[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36304-36371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14252]
[[Page 36303]]
Vol. 84
Friday,
No. 144
July 26, 2019
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of
the Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 36304]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0282; FRL-9996-00-OAR]
RIN 2060-AM75
Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the General Provisions to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The proposed amendments
implement the plain language reading of the ``major source'' and ``area
source'' definitions of section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
provide that a major source can reclassify to area source status at any
time by limiting its potential to emit (PTE) hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) to below the major source thresholds of 10 tons per year (tpy) of
any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. The EPA is
proposing that PTE HAP limits must meet the proposed effectiveness
criteria of being legally and practicably enforceable. The proposal
also clarifies the requirements that apply to sources choosing to
reclassify to area source status after the first substantive compliance
date of an applicable NESHAP standard. The EPA is proposing electronic
notification when a source reclassifies. We are also proposing to
revise provisions in specific NESHAP standards that specify the
applicability of General Provisions requirements to account for the
regulatory provisions we are proposing to add through this rule.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before September 24,
2019.
Public hearing. The EPA is planning to hold at least one public
hearing in response to this proposed action. Information about the
hearing, including location, date, and time, along with instructions on
how to register to speak at the hearing, will be published in a second
Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/reclassification-major-sources-area-sources-under-section-112-clean. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information
on registering and attending a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0282, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0282 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0282.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0282, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Ms. Elineth Torres, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D205-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4347; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. The EPA is planning to hold at least one public
hearing in response to this proposed action. Information about the
hearing, including location, date, and time, along with instructions on
how to register to speak at the hearing will be published in a second
Federal Register document.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0282. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. 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. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0282. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in
[[Page 36305]]
the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit.
If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and
cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special
characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket,
visit the EPA's Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
The EPA is expressly soliciting comment on numerous aspects of the
proposed rule. The EPA has indexed each comment solicitation with an
alpha-numeric identifier (e.g., ``C-1,'' ``C-2,'' ``C-3'') to provide a
consistent framework for effective and efficient provision of comments.
Accordingly, the EPA asks that commenters include the corresponding
identifier when providing comments relevant to that comment
solicitation. The EPA asks that commenters include the identifier in
either a heading, or within the text of each comment (e.g., ``In
response to solicitation of comment C-1, . . .'') to make clear which
comment solicitation is being addressed. The EPA emphasizes that the
Agency is not limiting comment to these identified areas and encourages
submission of any other comments relevant to this proposal.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0282.
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
CAM compliance assurance monitoring
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EAV equivalent annualized value
EIA economic impact analysis
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FESOP federally enforceable state operating permit
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MM2A Major MACT to Area
MRR monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NMA National Mining Association
NSPS new source performance standards
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OIAI Once In, Always In
OMB Office of Management and Budget
P2 pollution prevention
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSD prevention of significant deterioration
PTE potential to emit
PV present value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTR risk and technology review
SBA Small Business Administration
SIP State Implementation Plan
TIP Tribal Implementation Plan
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
C. Costs and Benefits
II. General Information
A. Does this proposed action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
III. Basis for the Proposed Action
A. Prior Agency Actions
B. Statutory Authority
C. Role of the PTE Definition in the Regulation of Major Sources
D. Issues Not Resolved by the Statute or Existing Regulations
IV. Considerations for Sources Seeking Reclassification From Major
to Area Source Status
A. PTE Determination Considerations
B. Criteria for Effective HAP PTE Limits
C. Permitting Considerations
D. SIP Considerations
V. Proposed Regulatory Changes
A. Proposed Changes to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A: General
Provisions
B. Proposed Changes to Individual NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability Tables
C. Proposed Changes to Individual NESHAP
VI. Impacts of Proposed Amendments
VII. Request for Comments
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation 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. Determination Under CAA Section 307(d)
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
On January 25, 2018, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum titled
``Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112
of the Clean Air Act'' (Major Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) to Area, or MM2A) memorandum. The memorandum discusses the
statutory provisions that govern when a major source subject to a major
source standard under section 112 of the CAA may be reclassified as an
area source, and thereby avoid being subject to major source
requirements. The proposed amendments to the General Provisions of the
NESHAP regulations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A implement the plain
language reading of the ``major source'' and ``area source''
definitions of section 112 of the CAA and provide that a major
[[Page 36306]]
source can reclassify to area source status at any time by limiting its
potential to emit HAP to below the major source thresholds of 10 tpy of
any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. The proposal also
clarifies the requirements that apply to sources choosing to reclassify
to area source status after the first substantive compliance date of an
applicable NESHAP standard (also ``CAA section 112 requirements'' or
``requirements'').
Further, we propose to amend the definition of ``potential to
emit'' in the General Provisions of the NESHAP regulations to address a
Court decision remanding the definition to the EPA. Under the current
definition in 40 CFR 63.2, any physical or operational limitation on
the capacity of the stationary source to emit a pollutant, including
air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation
or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed,
shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect
it would have on emissions is federally enforceable. In 1995, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
issued a decision in National Mining Association (NMA) v. EPA, 59 F.3d
1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995), in which it remanded the definition of
``potential to emit'' found in 40 CFR 63.2. In the NMA decision, the
Court stated that the Agency had not adequately explained how ``federal
enforceability'' furthered effectiveness. 59 F.3d at 1363-1365. In this
action, the EPA is proposing specific criteria that HAP PTE limits must
meet for these limits to be effective in ensuring that a source would
not emit above the PTE limits. The EPA is proposing to amend the
definition of ``potential to emit'' in 40 CFR 63.2, accordingly, by
removing the requirement for federally enforceable PTE limits and
requiring instead that HAP PTE limits meet the effectiveness criteria
of being both legally enforceable and practicably enforceable.
To ensure the EPA and the public is aware of the universe of
sources that reclassify from major source to area source status, we
propose to amend the current notification requirements in 40 CFR
63.9(b) and (j)(9) to require the notifications to be submitted
electronically. This proposal also responds to questions received after
the issuance of the MM2A memorandum and requests comment on issues
relevant to implementation of the plain language reading of the
statute. In addition, this proposal revises the General Provisions
applicability tables in specific NESHAP standards to reflect the
proposed changes to the General Provisions requirements. This proposal
is intended to provide clarity and certainty to stakeholders and the
public regarding the reclassification process.
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
The EPA is proposing to amend the applicability section found in 40
CFR 63.1 by adding a new paragraph (c)(6). This paragraph will specify
that a major source can become an area source at any time by limiting
its HAP PTE to below the major source thresholds established in 40 CFR
63.2. The EPA is also proposing to amend the definition of ``potential
to emit'' in 40 CFR 63.2 to remove the requirement that limits on
emissions be federally enforceable and instead require that any
physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the stationary
source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment
and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of
material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of
its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions
is legally and practicably enforceable (i.e., ``effective''). The EPA
is also proposing to include in 40 CFR 63.2 the definitions of legally
and practicably enforceable. By proposing this amendment, the EPA is
allowing for the use of non-federally enforceable limits (e.g., state
only enforceable limits) to be recognized as effective in limiting a
source's potential to emit for purposes of CAA section 112
applicability provided those limits are legally and practicably
enforceable.
To address the issue of compliance time frames for sources that
reclassify from major source status to area source status after the
first substantive compliance date of an applicable major source NESHAP
standard, we are proposing regulatory text in the new provision at 40
CFR 63.1(c)(6)(i) under which major sources that reclassify to area
source status become subject to applicable area source requirements in
40 CFR part 63 immediately upon becoming an area source in those
situations where the first substantive compliance date of the area
source requirements has passed. For sources that reclassify from major
to area source status and then revert back to their previous major
source status, the EPA is proposing to add a new provision in 40 CFR
63.1(c)(6)(ii)(A) to specify that upon reverting back to major source
status, a source must meet the major source NESHAP requirements at the
time that those requirements again become applicable to the source. The
EPA is proposing to add a new provision at 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(iii) to
address the interaction of the reclassification of sources with
enforcement actions arising from violations that occurred while the
source was a major source subject to major source requirements.
Specifically, we are proposing that status reclassification from major
source to area source does not affect a source's liability or any
enforcement investigations or enforcement actions for a source's past
violations of major source requirements that occurred prior to the
source's reclassification.
The EPA is proposing to amend the notification requirements in 40
CFR 63.9(b) so that an owner or operator of a facility that
reclassifies must notify the Administrator of any standards to which it
becomes subject. With this amendment, the notification requirements of
40 CFR 63.9 will cover both situations where a source switches from
major to area source status, and where a source switches from major, to
area, and back to major source status. The EPA is also proposing to
clarify that a source that reclassifies must notify the EPA of any
changes in the applicability of the standards that the source was
subject to per the notification requirements of 40 CFR 63.9(j). The EPA
is also proposing to amend the notification requirements in 40 CFR
63.9(b) and (j) to require the notification be submitted electronically
through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
The EPA is also proposing to amend the General Provisions to add 40 CFR
63.9(k) to include the CEDRI submission procedures. The EPA is also
proposing to remove the time limit for record retention in 40 CFR
63.10(b)(3) so sources that obtain new legally and practicably
enforceable PTE limits are required to keep the required records until
the source becomes subject to major source NESHAP requirements. The EPA
is also proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.12(c) to clarify that a source may
not be exempted from electronic reporting requirements.
The EPA is proposing to amend the General Provisions applicability
tables contained within most subparts of 40 CFR part 63 to add a
reference to a new proposed paragraph 63.1(c)(6) discussed above. The
EPA has identified one general category of regulatory provisions in
several NESHAP subparts that include a date by which a major source can
become an area source. Accordingly, in this action we are proposing to
revise these provisions by removing such date limitations. The
provisions we are proposing to revise
[[Page 36307]]
are: 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ at 63.1441; 40 CFR part 63, subpart
QQQQQ at 63.9485; 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR at 63.9581; and Table 2
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. We are also proposing to revise
several area source NESHAP subparts that include a specific date for an
existing source to submit the initial notification because the date
specified in the regulations has passed. The provisions we are
proposing to revise are: 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH at 63.11175; 40
CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX at 63.11519; 40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAAAAA at 63.11564; 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBBB at 63.11585; and
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC at 63.11603. We request comments on
whether there are other NESHAP subparts that contain the same type of
general provisions of those discussed above that will need to be
revised (Comment C-1).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA notes that the regulatory provisions cited and
discussed in this paragraph continue to be in effect. These
provisions will remain in effect until such time as they are revised
or removed by final agency action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Costs and Benefits
The EPA projects that this proposed action may result in
substantial cost savings based on illustrative estimates of its reduced
administrative burden. Other changes in costs, such as from changes in
control device operation and maintenance in response to this proposed
action, are not estimated due to lack of information. To assess
potential changes in emissions, we analyzed the reclassification of 34
sources and also performed an illustrative analysis of six source
categories in detail; however, due to limited information on how
emissions changes could take place across the broad array of HAP
emissions sources, we are unable to provide precise estimates of
changes in emissions for all source categories that could be impacted
by this action. Due to the uncertainties in determining precise
emission impacts, we are providing a qualitative assessment of benefits
that may result from this proposed action. The illustrative cost saving
impacts of this proposed regulation are estimated for all sources that
could potentially reclassify from major source status to area source
status under section 112 of the CAA for the 2 years after promulgation
of this action. The impacts presented in the preamble reflect those
estimated from the illustrative cost saving analysis of the primary
scenario, which for analytical purposes is defined as only those
facilities whose actual emissions are below 75 percent of the major
source thresholds (7.5 tpy for a single HAP and 18.75 tpy for all HAP)
that could potentially reclassify from major to area source status, a
scenario that is further described in section VI of this preamble and
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that is available in the docket
for this action. The RIA also presents two other alternative scenarios
to provide a range of estimated cost savings.\2\ All impacts are
estimated compared to a baseline in which all promulgated regulations
to limit HAP emissions under section 112 of the CAA are in place and
includes implementation of the 1995 Once In, Always In (OIAI) policy.
Results are presented as the present value (PV) and equivalent
annualized value (EAV) of the cost savings of the proposed action in
2016 dollars. The PV is the one-time value of a stream of impacts over
time, discounted to the current (or nearly current) day. The EAV is a
measure of the annual cost that is calculated consistent with the PV.
The cost savings of the proposed action in 2014 dollars are also
presented later in this preamble and in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Alternative scenario 1 assumes that only those facilities
whose actual emissions are below 50 percent of the major source
thresholds (5 tpy for a single HAP and 12.5 tpy for all HAP) would
reclassify from major to area source status. Alternative scenario 2
assumes that sources below 125 percent of the major source
thresholds (12.5 tpy for a single HAP and 31.25 tpy for all HAP)
would reclassify from major to area source status. Discussion of
these scenarios and results can be found in the RIA for this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of key results from the proposed action presented as
shown in the RIA can be found in Table 1. This table presents the PV
and EAV, estimated in 2016 dollars using discount rates of 7 and 3
percent, and discounted to 2016, of the cost savings of the proposed
action. Yearly estimates are presented for the second year after
promulgation and subsequent years.
Table 1--Annual Cost Savings Compared to the Baseline, For Year 2
[Including following years]
[Billions 2016$] *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% Equivalent 3% Equivalent
Present value annualized Present value annualized
value value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits (Cost Savings)..................... $2.39 $0.17 $6.24 $0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The analytic timeline begins in 2020 and continues thereafter for an indefinite period. Year 1 impacts are
those for 1 year after 2020, and Year 2 impacts are those for the second year after 2022 and annually
afterwards. Impacts for year 2 are representative of impacts in subsequent years. Impacts are for the primary
scenario analyzed for the proposal.
To assess the potential for emission changes from the
reclassification of major sources as area sources, the EPA evaluated
the sources that the EPA knows have reclassified to area source status
consistent with the EPA's plain language reading of the CAA section 112
definitions of ``major'' and ``area'' source, since January 2018. The
EPA reviewed permits associated to the reclassification of 34 sources.
The EPA also performed an illustrative analysis of changes in emissions
for six source categories covered by the proposed rule. In addition,
the EPA also performed an illustrative analysis of control cost
estimates under one alternative scenario for five source categories
covered by the proposed rule. The assessment of the reclassifications
and illustrative analyses are summarized in section VI of this preamble
and presented in details in the Emission Impacts Analysis Technical
Support Memorandum (TSM), the illustrative 125% Scenario Cost
Considerations Memorandum and the RIA for the proposal that are
available in the docket for this action.
II. General Information
A. Does this proposed action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially impacted by this proposal
include sources subject to NESHAP requirements under section 112 of the
CAA.
The proposed amendments, if promulgated, will be applicable to
[[Page 36308]]
sources that reclassify from major source to area source status under
section 112 of the CAA and sources that revert from their reclassified
status as an area source resulting from this action to their previous
major source status.
Federal, state, local, and tribal governments may be affected by
this action if they own or operate sources that choose to request
reclassification from major source status to area source status or if
they choose to subsequently revert to their major source status at some
time in the future after such reclassification. The EPA is the
permitting authority for issuing, rescinding, and amending permits for
sources that request reclassification in Indian country, with four
exceptions.\3\ State, local, or tribal regulatory authorities \4\ may
receive requests to issue new permits or make changes to existing
permits for sources in their jurisdiction to address reclassification
related activities (e.g., title V, synthetic minor permits,
establishing limits on a source's PTE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Two tribes have approved title V programs or delegation of
40 CFR part 71. The tribes may have sources that request to no
longer be covered by title V. Neither of these two tribes have
approved minor source permitting programs but may in the future. In
the meantime, the tribes will need to coordinate with the EPA, who
is the permitting authority in Indian country for these requests. In
addition, two other tribes have approved Tribal Implementation Plans
(TIPs) authorizing the issuance of minor source permits. Only one of
these tribes has a major source that would be eligible to request
reclassification. If that source requests a new permit, the tribe
may issue the minor source permit, but the EPA would need to be made
aware of the request as the EPA is the permitting authority for
title V.
\4\ The term regulatory authority is intended to be inclusive of
the permitting authority or other governmental agency with authority
to process reclassification requests and issuance of legally and
practicably enforceable HAP PTE limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 proposal is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/reclassification-major-sources-area-sources-under-section-112-clean. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key documents at this same
website.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0282).
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
In 2007, the EPA issued a proposed rule to amend the General
Provisions to the NESHAP. See 72 FR 69 (January 3, 2007). This new
proposal supersedes and replaces the 2007 proposed rule. The EPA will
not be responding to comments received on the 2007 proposal. While some
aspects of this new proposal are similar to some aspects of the 2007
proposal, some aspects also differ from the 2007 proposal. To the
extent that your comments on this new proposal are similar to or the
same as comments submitted in 2007, you can restate those comments in
the document that you prepare and submit on this proposal. Please do
not resubmit 2007 comment documents or attach 2007 comment documents in
what you submit on this proposal.
The EPA is expressly soliciting comment on numerous aspects of the
proposed rule. The EPA has indexed each comment solicitation with an
alpha-numeric identifier (e.g., ``C-1,'' ``C-2,'' ``C-3'') to provide a
consistent framework for effective and efficient provision of comments.
Accordingly, the EPA asks that commenters include the corresponding
identifier when providing comments relevant to that comment
solicitation. The EPA asks that commenters include the identifier in
either a heading, or within the text of each comment (e.g., ``In
response to solicitation of comment C-1, . . .'') to make clear which
comment solicitation is being addressed. The EPA emphasizes that the
Agency is not limiting comment to these identified areas and encourages
the submission of any other comments relevant to this proposal.
III. Basis for the Proposed Action
A. Prior Agency Actions
Shortly after the EPA began implementing individual NESHAP
standards resulting from the 1990 CAA Amendments, the Agency received
multiple requests to clarify when a major source of HAP could avoid CAA
section 112 requirements applicable to major sources by taking
enforceable limits on its PTE below the major source thresholds. In
response, the EPA issued, on May 16, 1995, a memorandum from John
Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
the EPA Regional Air Division Directors (the 1995 Seitz Memorandum).\5\
The 1995 Seitz Memorandum provided guidance on three timing issues
related to avoidance of CAA section 112 requirements for major sources:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Potential to Emit for MACT Standards-Guidance on
Timing Issues.'' From John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, to the EPA Regional Air Division Directors.
May 16, 1995, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/pteguid.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``By what date must a facility limit its PTE if it wishes
to avoid major source requirements of a MACT standard?''
``Is a facility that is required to comply with a MACT
standard permanently subject to that standard?''
``In the case of facilities with two or more sources in
different source categories: If such a facility is a major source for
purposes of one MACT standard, is the facility necessarily a major
source for purposes of subsequently promulgated MACT standards?''
