[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3308-3324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01317]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194; FRL-9988-83-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT70
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather
Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Leather Finishing Operations source category
regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), electronic reporting, and
clarification of rule provisions. These final amendments address
emissions during periods of SSM, add electronic reporting, and revise
certain rule requirements and provisions. Although these amendments
will not reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), they are
expected to improve compliance and implementation of the rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 12, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194. All
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number
for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources Group, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5032; fax
number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: [email protected]. For
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact
Matthew Woody, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-
[[Page 3309]]
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-1535; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email
address: [email protected]. For information about the applicability
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact John Cox, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not
be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CRA Congressional Review Act
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
REL recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Background information. On March 14, 2018 (83 FR 11314), the EPA
proposed revisions to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP based on
our RTR. On May 15, 2018 (83 FR 22438), the EPA re-opened the comment
period on the proposed rule that closed on April 30, 2018, extending
the comment period to June 14, 2018. In this action, we are finalizing
decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and
provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public
comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is
available in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and the
EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology Review and
Amendments for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory
language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in
the docket.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the Leather Finishing Operations source category and
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the Leather Finishing
Operations source category in our March 14, 2018, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Leather Finishing Operations
Source Category
B. Technology Review for the Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category
C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category
D. Requirements for Submission of Performance Tests for the
Leather Finishing Operations Source Category
E. Technical Revisions and Corrections for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS \1\
NESHAP and source category code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leather finishing operations................................. 3161
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the
[[Page 3310]]
internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will
post a copy of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/leather-finishing-operations-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication in the Federal Register, the
EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents
at this same website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by April 15, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited
to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture,
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards; or any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an 'ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the Leather Finishing Operations source category and how
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP on
February 27, 2002 (67 FR 9156). The standards are codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TTTT. The leather finishing industry consists of
facilities that adjust and improve the physical and aesthetic
characteristics of the leather surface through the multistage
application of a coating comprised of dyes, pigments, film-forming
materials, and performance modifiers dissolved or suspended in liquid
carriers. The Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP does not apply to
equipment used solely for leather tanning operations or to portions of
leather finishing operations using a solvent degreasing process subject
to the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.5290(c)). The
source category covered by this MACT
[[Page 3311]]
standard currently includes four facilities.
Leather finishing is considered a dry operation as opposed to the
``wet-end'' operations associated with leather tanning. As further
discussed in section II.B of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018), leather finishing operations can be co-located with wet-end
tannery operations or performed in stand-alone facilities; however,
equipment used solely for leather tanning (or retanning) operations is
not subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP. In the dry-end
leather finishing operations, coatings are typically applied to the
leather substrate using spray, roll, and flow coating techniques. The
emission source types subject to the emission limits under the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP include, but are not limited to, coating
and spraying equipment, coating storage and mixing, and dryers. Refer
to section II.B of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018)
for discussion of emissions from these and additional emission source
types, including the HAP emitted.
The MACT standards address emissions from four types of leather
product process operations: (1) Upholstery leather with greater than or
equal to 4 grams of add-on finish per square foot of leather, (2)
upholstery leather with less than 4 grams of add-on finish per square
foot of leather, (3) water-resistant leather, and (4) non-water-
resistant leather. The standards limit emissions from new and existing
leather finishing operations and are expressed in terms of total HAP
emissions per 1,000 square feet of leather processed over a rolling 12-
month compliance period. Sources must record the mass of HAP in
coatings applied to the leather either through an inventory mass
balance or ``measure-as-applied'' approach. Using the mass balance
approach, sources may choose to account for disposal of excess finish
instead of assuming any excess finish is also emitted. Emissions are
calculated based on the assumption that the entire HAP content of the
applied finish is released to the environment. Sources using an add-on
control device may account for the emission reduction achieved from the
control device as measured by a performance test conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP. We are not finalizing any revisions to the numerical emission
limits nor to the methods for determining compliance with these limits.
C. What changes did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category in our March 14, 2018, proposal?
On March 14, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTTT, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the
proposed rule, we proposed amendments to the SSM provisions of the MACT
rule, a new requirement to electronically report performance test data,
and clarifications to certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for control devices and the provisions for alternative
schedules, as well as a correction to the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TTTT. We proposed no revisions to the numerical
emission limits based on our technology review and risk analyses.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category. This action also finalizes other changes to the
NESHAP, including amendments to the SSM provisions, addition of
electronic reporting of performance test data, and clarifications to
certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
control devices and the provisions for alternative schedules, as well
as a correction to the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
TTTT.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
Leather Finishing Operations source category?
We found risk due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from
this source category and determined that the current NESHAP provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents an adverse
environmental effect. Therefore, we did not propose and are not
finalizing any revisions to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
based on our analyses conducted under CAA section 112(f).
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM. In
its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008),
the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section
112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of
the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. As detailed in
section IV.C of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018),
the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP requires that the standards
apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.5320(a)), consistent with the Court
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). The EPA
took into account startup and shutdown periods in the 2002 rulemaking
by applying a standard based on total coating used and HAP content and
requiring a mass balance compliance method that was applicable for all
operations, even periods of startup and shutdown. As a result, the EPA
is not finalizing any changes to the current requirement that all
standards apply during those periods. Refer to section IV.C of the
March 14, 2018, proposal preamble for further discussion of the EPA's
rationale for this decision.
Further, the EPA is not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As
discussed in section IV.C of the March 14, 2018, proposal preamble, the
EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA
section 112 standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set
standards for malfunctions where feasible. For the Leather Finishing
Operations source category, it is unlikely that a malfunction would
result in a violation of the standards, and no comments were submitted
that would suggest otherwise. There are no instances where pollution
control equipment could malfunction because none of the four facilities
subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP use pollution
control equipment. Further, the standards are expressed as a yearly
rolling average, and compliance is primarily dependent on the coating's
[[Page 3312]]
HAP composition. Therefore, a malfunction of process equipment is not
likely to result in a violation of the standards, and we have no
information to suggest that it is feasible or necessary to establish
standards for any type of malfunction associated with leather finishing
operations. Refer to section IV.C of the March 14, 2018, proposal
preamble for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the decision
not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the
actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source fails
to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result
of a malfunction event, given that administrative and judicial
procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize
that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can
accommodate those situations.
