 22.. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
------- |