In the 1995 Seitz Memorandum, the EPA stated its interpretation of
the relevant statutory language that facilities that are major sources
of HAP may switch to area source status at any time until the ``first
compliance date'' of the standard.\6\ Under this interpretation,
facilities that are major sources on the first substantive compliance
date of an applicable major source NESHAP were required to comply
permanently with that major source standard even if the source was
subsequently to become an area source by limiting its PTE. This
position was commonly referred to as the ``Once In, Always In'' (OIAI)
policy. The expressed basis for this OIAI policy was that this would
help ensure that required reductions in HAP emissions were maintained
over time. See 1995 Seitz Memorandum at 9 (``A once in, always in
policy ensures that MACT emissions reductions are permanent, and that
the health and environmental protection provided by MACT standards is
not undermined.''). Finally, the 1995 Seitz Memorandum provided that a
source that is major for one MACT standard would not be considered
major for a subsequent MACT standard if the source's potential to emit
HAP emissions was reduced to below major source levels by complying
with the first major source MACT standard. In the 1995 Seitz
Memorandum, the EPA set forth transitional policy guidance that was
intended to remain in effect only until the Agency proposed and
promulgated amendments to the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The ``first substantive compliance date'' is defined as the
first date a source must comply with an emission limitation or other
substantive regulatory requirement (i.e., leak detection and repair
programs, work practice measures, etc. . . , but not a notice
requirement) in the applicable standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36309]]
After issuing the 1995 Seitz Memorandum, the EPA twice proposed
regulatory amendments that would have altered the OIAI policy. In 2003,
the EPA proposed amendments that focused on HAP emissions reductions
resulting from pollution prevention (P2) activities. Apart from certain
provisions associated with the EPA's National Environmental Performance
Track Program, a national voluntary program designed to recognize and
encourage top environmental performers whose program participants go
beyond compliance with regulatory requirements to attain levels of
environmental performance that benefit people, communities, and the
environment, that proposal was never finalized. See 68 FR 26249 (May
15, 2003); 69 FR 21737 (April 22, 2004). In 2007, the EPA issued a
proposed rule to replace the OIAI policy set forth in the May 1995
Seitz Memorandum. 72 FR 69 (January 3, 2007). In that proposal, the EPA
reviewed the provisions in CAA section 112 relevant to the OIAI policy
interpretation, applicable regulatory language, stakeholder concerns,
and potential implications. Id. at 71-74. Based on that review, the EPA
proposed an interpretation of the relevant statutory language that a
major source that is subject to a major source NESHAP would no longer
be subject to that major source standard if the source were to become
an area source through enforceable limitations on its PTE for each HAP.
Id. at 72-73. Under the 2007 proposal, major sources could take such
limits on their PTE and obtain ``area source'' status at any time and
would not be limited to doing so only before the ``first substantive
compliance date,'' as the OIAI policy provided.\7\ Id. at 70. The EPA
did not take final action on this 2007 proposal. This proposal
supersedes and replaces the 2007 proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As provided in the 2007 proposal, ``[p]rior to the effective
date of the permit [that limits the emissions of HAP], the source
must comply with the relevant major source MACT standard(s) and
other conditions in its title V permit.'' See 72 FR 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters supporting the 2007 proposal expressed the view
that, by imposing an artificial time limit on major sources obtaining
area source status, the OIAI policy created a disincentive for sources
to implement voluntary pollution abatement and prevention efforts, or
to pursue technological innovations that would reduce HAP emissions
further. Stakeholders commented to the EPA that the definitions in CAA
section 112(a)(2) contain a single factor for distinguishing between
major source and area source--the amount of HAP the source ``emits'' or
``has the potential to emit.'' Commenters further stated that the
temporal limitation imposed by the OIAI policy was inconsistent with
the CAA and created an arbitrary date by which sources must determine
whether their HAP PTE will exceed either of the major source
thresholds. These issues were re-emphasized in recent comments received
per Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda
(February 24, 2017), and the Presidential Memorandum on Streamlining
Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing
(January 24, 2017).
On January 25, 2018, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and
Radiation, to the EPA Regional Air Division Directors titled
``Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112
of the Clean Air Act'' (MM2A Memorandum).\8\ The MM2A Memorandum
discussed the statutory provisions that govern when a major source
subject to major source NESHAP requirements under section 112 of the
CAA may be reclassified as an area source, and thereby avoid being
subject thereafter to major source NESHAP requirements and other
requirements applicable to major sources under CAA section 112. In the
MM2A Memorandum, the EPA discussed the plain language of CAA section
112(a) regarding Congress's definitions of ``major source'' and ``area
source,'' and determined that the OIAI policy articulated in the 1995
Seitz Memorandum is contrary to the plain language of the CAA and,
therefore, must be withdrawn. In the MM2A Memorandum, the EPA announced
the future publication of a proposed rule to receive input from the
public on adding regulatory text consistent with the plain reading of
the statute as described in the MM2A Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See notice of issuance of this guidance memorandum at 83 FR
5543 (February 8, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, the EPA is proposing regulatory text to implement
the plain language reading of the statute as discussed in the MM2A
Memorandum, and this proposal supersedes and replaces the 2007
proposal. See 72 FR 69 (January 3, 2007). This proposal also addresses
questions received after the issuance of the MM2A Memorandum. In the
comments on the 2007 proposal, many stakeholders asserted that the
implementation of this plain reading and withdrawal of the OIAI policy
will incentivize stationary sources that have reduced HAP emissions to
below major source thresholds to reclassify to area source status by
taking enforceable PTE limits and reduce their compliance burden. These
stakeholders also stated that sources with emissions above major source
thresholds after complying with CAA section 112 major source
requirements could be encouraged to evaluate their operations and
consider additional changes that can further reduce their HAP emissions
to below the major source thresholds. Overall, many stakeholders
believed the implementation of the plain language reading of the
statute will encourage sources to pursue pollution abatement efforts,
including innovation in pollution reduction technologies, engineering,
and work practices. Other stakeholders raised the concern that allowing
sources to reclassify could potentially result in emission increases
from sources that have reduced their actual emissions to below the
major source thresholds because they have had to comply with major
source NESHAP requirements.
We solicit comment on all aspects of this proposal, including the
EPA's position that the withdrawal of the OIAI policy and the proposed
approach gives proper effect to the statutory definitions of ``major
source'' and ``area source'' in CAA section 112(a) and is consistent
with the plain language and structure of the CAA as well as the impacts
of the proposal on costs, benefits, and emissions impacts (Comment C-
2).
B. Statutory Authority
CAA section 112 distinguishes between major and area sources of HAP
emissions. Major sources are larger sources of air emissions than area
sources and, generally, different requirements apply to major sources
and area sources. For some HAP source categories, the EPA has
promulgated requirements for only major sources, and HAP emissions from
area sources in that source category are not regulated under the NESHAP
program.
Whether a source is a ``major source'' or an ``area source''
depends on the amount of HAP emitted by the source based on its actual
or potential emissions. Congress defined ``major source'' to mean a
source that emits or has the potential to emit at or above either of
the statutory thresholds of 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of total
HAP. CAA section 112(a)(1). An ``area source'' is defined as any source
of HAP that is not a major source. CAA section 112(a)(2). If a source
does not emit or does not have the potential to emit at or above either
of the major source thresholds, then it is an ``area source.'' The
statutory definitions of ``major
[[Page 36310]]
source'' and ``area source'' do not contain any language that fixes a
source's status as a major source or area source at any particular
point in time, nor do they otherwise contain any language suggesting
that there is a cut-off date after which a source's status cannot
change.
Congress did, however, create a distinction based on timing in CAA
section 112 in defining and creating provisions related to ``new
sources'' and ``existing sources.'' Specifically, Congress defined
``new source'' to mean a source that is constructed or reconstructed
after the EPA first proposes regulations covering the source. CAA
section 112(a)(4). An ``existing source'' is defined as any source
other than a new source. CAA section 112(a)(10). A source will be
subject to different requirements depending on whether it is a new
source or an existing source. See, e.g., CAA section 112(d)(3)
(identifying different minimum levels of stringency (known as ``MACT
floors'') for new and existing sources).
The emissions-based distinction (arising from the definitions of
major source and area source) and the timing-based distinction (arising
from the definitions of new source and existing source) are
independent, and neither is tied to the other. For example, the
statutory definition of ``major source'' does not provide that major
source status is determined based on a source's emissions or PTE as of
the date that the EPA first proposes regulations applicable to that
source or any other point in time. As noted above, the plain language
of the ``major source'' and ``area source'' definitions create a
distinction that is based solely on amount of emissions and PTE, and
not timing. Similarly, with respect to the timing-based distinction, a
source is a ``new source'' or an ``existing source'' based entirely on
the timing of its construction or reconstruction and without
consideration of its actual emissions or PTE. The contrast between the
temporal distinction in the contrasting definitions of existing and new
sources on the one hand, and the absence of any temporal dimension to
the contrasting definitions of major and area sources on the other, is
further evidence that Congress did not intend to place a temporal
limitation on a source's ability to be classified as an area source
(including a source's ability to be classified as an area source
through the permitting authority's ``considering controls'' that may
have been imposed after the source was initially classified as major).
Notwithstanding the independence of the two distinctions that the
statute created based on amount of emissions and timing (and without
addressing that independence or otherwise addressing the plain language
of the statutory definitions of ``major source'' and ``area source''),
the EPA issued the May 1995 Seitz Memorandum, which set forth the OIAI
policy. Under the OIAI policy, a source's status as a major source for
the purpose of applying a specific major source MACT standard issued
under the requirements of CAA section 112 is unalterably fixed on the
first substantive compliance date of the specific applicable major
source requirements. Thus, a source that was a major source on that
first compliance date would continue to be subject to the major source
requirements for that specific NESHAP even if the source reduced its
PTE to below the statutory thresholds in the definition of ``major
source,'' and, thus, fell within the definition of ``area source.''
On January 25, 2018, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum titled
``Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112
of the Clean Air Act,'' signed by William L. Wehrum, Assistant
Administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (MM2A Memorandum).
The MM2A Memorandum discussed the statutory definitions of ``major
source'' and ``area source'' and explained that the OIAI policy
articulated in the May 1995 Seitz Memorandum was contrary to the plain
language of the CAA, and, therefore, must be withdrawn.
As discussed above, Congress expressly defined the terms ``major
source'' and ``area source'' in CAA section 112(a) in unambiguous
language. Nonetheless, under the OIAI policy, a source that reduced its
PTE to below the statutory thresholds for major source status after the
relevant compliance date would nevertheless continue to be subject to
the requirements applicable to major sources. This policy was applied
notwithstanding that the statutory definitions of ``major source'' and
``area source'' lack any reference to the compliance date of major
source requirements or any other text that indicates a time limit for
changing between major source status and area source status. In short,
Congress placed no temporal limitations on the determination of whether
a source emits or has the potential to emit HAP in sufficient quantity
to be a major source under CAA section 112. Because, the OIAI policy
imposed such a temporal limitation (before the ``first compliance
date''), the EPA had no authority for the OIAI policy under the plain
language of the CAA. Under the plain language of the statute, a major
source that takes enforceable limits on its PTE to bring its HAP
emissions below the CAA section 112 major source thresholds, no matter
when it may choose to do so, becomes an area source under the plain
language of the statute. We are proposing to make clear in this
rulemaking that such a source, now having area source status, will not
be subject to the CAA section 112 requirements applicable to the source
as a major source under CAA section 112--so long as the source's actual
and PTE HAP remains below the CAA section 112 thresholds--and will
instead be subject to any applicable area source requirements.
A discussion of the statutory definitions of ``new source'' and
``existing source'' in CAA section 112(a)(4) and (a)(10) further
demonstrates that the OIAI policy was inconsistent with the language of
the statute. As discussed above, the major source/area source
distinction and the new source/existing source distinction are two
separate and independent features of the statute. Significantly, the
statutory definitions of ``new source'' and ``existing source'' dictate
that the new source/existing source distinction is determined by when a
source commences construction or reconstruction and say nothing about
the source's volume of emissions. No one can reasonably suggest that
this silence concerning volume of emissions indicates that Congress
intended to give the EPA the discretion to conclude that sources should
be classified as new or existing based, in part, on how much they emit.
For example, if the EPA were to say that a source is only a new source
if it both (1) commences construction after regulations are first
proposed (as stated in CAA section 112(a)(4)), and (2) emits more than
20 tpy of any single HAP (which is not stated anywhere in the statute),
that second element would be contrary to the plain language of the
statute. Similarly, the OIAI policy of considering timing matters as
part of the major source/area source distinction is contrary to the
plain language of the statute, because it interjects timing matters
into the major/area distinction when Congress provided that such
distinction would be based only on the source's actual and potential
emissions.
Some interested parties assert that the EPA's plain language
reading of the definitions of ``major source'' and ``area source'' is
contradicted by CAA section 112(i)(3)(A). Specifically, they contend
that the first phrase in CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) precludes a major
source from reclassifying to area source status
[[Page 36311]]
after the source has become subject to a major source standard, and
that this statutory text compels the OIAI policy. The EPA disagrees
with this contention and is taking comment on the following analysis.
The first phrase in CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) states: ``After the
effective date of any emissions standard, limitation or regulation
promulgated under this section and applicable to a source, no person
may operate such source in violation of such standard, limitation or
regulation. . . .'' The EPA reads this phrase to have the same meaning
as similar ``effective date'' provisions in the CAA, such as CAA
section 111(e), notwithstanding that CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) has
somewhat different phrasing. In short, this text simply provides that,
after the effective date of a CAA section 112 rule, sources to which a
standard is applicable must comply with that standard. This text is not
reasonably read to say that, once a standard is applicable to a source,
that standard continues to be applicable to the source for all time,
even if the source's potential to emit changes such that it no longer
meets the applicability criteria for the standard. Such a reading would
produce some odd results. For example, if the first phrase in CAA
section 112(i)(3)(A) were read to say that a source's applicable
requirements are determined at the point in time that a source first
becomes subject to CAA section 112 requirements, then a source that was
initially an area source would continue to be subject to area source
requirements even if that source increased its potential to emit above
either of the major source thresholds. The EPA's reading is that an
area source that actually emits or increases its PTE above either of
the major source thresholds is subject to major source requirements. In
sum, we are proposing to determine that the CAA section 112 definitions
of ``major source'' and ``area source'' and the ``effective date''
provision in CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) are properly read together to say
that sources must comply with the applicable requirements corresponding
to their major source or area source status, and that if this status
changes, then the source becomes subject to the requirements
corresponding to its current status.
Nothing in the structure of the CAA counsels against the plain
language reading of the statute to allow major sources to become area
sources after an applicable compliance date in a regulation, in the
same way that they have long been able to become area sources before
the applicable compliance date. Congress defined major sources and area
sources differently and established different provisions applicable for
each. The OIAI policy, by contrast, created an artificial time limit
that does not exist on the face of the statute by including a temporal
limitation on when a major source could become an area source by
limiting its PTE HAP.
Some interested parties have pointed to various provisions in CAA
section 112 in addition to CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) as demonstrating
that the EPA's plain language reading is contrary to the purposes and
structure of CAA section 112. The EPA disagrees that these provisions
are contrary to or inconsistent with EPA's plain language reading, for
the following reasons.
First, some interested parties have pointed to CAA sections
112(c)(3) and (c)(6) as reflecting a Congressional intent for sources
to be subject to continuous, permanent compliance with major-source
standards and, thus, these provisions are inconsistent with the EPA's
plain language reading. But there is no real inconsistency here. Those
provisions required the EPA to ensure that sources accounting for 90
percent of the emissions of specific pollutants were listed and
regulated by November 2000. The premise of the argument based on CAA
sections 112(c)(3) and (c)(6) is that these provisions do not simply
require the EPA to list and regulate sufficient source categories to
meet the 90 percent requirement at a given point in time; rather, they
require that the EPA's regulations ensure that 90 percent of emissions
are subject to regulation on an ongoing basis. This is not a reasonable
reading of what is required by CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (c)(6), as
demonstrated by the inherent implications of the regulation called for
in these provision and simple math. Once the sources in the categories
that represent 90 percent of the emissions addressed in these
provisions become subject to standards, those sources' emissions will
decrease and those categories will no longer represent 90 percent of
all emissions of the pollutants in question. As a hypothetical example,
if the total emissions of one of the pollutants addressed in CAA
sections 112(c)(3) and (c)(6) were 100 tpy, and if the source
categories emitting 90 tpy were subjected to a standard that called for
a 50 percent reduction in emissions, then those source categories would
now only be emitting 45 tpy, which would be about 82 percent of the new
total emissions of 55 tpy. Under the interested parties' reading of CAA
sections 112(c)(3) and (c)(6), the EPA would then be required to add
source categories to get back to 90 percent and set standards to reduce
the emissions of those sources. This would, once again, reduce the
regulated sources to below 90 percent. In short, this reading of CAA
sections 112(c)(3) and (c)(6) would create a never-ending cycle of
listing and regulation in order to achieve an unattainable goal of
ensuring the 90 percent of emissions are regulated. This is not a
reasonable reading of what CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (c)(6) require.
Further, one would expect the number of sources in a source category to
change over time due to shifts in the economy. For example, one source
category regulated under CAA section 112 is magnetic tape manufacturing
operations. See subpart EE, 40 CFR 63.701-63.708. Since this source
category was first regulated in 1994 (see 59 FR 64596, December 15,
1994), the use of digital recording and data storage has largely
replaced the use of magnetic tape, and, thus, the number of sources in
this source category has declined. As the number of sources in a source
category declined, the total emissions from the source category would
decline, which creates another reason why the total group of source
categories that at one point represented 90 percent of emissions would
fall to less than 90 percent. Thus, again, a reading that the 90
percent requirement is an ongoing requirement that must be continuously
met is not a reasonable reading, because it is not reasonable to think,
and there is nothing in the statute to suggest, that Congress intended
the 90 percent requirement to impose on the EPA the need to endlessly
revisit its 90 percent determination as the implementation of MACT
standards under CAA section 112 achieved reductions in emissions. For
these reasons, there is no conflict between the EPA's plain language
reading of CAA sections 112(a)(1)-(2) and the requirements of CAA
sections 112(c)(3) and (c)(6).
Second, opponents of the EPA's plain language reading also point to
CAA section 112(f)(2) (commonly referred to as the residual risk
provision) and CAA section 112(d)(6) (commonly referred to as the
technology review provision). These parties suggest that these
provisions demonstrate Congress's ``legislative plan'' that sources
will continually reduce their emissions, and that the EPA's plain
language reading will allow sources to become area sources and, in so
doing, undermine this ``legislative plan.'' This argument, however,
fails to recognize that Congress in CAA section 112 also plainly
distinguished between major sources emitting above the 10/25
[[Page 36312]]
threshold and area sources emitting below the 10/25 threshold and
subjected them to different requirements. Perhaps the clearest example
of the differential treatment of major sources and area sources is the
provision in CAA section 112(d)(5) allowing the EPA to set GACT
standards rather than MACT standards for area sources. In short, any
consideration of Congress' ``legislative plan'' has to look at the
entire plan, including the plain language that Congress used to define
major sources and area sources.
Third, some parties have pointed to the requirements of CAA section
112(d) as requiring that sources that are at any point subjected to
major source standards must continue to be subject to major source
standards permanently and argued that EPA's plain language reading
undermines the protections provided by these CAA 112 standards. Section
112(d)--and in particular, section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) of the CAA--
addresses how the EPA sets MACT standards for major sources (based on
the maximum degree of emissions reduction the EPA determines is
achievable, which may be a complete prohibition on emissions). As an
initial point, sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) are not the only
provisions that govern major source standards, and in some cases, they
are not the controlling provisions. For example, CAA section 112(h)
provides that the EPA, in certain circumstances, can set standards that
are different from the MACT floor-based standards created under CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). More fundamentally, the question of what
standard is applicable to major sources in a source category--whether
MACT floor standards or otherwise--logically cannot control the proper
reading of the statutory text identifying the pool of sources to which
major source requirements apply. In short, once again, these contextual
arguments are misplaced. Congress has spoken by defining ``major
source'' without any temporal limitation. The EPA's plain language
reading honors that unambiguous choice.