As is explained in more detail below, we are finalizing two
proposed revisions to the General Provisions table to 40 CRF part 63,
subpart TTTT, to eliminate two General Provisions that include rule
language providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, we
are finalizing our proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that
treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as periods of
malfunction, as explained further below. Finally, we are finalizing our
proposal to revise the Deviation Notification Report and related
records as they relate to malfunctions, as further described below. As
discussed in section IV.C of the March 14, 2018, proposal preamble,
these revisions are consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR
63.5320(a) that the standards apply at all times. Refer to sections
III.C.1 through 5 of this preamble for a detailed discussion of these
amendments.
1. 40 CFR 63.5320(b) General Duty
We are finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions
table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT (Table 2), entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e) by combining all of paragraph (e) into one row and changing the
``yes'' in column four to ``no.'' We are replacing reference to 40 CFR
63.6(e) with new general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5320(b) that
reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the
reference in 40 CFR 63.6(e) to periods covered by an SSM exemption.
Refer to section IV.D.1.a of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018) for further discussion of this revision.
2. 40 CFR 63.5360(b) Compliance With Standards
We are finalizing as proposed removal of the sentence, ``This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.'' in 40 CFR
63.5360(b), which refers to the requirement to report each instance in
which a source did not meet the standard. Refer to section IV.D.1.b of
the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further
discussion of this revision.
3. 40 CFR 63.5380 Performance Testing
We are finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions
table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT (Table 2), entry for 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) by adding a separate row for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and
specifying ``no'' in column four. We are replacing reference to 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) with a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.5380(b).
Refer to section IV.D.1.c of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018) for further discussion of these revisions.
4. 40 CFR 63.5430 Recordkeeping
We are finalizing as proposed revision of the Deviation
Notification Report to include two new reporting elements: (1) An
estimate of the quantity of HAP emitted during the 12-month period of
the report in excess of the standard, and (2) the cause of the events
that resulted in the deviation from the standard (including unknown
cause, if applicable). We are finalizing the proposed requirement that
any source submitting a Deviation Notification Report also keep a
record of this information, as well as a record of the actions taken to
minimize emissions, and we are finalizing revision of 40 CFR
63.5420(b)(3) to clarify records already required. Finally, we are
finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions table to 40
CFR part 63, subpart TTTT (table 2), entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) to
clarify the recordkeeping requirements for facilities that deviate from
the standards as a result of a malfunction. Refer to section IV.D.1.d
of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further
discussion of these revisions.
5. 40 CFR 63.5420 Reporting
We are finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions
table to subpart TTTT (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) to clarify
the reporting requirements for facilities that deviate from the
standards as a result of a malfunction. We are finalizing as proposed
revision of 40 CFR 63.5420(b)(3) to clarify that the Deviation
Notification Report should include an indication of the 12-month period
of the report. We are also finalizing as proposed two new reporting
elements to include in the Deviation Notification Report: (1) the cause
of the events that resulted in the source failing to meet the standard
as determined under 40 CFR 63.5330 (i.e., the compliance ratio exceeds
1.00) during the 12-month period (including unknown cause, if
applicable) and (2) an estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds)
emitted during the 12-month period of the report in excess of the
standard, calculated by subtracting the ``Allowable HAP Loss'' from the
``Actual HAP Loss.'' Refer to section IV.D.1.e of the proposal preamble
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further discussion of these
revisions.
6. 40 CFR 63.5460 Definitions
We are finalizing as proposed revision of the definition of
``Deviation'' to read ``Deviation means any instance in which an
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of
such a source, fails to meet any requirement or obligation established
by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limits or
work practice standards.'' This revision removes language that
differentiated between normal operations, startup, and shutdown, and
malfunction events. Refer to section IV.D.1.f of the proposal preamble
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further discussion of this revision.
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
We are finalizing as proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP to clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for control devices and the provisions for
alternative schedules and to correct the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TTTT. Refer to section IV.D.3 of the proposal preamble
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for a detailed description of these
amendments.
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on February 12, 2019. The compliance date for
existing leather finishing operations is February 12, 2019. New sources
must comply with all of the standards immediately upon the effective
date of the standard, February 12, 2019, or upon startup, whichever is
later. The tasks necessary for existing facilities to comply with these
proposed amendments related to SSM periods will require no time or
resources. No facilities will be subject to
[[Page 3313]]
the requirement to submit reports electronically (see below).
Therefore, existing facilities will be able to comply with these
proposed amendments related to SSM periods and the use of the
electronic reporting software discussed in section III.F of this
preamble as soon as the final rule is effective, which will be the date
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
As we proposed, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the
EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners and operators of leather
finishing operations facilities to submit electronic copies of certain
required performance test reports.
Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an
electronic performance test report tool called the Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT). The ERT will generate an electronic report package, which
will be submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX). A description of the ERT and instructions for using ERT can be
found at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. CEDRI can be
accessed through the CDX website (https://www.epa.gov/cdx).
The EPA estimates that no existing leather finishing operation
subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP uses a control
device to comply with the NESHAP. As such, no existing leather
finishing operation will conduct performance tests or submit electronic
copies of test reports.
The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT website. The EPA believes,
through this approach, industry will save time in the performance test
submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking benefits industry by
reducing recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are
submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept in
hard copy.
State, local, and tribal agencies may benefit from more streamlined
and accurate review of performance test data that will become available
to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data publicly available
enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough
discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct
computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided
software, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018).
In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development, and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies, and the
EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of
emission inventories and air quality regulations.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the document titled
Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Responses for the Proposed
Risk and Technology Review and Amendments for the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP, in the docket for this action.
A. Residual Risk Review for the Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Leather
Finishing Operations source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk review
and presented the results for the review, along with our proposed
decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in
the March 14, 2018, proposed rule for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category (83 FR 11314). The results of the risk assessment are
presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble and in more detail in the
residual risk document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the December 2017
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
action.
