§ 63.781. Applicability.
809 words·~4 min read·
/us/cfr/t40/s§ 63.781·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
(a)The provisions of this subpart apply to shipbuilding and ship repair operations at any facility that is a major source.
(b)The provisions of this subpart do not apply to coatings used in volumes of less than 200 liters (52.8 gallons) per year, provided the total volume of coating exempt under this paragraph does not exceed 1,000 liters per year (264 gallons per year) at any facility. Coatings exempt under this paragraph shall be clearly labeled as “low-usage exempt,” and the volume of each such coating applied shall be maintained in the facility's records.
(c)The provisions of this subpart do not apply to coatings applied with hand-held, nonrefillable, aerosol containers or to unsaturated polyester resin (i.e., fiberglass lay-up) coatings. Coatings applied to suitably prepared fiberglass surfaces for protective or decorative purposes are subject to this subpart.
(d)If you are authorized in accordance with 40 CFR 63.783(c) to use an add-on control system as an alternative means of limiting emissions from coating operations, in response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by a malfunction, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available in response to claims for injunctive relief.
(1)To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(i)The excess emissions:
(A)Were caused by a sudden, infrequent and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
(B)Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
(C)Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
(D)Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
(ii)Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these repairs; and
(iii)The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable during periods of such emissions; and
(iv)If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage; and
(v)All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human health; and
(vi)All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices; and
(vii)All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(viii)At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(ix)A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of which is to determine, correct and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
(2)Notification. The owner or operator of the facility experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX)transmission as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance. [60 FR 64336, Dec. 15, 1995, as amended at 76 FR 72068, Nov. 21, 2011]
Connections4 cite this · traces to 2
Cited by 4 sections
Traces to 2 documents
Citation graph
cites case law
Cites 2Cited by 4 across 1 source