Parties opposed to the EPA's plain language reading also suggest
that the EPA's reading is inconsistent with the purpose and provisions
of CAA section 112 because it will lead major sources that reclassify
to area source status to increase their emissions above what they could
emit if they continued to be major sources. The EPA disagrees that a
sources' reclassification from major source to area source will
necessarily lead to an increase in emissions for the source, for the
following reasons.
First, as the EPA noted in the MM2A memorandum (at 4) and as
discussed above in section III.A of this preamble, some stakeholders
have stated that some sources with emissions above the major source
thresholds will reduce their emissions below what is required by the
applicable major sources standards and to below the major source
thresholds in order to be able to reclassify as area sources. As
discussed in more detail in section VI of this preamble and in the
EPA's Emissions Impacts Analysis TSM, the EPA has identified three
sources that have reclassified, and as a result will decrease their
emissions. See Emission Impacts Analysis TSM Table 2: (1) City of
Columbia--Municipal Power Plant (Facility #27 on Table 2); (2) Holland
Board of Public Works--James DeYoung Generating Station and Wastewater
Treatment Plant (Facility #28 on Table 2); and (3) MidAmerican Energy
Company--Riverside Generating Station (Facility #29 on Table 2).
Second, the EPA's analysis of the 34 sources that have reclassified
or are in the process of reclassifying since January 2018 based on the
EPA's plain language reading shows that none of them will increase
their emissions as a result of reclassification. See section VI of this
preamble and the EPA's Emissions Impact Analysis TSM at Table 2,
available in the docket.
Nonetheless, the EPA recognizes (as discussed below in section IV
at Table 3) that there are possible scenarios in which major sources
might increase emissions after they reclassify to area source status.
However, the EPA does not view such potential emission increase
scenarios as a basis for disregarding the plain language of Congress's
``major source'' and ``area source'' definitions and the lack of any
temporal restriction on sources' opportunity to reclassify. Instead,
the EPA views such scenarios as a matter that needs to be evaluated and
addressed in determining how the agency should implement the plain
language of the statute. Thus, the EPA is seeking comment on (1) to
what extent will theoretical emission increase scenarios actually
occur, including (a) what emissions restrictions will be put in place
as part of the PTE HAP limits that a major source takes to be
reclassified as an area source and (b) whether other regulatory
controls are in place and applicable to sources after reclassification
that will either continue to restrict the source from emitting above
the major source standard or prevent an emissions increase after
reclassification; and (2) whether the EPA should adopt regulatory text
to establish safeguards to prevent emissions increases following
reclassification (Comment C-3).
With respect to the second issue (whether the EPA should adopt
regulatory text to establish safeguards to prevent emissions
increases), the EPA is seeking comment on what legal basis the agency
would have for requiring such safeguards (Comment C-4). In addition to
seeking comment on this question generally, we are seeking comment on
several specific points.
First, the EPA is seeking comment on the following rationale for
separating the timing of reclassification from the sufficiency of the
PTE limits that support reclassification (Comment C-5). There are two
related but distinct matters at issue here. The first matter is the
timing of reclassification: Whether sources can reclassify at any time
or are permanently classified as major sources after the first
substantive compliance date. The second matter is what PTE limit is
sufficient to form the basis for a source to reclassify. One aspect of
this ``sufficiency'' matter is enforceability, which is discussed below
in section IV.B of this preamble. Another aspect of ``sufficiency'' is
whether the PTE limit must, in addition to being enforceable, ensure
that the source does not increase emissions as a result of
reclassification. As discussed above, the ``timing'' matter is governed
by the plain language of the statutory definitions of ``major source''
and ``area source.'' The ``sufficiency'' matter is governed by the
phrasing in the major source definition that directs the EPA to compare
a source's ``potential to emit considering controls'' to the 10/25
major source thresholds. The D.C. Circuit has previously looked at a
``sufficiency'' question and the phrase ``potential to emit considering
controls.'' Specifically, in NMA v. EPA, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995),
the Court considered whether a PTE limit had to be federally
enforceable to be a sufficient basis for reclassification and, as part
of its analysis, concluded that the phrase ``considering controls'' was
ambiguous and the EPA's application of those words had to be reviewed
under a Chevron Step 2 analysis. 59 F.3d at 1362-1363 (concluding that
the EPA had not explained why a PTE limit had to be federally
enforceable to be sufficient to support reclassification). Similarly,
whether a PTE limit that allows a source to increase its emissions as a
result of reclassification is sufficient to support reclassification
cannot be determined by the plain language reading of the statute that
governs the timing of reclassification, but must be considered based on
the ambiguous phrase ``potential to emit considering
[[Page 36313]]
controls'' and in light of the other provisions in CAA section 112.
Second, assuming that the above rationale properly frames the
``sufficiency'' matter as a separate question based on how to
reasonably read the phrase ``potential to emit considering controls,''
the EPA is seeking comment on whether a requirement that PTE limits
used to reclassify a major source to area source status must include
safeguards to prevent emissions increases is a reasonable reading of
the ambiguous phrase ``potential to emit considering controls'' in
light of the other provisions in CAA section 112 (Comment C-6). For
example, some interested parties have presented arguments opposing the
EPA's plain language reading on timing based on CAA section 112(d)--
specifically, that major sources must be subject to MACT floor
standards that are at least as stringent as what is achieved by the
best performing sources, as provided under CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(d)(3). The EPA is seeking comment on whether the arguments presented
in opposition to EPA's plain language reading on timing are
appropriately considered on the question of the sufficiency of the PTE
limit and support the conclusion that PTE limits used to support
reclassification must not allow sources to increase emissions as a
result of reclassification (Comment C-7).
Third, assuming that requiring safeguards against emission
increases in PTE limits is a reasonable reading of the statute, the EPA
is seeking comment on what safeguards should be required (Comment C-8).
Possible safeguards include requiring that: (1) PTE limits include a
limit of the same type as the major source standard and at least as
stringent, (2) PTE limits include the requirement that the source
continue to implement the measures that it is taking to meet the major
source requirement (i.e., the source must continue to operate the same
control device and at the same level of effectiveness), or (3) the
permitting authority determine that the source will implement the same
measures that are being used to meet major source requirements in order
to meet the PTE limit--even if such use is not mandated--and thus that
emissions will not increase.
Fourth, and finally, the EPA is seeking comment generally on
whether it is reasonable and appropriate to require safeguards against
emission increases following reclassification (Comment C-9).
As discussed above, the EPA reads the plain language of the statute
to allow reclassification of a source's status from major source to
area at any time. However, even if the statutory definitions of ``major
source'' and ``area source'' were to be read as containing an ambiguity
that would allow an interpretation under which the EPA could set a cut-
off point (as it did in the OIAI policy), the EPA's reading that there
is no such cut-off point is a reasonable reading of the statute, and
indeed is the best reading. First, the statutory definitions do not
specify any particular cut-off point after which Congress said that a
source's status was fixed. Second, the statutory definitions contain no
text in which Congress directed or suggested that the EPA create a cut-
off point. Third, even if Congress's silence is read to create an
ambiguity that the EPA can address by creating a cut-off date for
fixing a source's status, that is, at most, only a permissible way to
address such an ambiguity and does not undermine the conclusion that
the statute can be reasonably read--and indeed is best read--as not
requiring a cut-off date. In short, even if the statutory text were
found to contain an ambiguity on the question of a cut-off date for
setting a source's status, the absence of any cut-off date or cut-off
language in the statutory definitions enacted by Congress is best read
as allowing a source to change from a major source to area source or
vice versa at any time.
Further, such a reading is consistent with the statutory structure
and goals of the CAA. In addition to the points discussed above in
support of the EPA's plain language reading, and as discussed in more
detail below in sections IV and VI, there are various reasons why a
major source's reclassification to area source status, in some cases,
may result in a decrease in HAP emissions rather than an increase in
that source's HAP emissions. First, when the corresponding regulatory
authority reviews the application for a new or revised permit that will
incorporate enforceable limits on a source's PTE of HAP below the major
source thresholds, the regulatory authority will consider the specifics
of each source. Among other things, the regulatory authority will
consider the current and proposed HAP emissions levels, the type of
limits proposed and whether such limits are legally and practicably
enforceable, any newly applicable area source NESHAP subparts, and if
other requirements are needed to ensure that the source complies with
the CAA. Second, some major sources have undergone facility and
operational modifications since they became subject to the major source
NESHAP requirements, and these modifications may prevent the HAP
emissions from increasing even without the sources remaining subject to
major source NESHAP requirements (e.g., a source that has eliminated
the use of HAP binders or coatings from their operations or has
switched to low-HAP or no-HAP products). Third, as discussed below in
sections IV and VI, some sources with actual emissions just above one
or both of the major source thresholds under their current major source
NESHAP requirements might choose to accept HAP PTE limits that are
lower than their current emissions and further reduce their emissions
consistent with the PTE limits in order to achieve area source status
and reduce their regulatory burden. In those cases, allowing sources to
reclassify as area sources even after they are subject to major source
NESHAP requirements can provide an incentive for them to reduce their
emissions below what is required under the CAA section 112 major source
requirements.
The EPA invites interested persons to comment on the EPA's plain
language reading discussed above. The EPA is interested in specific
examples of sources that would reclassify consistent with the EPA's
reading and whether those sources' emissions would increase, decrease,
or stay the same after reclassification, and in any additional
information on whether allowing major sources to reclassify as areas
sources would or would not increase emissions from such sources or lead
to a reduction in their emissions (Comment C-10). Further, the EPA
invites comments on whether the Agency's reading is a permissible
interpretation of the statute even if it is not the only possible
reading (Comment C-11).
C. Role of the PTE Definition in the Regulation of Major Sources
Section 112 of the CAA defines a major source not only in terms of
a source's actual emissions of an air pollutant, but also in terms of
its potential emissions of an air pollutant or any combination of air
pollutants. The definition of PTE in the General Provisions of the
NESHAP regulations interprets the statutory term ``potential to emit''
found in the definition of major source of section 112 of the CAA and
provides a legal mechanism for sources that wish to restrain their
emissions to avoid triggering major source requirements. 40 CFR part
63.2 defines ``potential to emit'' to mean the maximum capacity of a
stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and
operational design. Under the current definition in 40 CFR 63.2, any
physical or operational limitation
[[Page 36314]]
on the capacity of the stationary source to emit a pollutant, including
air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation
or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed,
shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect
it would have on emissions is federally enforceable.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 40 CFR 63.2 definition of ``federally enforceable''
available at https://ecfr.io/Title-40/se40.11.63_12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, a source that has the physical and operational design
allowing it to potentially emit HAP above the statutorily specified
thresholds (i.e., 10 tpy or more of an individual HAP, or 25 tpy or
more of total HAP) is a major source of air pollution unless the source
limits its maximum capacity to emit HAP under its physical and
operational design by obtaining restrictions that have the effect of
limiting the amount of emissions (referred to as ``HAP PTE limits'' or
``PTE limits'') the source can legally emit. Further, as explained in
more detail below in section IV.B, to ensure that sources do not
disregard their PTE limits, the EPA's definition of ``potential to
emit'' in 40 CFR 63.2 required that limitations on a source's
operations can only be taken into account in determining PTE if the
limitation was federally enforceable. In 1995, the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in
National Mining Association (NMA) v. EPA, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir.
1995), in which it remanded the definition of ``potential to emit''
found in 40 CFR 63.2 to the EPA to justify the requirement that
physical or operational limits be ``federally enforceable.'' The NMA
Court decision confirmed that the EPA has an obligation to ensure that
limits considered in determining a source's PTE are effective, but it
stated that the Agency had not adequately explained how ``federal
enforceability'' furthered effectiveness. 59 F.3d at 1363-1365. In this
action, the EPA is proposing specific criteria that HAP PTE limits must
meet for these limits to be effective in ensuring that a source would
not emit above the PTE limits. The EPA is proposing to amend the
definition of ``potential to emit'' in 40 CFR 63.2, accordingly, by
removing the requirement for federally enforceable PTE limits and
requiring instead that HAP PTE limits meet the effectiveness criteria
of being both legally enforceable and practicably enforceable. The EPA
is also proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.2 to include the definitions of
``legally enforceable'' and ``practicably enforceable'' as described in
this proposal. These proposed amendments will facilitate such effective
HAP PTE limits to be issued by the EPA and by state, local, and tribal
regulatory agencies. The EPA is taking comment in this proposal on the
criteria required for effective HAP PTE limits for purposes of
determining whether a source is a major source under 40 CFR 63.2 and
whether the EPA's proposed criteria are necessary and sufficient to
ensure HAP PTE limits are effective to support reclassification of a
major source to an area source (Comment C-12). In this action, the EPA
is not proposing to change our approach to any PTE limits other than
those for HAP for purposes of NESHAP applicability. See section IV.B
for a discussion on the criteria for effective HAP PTE limits,
enforceability considerations, and requests for comments on specific
issues.
D. Issues Not Resolved by the Statute or Existing Regulations
As discussed in section III.B above, the EPA's read of the
statutory definitions of ``major source'' and ``area source'' in
section 112(a) of the CAA is that these are not dependent on timing and
do not contain any language concerning when a source may change its
status from major source to area source. The General Provisions section
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, addresses compliance with standards when
an area source subsequently increases its emissions of HAP such that
the source becomes a major source subject to requirements established
under section 112 of the CAA. But these existing regulations do not
address the issue of compliance time frames for sources that reclassify
from major source status to area source status. This action proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart A to address the issues not resolved by
the current General Provisions requirements with regard to the
reclassification of major sources as area sources under section 112 of
the CAA and to clarify existing requirements that apply to sources that
reclassify. This action proposes to amend the General Provisions
applicability tables contained within most subparts of 40 CFR part 63
to reflect the proposed amendments to subpart A. See section V.A and
V.B for proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and for
proposed changes to individual NESHAP General Provisions applicability
tables.
In addition to the provisions that the EPA is proposing to amend in
the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions, the EPA has identified a number
of provisions in the 40 CFR part 63 subparts that reflect the 1995 OIAI
policy by stating the date after which a major source can no longer
become an area source. In this action, we are proposing to remove these
provisions because they are contrary to the plain language of the
statute as discussed above. See section V.C for proposed amendments to
specific NESHAP subparts.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the meantime, and unless and until the EPA takes final
action to remove or revise such provisions, the provisions in part
63 subparts that reflect the 1995 OIAI policy continue to control
when major sources subject to those subparts may reclassify to area
sources status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Considerations for Sources Seeking Reclassification From Major to
Area Source Status
As explained above in section III.A, the EPA reads the definitions
of major source and area source in section 112 of the CAA to impose no
time constraint for when a major source can be reclassified as an area
source. Given the statutory definitions, a major source that takes
enforceable limits \11\ on its PTE HAP can be reclassified as an area
source at any time.\12\ The decision by a source to be reclassified as
an area source would be voluntary. We expect that the process for
reclassification to area source status for HAP will rely on existing
programs (e.g., minor source programs, title V permitting procedures,
and/or approved programs for issuing PTE limits under CAA section
112(l)). It is also possible for state, local, and tribal regulatory
authorities to develop new programs for issuing HAP PTE limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The concept ``enforceable limits'' incorporates legal
enforceability and practical enforceability. Throughout this
proposed rulemaking, we use the term ``enforceable limits'' to mean
limitations that satisfy both of these criteria.
\12\ Note, however, that reclassification does not affect a
source's responsibility to comply with the major source requirements
prior to the time the source reclassifies. Further, even after a
source reclassifies from major source to area source, it may be
subject to requirements under a consent decree or permit that
obligates it to continue to comply with the major source
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the issuance of the MM2A Memorandum, the EPA received
questions from stakeholders about the reclassification of sources that
already emit at levels lower than the major source thresholds but have
major source NESHAP requirements in their permits because of the OIAI
policy. Stakeholders also inquired about public notice requirements
associated with the issuance of enforceable HAP PTE limits. We address
specific stakeholders' questions regarding permitting and procedural
steps associated with reclassification in more detail in section IV.B
and IV.C of this preamble. The following discussion presents some
general considerations for sources that
[[Page 36315]]
will be seeking reclassification from major source to area source
status.
Sources seeking status reclassification from major source to area
source can generally be grouped in three categories: (1) Existing major
sources that would need to obtain enforceable limits on their HAP PTE
that are below major source thresholds; (2) existing sources previously
classified as major sources for a specific major source NESHAP that
already have obtained enforceable limits on all their HAP emissions
such that the source's PTE, as well as actual emissions, are currently
below major source thresholds for each individual HAP and any
combination of HAP; and (3) existing sources previously classified as
major sources for a specific major source NESHAP that are no longer
physically or operationally able to emit HAP in amounts that exceed the
major source thresholds (commonly known as true or natural area
sources).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See definition of true area in memorandum titled
``Potential to Emit (PTE) Guidance for Specific Source Categories.''
From John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, page 2, April 14, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third category includes former major sources that no longer
have the ability to emit at major source levels because they have
either permanently removed equipment, changed their processes, or for
other reasons. Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, the
sources in this third category are area sources because their maximum
capacity to emit HAP under the physical or operational design is less
than the thresholds for a major source under CAA section 112(a)(1).
These true area sources do not rely on such things as State
Implementation Plan (SIP)-imposed limits or pollution control equipment
to constrain their emissions. Any source that needs a physical or
operational limit on its maximum capacity to emit, including
requirements for the use of air pollution control equipment or
restrictions on the hours of operations or on the type or amount of
material combusted, stored, or processed, is not in this third
category.
Sources in any of these three categories who are seeking to
reclassify to area source status will apply to their corresponding
regulatory authority \14\ and follow the corresponding regulatory
authority's procedures for reclassifying and, if needed, for obtaining
enforceable limits on their HAP PTE. A source proposing to reclassify
to area source status must identify any applicable area source NESHAP
requirements in its request. Upon submission, the regulatory authority
will review the source's proposed enforceable limitations and, if
approved, the regulatory authority will incorporate the enforceable HAP
PTE limitations and other applicable CAA requirements, such as any
applicable area source NESHAP requirements, in a revised title V permit
or a minor source permit. In lieu of an individual permit, a source may
be eligible for coverage under a general permit or registration program
under a specific regulatory authority program. Depending on the
regulatory authority rules for minor source programs, sources that no
longer have the capacity to emit HAP above the major source thresholds,
unaided by added controls or operational limitations, may have
additional options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The term regulatory authority is intended to be inclusive
of the permitting authority or other governmental agency with
authority to process reclassification requests and issuance of
legally and practicably enforceable HAP PTE limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a source completes the process to reclassify to area source
status, the source must comply with any applicable area source NESHAP
requirements and would no longer be subject to major source NESHAP
requirements or other major source requirements that were applicable to
it as a major source under CAA section 112.\15\ A source that
reclassifies will need to update the information already provided to
the Administrator per the notification requirements of 40 CFR 63.9(j).