Table 2--Leather Finishing Operations Inhalation Risk Assessment Results in the March 2018 Proposal
[83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population Estimated Annual Maximum chronic Maximum screening
cancer risk (in 1 at increased risk of cancer incidence noncancer TOSHI \3\ acute noncancer
million) \2\ cancer >=1-in-1 (cases per year) ------------------------ hazard quotient (HQ)
------------------------ million ------------------------ \4\
Number of facilities \1\ ------------------------ Based on Based on ----------------------
Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on actual allowable
actual allowable actual allowable actual allowable emissions emissions Based on actual
emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions level level emissions level
level \2\ level level \2\ level level \2\ level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4................................
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.3 HQREL = 3 (propyl
cellosolve and
glycol ethers).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Leather Finishing Operations source category is
the reproductive target organ.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value; for propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers, this is the recommended exposure limit (REL).
The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions
data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.04. While we would have
estimated incremental individual lifetime cancer risks as discussed in
section III.C.3.b of the preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018), there were no carcinogenic HAP emissions from
this source category, so
[[Page 3314]]
the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk is 0, and the total
estimated national cancer incidence from these facilities based on
actual emission levels is no excess cancer cases per year.
Table 2 of this preamble indicates that for the Leather Finishing
Operations source category, the maximum HQ is 3, driven by propyl
cellosolve and glycol ethers. The only acute dose-response value for
propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers is the REL; therefore, only the
HQREL is provided. Refinement of the acute risk results was
performed using aerial photos to ensure that the location where the
maximum risk was projected to occur was, in fact, a location where the
general public could be exposed. The result of this refinement
confirmed that the maximum acute risk result occurred where the public
could potentially be exposed. This refinement, therefore, had no impact
on the maximum HQ. For more detailed acute risk results, refer to the
draft residual risk document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the December
2017 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
action.
An assessment of risk from facility-wide emissions was performed to
provide context for the source category risks. Using the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) data described in sections II.C and III.C of
the preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018),
the maximum cancer risk in the facility-wide assessment was 0.09-in-1
million, and the maximum chronic noncancer hazard index (HI) was 0.1
(for the reproductive system), both driven by emissions from external
combustion boilers.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and within 50 km of the facilities, and we found that no one is exposed
to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer
TOSHI greater than 1. The methodology and the results of the
demographic analysis are presented in a technical report titled Risk
and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Leather Finishing Operations, in the docket for this
action.
We weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination and we proposed that the risk posed by emissions from
this source category is acceptable. We then considered whether the
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and
whether more stringent standards were necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect by taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors. In determining whether the
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
we examined the same risk factors that we investigated for our
acceptability determination and also considered the costs,
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with
emissions from the source category. As noted in the discussion of the
ample margin of safety analysis in the preamble to the proposed rule on
March 14, 2018 (83 FR 11328), we considered options for further
reducing gaseous organic HAP emissions from leather finishing
operations. We considered the reduction in gaseous organic HAP
emissions that could be achieved by the application of a biological
treatment unit, the use of a concentrator followed by a regenerative
thermal oxidizer (RTO), and the use of a concentrator followed by
biological treatment. The total annual cost per facility of a rotary
concentrator alone or biological treatment alone ranges from $43,000 to
$417,000 per year. Application of a concentrator followed by an RTO
would achieve an estimated annual HAP emission reduction of 5.2 tpy,
and application of a concentrator plus biological treatment would
achieve an estimated annual HAP emission reduction of 4.5 tpy. The
corresponding cost effectiveness for application of a rotary
concentrator or biological treatment would range from $30,000 and
$110,000 per ton of HAP removed, respectively. Due to our
determinations that cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million and that the
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value is below 1, uncertainties
associated with the acute screening risk estimate (refer to the risk
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category in Support of the December 2017 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action), and
the substantial costs associated with the control options, we proposed
that additional standards for this source category are not required to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and that
the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. Based on the results of our environmental risk screening
assessment, we also proposed that more stringent standards are not
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), neither the risk
assessment nor our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety or adverse environmental effects have changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
We received various comments related to the risk review and some
commenters requested that we make changes to our residual risk review
results and approach. However, we evaluated the comments and determined
that no changes to our risk assessment methods or conclusions are
warranted. An in-depth account of the comments and responses is located
in the memorandum titled Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's
Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology Review and Amendments
for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, in the docket for this
action. The following paragraphs discuss the major comments we received
and our responses.
Comment: One commenter stated that there is evidence of hexavalent
chromium emissions from leather finishing operations and leather
tanning processes and products, questioning why the EPA did not
evaluate these emissions and health risks and establish emission
standards accordingly. The commenter referenced NEI data showing
hexavalent chromium emissions from leather finishing facilities.
Response: We disagree that there is evidence of hexavalent chromium
emissions from the Leather Finishing Operations source category. The
NEI data cited by the commenter represent hexavalent chromium emissions
from boilers at the Tasman and S.B. Foot facilities subject to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, but boilers are not subject to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, and, thus, such data do not create
a basis for the EPA to evaluate emissions and health risks of
hexavalent chromium for source types at any facility subject to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP. The NEI does not include
hexavalent chromium emission data for any other emission source types
at any facility subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP. The
EPA is not aware of any source of hexavalent chromium emissions data
for the leather
[[Page 3315]]
finishing operations subject to the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP, and the commenters have provided no such data. The references
cited by the commenters focus primarily on the leather tanning
processes, which do not occur at the facilities covered by the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP. Additionally, the references cited do not
directly address air emissions of hexavalent chromium from leather
finishing operations and are, therefore, not relevant to this
rulemaking. Two references cited by the commenter mention the
possibility of spontaneous oxidation of trivalent chromium into its
hexavalent form in post-tanning operations, but the references do not
provide any hexavalent chromium emissions data, and no such data exist
for any of the leather finishing operations subject to the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP. As a result, there is no basis for the EPA
to evaluate the emissions and health risks of hexavalent chromium from
these four facilities.