The permitting programs have procedures in place for processing changes
to a source's applicable requirements and the ability to coordinate any
notification required under 40 CFR part 63. See section V.A of this
preamble for proposed changes to notification requirements of 40 CFR
63.9(b) and (j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ A source that reclassifies from major source to area source
may be subject to major source requirements under a consent decree,
permit, or other enforceable vehicle that obligates it to continue
to comply with the major source requirements for a specified amount
of time. This rule is not intended to affect any of those existing
obligations. Any changes to those obligations would need to be made
through the appropriate processes (e.g., modification of the consent
decree with the Court, or revisions of the permit with the permit
authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below are some general considerations for sources contemplating
seeking reclassification from major to area source status. An improved
understanding of these considerations should serve to alleviate the
concerns that have been expressed regarding the reclassification of
major sources as area sources under section 112 of the CAA.
A. PTE Determination Considerations
The definition of ``major source'' in section 112(a) of the CAA
includes ``any stationary source or group of sources located within a
contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit considering controls [HAP emissions that exceed the
thresholds].'' Regulatory authorities (i.e., permitting authorities)
and sources have a long history of evaluating HAP PTE calculations,
developing HAP PTE limits, and making applicability determinations.
That said, the HAP PTE calculations and determination are critical
steps for (1) any source seeking to understand whether it is subject to
major source requirements and (2) for any source that is seeking to
cease being subject to major source requirements by reclassifying from
major source to area source status. Following the issuance of the MM2A
Memorandum, we received many questions concerning the requirements for
sources to obtain PTE limits, including requests for clarity regarding
the minimum requirements that a request for reclassification must meet.
While this proposed action does not propose any new requirements
regarding the process for completing a HAP PTE calculation and
determination for sources seeking reclassification from major to area
source status, the EPA is requesting comments on whether it would be
appropriate to include in the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 the
minimum requirements that a major source of HAP must submit to its
regulatory authority when seeking to obtain HAP PTE limitations to
reclassify as area sources under section 112 of the CAA (Comment C-13).
A source seeking to obtain enforceable limits on its HAP PTE to
below the major source thresholds will follow the established process
and submit to the regulatory authority any required documentation and
demonstration. For example, the discussion below presents the
requirements a source seeking to obtain HAP PTE limits under the
established regulations for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program
in Indian Country must follow. 40 CFR 49.158(a)(1) provides that the
application for a synthetic minor source permit must include the
following information:
(1) Identifying information, including name and address (and plant
name and address if different) and the name and telephone number of the
plant manager/contact;
(2) For each regulated New Source Review (NSR) pollutant and/or HAP
and for all emissions units to be covered by an emissions limitation,
the following information: (a) The proposed emission limitation and a
description of its effect on actual emissions or the PTE. Proposed
emission limitations must
[[Page 36316]]
have a reasonably short averaging period, taking into consideration the
operation of the source and the methods to be used for demonstrating
compliance; (b) proposed testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements to be used to demonstrate and assure compliance
with the proposed limitation; (c) a description of the production
processes; (d) identification of the emissions units; (e) type and
quantity of fuels and/or raw materials used; (f) description and
estimated efficiency of air pollution control equipment under present
or anticipated operating conditions; (g) estimates of the current
actual emissions and current PTE, including all calculations for the
estimates; (h) estimates of the allowable emissions and/or PTE that
would result from compliance with the proposed limitation, including
all calculations for the estimates; and
(3) Any other information specifically requested by the reviewing
authority.
As described above, for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program
in Indian Country, a source seeking to obtain HAP PTE limits, as part
of its PTE evaluation, will show that it has accounted for emissions of
all HAP, from all emission points, including fugitive HAP emissions,
and HAP emissions from insignificant activities 16 17 from
the stationary source or group of sources located within a contiguous
area and under common control. The source also provides the current and
proposed HAP emissions levels, the type of limitations or controls
proposed, and a demonstration that the emission reductions are
achievable in practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ As part of its PTE evaluation, sources must account for
emissions of all HAP, from all emission points, including fugitive
HAP emissions. ``. . . An application may not omit information
needed to determine the applicability of, or to impose, any
applicable requirement . . .'' See 40 CFR 70.5(c). ``Insignificant
Activities--Section 70.5(c) allows the Administrator to approve as
part of a State program a list of insignificant activities which
need not be included in permit applications. For activities on the
list, applicants may exclude from part 70 permit applications
information that is not needed to determine (1) which applicable
requirements apply, (2) whether the source is in compliance with
applicable requirements, or (3) whether the source is major.'' See
``White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit
Applications.'' From Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to the EPA Regional Air Division
Directors. July 10, 1995; https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/fnlwtppr.pdf.
\17\ See order granting in part and denying in part petition for
objection to permit for Hu Honua Bioenergy, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/hu_honua_decision2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the PTE calculations and supporting evaluation for large and
complex sources might require data collection and validation and
accounting for a larger number of emission points, the process is not
different than what is already required within some source category
rules \18\ or under the recordkeeping requirements for applicability
determinations of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3). In the Federal Minor New Source
Review Program in Indian Country regulations at 40 CFR
49.158(a)(2),\19\ the EPA provided a hierarchy of acceptable data and
methods to determine a source's PTE for a source seeking to obtain a
synthetic minor source permit, including a synthetic minor permit for
purposes of 40 CFR part 63. The hierarchy in 40 CFR 49.158(a)(2)
presents the procedures that are generally acceptable for estimating
emissions from air pollution sources: (1) Source-specific emission
tests; (2) mass balance calculations; (3) published, verifiable
emission factors that are applicable to the source; (4) other
engineering calculations or (5) other procedures to estimate emissions
specifically approved by the reviewing authority. We request comment on
whether the EPA should include in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part
63 the hierarchy of acceptable data and methods a source seeking
reclassification would use to determine the source PTE (Comment C-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, as example, 40 CFR part 63, subpart F at 63.100,
Applicability and designation of source.
\19\ See 40 CFR part 49 subpart C, Synthetic minor source
permits under the Federal Indian Country Minor New Source Review
Rule at 40 CFR 49.158, and Potential to Emit A Guide for Small
Business. October 1998. US EPA, OAQPS. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/1998sbapptebroc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above, the best approach uses source specific test
data (on-site measurements) or continuous emission monitoring system
(CEMS) data where available. Where these data are not available, the
next best approach uses a material-balance approach (comparing inputs
and outputs). Where these data are not available, the next best
approach uses source-specific models (based on information about the
source's operations). Finally, where these data are not available, the
approach uses emission factors (based on industry-average emission
rates).\20\ The responsibility for using the best data available in
preparing the source's PTE calculations and analyses is with the owner
and operator of a source. The data should be accurate and
representative of the source's emissions. A source's efforts to be
reclassified from major source to area source may be unsuccessful if it
does not use the best data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Use of emission factors as source-specific permit limits
and/or as emission regulation compliance determinations are not
recommended by the EPA. Because emission factors essentially
represent an average of a range of emission rates, approximately
half of the subject sources will have emission rates greater than
the emission factor and the other half will have emission rates less
than the emission factor. As such, a permit limit using an AP-42
emission factor would result in half of the sources being in
noncompliance. See ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Introduction,'' January 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA requests comments on whether adding the same or similar
requirements that are now in 40 CFR 49.158(a)(1) to 40 CFR 63.10 would
be appropriate to create the minimum requirements that a major source
of HAP must submit to its regulatory authority when seeking to obtain
PTE HAP limitations to reclassify as area sources under section 112 of
the CAA (Comment C-15). We also request comments on whether the EPA
should also include the hierarchy of acceptable data and methods a
source seeking reclassification would use to determine the source PTE.
This hierarchy could be the same or similar to the one provided in 40
CFR 49.158(a)(2) (Comment C-16).
In response to the 2007 proposal, the EPA received multiple
comments regarding sources that have reduced their HAP emissions to
below major source thresholds because of the implementation of major
source NESHAP requirements. Some stakeholders were concerned that if
these sources were to reclassify to area source status and were no
longer subject to major source NESHAP requirements, they could stop
using the emission controls or emission reduction practices implemented
for major source NESHAP compliance or no longer maintain the same level
of control as before.\21\ This concern was also raised by stakeholders
after the issuance of the MM2A Memorandum. A source seeking
reclassification because it has reduced its HAP emissions to below the
major source thresholds through use of control devices or emission
reduction practices implemented for compliance with major source NESHAP
requirements will need to demonstrate to the regulatory authority
issuing the HAP PTE limits, the degree to which the control devices and
emission reduction practices are needed to restrict the source's PTE.
If the source relies on its existing control devices and/or emission
reduction practices to limit its HAP PTE below the major source
thresholds, under the proposed effectiveness criteria, the use of the
control devices and/or emission
[[Page 36317]]
reduction practices must be made legally and practicably enforceable in
the absence of the applicability of the major source NESHAP
requirements. Alternatively, if a source intends not to retain the
control device equipment or emission reduction practices used to comply
with a previously applicable major source NESHAP requirement, the
source must demonstrate that other limits exist or can be imposed that
will restrict the source's maximum capacity to emit HAP, and that these
limits are or can be made legally and practicably enforceable to ensure
that the source will not emit HAP at or above the major source
thresholds. A blanket emissions limit on HAP generally (e.g., no more
than 10 tpy of an individual HAP or no more than 25 tpy of total HAP)
is not sufficient as it fails to meet the practicably enforceable
criteria of being a technically accurate limitation of short duration
with adequate monitoring (i.e., there is no monitoring method for
``HAP'' in the aggregate).\22\ See section IV.B of this preamble,
Criteria for Effective HAP PTE Limits, for a full discussion of
proposed criteria for effective HAP PTE limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ These stakeholders are concerned that these sources could
increase their emissions to just below the major source thresholds
of 10/25 tpy of HAP. See section IV for a discussion of the
assessment of potential emission changes from the reclassification
of major sources as area sources.
\22\ There is substantial body of EPA guidance and
administrative decisions relating to PTE and PTE limits. E.g., see
generally, Terrell E. Hunt and John S. Seitz, ``Limiting Potential
to Emit in New Source Permitting'' (June 13, 1989); John S. Seitz,
``Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary
Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act'' (January
25, 1995); Kathie Stein, ``Guidance on Enforceability Requirements
for Limiting Potential to Emit through SIP and Sec. 112 Rules and
General Permits'' (January 25, 1995); John Seitz and Robert Van
Heuvelen, ``Release of Interim Policy on Federal Enforceability of
Limitations on Potential to Emit'' (January 22, 1996); ``In the
Matter of Orange Recycling and Ethanol Production Facility, Pencor-
Masada Oxynol, LLC,'' Order on Petition No. II-2001-05 (April 8,
2002) at 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Criteria for Effective HAP PTE Limits
In this action, the EPA is proposing that a major source that
reduces its PTE HAP emissions to below the major source thresholds by
taking HAP PTE limits that meet the proposed criteria for effective PTE
limits may request and, upon approval, be reclassified to area source
status. In the past, the EPA concluded that federal enforceability was
required for the effectiveness of PTE limits; \23\ hence, the
requirement is in the current regulations for the HAP programs (see PTE
definition in 40 CFR 63.2). Since the issuance of the MM2A Memorandum,
stakeholders have raised the question of whether HAP PTE limitations
still need to be federally enforceable. By proposing to establish
criteria for effective HAP PTE limits in this action, we will respond
to this question from stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The EPA concluded that Federal enforceability was required
for issuing effective PTE limits in a June 28, 1989, rule that
amended the Federal enforceability requirement and created federally
enforceable operating permits. See 54 FR 27274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of HAP PTE limits, the term federally enforceable
under 40 CFR 63.2, refers to the legal authority granted under the CAA
(i.e., under section 113 and section 304(a) of the statute) to the EPA
Administrator and citizens to enforce in Federal court all limitations
and conditions that implement requirements under the CAA (e.g., issued
under an approved program under section 112(l) of the CAA or a SIP or
another statute administered by the EPA.). Given that sources that rely
on state or local PTE limitations cease to be subject to major source
CAA requirements, in the past the EPA concluded that these PTE
limitations must be federally enforceable \24\ to be consistent with
the enforcement structure of the CAA. The EPA also linked effectiveness
of PTE limits to programs that followed the EPA's specific procedures
for issuance of PTE limits (e.g., program requirements and
implementation).\25\ To recognize the state or local PTE limitations as
federally enforceable, the EPA then imposed various administrative
requirements on SIP programs issuing limitations.\26\ These program
requirements specified procedures, meant to ensure that a source's PTE
limitations included in a permit have the intended effect of reducing
the amount of emissions, and that sources could not disregard their PTE
limits without enforcement consequences. For implementing the air
toxics program under CAA section 112, the EPA adopted the SIP federal
enforceability framework for PTE limits. The original 40 CFR part 63
General Provisions preamble explains that federal enforceability was
required: (1) To confirm that PTE HAP limits were included as part of
the source's physical and operational design, and that any claimed
limitations will be observed; (2) to ensure that a permitting authority
had strong enforcement capability and the legal and practical means to
make sure that such commitments are carried out; and (3) to support the
goal of the CAA to enforce all relevant features of the air toxics
program.\27\ Following litigation on the 40 CFR part 63 General
Provisions, on July 21, 1995, the Court issued a decision in National
Mining Association v. EPA (59 F. 3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995)), in which,
after examining the question of whether HAP PTE limits must be
federally enforceable, it remanded, but did not vacate, the definition
of ``potential to emit'' found in 40 CFR 63.2. The Court found that the
EPA had not adequately explained why only federally enforceable
measures should be considered as effective limits on a source's HAP
PTE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 54 FR 27274 (June 28, 1989).
\25\ In the past, the EPA held the view that it could be certain
that only programs reviewed and approved by the EPA had adequate
procedures for issuance of effective PTE limits.
\26\ Id.
\27\ See, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories: General Provisions. March 16,
1994. 59 FR 12430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the NMA decision, the EPA extended a pre-existing policy
allowing the use of non-federally enforceable limits (e.g., state-only
enforceable limits) for limiting PTE provided those limits are legally
enforceable and practicably enforceable.\28\ Also, on March 23, 2001,
the EPA added recordkeeping requirements for applicability
determinations for sources with a maximum capacity to emit HAP in
amounts greater than major source thresholds but with PTE limits to
avoid applicability of a standard. See 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3).\29\ At that
time, the EPA also confirmed that until the rules are clarified to
address various PTE issues, consistent with the NMA Court decision, any
determination of HAP PTE under 40 CFR 63.2 should consider the
regulations and also take into consideration the EPA transition policy
guidance memoranda. 66 FR 16342 (March 23, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See memorandum, ``Third Extension of January 25, 1995
Potential to Emit Transition Policy'' from John S. Seitz and Eric V.
Schaeffer, to Regional Offices, December 20, 1999. Also, see
memorandum, ``Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a
Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air
Act,'' from John S. Seitz and Robert I. Van Heuvelen, to Regional
offices, January 25, 1995; and ``Extension of January 25, 1995,
Potential to Emit Transition Policy,'' from John S. Seitz and Robert
I. Van Heuvelen, to Regional offices, August 27, 1997.
\29\ These requirements became final April 5, 2002. See 67 FR
16582, also, 66 FR 16342 (March 23, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our experience shows that while many states have programs for
issuing HAP PTE limits that have been reviewed by the EPA and have
become federally enforceable through the EPA's approval (e.g., CAA
section 112(l)/40 CFR 63.91 programs to limit HAP PTE, federally
enforceable state operating permit (FESOP), or title V permitting
programs), many state and local agencies also implement programs that
have the proper legal authority but are not subject to the EPA's review
either because these programs reflect state-only initiatives or are not
otherwise required under other CAA provisions (e.g., state permitting
programs for air toxics). These state-only or local-only programs are
implemented in
[[Page 36318]]
coordination with federally approved programs and share infrastructure
and resources, as well as program management and personnel, and create
HAP PTE limits that are structurally similar to their federally
enforceable counterparts. In sum, for purposes of determining HAP PTE
under 40 CFR 63.2, the EPA's PTE definition and current policies make
clear that an enforceability requirement remains in place until we
finalize a rule addressing the remand, but that HAP PTE limits that are
both (1) legally enforceable (that is, either federally enforceable or
legally enforceable by a state, local, or tribal authority) and (2)
practicably enforceable are allowed in the interim as effective limits
restraining emissions.
Consistent with the Court's decision in NMA, the EPA views
``effectiveness'' as both a foundation and a constraint on the EPA's
discretion in defining PTE under 40 CFR 63.2. As a foundation,
effectiveness is a minimum element of limitations on a source's HAP
PTE, and the EPA has an obligation to ensure that limits considered in
determining a source's HAP PTE are effective. 59 F.3d at 1362. As a
constraint, promoting effectiveness must be the purpose for any
conditions the EPA would require before considering a limit valid for
HAP PTE purposes, and the Court indicated it would not uphold
requirements that were extraneous to that goal. Id. at 1364-65. In NMA
the Court concluded that the EPA had not explained why the federal
enforceability requirement was necessary to ensure the
``effectiveness'' the Court viewed as essential. For example, the Court
expressed concern that the EPA has ``proposed conditions for achieving
`federal enforceability' that go beyond the mere effectiveness of a
particular constraint as a practical matter.'' Id. at 1363. Although it
is clear from this that effectiveness as a practical matter must be
preserved in some way, the Court was not convinced that federal
enforceability was necessarily a prerequisite to ``effectiveness.'' The
discussion below presents the criteria the EPA is proposing as
necessary for HAP PTE limits to be ``effective'' in ensuring that a
source does not emit HAP above the legally enforceable PTE level. The
EPA views these proposed criteria as sufficient to effectively
constrain a source's emissions for purposes of calculating HAP PTE
under section 112 of the CAA and, if met, support reclassification of
major sources as area sources under CAA section 112. The EPA requests
comments on the proposed effectiveness criteria and whether these
criteria are sufficient to support reclassification (Comment C-17). At
the same time, the EPA invites comments on whether there are additional
criteria that must be included to ensure that HAP PTE limits are
effective (Comment C-18). The Agency's overarching goal in proposing
these criteria is to achieve a clear and simple implementation process
to motivate area sources to maintain reduced HAP emissions and ensure
that sources of HAP comply with CAA requirements. Avoiding unreasonable
burden on industry or states is also an important objective under this
goal.
The EPA is proposing that to be effective, HAP PTE limits must meet
the criteria of legal enforceability and practical enforceability as
explained below. We request comments on these proposed effectiveness
criteria and the elements discussed below (Comment C-19). The EPA is
also requesting comments on whether there are other criteria that
should be required for ensuring effectiveness of HAP PTE limits,
including whether public notice and comment procedures should be part
of the required effectiveness criteria (Comment C-20). At the end of
this section, we discuss some considerations regarding the issuance of
HAP PTE limits and public notice and comment procedures. In this
action, the EPA is not proposing to change our approach to establishing
PTE limits other than those used for CAA section 112 NESHAP
applicability.