Comment: One commenter provided data for actual monthly HAP use for
the S.B. Foot Tanning Co. facility subject to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP, stating that the data indicate that hourly emissions
could be up to 1.5 times greater than the emissions rate that the EPA
used to estimate acute exposures. The data provided by the commenter
show monthly HAP emissions for the S.B. Foot Tanning Co. facility based
on data of actual monthly HAP use by the facility over a 4-year period
(i.e., 51 data points). To compare with the EPA's calculated acute HAP
emissions rate (i.e., 0.00467 tons/hour) for the facility, the
commenter estimated the average hourly rate of HAP emissions for each
month in the 4-year period using the facility's actual monthly HAP
usage values and monthly operating hours. To show months in which the
facility's estimated hourly HAP emissions rate exceeded the EPA's
estimated acute hourly HAP emissions rate for the S.B. Foot Tanning Co.
facility, the commenter calculated for each month the ratio of the
commenter's hourly HAP emissions rate to the EPA's calculated acute HAP
emissions rate. Ratios above 1.0 would show months in which the
facility's estimated hourly HAP emissions rate exceeds the EPA's acute
hourly HAP emissions rate, calling into question the EPA's calculated
acute HAP emissions rate of 0.00467 tons per hour and the EPA's acute
factor of 1.8.
Response: The EPA reviewed the commenter's submitted data and
determined that the data support the EPA's acute HAP emissions rate of
0.00467 tons/hour and acute factor of 1.8. The ratios calculated by the
commenter indicate an average ratio of 0.41 and a median of 0.392. Of
the 51 months of data provided by the commenter, only two values exceed
1.0, and five values exceed 0.8. To investigate the two data points
that exceed 1.0, we contacted the commenter, and the commenter referred
us to S.B. Foot Tanning Co. The S.B. Foot Tanning Co. facility
representative indicated that HAP emissions referred to in the
commenter's data are primarily associated with a storage tank and that
the two data points in question resulted from the inaccurate process of
measuring the material's volume (see the memorandum titled
Clarification of Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Usage Data for S.B. Foot
Tanning Co., Submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, in
the docket for this action). From this information, we conclude that
the two data points are erroneous. Based on these results, the data,
excluding the two erroneous data points, submitted by the commenter
support our acute factor of 1.8 and we are not revising the factor.
Comment: Two commenters objected to the EPA's decision that the
acute risk result for the Leather Finishing Operations source category
(i.e., HQ of 3) is acceptable. One commenter noted that the HQ of 3 is
driven entirely by propyl cellosolve and expressed concern for the
toxicity of this pollutant. The commenter expressed concern that short-
term outdoor human exposures have a high potential of occurring and the
highest HQ was predicted well within residential areas. One commenter
asserted that the EPA provides no rational justification for ignoring
the acute risk (HQ of 3) and the finding that there are chronic
noncancer risks to the reproductive system. The commenter listed
various human health effects associated with propyl cellosolve and
cited references for these health effects.
Response: We disagree that the risk acceptability determination as
it relates to the acute risk HQ of 3 for propyl cellosolve is not
sufficiently justified. For this source category, we concluded that the
risks are acceptable based on all of the available health information--
cancer, chronic noncancer, and acute noncancer risk assessment
results--and associated uncertainties. It is important to note that we
have not established, under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, a numerical
range for risk acceptability for noncancer effects (chronic or acute),
nor have we determined that there is a bright line above which
acceptability is denied. However, we have established that, as exposure
increases above a reference level (as indicated by a HQ or TOSHI
greater than 1), confidence that the public will not experience adverse
health effects decreases and the likelihood that an effect will occur
increases.
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018), in conducting risk assessments for a group of
compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively
use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound
in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound
in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a
specified dose-response value, we apply the most protective dose-
response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk.
In the case of propyl cellosolve, for acute screening-level assessment,
we used the acute REL for ethylene glycol monomethyl ether as a
surrogate for propyl cellosolve since there is no specific acute
inhalation health benchmark for this glycol ether. Given that ethylene
glycol monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use
of this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA's risk
assessment.
The acute screening analysis resulted in a maximum acute noncancer
HQ of 3 based on the acute REL for ethylene glycol monomethyl ether.
For acute screening-level assessments, to better characterize the
potential health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute
exposures to HAP, we typically examine a wider range of available acute
health metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in
acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and
uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic
reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-
protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those
levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the level of exposure
that would cause health effects is not specifically known. As the
exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for
effects increases. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or
ERPG-1 is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible effects are
anticipated in the general population for a single exposure), we
typically use them as additional comparative measures. However, neither
of these is available for propyl cellosolve or for ethylene glycol
monomethyl ether. Taking into account the conservatism included in
[[Page 3316]]
the acute screening-level assessment, including use of an acute REL for
a highly toxic glycol ether, we would not expect acute exposures at
levels that would cause adverse effects.
Additional conservatism in the acute exposure assessment that the
EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA
includes several factors. The degree of accuracy of an acute inhalation
exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of
independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions
rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans at the location of the
maximum concentration. We also assume that peak emissions from each
emission point in the source category and worst-case meteorological
conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations.
These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these
assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption
that a person is located at this point during the same time period. For
this source category, these assumptions are likely to overestimate the
true worst-case actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would
be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak
emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions occur
simultaneously. Thus, as discussed in the document titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology Review December 2017 Proposed Rule,
in the docket for this action, by assuming the co-occurrence of
independent factors for the acute screening assessment, the results are
intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-protective.
For the Leather Finishing Operations source category, we considered
all of the health risk information and factors discussed above,
including other uncertainties associated with the risk assessment, to
ensure that our decisions are health and environmentally protective (a
discussion of these uncertainties is available in section III.C of the
preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) and
in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review December 2017 Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
action), in proposing that the risks from the Leather Finishing
Operations source category are acceptable. The risk analysis for the
proposed rule amendments indicated that the cancer risks to the
individual most exposed are below 1-in-1 million from both actual and
allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1
million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The
risk analysis also showed no cancer incidence, as well as maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value of 0.04, which is significantly below 1.
In addition, the risk assessment indicated no significant potential for
multipathway health effects.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the
Leather Finishing Operations source category are acceptable, and the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant
to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our residual risk review as
proposed.
B. Technology Review for the Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
Leather Finishing Operations source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources
in the source category. After conducting the CAA section 112(d)(6)
technology review of the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, we
proposed that revisions to the standards are not necessary because we
identified no cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies. More information concerning our technology review
is in the memorandum titled CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
the Leather Finishing Source Category, in the docket for this action
and in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14,
2018).