1. Legal Enforceability
The EPA proposes that to be effective, HAP PTE limits must be
legally enforceable. The legal enforceability of a HAP PTE limit is
composed of two parts: (a) The authority to establish the HAP PTE
limits and (b) the authority to enforce the HAP PTE limits. Each of
these parts is discussed below.
a. Authority To Establish the Limits
To be effective, HAP PTE limits must be required by law and legally
binding on the source. To that end, the first aspect of the legally
enforceable criterion for effective HAP PTE limits must address the
adequacy of the legal authority to issue the PTE limits. This first
aspect of legal enforceability ensures that the HAP PTE limits are
issued under governmental regulatory authority and are not merely
voluntary. Accordingly, we propose that to be effective, HAP PTE limits
must identify the legal authority under which the HAP PTE limits are
being issued. The proper identification of legal authority ensures that
the issued HAP PTE limits are required by law and legally binding on
the source and not merely voluntary. The EPA is requesting comments
both on the appropriateness of this requirement and on whether there
are other considerations that warrant being part of the criterion of
legal authority to issue HAP PTE limits (Comment C-21).
b. Legal Authority To Enforce the PTE Limits
The second aspect of legal enforceability for effective HAP PTE
limits refers to the legal authority to enforce the limits. A PTE limit
may appear to be effective in every technical sense yet fail to be
effective if no governmental authority has sufficient legal authority
to enforce against violations of the limit once issued. There is a
benefit to compliance oversight by a governmental entity that has the
expertise in air pollution control and requisite authority to enforce a
PTE limit. The EPA proposes that for HAP PTE limits to be effective,
the regulatory authority issuing the limits must also have the
authority to enforce the limits. The EPA recognizes that to be
effective, PTE limits must carry with them a credible risk for
enforcement if they are violated, that sources be on notice of their
legal obligation to comply, and that sources are cognizant of the
consequences of non-compliance. As part of that, the EPA is taking
comment on whether state-only or local-only enforcement authority alone
is sufficient to impose a credible risk of enforcement and, therefore,
ensure compliance with the HAP PTE limits or whether to be effective,
the EPA and/or citizens through the enforcement authorities in the CAA
must also have the authority to enforce the HAP PTE limits that are
being used to avoid a Federal requirement (Comment C-22). In addition,
we request comments on whether enforceability of a PTE limit by the EPA
and/or citizens reduces the implementation burden for all parties and
provides a level of compliance incentive unmatched by enforcement by
only a state or local authority that warrants it to be part of the
effectiveness criteria (Comment C-23).
2. Practical Enforceability
The second criterion for effective HAP PTE limits is that the
limits must be enforceable as a practical matter, i.e., practicably
enforceable. The EPA proposes that to be practicably enforceable, HAP
PTE limits must be written so that it is possible to readily verify
compliance and to document violations when enforcement action is
necessary. We are proposing that to meet this criterion, PTE limits
must specify: (1) A technically accurate limitation and identify the
portions of the source subject to the limitation; (2)
[[Page 36319]]
the time period for the limitation (hourly, daily, monthly, and annual
limits such as 12-month rolling limits); and (3) the method to
determine compliance, including appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting (MRR).\30\ Below, the EPA presents specific guidance
regarding MRR requirements, as well as a discussion of technically
accurate limitations so that HAP PTE limits will be compliant with the
proposed criteria of being practicably enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See discussion of principles of enforceability in
Attachment 4 of the January 25, 1995, EPA Memorandum, ``Options for
Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under
Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act.'' See, also, e.g.,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/masada_decision2000.pdf at page 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Technically Accurate Limits That Identify the Portions of the Source
Subject to the Limitations
A technically accurate limit is one that accounts for each
emissions unit contributing to the maximum capacity of the source to
emit HAP and must be based on the physical and operational design of
the emission units. A technically accurate limit is also one that is
capable of being monitored, regardless of whether the monitoring is
accomplished by means of monitoring individual units or monitoring a
common point for multiple sources. For example, a blanket emission
limit on a single HAP or on total HAP (e.g., no more than 10 tpy of an
individual HAP or no more than 25 tpy of total HAP) is not technically
accurate because it does not contain any analysis on the physical or
operational design of the emission unit or units under consideration.
Such a blanket emission limit is also not generally capable of being
monitored as there is no emission testing techniques for ``HAP'' in
general. In the case of monitoring usage of materials, a limit on the
HAP emissions must be based in the formulations of the materials used
and the specific HAP content, even if a limit eventually taken to avoid
a major source classification is a limit on the collection of specific
HAP used at the facility. If a single pollutant or class of pollutants
is used as a surrogate for HAP emissions from a source, this
correlation needs to be provided to the regulatory authority reviewing
the limits, and not just assumed by the source through use of a
monitoring technique, such as a total hydrocarbons CEMS for volatile
organic compounds (VOC).
b. Time Periods for Limitations
The time periods for the limitations will depend on the type of
limits proposed. Limits ``should be as short term as possible and
should generally not exceed one month.'' \31\ However, a limit longer
than 1 month may be appropriate if it is a rolling limit for sources
with ``substantial or unpredictable annual variations in production,''
not exceeding an annual limit rolled on a monthly basis. In other
words, although the emissions may be totaled for a 12-month period,
they should be measured and ``checked'' more frequently to ensure the
source is maintaining compliance. Typically, with longer term periods,
the emissions for the shorter-term period are ``rolled'' with those in
the previous periods to get the total for the longer compliance period.
For example, a 365-day rolling limit requires a source to calculate its
emissions and/or operational parameters relevant to any operational
restriction, daily, and then add that total to the totals for the
previous 364 days to determine whether the source is in compliance.
When a control device or other ongoing operating parameter limits,
which indirectly indicate emissions, are required for meeting the PTE
limit, much shorter time periods are necessary. These may include
limits such as the minimum operating temperature of a thermal oxidizer
measured hourly, where this shorter period is necessary in order to
ensure the proper operation of the control device. These shorter limits
may be either block or rolling averages as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ``Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source
Permitting,'' available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/lmitpotl.pdf. See also ``Time Frames for
Determining Applicability for New Source Review,'' March 13, 1986;
``Clarification of New Source Review Policy on Averaging Times for
Production Limitations,'' April 8, 1987; ``Use of Long Term Rolling
Averages to Limit Potential to Emit,'' February 24, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, time periods should be frequent enough to allow a source to
rapidly identify periods of deviation and bring operations back into
normal operating conditions expeditiously. Periods longer than once per
day may be appropriate if the limits do not consider the use of a
control device. For restrictions on content or usage of raw materials,
coatings, or fuels, the EPA recommends a frequency of record (i.e.,
certified product data sheets traceable to EPA or American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods or formulation data, or fossil
fuel analytical data reports traceable to EPA or ASTM methods)
collection of once per batch of material used or for each separate
delivery of material or fuel, as appropriate. This frequency is
consistent with procedures specified in several EPA regulations (e.g.,
40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN, NESHAP: Surface Coating of Large
Appliances, 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, NESHAP: Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart
RRRR, NESHAP: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture), the General
Provisions to both 40 CFR parts 60 and 63, and 40 CFR part 75. For
other types of limitations, such as restrictions on operating hours,
conduct of certain work practices, fugitive emissions control measures,
and equipment integrity inspections, unless circumstances justify
otherwise, a limit frequency of once per week or once per operating
period (if operated less frequently than weekly) is appropriate and may
be justified, but should not be assumed.
c. MRR Requirements
MRR requirements are necessary components of the proposed
practicably enforceable criterion for effective PTE HAP limits. MRR
requirements prescribe the collection of data necessary to verify that
the requirements and conditions that are part of the PTE limits are
checked at the frequency needed to avoid deviations, and, thus, they
are crucial to compliance and providing transparency and accountability
to the public as well as enabling the EPA and other state, local, and
tribal regulatory agencies to determine whether emissions remain below
the PTE limits and the major source thresholds. The MRR requirements
associated with the HAP PTE limits enable the EPA to carry out the
provisions of CAA section 112 to ensure that sources are complying with
the appropriate requirements with respect to HAP emissions. Appropriate
MRR requirements are dependent on site-specific variables such as the
nature of the facility and the type of control device(s) installed at
that facility. To meet the proposed criterion of being practicably
enforceable a HAP PTE limit must provide for the collecting,
maintaining, and reporting of the information necessary to determine
the emissions of each HAP, which is necessary to determine whether the
source's emissions are compliant with the source's PTE limits, as well
as compliance with any other requirements that are part of the PTE
limit (such as operating parameters). Appropriate MRR requirements
serve to assure that the source is continuously complying with HAP PTE
limits and any associated requirements as required by the CAA, as well
as to identify when a source is not in compliance in a timely fashion
so as
[[Page 36320]]
to avoid long periods of non-compliance.
If monitoring is proposed from a common point for various units, it
should accurately evaluate emissions from all of the individual sources
covered by the monitoring (e.g., monitoring the mercury content of a
fuel at a common header instead of at each of the individual emissions
sources or monitoring at a common stack for multiple operating units).
In practice, monitoring for a surrogate (e.g., particulate matter (PM))
can adequately estimate or provide the actual emissions for a group of
HAP at the unit, provided there exists a validated relationship between
the surrogate and the HAP emissions (e.g., emissions of HAP metals may
be controlled as PM by a baghouse and continuously monitored through
bag leak detectors and pressure drop measurement; this requires a
validated relationship between PM emissions and the HAP metals
emissions as well as the relationship between the baghouse operating
parameters and the PM emissions). The monitoring requirements for a HAP
PTE limit must be developed to ensure that compliance with the limit
can be monitored on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis (including
surrogacy, if applicable); they must cover every emissions source
included in the limit, describe the emissions unit covered, and the
level of accuracy needed for verifying the restriction(s) considered
such that the monitored parameter can be certain of demonstrating
ongoing compliance with the PTE limits. Depending on the situation,
appropriate monitoring may consist of one or more of the following:
collecting data on operational parameters that are used to monitor
emissions; CEMS or CEMS-based methods; data collection and calculations
for mass balance determinations; and continuous monitoring of operating
parameters on a control device or process performance parameters
correlated with actual emissions and used with calculations of
emissions, including appropriate adjustments for control devices or
process out-of-control periods. To determine whether a given set of
monitoring requirements is appropriate, one should consider the
following aspects of the monitoring: The parameter and its measurement
approach; the operating range; and the performance criteria, including
the representativeness of the data collected, an operational status
check, quality assurance and control practices, frequency of data
collection, data collection procedures, and averaging period.\32\ It is
important to identify and select these aspects of the monitoring to
assure the emissions control measures employed are properly operated
and maintained, and do not deteriorate to the point that the source's
emissions fail to be in compliance with the applicable PTE limit. We
request comments on the inclusion of the specific considerations for
monitoring, discussed above in the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63
proposed regulatory text defining practicably enforceable (Comment C-
24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Table 1 of the Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM)
Technical Guidance Document, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/cam-tgd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of the parameter and the measurement approach, as well as
the operating range, are all dependent directly upon site-specific
criteria including the nature of the source, any control devices
present, and other site-specific criteria. The EPA has provided
guidance and requirements for performance criteria, including the
representativeness of the data collected, an operational status check,
and quality assurance and control practices within the CAM Technical
Guidance Document and the Performance Specifications and ongoing
quality assurance procedures for continuous emissions monitoring
systems and continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) in 40 CFR part
60, appendixes B and F. Though the CAM rule is not applicable to the
emissions units covered in this proposed rulemaking, the general
principles of representativeness and quality assurance and control
presented in the guidance are still relevant.
Good recordkeeping requirements document the facility's compliance
with the PTE limits on an ongoing basis. These records may consist of
many types (e.g., CEMS data, coating HAP content and usage rates,
documentation that required work practices are being followed, or
continuous parameter monitoring system data) and must include all the
variables in each of the PTE calculations needed to determine if the
source is emitting at less than the PTE limits. Good recordkeeping
requirements at a minimum correspond to the time period of the
limitation required by the enforceable conditions (e.g., 3-hour average
temperature) and require periodic determinations of compliance with the
area source designation. Records should also be readily accessible for
review by the relevant regulatory authority.
Good periodic reporting requirements must provide sufficient
information to demonstrate to the regulatory authority that the PTE
limits are being met on an ongoing basis (e.g., periodic summary
reports, exception reports, and deviation reports provide
contemporaneous information about the source's compliance status) and
that emissions remain below the major source threshold, similar to
those of the periodic excess emissions and continuous monitoring system
performance report and summary report of 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3).
Many stakeholders have raised concerns that, without proper MRR
requirements, an owner or operator using add-on emission controls to
reduce and maintain HAP emissions at area source levels may dial down
the use or cease the proper maintenance regime of those emission
controls, and, thus, increase emissions above the HAP PTE limit. Other
stakeholders have asked for clarification on the type of monitoring
that is adequate for demonstrating compliance with a HAP PTE limit
designed to keep HAP emissions below the applicable major source
thresholds.
While it is possible for any control device to be operated in a
manner reducing its effectiveness, such as neglecting to perform
required maintenance or reducing the operating temperature of a thermal
oxidizer, the EPA has no reason to believe, and does not anticipate,
that, as a result of this rulemaking, facility owners or operators will
cease to properly operate their control devices where the operation of
the control is needed to restrict the PTE and appropriate MRR are
established as enforceable conditions.33 34 In any event,
the incorporation of appropriate MRR requirements as enforceable
conditions should assure that sources continue to operate the required
control devices correctly. For example, where the control device is
required to maintain the emissions of HAP below the PTE limits and the
major source thresholds, for the PTE limits to be enforceable, the MRR
requirements need to be sufficient to assess the effectiveness of the
control device on emissions on an ongoing basis (such as hourly or
shift measurements of operating parameters for the control device that
demonstrate it is operating as designed for the specified daily control
efficiency limit). For a facility which no longer requires the use of a
control device to remain below the
[[Page 36321]]
major source thresholds, the regulatory authority will determine what
alternative MRR are needed (along with revised PTE limits, if
necessary) to continue ensuring the source will not exceed the major
source thresholds (e.g., a coatings operation that has reformulated to
remove HAP from its coatings and no longer requires a thermal oxidizer
to control HAP emissions to meet a PTE limit of 98-percent destruction
does not need to have MRR on the thermal oxidizer temperature if
reducing HAP emissions was the only purpose of the thermal oxidizer but
may now need a PTE limit and require MRR on the content of the
coatings). As another example, if the coating operation had instead
reformulated their materials such that a specific HAP is eliminated,
then appropriate monitoring may simply consist of the ongoing
documentation of the remaining HAP content of the materials that
corresponds to a new PTE limit based on the remaining HAP in the
materials used. We solicit comment on whether, as a result of this
rulemaking, facility owners or operators of sources that reclassify
will cease to properly operate their control devices where the
operation of the control device is needed to restrict the PTE and
appropriate MRR are established as enforceable conditions (Comment C-
25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See discussion of specific technically accurate limits in
Attachment 4 of the January 25, 1995, EPA memorandum, ``Options for
Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under
Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act.'')
\34\ See analysis of reclassifications in the EPA's Emission
Impact Analysis Technical Support Memorandum available in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, MRR requirements are components of the proposed
practicably enforceable criterion for effective HAP PTE limits. The MRR
requirements ensure that a source complies with its PTE limits and does
not emit HAP in major source amounts. As described above in this
section, the MRR requirements associated with HAP PTE limits are source
specific and will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the
regulatory authority issuing the HAP PTE limits. Appropriate MRR
requirements serve to assure that the established enforceable PTE
limits are being met, to meet the ongoing compliance requirement in the
CAA, and to identify for the facility when violations exist in order to
return to compliance as quickly as possible.
In sum, the EPA proposes that HAP PTE limits that meet the legally
and practicably enforceable criteria explained above are effective HAP
PTE limits and are necessary and sufficient to support the
reclassification of major sources as area sources under section 112 of
the CAA. We request comments on the proposed criteria and the elements
of effective HAP PTE limits as discussed above (Comment C-26). The EPA
is also proposing that legally and practicably enforceable HAP PTE
limits issued under state and local regulatory agencies' rules would be
considered effective HAP PTE limitations even if those HAP PTE limits
are not federally enforceable. As a result of this proposed
determination, the EPA is proposing to amend the PTE definition in 40
CFR 63.2 to require HAP PTE limits to meet the criteria of being
legally and practicably enforceable as discussed above. The EPA is also
proposing to include in 40 CFR 63.2 the definitions of legally
enforceable and practicably enforceable as described above. At the same
time, the EPA invites comments on whether there are additional criteria
that must be included to ensure that HAP PTE limits are effective and
have practical utility (Comment C-27).
In particular, the EPA request comment on whether to be effective,
HAP PTE limits need to undergo public notice and comment procedures
(Comment C-28) and whether HAP PTE limits can be properly and legally
established if the limits do not go through public notice and comment
procedures (Comment C-29). After the issuance of the MM2A Memorandum,
sources and permitting authorities asked about public notice and
comment requirements for issuing enforceable PTE HAP limits for sources
seeking reclassification. The underlying concerns can relate to the
processing time involved and overall burden for certain situations, and
confusion about what is required for issuing HAP PTE limitations.\35\
State and local regulatory agencies implement public notice and comment
procedures for state, local, and tribal programs as required under
state and/or local regulations and statutes. The legal authority under
which the PTE limits are issued contain issuance procedures including
any procedures for public notice and comment. Importantly, regulatory
authorities use different issuing mechanisms depending on the
complexity of the PTE limits required for the situation and the
pollutants addressed. Typically, states issue enforceable PTE limits
for individual sources in a SIP construction permit or a synthetic
minor type of operating permit (e.g., operating permits other than
title V permit). States can also utilize less burdensome mechanisms for
limiting PTE such as general permits for source categories, permits by
rule or registration programs, as appropriate. Regardless of the
mechanism used to issue an enforceable PTE limit, the state must follow
the applicable procedures for that mechanism, including providing for
public notice and comment when required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Public notice has been closely associated with federal
enforceability of PTE limits because, in the past, the EPA
regulations have required that for PTE limits issued pursuant to
FESOP programs to be considered federally enforceable, a state,
local, or tribal program must provide the public and the EPA with an
upfront opportunity for notice and comment on any issued limit. See
54 FR 27274, 27282, 27283 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the effectiveness criteria, the EPA is requesting
comments on whether, in order to further the effectiveness of HAP PTE
limits and support reclassification of major sources as area sources
under section 112 of the CAA, the EPA should require public comment and
notice procedures (Comment C-30). The EPA request comments on how
requiring public comment and notice procedures for issuance of HAP PTE
limits enhance or is needed for ensuring effectiveness of such limits
(Comment C-31).
In the past, when the EPA included specific requirements for public
comment and notice procedures for programs reviewed and approved by the
EPA (i.e., FESOP), state and local agencies raised the cost of the
public notice as a concern. For these programs, the EPA then revised
the rules to allow for electronic notice as an alternative to newspaper
notices. Another concern raised regarding public notice and comment was
the additional time associated with this procedural step. We request
comments on whether these concerns are still an issue if EPA were to
require that HAP PTE limits that will be used as the basis for
reclassifying major sources to area source status need to be subject to
public notice and comment procedures (Comment C-32). The EPA also
requests comments on whether there are specific criteria for deciding
under what circumstances a source's proposed HAP PTE limits would need
to undergo public review and comment under the state or local program
(e.g., controversial or complex sources, sources with actual emissions
close to the major source thresholds, etc.) (Comment C-33). The EPA
recognizes that some state-programs may process HAP PTE limits
concurrently with a minor NSR or other permitting action such that the
EPA and the interested public would have the opportunity to provide
comments on PTE limits in that case. The EPA seeks comment on whether
the public notice and comment procedures provided in those
circumstances would be sufficient (Comment C-34). The EPA requests
comments on whether, to be effective and support reclassification from
major to area source under section 112 of the CAA, PTE limitations need
to undergo public comment and notice procedures (Comment C-35). The EPA
notes that
[[Page 36322]]
nothing in this proposal is meant to alter or affect in any way those
public notice procedures in the SIP-approved regulations for federally
enforceable programs such as FESOP or minor NSR permit programs. See,
i.e., 54 FR 27281-27281, see also 40 CFR 51.161.
To provide information to the EPA and the public, 40 CFR 63.9(b)
currently requires sources to notify the EPA when a source becomes
subject to a relevant standard and 40 CFR 63.9(j) requires sources to
notify the Administrator when there is a change in the information
previously submitted to the EPA. This notification requirement applies
to sources that reclassify from major source to area source status
under CAA section 112 (e.g., by taking a HAP PTE limits). To improve
the availability of this information, the EPA is proposing electronic
submission of such notifications. Sources that reclassify to area
source status by taking a HAP PTE limit are also currently required
under 40 CFR 63.10 to keep records of applicability determinations on-
site. In this action, the EPA is proposing that any source that takes a
HAP PTE limit and uses that limit to reclassify from major source to
area source status must keep these records as long as the source is an
area source. The EPA expects these notification and recordkeeping
requirements under 40 CFR part 63 would assist the EPA in its oversight
role under the CAA and be of minimal burden to the regulated community.
C. Permitting Considerations
As mentioned above, sources seeking status reclassification from
major source to area source can generally be grouped in three
categories: (1) Existing major sources that need to obtain enforceable
limits on their HAP PTE to ensure that their emissions do not exceed
major source thresholds; (2) existing sources previously classified as
major sources for a specific major source NESHAP that already have
obtained enforceable limits on all their HAP emissions such that the
source's PTE, as well as actual emissions, is currently below major
source thresholds for both each individual HAP and total HAP; and (3)
existing sources previously classified as major sources for a specific
major source NESHAP that are no longer physically or operationally able
to emit HAP in amounts that exceed the major source thresholds
(commonly known as true or natural area sources). The third category
includes former major sources that no longer have the ability to emit
at major source levels either by permanently removing equipment or
changing their processes, among other reasons.
After the issuance of the MM2A Memorandum, the EPA received
questions from sources and permitting authorities regarding permit
process, mechanisms, and the requirements for reclassifying to an area
source. Stakeholders asked that we clarify the process for implementing
area source status for sources with title V permits that already have
enforceable HAP PTE limits or now no longer have the ability to emit
HAP in amounts that exceed major source thresholds. This section
addresses these questions.
From the questions received in relation to the 2018 MM2A
Memorandum, we learned that sources with title V permits that already
have enforceable HAP PTE limits or no longer have the ability to emit
HAP in amounts that exceed major source thresholds fit in two
scenarios. The first scenario involves a source subject to major source
requirements that has made changes and no longer has the ability to
emit HAP above major source thresholds (i.e., enforceable limits are
not needed on the source's physical or operational design to restrict
the source's PTE) but was still subject to major source requirements
because of the OIAI policy. For a source which no longer has the
ability to emit HAP at major source levels, enforceable limits for HAP
emissions are not needed for changing its status to area source.\36\
The second scenario involves a source that has already taken
enforceable PTE limits on its capacity to emit HAP that make it an area
source, often to avoid major source requirements in the future.
However, in accordance with the OIAI policy, such a source remained
subject to the requirements of any previous major source NESHAP prior
to the limits becoming effective because the source was not an area
source at the time of the first substantive compliance deadline in that
NESHAP. In each of these situations, the EPA assumes that the major
source NESHAP requirements have been listed as applicable requirements
in the source's title V (or equivalent) \37\ operating permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The definition of HAP PTE does not mandate a restriction to
achieve area source status if, after considering limitations
inherent to the process (i.e., the physical or operational design),
a source no longer has the capacity to emit HAP above major source
thresholds without the aid of operational restrictions. An example
of limitations inherent to the process would be changing a boiler so
that it can burn only gaseous fuel, such that HAP associated with
burning coal need not be considered in determining the source
maximum capacity to emit.
\37\ These include permits the EPA deems to meet the title V
requirements but are not called title V operating permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question that applies to all the above scenarios is whether a
reclassified source continues to have an obligation to comply with the
major source requirements in their title V permit. While our reading of
the statute is that a source in these scenarios qualifies as an area
source of HAP, a permitted source must continue to comply with the
terms of its title V permit until the source follows the permitting
authority's procedures for facility changes and permit revisions to its
title V permit. Sources should work with their permitting authorities
who have knowledge of the specific procedures in their individual
programs. The permitting authority will generally be in the best
position to help a source decide on the appropriate procedures under
the specific program rules. The EPA expects that the procedures will
generally depend on the approved regulations and the facts of the
situation. Some programs may specifically provide a streamlined
mechanism for the removal of non-applicable requirements while others
may require a significant modification process. The process may depend
on the specific facts of the situation. For instance, some situations
may simply call for the removal of the non-applicable major source
permit terms and no other changes to the permit. In contrast, when the
major source permit terms are relied upon to demonstrate compliance
with some other applicable requirement (e.g., in the case of
streamlining the permit conditions), concurrently with their removal,
the permitting authority may need to reevaluate the MRR for applicable
requirements remaining in the permit. Sources should consult with their
permitting authority and the program regulations on the proper process
to add any newly applicable MRR requirements, but the EPA notes that
the regulations in 40 CFR part 71 would require a significant
modification to add these requirements to a title V permit.
For sources located within Indian country,\38\ where the EPA is the
[[Page 36323]]
reviewing authority unless the EPA has approved a non-federal minor
source permitting program or a delegation of the Federal Indian Country
Minor NSR Rule, the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR Rule at 40 CFR
49.151-49.165 provides a mechanism for an otherwise major source to
voluntarily accept restrictions on its PTE to become a synthetic minor
source. The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR Rule applies to sources
located within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation or
other lands as specified in 40 CFR part 49, collectively referred to as
``Indian country.'' See 40 CFR 49.151(c), 49.152(d). This mechanism may
also be used by an otherwise major source of HAP to voluntarily accept
restrictions on its PTE to become a synthetic minor HAP source. The
EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) program, which includes the
Federal Indian Country Minor NSR Rule, provides additional options for
particular situations such as general permits for specific source
categories to facilitate minor source emissions management in Indian
country. Existing sources in Indian country may have PTE limits that
preceded the EPA's FIP for minor sources, and for that reason, were
issued a 40 CFR part 71 permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR Rule defines ``Indian
country'' to include three categories of lands consistent with 18
U.S.C. 1151: i.e., Indian reservations, dependent Indian
communities, and Indian allotments. The Court vacated the rule with
respect to non-reservation areas of Indian country (i.e., dependent
Indian communities and Indian allotments), in the absence of a
demonstration by the EPA or a tribe that a tribe has jurisdiction
over the non-reservation area of Indian country (Oklahoma Dept. of
Environmental Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). The
Court held that states have initial responsibility for
implementation plans under CAA section 110 in non-reservation areas
of Indian country in the absence of a demonstration of tribal
jurisdiction by the EPA or a tribe. Therefore, the Federal Indian
Country Minor NSR Rule does not apply in non-reservation areas of
Indian country unless and until a tribe or the EPA has demonstrated
that the tribe has jurisdiction in a particular non-reservation area
of Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. SIP Considerations
This rulemaking does not affect states' continuing obligations
under CAA section 110 or requirements for SIP development, including
the obligation to maintain major source NESHAP requirements that may
have been approved in a SIP under CAA section 110. In addition, states
have an ongoing obligation under CAA section 110 to ensure that changes
to any measure incorporated into a SIP do not interfere with attainment
or maintenance of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards or with
any other requirement of the CAA.\39\ The EPA cannot approve changes to
SIP provisions unless the Agency can conclude that the changes would
not result in backsliding, pursuant to CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See CAA section 112 (l) ``The Administrator shall not
approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other
applicable requirement of this Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Proposed Regulatory Changes
To reflect the plain language reading of the statute as discussed
in section III above, the EPA is proposing to amend the General
Provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. We are also proposing
amendments to the General Provision tables contained within most
subparts of 40 CFR part 63 to incorporate the changes proposed to the
General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. The EPA is also
proposing changes to several individual NESHAP intended to remove rule
specific OIAI provisions.
A. Proposed Changes to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A: General Provisions
1. Applicability
We are proposing to amend the applicability section found in 40 CFR
63.1 by adding a new paragraph (c)(6). This paragraph will specify that
a major source can become an area source at any time by limiting its
PTE HAP to below the major source thresholds established in 40 CFR
63.2.40 41 42 Sources can also become area sources by making
permanent physical changes (e.g., by the removal of emission units), if
these changes limit the potential to emit HAP below the major source
thresholds. As explained in section IV of this preamble, sources who
are seeking to reclassify to area source status will apply to their
corresponding regulatory authority and follow the corresponding
regulatory authority's procedures for reclassifying and, if needed, for
obtaining enforceable limits on their HAP PTE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Former major sources that no longer have the ability to
emit at major source levels due to the permanent removal of
equipment or changes in processes are area sources under the plain
language of the statute; therefore, and these sources do not need to
obtain additional PTE limits to reclassify to area source status.
These sources will need to apply with their corresponding regulatory
authority and follow the corresponding authority's procedures for
reclassifying from major source status to area source status.
\41\ Some individual NESHAP standards in 40 CFR part 63 provide
sources the opportunity to become area sources not by limiting total
mass emissions directly, but by limiting material use or by taking
other measures, which in turn, correlate to emissions below major
source levels (e.g., 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK, Printing and
Publishing and 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ, Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations (limiting HAP usage to below major source
thresholds)). We recommend that sources refer to the applicable
NESHAP for guidance in determining whether the source meets the
major source thresholds.
\42\ We recognize that there may be sources that were major
sources as of the first substantive compliance date of a MACT
standard that, by complying with non-section 112 CAA requirements,
became area sources for HAP emissions. In this instance, the EPA
proposes that the source obtain enforceable limitations on its HAP
PTE to ensure that those emissions remain below major source
thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major source that reclassifies to area source will no longer be
subject to NESHAP requirements applicable to a major source. The major
source requirements to which the source would no longer be subject may
include, but are not limited to, CAM \43\ and title V requirements \44\
(assuming the source is not otherwise subject to title V permitting).
As an area source complying with its PTE HAP limits, the source would
nonetheless be subject to any applicable area source requirements
issued pursuant to CAA section 112 and title V if the EPA has not
exempted the area source category from such requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The CAM regulations at 40 CFR 64.2(b)(1)(i) include an
exception for emission limitations or standards proposed by the
Administrator after November 15, 1990, pursuant to section 111 or
112 of the CAA. In summary, if a particular unit was subject to just
a MACT standard, CAM did not apply. But if the unit was also subject
to another emission limit/standard (e.g., SIP limit), then the MACT
monitoring provisions would have been determined to be presumptively
acceptable to meet CAM for the SIP limit. If the MACT standard is
then removed, and the source is still required to have a title V
permit, then CAM compliance might require re-evaluation.
\44\ As noted above in section IV.D, the source would need to
continue to comply with any major source NESHAP requirements
currently in the source's title V permit until removed by the
permitting authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute and existing regulations contain compliance date
provisions that address some, but not all, situations. For sources that
are subject to certain CAA section 112 requirements on the effective
date of those requirements, CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) provides that the
source must meet the applicable requirements beginning on the effective
date of those requirements, but that the EPA may set a later compliance
date for existing sources that provides for compliance ``as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after
the effective date of such standard'' and with additional time allowed
under certain circumstances as provided in CAA sections 112(i)(3)(B)
and 112(i)(4) through (8). For an area source that increases its
emissions and becomes a major source after the effective date of an
emission standard, the existing regulations address the issue of
compliance time frames. See 40 CFR 63.6(a)(2) and (c)(5). On the other
hand, the existing regulations do not address the issue of compliance
time frames for sources that reclassify from major source status to
area source status after the effective date of an emission standard.
To address the issue of compliance time frames for sources that
reclassify from major source status to area source status, we are
proposing regulatory text in the new provision at 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(i)
under which major sources that reclassify to area source status become
subject to applicable area source requirements in 40 CFR part 63
immediately upon becoming an area
[[Page 36324]]
source in those situations where the first substantive compliance date
has passed. However, where an area source standard would apply to an
existing source upon reclassification from major to area source status
and different emission points will need control or different emission
controls are necessary to comply with the area source standard or other
physical changes are needed to comply with the standard, we are
proposing that additional time, (not to exceed 3 years), may be granted
by the EPA (or a delegated authority) in a compliance schedule if the
source demonstrates that the additional time is necessary and
reasonable.
The proposed regulatory provision, 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(i), is
consistent with the principle underlying CAA section 112(i)(3)
compliance schedule for existing sources because it requires sources to
comply immediately with the area source standard upon becoming an area
source, and authorizes the EPA (or a delegated authority) to grant
additional time in a compliance schedule only if it determines that
such time is appropriate based on the facts and circumstances. In any
event, any extension of time provided pursuant to the proposed text in
40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(i) cannot exceed 3 years. In the situation where a
major source is engaged in the process of reclassifying to area source
status after the initial compliance date of the applicable area source
NESHAP has passed, and the source concludes that it needs a compliance
extension to meet the applicable area source NESHAP requirements, the
source must apply for and obtain that compliance extension before
completing the process to reclassify as an area source; otherwise, the
source will be in violation of the area source NESHAP. A source that is
successful in receiving approval of a compliance extension must
continue to comply with the major source NESHAP requirements until such
time as compliance with the area source NESHAP is achieved.
We solicit comment on the appropriateness of the proposed case-by-
case compliance extension date approach discussed above, including, for
example, the type of information that should be requested from the
source seeking the proposed compliance extension, and whether the
limitations proposed above (i.e., the compliance extension is only
available if the affected source must undergo a physical change or
install additional control equipment to meet the area source NESHAP)
are appropriate (Comment C-36). See proposed regulations at 40 CFR
63.1(c)(6)(i). We also solicit comment generally on the appropriate
process for requesting the compliance extension and on the mechanics of
obtaining the compliance extension (Comment C-37). If the area source
category is not exempted from the requirements of title V, the request
for a compliance extension could be made in the context of the title V
permit process. If, however, the area source category at issue is
exempt from title V, the source could submit its compliance date
extension request to the regulatory authority issuing its PTE HAP
limits, provided that the regulatory authority has delegation to
implement the area source NESHAP. We further solicit comment on whether
the proposed compliance date extension provision in 40 CFR
63.1(c)(6)(i) should be available to major sources that reclassify to
area source status prior to the compliance date of an applicable area
source standard, to the extent that the remaining time before the
compliance date is not sufficient time for the source to comply
(Comment C-38).
In 2007, the EPA considered the issue of time frames for compliance
with corresponding CAA section 112 standards when sources reclassify
between major and area source status more than once. In particular, the
EPA looked at whether it is reasonable to require immediate compliance
with previously applicable major source NESHAP requirements for sources
that reclassify from major to area source status and then revert back
to its previous major source status.
As discussed above, the current statutory and regulatory provisions
specify the timing for compliance when an area source becomes a major
source for the first time. See 40 CFR 63.6(c)(5) and (b)(7). Per 40 CFR
63.6(b)(7), when an area source becomes a major source by the addition
of equipment or operations that meet the definition of a ``new affected
source'' in the relevant standard, the portion of the existing facility
that is a new affected source must comply with all requirements of that
standard applicable to new sources upon startup. On the other hand, 40
CFR 63.6(c)(5) specifies that, except as provided in paragraph (b)(7),
the owner or operator of an area source that increases its emissions of
(or its PTE) HAP such that the source becomes a major source shall be
subject to relevant standards for existing sources and must comply by
the date specified in the major source standards for existing sources
that are applicable to that source. If no such compliance date is
specified in the standards, the source shall have a period of time to
comply with the relevant emission standard that is equivalent to the
compliance period specified in the relevant standard for existing
sources in existence at the time the standard becomes effective.
Sources that reclassify to area source status in most cases, if not
all, would achieve and maintain area source status by operating the
emission controls or continuing to implement the practices (i.e., use
of no-HAP or low-HAP compliant material) they used to meet the major
source NESHAP requirements. Sources may, in addition to, or in lieu of,
operating emission controls, reduce their production level or hours of
operation. The EPA has no information to suggest that a source that
reclassifies from major to area source status, regardless of the means
employed to attain area source status, would remove the controls used
to meet the previous applicable major source NESHAP requirements. We
recognize that some major source NESHAP allow alternative compliance
options, such as the use of low-HAP materials, but these options should
continue to be available to the affected source. Moreover, the addition
of equipment or process units to an existing affected source should not
change the source's ability to meet the major source NESHAP
requirements upon startup of the new equipment or emission unit because
the equipment or process units should be accompanied by either a tie-in
to existing emission controls or part of the installation of new
emission controls. See also 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7) (applying to new affected
sources). We solicit comment on whether our information and
expectations, as stated in this paragraph, are correct (Comment C-39).
For the reasons explained above, in this action the EPA is
proposing to add a new provision in 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(ii)(A) to specify
that a source that reclassifies from major source status to area source
status and then later reclassifies back to major source status must
meet the major source NESHAP requirements at the time that standard
again becomes applicable to the source. This is reasonable because
existing affected sources located at the facility that were previously
subject to a major source NESHAP should be able to comply with that
major source NESHAP immediately upon the requirements again becoming
applicable to them. To date, we have identified one set of
circumstances where additional time would be necessary for the source
to comply with the major source NESHAP in the scenario where a source
is reclassifying from area source status to major source status after
previously going from major source to area source.
Specifically, there are situations where major source NESHAP rules
may
[[Page 36325]]
be amended and either become more stringent or apply to additional
emission points or regulate additional HAP. For example, under CAA
section 112(d)(6), MACT standards must be reviewed every 8 years and
revised if necessary. If revisions issued pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) increase the stringency of the standards or revise the
standards such that they apply to additional emission points or HAP, it
may be necessary to allow existing sources that are returning to major
source status some additional time to come into compliance with the new
major source requirements.
The revision of a NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) is only
one example of a situation where a major source NESHAP rule may be
revised. Many types of rule amendments that substantively modify the
NESHAP could provide a basis for additional time for compliance. Thus,
we are proposing to add a provision in 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(ii)(B) that
sources that reclassify from major source to area source and then
revert to major source status, be allowed additional time for
compliance if the major source NESHAP has changed such that the source
must undergo a physical change, install additional emission controls,
and/or implement new emission control measures. We propose that such
sources have the same time period to comply with the revised major
source NESHAP as is allowed for existing sources subject to the revised
major source NESHAP. The source will need to continue complying with
the area source requirements until such time as compliance with the
major source requirements is achieved. We solicit comment on this
proposed compliance time frame and whether the proposed regulatory text
in 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(ii)(B) adequately captures the intended exception
(Comment C-40).