2. How did the technology review change for the Leather Finishing
Operations source category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), the technology review
has not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
No commenters provided input on the proposed technology review.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that
no cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies were identified in our technology review to warrant
revisions to the standards. We evaluated all of the comments on the
EPA's technology review and determined that no changes to the review
are needed. More information concerning our technology review is in the
memorandum titled CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the
Leather Finishing Source Category, in the docket for this action, and
in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14,
2018). Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing
our technology review as proposed.
C. SSM for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category
1. What did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations source
category?
We proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent
with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. More
information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14, 2018).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Leather Finishing
Operations source category?
We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no changes
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018).
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
We received two comments related to our proposed revisions to the
SSM provisions. One commenter generally supported the proposed
revisions to the SSM provisions. One commenter requested that we revise
our approach to handling force majeure events. We evaluated the
comments and determined that no changes to the proposed SSM provisions
are warranted. A summary of these comments and our responses are
located in the memorandum titled Summary of Public Comments and the
EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and
[[Page 3317]]
Technology Review and Amendments for the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP, in the docket for this action.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that proposed 40 CFR
63.5420(c)(5) provides an exemption from reporting due to force majeure
events. The commenter noted that the Court rejected similar
``affirmative defense'' to civil penalties for malfunctions (NRDC v.
EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). The commenter also argued that
adding such an exemption would be arbitrary and unlawful because it
would undermine the reporting requirements by providing a justification
to delay reporting, and, thus, undermine compliance, enforcement, and
fulfillment of the emissions standards designed to protect public
health and the environment at the core of the CAA's and section 7412's
purpose (42 U.S.C. 740).
Response: The commenter is incorrect in referring to 40 CFR
63.5420(c)(5) as an ``exemption.'' This provision provides instructions
for actions an affected source should take if it is unable to submit an
electronic report (required under 40 CFR 63.5420(c)) ``due to a force
majeure event that is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred, or if
there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of
time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is
due'' under 40 CFR 63.5420(c). We note that there is no exception or
exemption to reporting, only a method for requesting an extension of
the reporting deadline. As specified in 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(5), ``[t]he
decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to
the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the
Administrator.'' There is no predetermined timeframe for the length of
extension that can be granted, as this is something best determined by
the Administrator when reviewing the circumstances surrounding the
request. Different circumstances may require a different length of
extension for electronic reporting. For example, a tropical storm may
delay electronic reporting for a day, but a category 5 hurricane event
may delay electronic reporting much longer, especially if the facility
has no power, and, as such, the owner or operator has no ability to
access electronically stored data or to submit reports electronically.
The Administrator will be the most knowledgeable on the events leading
to the request for extension and will assess whether an extension is
appropriate and, if so, determine a reasonable length. The
Administrator may even request that the report be sent in hardcopy
until electronic reporting can be resumed. While no new fixed duration
deadline is set, the regulation does require that the report be
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the CEDRI outage is
resolved or after the force majeure event occurs.
We also note that the force majeure mimics long-standing language
in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4) and 60.8(a)(1) regarding the time granted for
conducting a performance test and such language has not undermined
compliance or enforcement.
Moreover, we disagree that the reporting extension will undermine
enforcement because the Administrator has full discretion to accept or
reject the claim of a CEDRI system outage or force majeure. As such, an
extension is not automatic and is agreed to on an individual basis by
the Administrator. If the Administrator determines that a facility has
not acted in good faith to reasonably report in a timely manner, the
Administrator can reject the claim and find that the failure to report
timely is a deviation from the regulation. CEDRI system outages are
infrequent, but the EPA knows when they occur and whether a facility's
claim is legitimate. Force majeure events (e.g., natural disasters
impacting a facility) are also usually well-known events.
We also disagree that the ability to request a reporting extension
would undermine compliance and fulfillment of the emissions standards.
While reporting is an important mechanism for the EPA and air agencies
to assess whether owners and operators are in compliance with emissions
standards, reporting obligations have nothing to do with whether an
owner or operator is required to be in compliance with an emissions
standard, especially where the deadline for meeting the standard has
already passed and the owner or operator has certified that they are in
compliance with the standard.
Additionally, the ability to request a reporting extension does not
apply to a broad category of circumstances; on the contrary, the scope
for submitting a reporting extension request is very limited in that
claims can only be made for events outside of the owner's or operator's
control that occur in the 5 business days prior to the reporting
deadline. The claim must then be approved by the Administrator, and, in
approving such a claim, the Administrator agrees that something outside
the control of the owner or operator prevented the owner or operator
from meeting its reporting obligation. In no circumstance does this
reporting extension allow for the owner or operator to be out of
compliance with the emissions standards.
The reporting deadline extension differs from the affirmative
defense to civil penalties for malfunctions the D.C. Circuit vacated as
beyond EPA's authority under the CAA in NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055
(D.C. Cir. 2014). Unlike the affirmative defense addressed in NRDC, the
reporting provision does not address penalty liability for
noncompliance with emission standards, but merely addresses, under a
narrow set of circumstances outside the control of the facilities, the
deadline for reporting.
Based on our evaluation of the comments, we have determined that no
changes to our proposed revisions to the SSM provisions are warranted.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule,
we determined that these amendments remove and revise provisions
related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. More information concerning the proposed
amendments to the SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed
rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14, 2018). Therefore, we are finalizing
our approach for the SSM provisions as proposed.
D. Requirements for Submission of Performance Tests for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category
1. What did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations source
category?
We proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
to require owners and operators of leather finishing operations
facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance
test reports. More information concerning these proposed revisions is
in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14,
2018).
2. How did the requirements for submission of performance tests change
for the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), the requirement for
owners and operators of leather finishing operations facilities to
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports
has not changed.
[[Page 3318]]
3. What key comments did we receive on submission of performance tests,
and what are our responses?
We received one comment providing input on the proposed requirement
for owners and operators of leather finishing operations facilities to
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports,
and the commenter generally supported our amendments. We evaluated the
comment and determined that no changes to our proposed electronic
reporting requirements are warranted. A summary of this comment and our
response are located in the memorandum titled Summary of Public
Comments and the EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology
Review and Amendments for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, in
the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach on requirements for
submission of performance tests?