We solicit comment on the appropriateness of the proposed immediate
compliance rule for sources that reclassify between major and area
source status more than once and whether such a rule should be
finalized (Comment C-41). Further, we solicit comment on whether, if it
is finalized, there are other situations, in addition to the one noted
above, that would necessitate an extension of the time period specified
for compliance with the major source NESHAP requirements (Comment C-
42). We further solicit comment on whether we should instead allow all
sources that revert back to major source status a specific period of
time in which to comply with the major source NESHAP requirements,
which would be consistent with the approach provided for in 40 CFR
63.6(c)(5) (Comment C-43). If we promulgate this approach in the final
rule, we request comment on whether we should provide the same time
period as is already provided for in 40 CFR 63.6(c)(5), or whether a
different time period is appropriate and why. To the extent a commenter
proposes a compliance time frame, we request that the commenter explain
the basis for providing that time frame with enough specificity for the
EPA to evaluate the request (Comment C-44). Thus, depending on the
comments received and the factual circumstances identified, the options
we are considering include: (1) Not finalizing the immediate compliance
rule with exceptions, and instead providing all sources that revert
back to major source status a defined period of time to comply
consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(c)(5); and (2) finalizing
the proposed immediate compliance rule and adopting additional
exceptions to that rule if we receive persuasive and concrete scenarios
that would warrant allowing additional time to comply with previously
applicable major source NESHAP requirements.\45\ If we pursue the
former approach, we would likely amend 40 CFR 63.6(c)(5). If we pursue
the latter approach and retain the immediate compliance rule but create
exceptions in addition to the one noted above, there are two ways to
implement the exceptions: (1) Through a case-by-case compliance
extension request process or (2) by identifying in the final rule
specific exceptions to the immediate compliance rule and providing a
time period for compliance for each identified exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The new proposed regulatory provision at 40 CFR
63.1(c)(6)(ii) would be subject to the provisions of 40 CFR
63.6(b)(7). Thus, if a source adds a piece of equipment which
results in emissions at levels in excess of the major source
thresholds, and that equipment meets the definition of a new
affected source under the relevant NESHAP, the source would be
subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7) and would have to
meet the requirements for new sources in the relevant major source
NESHAP, including compliance at startup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the case-by-case approach, the EPA or delegated regulatory
authority could grant limited additional time for compliance upon a
specific showing of need. A case-by-case compliance extension request
process would call for the owners or operators of sources to submit to
the relevant regulatory authority a request that (1) identifies the
specific additional time needed for compliance, and (2) explains, in
detail, why the source needs additional time to come into compliance
with the major source NESHAP. The regulatory authority would review the
request and could either approve it in whole, or in part (i.e., by
specifying a different compliance time frame or allowing different time
frames for different parts of the affected sources) or deny the
request. We envision that a request for a compliance extension, if such
an option is provided in the final rule, would ordinarily be made in
the context of the title V permit application or an application to
modify an existing title V permit. Any compliance extension, if
granted, would be memorialized in the title V permit. If we finalize
the proposed immediate compliance rule with exceptions, we will also
consider the option of including in the final rule defined compliance
extension time frames for defined factual scenarios, as we have done
for the exception described above. Under this approach, if a source
satisfies the criteria identified in the final rule, it would
automatically be afforded a specified extension of time to comply with
the major source NESHAP requirements upon the source, again becoming
subject to the NESHAP. This specified extension approach would be
useful if there are specific factual scenarios that affect a broad
number of sources because defining the compliance extension time frame
in the final rule eliminates the burden on regulatory authorities
associated with the case-by-case approach.
In submitting your comments on the above-noted issues and proposed
40 CFR 63.6(c)(6) provision, identify, with specificity, the factual
circumstances that would warrant a compliance extension, explain why
the source would need the extension under the circumstances identified,
and explain why the source could not comply with the standard
immediately upon reverting to major source status given the identified
circumstances (Comment C-45). We specifically solicit comment on our
discussion above as to the mechanics of obtaining a compliance
extension if a case-by-case approach is finalized, including, for
example, the type of information to request from the source seeking the
proposed compliance extension, the process to be used to obtain the
extension, and any limitations on providing extensions (Comment C-
46).\46\ We further solicit
[[Page 36326]]
comment on the approach of providing a specified compliance extension
in the final rule for certain defined factual scenarios (Comment C-47).
Regarding this approach, we solicit comment on the nature of the
scenario that would warrant such an extension and the specific amount
of additional time that would be needed to comply with the major source
NESHAP requirements and why such a period of time is needed to comply
(Comment C-48). We also request comments on whether a source that
cannot immediately comply with previously or newly applicable major
source NESHAP requirements at the time it requests reclassification,
should be required to continue to comply with the HAP PTE limits until
the source can comply with the corresponding major source NESHAP
requirements (Comment C-49).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Some major sources that switch to area source status may,
as an area source, no longer be subject to title V permit
requirements and, therefore, apply to their permitting authority to
terminate their title V permits. In this situation, the source would
need to obtain HAP PTE limits through a regulatory vehicle other
than title V. Presumably, such sources would have their title V
permit terminated at the same time their enforceable PTE limits
become effective. If, however, the area source reverts to major
source status, the source will once again have to obtain a title V
permit. The source would also have to have its enforceable PTE
limits terminated to allow it to emit at major source levels. Once
the HAP PTE limits no longer apply to the source, the source must
comply with all applicable major source NESHAP requirements or have
taken appropriate steps to apply for compliance extensions for each
applicable major source NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is also proposing to add a new provision at 40 CFR
63.1(c)(6)(iii) to address the interaction of the reclassification of
sources with enforcement actions. Specifically, we are proposing that
sources that reclassify from major to area source status and are
subject to enforcement investigations or enforcement actions are not
absolved from the results of such investigations or the consequences of
such actions by becoming area sources. Although sources that are the
subject of an investigation or enforcement action may still seek area
source status for purposes of future applicability, they are not
absolved of any previous or pending violations of the CAA that occurred
while they were a major source, and the source must bear the
consequences of any enforcement action or remedy imposed upon it, which
could include fines, imposition of additional emission reduction
requirements, or other remedies for noncompliance. Accordingly, a
source cannot use its new area source status as a defense to major
source NESHAP violations that occurred while the source was a major
source. Similarly, becoming a major source does not absolve a source
subject to an enforcement action or investigation for area source
violations or infractions from the consequences of any actions
occurring when the source was an area source.
2. Definitions
In this action, the EPA is proposing specific criteria that a HAP
PTE limit must meet to be effective in ensuring that a source would not
emit above the PTE levels for each emission unit in the permit. The EPA
is proposing to amend the PTE definition in 40 CFR 63.2, accordingly,
by removing the requirement for federally enforceable PTE limits and
requiring instead that PTE limits meet the effectiveness criteria of
being both legally enforceable and practicably enforceable as described
in detail in section IV. B of this proposal. The EPA is proposing to
include in 40 CFR 63.2 the definitions of legally enforceable and
practicably enforceable. The EPA proposes legally enforceable to mean
that an emission limitation or other standards meet the following
criteria: (1) Must identify the legal authority under which the
limitations or standards are being issued; and (2) must provide the
right for the issuing authority to enforce it. The EPA proposes
practicably enforceable to mean that an emission limitation or other
standards meet the following criteria: (1) Must be written so that it
is possible to verify compliance and to document violations when
enforcement action is necessary; (2) must specify a technically
accurate numerical limitation and identify the portions of the source
subject to the limitation. The time frame for the limitation (e.g.,
hourly, daily, monthly, and annual limits such as annual limits rolled
on a monthly basis) taking into account the type of parameter limited
(an indirect indicator of emissions such as a continuous monitoring
system limit should have a shorter time frame than a direct measurement
of HAP emissions to account for the relationship between HAP emissions
and the monitored parameter); and (3) must specify the method of
determining compliance, including appropriate MRR. We request comments
on whether other criteria are needed to ensure the emission limitations
are practicably enforceable (Comment C-50).
3. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The EPA is proposing to amend the recordkeeping requirements for
applicability determinations in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3) by adding text to
clarify that this requirement applies to an owner or operator with an
existing or new stationary source that is in a source category
regulated by a standard established pursuant to CAA section 112, but
that is not subject to the relevant standard because of legally and
practicably enforceable limitations on the source's HAP PTE. The
proposed text also clarifies that the record of the applicability
determination must include an emissions analysis (or other information)
that demonstrates the owner or operator's conclusion that the source is
not subject to major source requirements. The analysis (or other
information) must be sufficiently detailed to allow the Administrator
to make an applicability finding for the source with regard to the
relevant standard or other requirements. The EPA is proposing to remove
the time limit for record retention in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3) so sources
that obtain new enforceable PTE limits are required to keep the
required record of the applicability determination until the source
becomes subject to major source requirements. We request comments on
the propose amendment to 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3) removing the time limit for
keeping these records and requiring that the records be maintained
until the source becomes an affected source as described above (Comment
C-51).
The EPA is further proposing to amend the recordkeeping
requirements for records submitted through CEDRI by adding 40 CFR
63.10(g) to clarify the records submitted through CEDRI may be
maintained in electronic format. This provision does not remove the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request by a delegated air agency or the EPA upon request.
4. Notification Requirements
The EPA is proposing to amend the notification requirements in 40
CFR 63.9(b) so that an owner or operator of a facility must notify the
Administrator of any standards to which it becomes subject. With this
amendment, the notification requirements of 40 CFR 63.9 will cover both
situations where a source reclassifies from major to area source status
and where a source reclassifies from major to area and subsequently
reverts back to major source status. The EPA is also proposing to
clarify that a source that reclassifies must notify the EPA of any
changes in the applicability of the standards that the source was
subject to per the notification requirements of 40 CFR 63.9(j). The EPA
is also proposing to amend the notification requirements in 40 CFR
63.9(b) and (j) to require the notification be submitted electronically
through the CEDRI. The EPA is also proposing to amend the General
Provisions to add 40 CFR 63.9(k) to include the CEDRI submission
procedures. Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad
circumstances in
[[Page 36327]]
which extensions of the time frame for electronic submittal may be
provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of
needing additional time to submit is within the discretion of the
Administrator, and submittal should occur as soon as possible. The EPA
is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators
from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a
notification by the submittal deadline for reasons outside of their
control. The situation where an extension may be warranted due to
outages of the EPA's Central Data Exchange or CEDRI that preclude an
owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting a required
notification is addressed in 40 CFR 63.9(k)(1). The situation where an
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which 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 an owner or
operator from complying with the requirement to submit electronically
as required by this rule, is addressed in 40 CFR 63.9(k)(2). Examples
of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the notifications addressed in this
proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the notification,
is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies
and the EPA to assess and determine compliance and the applicability of
major and area source standards to a facility, and will ultimately
reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the
EPA. Electronic submittal also eliminates paper-based, manual
processes, thereby saving time and resources and providing data quickly
and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and
the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's
plan \47\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the
EPA's Agency-wide policy \48\ developed in response to the White
House's Digital Government Strategy.\49\ The EPA is also proposing to
amend 40 CFR 63.12(c) to specify that a delegated authority may not
exempt sources from reporting electronically to the EPA when stipulated
by this part. For more information on the benefits of electronic
reporting, see the memorandum, ``Electronic Reporting Requirements for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,'' available in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The EPA's ``Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective
Reviews,'' August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\48\ ``E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations,''
September 2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\49\ ``Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People,'' May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposed Changes to Individual NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability Tables
We are proposing to amend the General Provisions applicability
tables contained within most subparts of 40 CFR part 63 to add a
reference to a new paragraph 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6) discussed in the section
above and add a reference to reflect the proposed CEDRI submission
procedures of 40 CFR 63.9(k) discussed above. We solicit comments on
whether any other subparts warrant amendment to reference the new
General Provision 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6) or the CEDRI submission procedures
in 40 CFR 63.9(k) (Comment C-52).
C. Proposed Changes to Individual NESHAP
The EPA has identified one general category of regulatory
provisions in several NESHAP subparts that reflect the 1995 OIAI policy
that require revision pursuant to this action. This category of
provisions addresses the date by which a major source can become an
area source. Accordingly, in this action we are proposing to revise the
following provisions: 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ at 63.1441; 40 CFR
part 63, subpart QQQQQ at 63.9485; 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR at
63.9581; and Table 2 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW.
We also identified several area source NESHAP containing
notification provisions (i.e., initial notification) applicable to
existing sources which have passed. The following area source NESHAP
contain notification requirements for existing sources with specific
deadlines that are in the past: 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH at
63.11175; 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX at 63.11519; 40 CFR part 63,
subpart YYYYYY at 63.11529; 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAAAA at
63.11564; 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBBB at 63.11585; 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCCCC at 63.11603. We are proposing to amend these provisions
to add language applicable to existing sources that reclassify from
major source to area source status. Consistent with other area source
NESHAP notification requirements, we propose that, for an existing
source that reclassify from major to area source status, the
notification shall be submitted no later than 120 calendar days after
the source becomes subject to the relevant area source NESHAP
requirements.
We further solicit comment on whether there are any other
regulatory provisions in any of the individual subparts that would
warrant modification or clarification consistent with this proposal
(Comment C-53).
VI. Impacts of Proposed Amendments
In this section, we present the findings of the cost,
environmental, and economic impacts associated with this action. While
the opportunity to reclassify from major to area source status under
section 112 of the CAA is available to all major sources of HAP, the
EPA has very limited information on how many sources may choose to
limit their PTE HAP to below major source thresholds and reclassify to
area source status as a result of this action. We outline in section IV
of this preamble the series of analyses and considerations a source
will undergo to reclassify from major to area source, including:
Evaluating actual and potential HAP emissions, technical feasibility of
effectively limiting the source's PTE HAP, process to obtain effective
PTE limitations, as well as other considerations. Because each source
will assess its own situation to determine whether the costs and
benefits associated with becoming an area source are advantageous to
the source, there are inherent uncertainties in determining the number
of sources to include in the illustrative analysis presented here.
The EPA specifically solicited comments in 2007 on the number of
potential and likely sources that may avail themselves of the
opportunity to reclassify. Many of the commenters on the 2007 proposal
stated that the opportunity to reclassify to area source status will
mainly benefit manufacturing operations that have been working on
technological advances and/or process changes to reduce their
[[Page 36328]]
emissions. Commenters in 2007 did not provide specific information and
data in response to this request that would allow the EPA to analyze
the impacts.
Since the inception of the air toxics program under section 112 of
the CAA, the EPA has observed significant improvements in technologies
and processes that have significantly reduced, or in some cases
eliminated, the use of HAP from many operations. These advances include
process or procedural changes, equipment or technology modifications,
reformulation or redesign of products, and substitution of raw
materials. Although the incorporation of such advances will benefit all
sources regardless of the size and status, such incorporation at small-
to medium-sized major sources can aid those sources to reduce their HAP
emissions to below major source thresholds.
Sources that might seek reclassification to area source status can
generally be grouped into three categories: (1) Major sources that need
to obtain enforceable limits on their PTE HAP to ensure that the
emissions do not exceed major source thresholds; (2) sources previously
classified as major sources that already have enforceable limits on
their HAP emissions such that their PTE is below the major source
thresholds; and (3) sources previously classified as major sources that
are no longer physically or operationally able to emit HAP in amounts
that exceed the major source thresholds (commonly known as true or
natural area sources).
As discussed below, commenters on the 2007 proposal asserted that
the implementation of the plain reading of the definitions of major and
area source in section 112 of the CAA and withdrawal of the OIAI policy
will encourage innovation in pollution reduction technologies,
engineering, and work practices. For many sources, the opportunity to
reclassify to area source status may create an incentive to evaluate
their operations and consider changes that can further reduce their HAP
emissions to below the major source thresholds if the source views
those changes as an opportunity to reduce costs of production, increase
productivity, or reduce the opportunity costs of complying with major
source NESHAP requirements. For example, sources using surface coatings
\50\ may see the opportunity to become an area source as an extra
incentive to invest in the development of new low- or no-HAP content
coatings, inks, and binders. Similarly, sources with boilers and
engines may benefit from replacing old boilers and engines with new,
more efficient, and clean technologies, which not only could help a
source reduce HAP to below the major source thresholds but could also
reduce fuel use and associated costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Coating manufacturing operations covered by NESHAP include:
Shipbuilding and repair; wood furniture; aerospace; fiberglass boat;
metal coil; paper and other web; metal furniture; large appliances;
wooden building parts; plastic parts; fabric; miscellaneous metal
parts and products; auto and light duty trucks; and metal can.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA specifically requests information and specific examples of
sources that would consider investing in additional emissions reduction
measures like changing processes or installing additional emission
controls (intrinsic to the source or additional add-on controls),
installing new lower emitting equipment, or implementing P2 initiatives
to avail themselves of the potential to seek reclassification to area
source status (Comment C-54). The Agency is interested both in comments
in which the commenters themselves would consider investing in
additional emissions reduction measures, and comments identifying
specific types of facilities that would be able to invest in additional
emissions reduction measures (Comment C-55).
Commenters on the 2007 proposal noted that many sources have
undergone facility and/or operational modifications that will ensure
maintenance of emission reductions even without the sources remaining
subject to major source NESHAP requirements. For these sources, the
opportunity to reclassify will result in a reduction in regulatory
burden with no potential for HAP emission increases. An example
provided in the 2007 comments is that of a gasoline distribution
terminal \51\ classified as a major source of HAP and subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart R, NESHAP for Gasoline Distribution Facilities. The
site converted from methyl tertiary butyl ether to ethanol to comply
with reformulated gasoline requirements and obtained enforceable HAP
limitations below the major source thresholds so that two other major
source NESHAP rules (Organic Liquids Distribution: 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE, and Site Remediation: 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG) would
not be applicable. Because this facility is also a major source of VOC,
the site has, and will continue to have, a title V permit. Vapors from
loading facilities are currently captured by a vapor recovery system
and the tanks are equipped with floating roofs. In light of their
existing enforceable PTE limitations, the source could submit a request
to their permitting authority to be reclassified as an area source and
to remove the 40 CFR part 63, subpart R major source requirements from
its title V permit. The facility will still be subject to NSPS 40 CFR
part 60, subpart XX, for bulk gasoline terminals and NSPS 40 CFR part
60, subpart Kb, for storage vessels. In addition, the facility will be
subject to the Gasoline Distribution area source NESHAP 40 CFR part 63,
subpart BBBBBB requirements. The commenter then asserted that emissions
will continue to be controlled while allowing a reduction in regulatory
burden at the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the section below the EPA presents the potential impacts of the
proposed amendments. This action does not mandate any source to
reclassify to area source status. An evaluation of the potential to
reclassify to area source status involves many source-specific
considerations (discussed above and in section IV). Each source must
assess its own situation to determine whether the costs and benefits
associated with becoming an area source are advantageous to the source.