We evaluated the comment on the EPA's proposed amendments requiring
owners and operators of leather finishing operations facilities to
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports.
In light of this evaluation and for the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that these amendments would increase the
ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Further,
the EPA estimates that while no existing leather finishing operation
subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP uses a control
device to comply with the NESHAP, the rule allows for a source to use a
control device to comply, and these electronic reporting provisions are
necessary. As such, no existing leather finishing operation is required
to conduct performance tests, submit test reports, or submit electronic
copies of test reports. More information concerning the proposed
requirement for owners and operators of leather finishing operations
facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance
test reports is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-
11337). Therefore, we are finalizing our approach on requirements for
submission of performance tests as proposed.
E. Technical Revisions and Corrections for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category
1. What did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations source
category?
We proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
to clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
for control devices and the provisions for alternative schedules, and
to correct the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT. More
information concerning these proposed revisions is in the preamble to
the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337).
2. How did the technical revisions and corrections change for the
Leather Finishing Operations source category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), the technical
revisions and corrections have not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technical revisions and
corrections, and what are our responses?
No commenters provided input on the proposed technical revisions
and corrections to clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for control devices and the provisions for alternative
schedules, and to correct the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTTT.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technical
revisions and corrections?
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that
these amendments clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for control devices and the provisions for alternative
schedules. More information concerning the proposed technical revisions
and correction is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-
11337). Therefore, we are finalizing our technical revisions and
corrections as proposed.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
There are currently four existing leather finishing operations
facilities that were identified as subject to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP: S.B. Foot Tanning Company of Red Wing, Minnesota;
Alliance Leather, Inc. of Peabody, Massachusetts; Pearl Leather
Finishers, Inc. of Johnstown, New York; and Tasman Leather Group, LLC
of Hartland, Maine.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The EPA estimates that annual organic HAP emissions from the four
leather finishing operations facilities subject to the rule are
approximately 22.5 tpy. This final rule does not require compliance
with more stringent emission limits or require additional controls;
therefore, no air quality impacts are expected as a result of the
amendments.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The four leather finishing operations facilities subject to these
final amendments will incur costs to review the final amendments.
Nationwide annual costs associated with the final amendments are
estimated to be a total of $832 for the initial year only. We believe
that the four leather finishing operations facilities that are known to
be subject to final amendments can comply without incurring additional
capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs associated with
these final amendments are related to reviewing the rule. For further
information on the final amendments, see section IV of the proposal
preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018). For further information on the
costs associated with the final amendments, see the supporting
statement for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP (EPA Information
Collection Request (ICR) Number 1985.09, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Control Number 2060-0478), the memorandum titled Costs for
the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category Risk and Technology
Review--Final Amendments, and the memorandum titled CAA section
112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Leather Finishing Source Category,
in the docket for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The total national cost to comply with these final amendments is
estimated to be $832 in 2016 dollars, which is a one-time cost that
will be incurred in the first year following promulgation of these
final amendments. There are no additional emission control costs or
additional emission reductions associated with this rule. The estimated
cost of $832 consists of equal costs incurred by each of the four
affected facilities, with each facility estimated to incur one-time
labor costs of approximately $208 in order to become familiar with the
rule. These costs are not expected to result in business closures,
significant price increases, or substantial profit loss. No impacts on
employment are expected given the minimal economic impact of the action
on the affected firms. For further information on the economic impacts
associated with these final amendments, see the memorandum titled Final
Economic Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the Risk and
Technology Review: Leather Finishing Operations Source Category, in the
docket for this action.
[[Page 3319]]
E. What are the benefits?
Although the amendments in this final rule will not result in
reductions in emissions of HAP, this final rule will improve
implementation of the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP by clarifying
the rule requirements as discussed in sections IV.D.1 and IV.D.3 of the
proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018). Also, adding
electronic reporting of test reports for any control devices used in
the future to comply with these final amendments will provide the
benefits discussed in section IV.D.2 of the proposal preamble (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018), including assisting state and local agencies
that elect to use ERT to track compliance of the rule.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of this
preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Leather
Finishing Operations, in the docket for this action. As discussed in
section IV.A of this preamble, we performed a demographic analysis,
which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 50 km and within 5 km of the facilities. In
this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer
risks and noncancer hazards from the leather finishing operations
across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the
populations living near operations identified as having the highest
risks.
The analysis indicates that the minority population living within
50 km (4,632,781 people, of which 25 percent are minority) and within 5
km (158,482 people, of which 13 percent are minority) of the four
leather finishing operations facilities is less than the minority
population found nationwide (38 percent). The proximity results
indicate that the population percentage for the ``Other and
Multiracial'' demographic group within 50 km of leather finishing
operations emissions is slightly greater than the corresponding
nationwide percentage for that same demographic. The percentage of
people ages 65 and older residing within 5 km of leather finishing
operations (18 percent) is 4 percentage points higher than the
corresponding nationwide percentage (14 percent). The other demographic
groups included in the assessment within 5 km of leather finishing
operations emissions were the same or lower than the corresponding
nationwide percentages.
When examining the cancer risk levels of those exposed to emissions
from the four leather finishing operations, we find that there are no
people within a 50-km radius of modeled facilities exposed to a cancer
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million as a result of emissions
from leather finishing operations. There are no known cancer risks
posed by HAP emissions from the four facilities, because the HAP
emitted have no known cancer risks. When examining the noncancer risk
levels, we find that there are no people within a 50-km radius of
modeled facilities exposed to a noncancer risk (in this analysis,
reproductive HI) greater than 1 as a result of emissions from leather
finishing operations.
The EPA has determined that this action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples because the health risks based on actual emissions
are low (below 2-in-1 million), the population exposed to risks greater
than 1-in-1 million is relatively small (750 persons), and the rule
maintains or increases the level of environmental protection for all
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. Further,
the EPA believes that implementation of this rule will provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health of all demographic groups.
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14,
2018) and further documented in the report titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in
Support of the December 2017 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
in the docket for this action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1985.09. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0194), and it is briefly summarized here. The information
collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions, which are essential in determining compliance and mandatory
for all operators subject to national emissions standards. These
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by
CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
We are finalizing changes to the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP paperwork requirements in the form of requiring review of the
final rule in the initial year. We are finalizing no new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements for the Leather Finishing Operations source
category.
Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include leather
finishing operations.
[[Page 3320]]
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (authorized by
section 114 of the CAA).
Estimated number of respondents: Four leather finishing operations.
Frequency of response: Initially.
Total estimated burden: 9 hours (per year) for the responding
facilities and 0 hours (per year) for the Agency.
Total estimated cost: $832 (per year).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The Agency has determined that of the
four entities subject to this action, three are small businesses. The
Agency has determined that each of the three small entities impacted by
this action may experience an impact of less than 0.01 percent of
sales. Details of this analysis are presented in the memorandum titled
Final Economic Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the Risk and
Technology Review: Leather Finishing Operations Source Category, in the
docket for this action. We have, therefore, concluded that this action
will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small
entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
the leather finishing operations industry that would be affected by
this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14,
2018) and further documented in the report titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in
Support of the December 2017 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
in the docket for this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Leather Finishing Operations Sector RTR
through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database
managed by the American National Standards Institute. We also contacted
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and
searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 24 and
311 and identified six VCS as potentially acceptable alternatives for
the purpose of this rule. Refer to section VIII.J of the proposal
preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for a list of these methods. As
proposed, we are not including these VCS in the final rule as
alternative test methods because the methods are either impractical as
an alternative to EPA Methods 24 and 311, do not address the parameter
required to be measured, or have expired. Further, no alternative test
methods were brought to our attention in public comments on the March
14, 2018, proposal. A brief summary of these results is provided in
section VIII.J of the March 14, 2018, proposal preamble. A thorough
summary of the search conducted, and results are included in the
memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Leather Finishing
Operations, in the docket for this action.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section V.F of
this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near
Leather Finishing Operations, in the public docket for this action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 21, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TTTT--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Leather Finishing Operations
0
2. Section 63.5320 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
[[Page 3321]]
Sec. 63.5320 How does my affected major source comply with the HAP
emission standards?
(a) All affected sources must be in compliance with the
requirements of this subpart at all times.
(b) At all times, 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. The
general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or
operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels
required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination
of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and
maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected
source.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.5360 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.5360 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission standards?
(a) * * *
(2) If you use an emission control device, you must comply with
Sec. 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS of this part) and collect the monitoring
data as specified therein.
* * * * *
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet the
emission standards in Sec. 63.5305. These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.5420(b).
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.5375 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5375 When must I conduct a performance test or initial
compliance demonstration?
You must conduct performance tests after the installation of any
emission control device that reduces HAP emissions and will be used to
comply with the HAP emission requirements of this subpart. You must
complete your performance tests not later than 60 calendar days before
the end of the 12-month period used in the initial compliance
determination.
0
5. Section 63.5380 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.5380 How do I conduct performance tests?
(a) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(2) through (4) and the procedures of
Sec. 63.997(e)(1) and (2).
(b) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as
the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on
representative performance of the affected source for the period being
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and
shutdown. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests
during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the
owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance
tests.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.5420 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory
text and (b)(3) and (4) and adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.5420 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) You must submit a Deviation Notification Report for each
compliance determination you make in which the compliance ratio exceeds
1.00, as determined under Sec. 63.5330. Submit the deviation report by
the fifteenth of the following month in which you determined the
deviation from the compliance ratio. The Deviation Notification Report
must include the items in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section:
* * * * *
(3) The 12-month period covered by the report and each type of
leather product process operation performed during the 12-month period.
(4) The compliance ratio comprising the deviation. You may reduce
the frequency of submittal of the Deviation Notification Report if the
Administrator of these NESHAP approves an alternative schedule.
(5) An estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted during
the 12 months specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section in excess
of the allowable HAP loss. Calculate this estimate of excess emissions
by subtracting the allowable HAP loss determined as specified in Sec.
63.5340 from the actual HAP loss determined as specified in Sec.
63.5335.
(6) The cause of the events that resulted in the source failing to
meet an applicable standard (including unknown cause, if applicable).
(c) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec. 63.2) required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit
the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI Interface can be
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic
file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema
listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13 unless
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
(3) If you claim that some of the performance test information
being submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is confidential
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website,
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive
or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The
electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via
the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due
[[Page 3322]]
to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems
within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date
that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing
CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time
prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to
timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit
notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible
following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You
must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the
date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system
outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the
delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report,
or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report
must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage
is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator.
(5) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
7. Section 63.5430 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (g) and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5430 What records must I keep?
You must satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of this section by the compliance date specified in Sec.
63.5295.
* * * * *
(g) If you use an emission control device, you must keep records of
monitoring data as specified at Sec. 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS of this
part).
(h) In the event that the compliance ratio exceeded 1.00, as
determined under Sec. 63.5330, keep a record of the information
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this section for each
exceedance.
(1) The 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred, as
reported in Sec. 63.5420(b).
(2) Each type of leather product process operation performed during
the 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred, as reported in
Sec. 63.5420(b).
(3) Estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted during the
12 months specified in Sec. 63.5420(b)(3) in excess of the allowable
HAP loss, as reported in Sec. 63.5420(b).
(4) Cause of the events that resulted in the source failing to meet
an applicable standard (including unknown cause, if applicable), as
reported in Sec. 63.5420(b).
(5) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.5320(b), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(i) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
8. Section 63.5460 is amended by revising the definition for
``Deviation'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5460 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source fails to meet
any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including,
but not limited to, any emission limits or work practice standards.
* * * * *
0
9. Table 2 to subpart TTTT of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
As required in Sec. 63.5450, you must meet the appropriate NESHAP
General Provision requirements in the following table:
Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart TTTT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief description Applies to
General provisions citation Subject of citation of requirement subpart Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1..................... Applicability...... Initial Yes.............
applicability
determination;
applicability
after standard
established;
permit
requirements;
extensions,
notifications..
Sec. 63.2..................... Definitions........ Definitions for Yes............. Except as
Part 63 standards. specifically
provided in this
subpart.
Sec. 63.3..................... Units and Units and Yes.............
abbreviations. abbreviations for
Part 63 standards.
[[Page 3323]]
Sec. 63.4..................... Prohibited Prohibited Yes.............
activities and activities;
circumvention. compliance date;
circumvention,
severability.
Sec. 63.5..................... Construction/ Applicability; Yes............. Except for
reconstruction. applications; paragraphs of
approvals. Sec. 63.5 as
listed below.
Sec. 63.5(c).................. [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H)........ Application for Type and quantity No.............. All sources emit
approval. of HAP, operating HAP. Subpart TTTT
parameters.. does not require
control from
specific emission
points.
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)(i)............ [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2), Application for No.............. The requirements
(d)(3)(ii). approval. of the
application for
approval for new
and reconstructed
sources are
described in Sec.
63.5320(b).
General provision
requirements for
identification of
HAP emission
points or
estimates of
actual emissions
are not required.
Descriptions of
control and
methods, and the
estimated and
actual control
efficiency of
such do not
apply.
Requirements for
describing
control equipment
and the estimated
and actual
control
efficiency of
such equipment
apply only to
control equipment
to which the
subpart TTTT
requirements for
quantifying
solvent destroyed
by an add-on
control device
would be
applicable.
Sec. 63.6..................... Applicability of Applicability of Yes............. Except for
general provisions. general provisions. paragraphs of
Sec. 63.6 as
listed below.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(3)........... Compliance dates, No.............. Section Sec.
new and 63.5283 specifies
reconstructed the compliance
sources. dates for new and
reconstructed
sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)............... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)........... [Reserved]. ................
Sec. 63.6(d).................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)............... Operation and ................... No.............. See Sec.
maintenance 63.5320(b) for
requirements. general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)............... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)............... Operation and Startup, shutdown, No.............. Subpart TTTT does
maintenance and malfunction not have any
requirements. plan requirements. startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction plan
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(f)-(g).............. Compliance with Comply with No.............. Subpart TTTT does
nonopacity emission standards not have
emission standards at all times nonopacity
except during SSM. except during SSM. requirements.
Sec. 63.6(h).................. Opacity/visible ................... No.............. Subpart TTTT has
emission (VE) no opacity or
standards. visual emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i).................. Compliance Procedures and Yes.............
extension. criteria for
responsible agency
to grant
compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(j).................. Presidential President may Yes.............
compliance exempt source
exemption. category from
requirement to
comply with
subpart.
Sec. 63.7..................... Performance testing Schedule, Yes............. Except for
requirements. conditions, paragraphs of
notifications and Sec. 63.7 as
procedures. listed below.
Subpart TTTT
requires
performance
testing only if
the source
applies
additional
control that
destroys solvent.
Sec. 63.5311
requires sources
to follow the
performance
testing
guidelines of the
General
Provisions if a
control is added.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2) (i) and (iii). Performance testing Applicability and No.............. Sec. 63.5310(a)
requirements. performance dates. of subpart TTTT
specifies the
requirements of
performance
testing dates for
new and existing
sources.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)............... Conduct of Defines No.............. See Sec.
performance tests. representative 63.5380.
conditions;
provides an
exemption from the
standards for
periods of
startup, shutdown,
and malfunction;
requires that,
upon request, the
owner or operator
shall make
available to the
Administrator such
records as may be
necessary to
determine the
conditions of
performance tests.
Sec. 63.8..................... Monitoring Applicability, No.............. See Sec.
requirements. conduct of 63.5360(a)(2) for
monitoring, monitoring
operation and requirements.
maintenance,
quality control,
performance
evaluations, use
of alternative
monitoring method,
reduction of
monitoring data.
Sec. 63.9..................... Notification Applicability and Yes............. Except for
requirements. State delegation. paragraphs of
Sec. 63.9 as
listed below.
Sec. 63.9(e).................. Notification of Notify responsible Yes............. Applies only if
performance test. agency 60 days performance
ahead. testing is
performed.
Sec. 63.9(f).................. Notification of VE/ Notify responsible No.............. Subpart TTTT has
opacity agency 30 days no opacity or
observations. ahead. visual emission
standards.
[[Page 3324]]
Sec. 63.9(g).................. Additional Notification of No.............. See Sec.
notifications when performance 63.5360(a)(2) for
using a continuous evaluation; CMS requirements.
monitoring system notification using
(CMS). COMS data;
notification that
exceeded criterion
for relative
accuracy.
Sec. 63.9(h).................. Notification of Contents........... No.............. Sec. 63.5320(d)
compliance status. specifies
requirements for
the notification
of compliance
status.
Sec. 63.10.................... Recordkeeping/ Schedule for Yes............. Except for
reporting. reporting, record paragraphs of
storage. Sec. 63.10 as
listed below.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2).............. Recordkeeping...... CMS recordkeeping; No.............. See Sec. 63.5360
CMS records of for CMS
startup, shutdown, recordkeeping
and malfunction requirements,
events. except see Sec.
63.5430(h) for
CMS recordkeeping
requirements if
there is a
deviation from
the standard.
Sec. 63.10(c)................. Recordkeeping...... Additional CMS No.............. See Sec.
recordkeeping. 63.5360(a)(2) for
CMS recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2).............. Reporting.......... Reporting Yes............. Applies only if
performance test performance
results. testing is
performed.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3).............. Reporting.......... Reporting opacity No.............. Subpart TTTT has
or VE observations. no opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4).............. Reporting.......... Progress reports... Yes............. Applies if a
condition of
compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5).............. Reporting.......... Startup, shutdown, No.............. See Sec.
and malfunction 63.5420(b) for
reporting. reporting
requirements if
there is a
deviation from
the standard.
Sec. 63.10(e)................. Reporting.......... Additional CMS No.............. See Sec.
reports. 63.5360(a)(2) for
monitoring
requirements.
Sec. 63.11.................... Control device Requirements for Yes............. Applies only if
requirements. flares. your source uses
a flare to
control solvent
emissions.
Subpart TTTT does
not require
flares.
Sec. 63.12.................... State authority and State authority to Yes.............
delegations. enforce standards.
Sec. 63.13.................... State/regional Addresses where Yes.............
addresses. reports,
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14.................... Incorporation by Test methods Yes.............
reference. incorporated by
reference.
Sec. 63.15.................... Availability of Public and Yes.............
information and confidential
confidentiality. information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-01317 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P