Because of inherent uncertainties in determining how many and which
sources may choose to reclassify from major source to area source, we
can only present illustrative analyses concerning the impacts of the
proposed amendments.
We estimated the potential costs and cost savings associated with
this proposed action by determining which sources are likely to have
the option to reclassify from major to area source status and then we
assessed the potential costs and cost savings. The potential costs and
cost savings presented in the proposal cost memorandum and RIA are the
results of an illustrative assessment. It is unknown how many sources
would choose to take legally and practicably enforceable HAP PTE limits
to below major source thresholds and reclassify to area source status.
The illustrative assessment is based on the following key assumptions:
(1) We estimated that only those facilities whose actual emissions are
below 75 percent of the major source thresholds (7.5 tpy for a single
HAP and 18.75 tpy for all HAP) would reclassify from major to area
source status (this assumption forms the basis for the primary
alternative scenario analyzed for this proposal); (2) the costs that we
estimated to be incurred by the facilities are the costs associated
with permitting actions necessary to obtain area source status; (3) the
costs that we estimated to be incurred by permitting authorities are
the costs associated with permitting actions necessary to permit
facilities as
[[Page 36329]]
area sources; and (4) the cost savings estimates are based solely on
estimated changes in labor burden related to MRR requirements that
would either no longer apply or would change based on the specific
requirements in the major source and area source rules that apply to a
particular source category. In addition, we conducted this illustrative
assessment for two alternative scenarios. Alternative scenario 1
assumed that only those facilities whose actual emissions are below 50
percent of the major source thresholds (5 tpy for a single HAP and 12.5
tpy for all HAP) would reclassify from major to area source status.
Alternative scenario 2 assumed that sources below 125 percent of the
major source thresholds (12.5 tpy for a single HAP and 31.25 tpy for
all HAP) would reclassify from major to area source status. As part of
the overall analysis of the 125 percent alternative scenario, we
examined the potential control costs for major sources in a few source
categories that may reduce HAP emissions as part of reclassifying to
area HAP sources. Details of this potential control cost analysis are
presented in the memorandum, ``Analysis of Illustrative 125% Scenario
for MM2A Proposal--Potential Cost Impacts from HAP Major Sources
Reducing Emissions as part of Reclassifying to HAP Area Sources,''
which is available in the docket for this action. Discussion of these
scenarios and results can be found in the RIA for this proposal. The
details of the cost analysis are presented in the memorandum,
``Analysis of Potential Costs and Cost Savings Associated with
Facilities Reclassifying as Area Sources,'' which is available in the
docket for this action. A summary of the results of our illustrative
cost and cost savings illustrative analysis is presented in Table 2.
Table 2--Results of Potential Costs and Cost Savings Illustrative Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of
facilities in Facilities
Coverage source category projected to Potential net annual cost savings
subject to major obtain area (2014$)
source NESHAP source status \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71 source categories for which the 3,065 1,621 (52.9%) $73.4 Million (yr 1).\3\
EPA had RTR data. $86.4 Million (yr 2).\4\
Extrapolated source categories (35 3,034 1,383 (45.6%) $69.8 Million (yr 1).
categories) \2\. $80.9 Million (yr 2).
Industrial, commercial, and 1,821 908 (49.9%) $25.8 Million (yr 1).
institutional boilers and process $33.1 Million (yr 2).
heaters (3 categories) \2\.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \5\..................... 7,920 3,912 (49.4%) $169.0 Million (yr 1).\6\
$200.3 Million (yr 2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Results are for the 75-percent cut-off scenario--whole facility emissions below 75 percent of the major
source thresholds (7.5 tpy for one HAP and 18.75 tpy for combined HAP).
\2\ Extrapolated using the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) data.
\3\ Costs incurred by sources and permitting authority assumed in year 1.
\4\ Year 2 impacts are also representative of annual impacts beyond year 2.
\5\ This analysis was done source category by source category. The one possibility for double counting is in the
permitting costs incurred in year 1, which the EPA applied to each facility in each source category regardless
of whether a permit change would cover more than one source category (for facilities subject to more than one
major source NESHAP).
\6\ The analytic timeline begins in 2020 and continues thereafter for an indefinite period. Year 1 impacts are
those for 1 year after 2020, and year 2 impacts are those for the second year after 2020 and annually
afterwards.
The EPA also estimated the PV of the illustrative cost savings for
the main illustrative scenario and each alternative scenario. The PV is
the value of a stream of impacts over time, discounted to the current
(or nearly current) year. The PV of the cost savings for the primary
illustrative scenario is $2.34 billion (in 2014 dollars) at a discount
rate of 7 percent, which is discounted to 2016. At a discount rate of 3
percent, the PV is $6.08 billion (in 2014 dollars), again discounted to
2016. In 2016 dollars, these PVs are $2.39 billion at a 7-percent
discount rate and $6.2 billion at a 3-percent discount rate, discounted
to 2016. Another measure of the annual cost savings to complement the
estimates in Table 2 is the EAV. This annual impact estimate is
calculated consistent with the PV. The EAV is $164 million (2014
dollars) and $167 million (2016 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate
for the primary scenario. At a 3-percent discount rate, the EAV is $183
million (2014 dollars) and $187 million (2016 dollars). The PVs for
each alternative scenario and discount rate in 2014 and 2016 dollars
can be found in the RIA for the proposal.
To assess the potential emission impact associated with the
reclassification of sources, the EPA evaluated the sources that the EPA
knows have reclassified to area source status consistent with the EPA's
plain language reading of the CAA section 112 definitions of ``major''
and ``area'' source since January 2018. The review of these
reclassifications provides a representation of the potential real-world
impact on emissions by looking at the facts and circumstances of actual
reclassification actions. In addition to the evaluation of the
reclassification actions, the EPA performed an illustrative assessment
for six source categories: Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations,
Surface Coating of Metal Cans, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products, Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, Hydrochloric
Acid (HCl) Production, and Non-Gasoline Organic Liquids Distribution
(OLD). The analysis of these six source categories is informative in
some respects but is only illustrative and speculative in nature and
can only present a range of possible outcomes that is dependent on the
assumptions that we made in the assessment. The details and results of
the emission analysis are summarized below presented in detail in the
emission impact analysis technical support memorandum, which is
available in the docket for this action.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Technical Support Memorandum (TSM): Emission Impacts
Analysis for the Proposed Rulemaking ``Reclassification of Major
Sources as Area Sources under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA reviewed permits associated with 34 reclassifications to
area source status. Of the 34 sources reviewed for this analysis, 21
sources can be classified as coating type sources; five as oil and gas
sources; four as fuel
[[Page 36330]]
combustion/boiler sources, three as chemical sources and one as heavy
industry. (See Table 2 of Emission Impacts Analysis TSM available in
the docket for this action).\53\ To assess the potential for emission
impacts due to reclassification, the EPA focused the review on the
enforceable conditions associated with the HAP PTE limitations for the
emission units previously subject to major source NESHAP requirements
and whether the sources that reclassified will continue to use the
major source NESHAP compliance obligations for these emission units as
an enforceable condition on the source's PTE. A summary of the permit
review and emission evaluation is presented in Table 2 and Appendix 1
of the Emission Impacts Analysis TSM available in the docket for this
action. The EPA's findings from the permit review and emission
evaluation is that sources that reclassify to area source status would,
in most cases, achieve and maintain area source status by operating the
emission controls or continuing to implement the practices they used to
comply with the major source NESHAP requirements. Below is an overview
of the EPA's findings from the permit review and evaluation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ As part of this review, the EPA identified one source
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW (Reinforced Plastic
Composite Production). As discussed above in the preamble, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart WWWW contains a regulatory provision that reflects
the 1995 OIAI policy. In this action, the EPA is proposing to revise
Table 2 of subpart WWWW by removing the date after which a major
source cannot become an area source. The existing provision will
remain in effect until such time as it is revised or removed by
final agency action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 21 coating sources (Facilities #1-21 on Table 2 of
Emission Impact Analysis TSM), 20 used compliant materials (low-HAP/no-
HAP) to meet applicable major source requirements, and their continued
use of compliant materials is an enforceable condition after
reclassification. Only one source (Facility #13) used a regenerative
thermal oxidizer (RTO) to meet the applicable major source requirements
and their continued use of the RTO is an enforceable condition after
reclassification. Thus, the EPA does not expect emissions increases
from those sources using compliant materials (low-HAP/no-HAP) both
before and after reclassification. Similarly, for the coating source
using the RTO, the permit for this source continues to require the use
of an RTO ensuring a HAP destruction efficiency of 95 percent as an
enforceable permit requirement. Therefore, we don't expect emissions
increases resulting from the reclassification of this facility.
All five oil and gas sources (Facilities #22-26 on Table 2
of Emission Impact Analysis TSM), that reclassified or are in the
process of reclassifying relied on the use of control technologies to
meet applicable major source requirements before reclassification, and
their continued use of these control technologies is an enforceable
condition after reclassification. Four of these facilities (#22, #24,
#25, and #26) were subject to the major source requirements of the Oil
and Natural Gas Production NESHAP while one facility (#23) was subject
to the major source requirements of the Stationary Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAP.
[cir] The facility (#23) previously subject to the major source
RICE NESHAP requirements, replaced old engines with new engines
equipped with a catalytic oxidizer designed to reduce HAP emissions
(formaldehyde by 90 percent) prior to the reclassification. Since
reclassification, this facility continues to be subject to enforceable
conditions on the operation of the engines and the catalytic oxidizer
to reduce formaldehyde by 90 percent. Thus, we don't expect emissions
increases resulting from the reclassification of this facility.
[cir] Of the four facilities that were subject to the major source
requirements of the Oil and Natural Gas Production NESHAP, two (#22 and
#26) relied on the use of flares and enclosed combustion devices to
meet applicable major source requirements before reclassification, and
their continued use of these control technologies is required as an
enforceable condition after reclassification. The permit for another
facility (#24), as proposed, will impose enforceable emission
restrictions for an existing installed and operating emissions unit and
associated voluntarily installed and operated control device. The
proposed enforceable conditions include the operation of an enclosed
combustor to control the VOC and HAP emissions from a triethylene
glycol dehydrator still vent. If these enforceable conditions are
finalized, we don't expect emissions increases resulting from the
reclassification of this facility. The last facility in this category
(#25) took additional enforceable limits on the amount of low-pressure
relief gas vented to the atmosphere to ensure emissions of the
individual HAP 2,2,4-trimethylpentane (largest individual HAP for the
gas compression/venting operation) emissions are below 10 tpy. This
enforceable limitation ensures HAP emissions will not increase as a
result of the modification to vent the low-pressure gas directly to the
atmosphere instead of being recovered in a vapor recovery unit. Without
the enforceable limitations in the amount of low-pressure relief gas
vented to the atmosphere, emissions from the gas compression/venting
would have increased (uncontrolled PTE) to 10.3 tpy for the largest
individual HAP. The actions taken by this facility to reclassify to
area source status resulted in emission reductions.
Of the four fuel combustion/boiler sources (Facilities #
27-30 on Table 2 of Emission Analysis TSM), three of these sources
(#27, #28, #29) had emissions above the major source thresholds as
reported in the 2014 National Emission Inventory (NEI). To reclassify,
these sources either ceased combustion of coal, ceased operation of
boilers, or obtained enforceable restrictions on the combustion of
natural gas. For each of these three sources, their actions to
reclassify resulted in a reduction of HAP emissions. Another source
(#30) relied on material limits and operational restrictions on natural
gas usage to meet the applicable major source requirements, and the
continued use of these compliance methods is required by an enforceable
condition after the reclassification. Thus, the EPA does not expect
emission increases from the reclassification of this source.
Two of the chemical sources are gasoline distribution
facilities (Facilities #31 and #33 on Table 2 of Emission Analysis
TSM). These facilities were subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart R and
relied on vapor flare/vapor combustion to meet the major source
requirements before reclassification, and their continued use of this
control technology is required as an enforceable condition after
reclassification. Since reclassification, their permit continues to
require the operation of the vapor flare/vapor combustor at all times
when the facility's loading racks are loading gasoline into transports.
These sources are now subject to the area source NESHAP requirements in
40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB that regulate emissions from tanks,
transfer racks, roof landings, and maintenance. For these facilities,
the EPA reviewed the operating parameters associated with the vapor
flare/vapor combustion. The permit for one facility (#31) includes a
requirement for annual periodic testing in addition to the continuous
monitoring of the presence of the pilot flame to ensure that the
enclosed combustor is operational when loading operations occur. The
annual performance test together with the monitoring of the presence of
the flame ensure operation and performance. We,
[[Page 36331]]
therefore, do not expect emission increases due to the reclassification
of this source. The other gasoline distribution facility (#33)
continues to be subject to flare operating and monitoring requirements
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX (New Source Performance Standards for
Bulk Gasoline Terminals). The flare operating and monitoring
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX are identical to those that
the source was previously subject to under 40 CFR part 63, subpart R.
This permit also requires testing for specific HAP associated with the
vapor combustor to ensure operation and performance. We do not expect
emission increases due to the reclassification of this source.
As for the incinerator (Facility #32 on Table 2 of
Emission Analysis TSM), the source continues to be subject to the same
NESHAP requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE as before
reclassification, and it has been reclassified for purposes of
applicability with 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD (Off-Site Waste Recovery
Operations), which covers emissions from tanks and equipment leaks.
This source relied on control technologies (fixed roofs with closed
vents systems routed to carbon absorption units) as their method of
compliance before reclassification and is required by an enforceable
condition to continue to operate the same control technologies after
reclassification. The source is also subject to Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulation/permit requirements. The RCRA permit
for this facility requires the source to control emissions by venting
the tanks through closed vent systems to carbon adsorption units
designed and operated to recover the organic vapors vented to them with
an efficiency of 95 percent or greater by weight. The tanks shall be
covered by a fixed roof and vented directly through the closed vent
system to a control device. Therefore, we don't expect emissions
increases due to the reclassification of this source.
As for the lime manufacturing plant (Facility #34 on Table
2 of Emission Analysis TSM), after reclassification this source remains
subject to other regulatory obligations, including PM emission
limitations, use of a baghouse, and monitored opacity as an operating
limit with operation of a COMS. Because of the inherent scrubbing
properties of lime and the requirements for the use of a baghouse, we
don't expect emissions increases resulting from the reclassification of
this facility.
The results of the analysis of these reclassifications show that
three sources with NEI 2014 emissions above the major source thresholds
took actions that reduced their emissions below what is required by
their previously applicable major sources NESHAP and to below the major
source thresholds in order to reclassify to area source status. The
results also support the conclusion that the remaining 31 sources that
reclassified from major to area source status since January 2018 will
have no change in emissions. We request comments on the analysis of the
reclassification actions presented above and in more details in the
Emission Impact Analysis TSM available in the docket (Comment C-56).
Specifically, we request comments on whether there are other factual
factors to consider for the emission evaluation of these
reclassifications (Comment C-57).
In addition to the evaluation of the reclassification actions
presented above, the EPA performed an illustrative assessment for six
source categories: Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, Surface
Coating of Metal Cans, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products, Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, HCl Production, and
Non-Gasoline OLD. The analysis of these six source categories is
informative in some respects but is only illustrative and speculative
in nature and can only present a range of possible outcomes that is
dependent on the assumption that we made in the assessment. The
following discussion summarizes the illustrative emission impact
analysis and results of it. The full discussion of the illustrative
analysis, including the rationale for our key assumptions and
assessments, is presented in the technical support memo for the
emission analysis, which is available in the docket for this
action.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Technical Support Memorandum: Emission Impacts Analysis
for the Proposed Rulemaking ``Reclassification of Major Sources as
Area Sources under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.'' Available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the review and evaluation of the reclassification
actions, the illustrative analysis focuses on whether sources in the
evaluated source categories could adjust the types of add-on control
equipment used to comply with the major source NESHAP requirements upon
reclassification. The EPA considered two set of assumptions for the
illustrative analysis. The first set of assumptions aligns with the
findings of our permit review presented above in which sources continue
to use the same compliance obligations before and after
reclassification and add-on controls are not adjusted to decrease
control efficiency after the source is reclassified. The second set of
assumptions addresses sources that limits and use adjustable add-on
controls, estimating possible emission impacts if these sources were
allowed by their regulatory authority (i.e., permitting authority) to
change the operating parameters of the adjustable add-on controls after
reclassifying.
To assess the potential for emission changes if sources taking HAP
PTE limitations were to be allowed by their permitting authority to
change the operating parameters of adjustable add-on control, we
assumed the following:
For a source category employing adjustable controls,
emissions could potentially increase for all facilities with actual
emissions below the 75-percent thresholds.
For sources with only a single HAP reported in the NEI and
an adjustable control, a potential increase in emissions was calculated
as the difference between 7.5 tpy and the estimate of the single
largest HAP. Otherwise, the potential emissions increase was estimated
as the larger difference between 18.75 tpy and the estimate of total
HAP emissions and between 7.5 tpy and the single HAP emissions.
For our illustrative assessment, we also considered whether other
non-HAP regulatory requirements apply to the facilities that could
potentially reclassify and increase emissions that would provide some
level of control of HAP from the source/pollutants (i.e., NSPS, control
techniques guidelines, etc.) and the extent to which those other
regulatory requirements would serve as a backstop that would prevent
emission increases and whether area source NESHAP requirements would
apply to a source that reclassifies. The details of our illustrative
emission analysis, including the rationale for our key assumptions and
assessments, are presented in the TSM for the emission analysis, which
is available in the docket for this action. A summary of the findings
of our illustrative emission impact assessment for the six source
categories analyzed is presented in Table 3.
The results of our illustrative analysis show that for many
facilities, the reclassification from major source to area source
status is not expected to result in an increase in that source's HAP
emissions. The analysis also shows that for many sources there are
backstops in place that would prevent emission increases (e.g., other
non-HAP regulatory requirements that also provide for HAP control). The
analysis also shows that for some source categories, no emissions
increases, and some emission decreases can be
[[Page 36332]]
anticipated. Finally, the results of our illustrative analysis show
that, for some facilities, there could be a potential for emission
increases. However, when the regulatory authority reviews the
application for a new or revised permit to reclassify a major source as
an area source under section 112 of the CAA, the regulatory authority
will consider the current and proposed HAP emissions levels and
evaluate the potential for emission increases due to reclassification
and whether safeguards are needed to prevent any emission increases due
to reclassification.
We solicit comments on our emission analysis (analysis of
reclassification actions and illustrative analysis) and illustrative
control cost analysis for five source categories discussed above and in
the docket for this proposed rule, and in general on the potential
impacts on emissions resulting from the reclassification of major
sources to area source status (Comment C-58). In particular, the EPA is
interested in data and analysis on the number and type of major sources
that may reclassify from major source to area source status and whether
the HAP emissions from those sources will decrease or increase or stay
the same (Comment C-59).
Table 3--Results of Potential Emission Impacts Illustrative Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Number of Facilities facilities
facilities in projected to Range of projected to Range of
Source category, 40 CFR part source obtain area potential HAP obtain area potential HAP
63 subpart category source status increases (tpy) source status decreases
subject to at 75% cut-off at 75% cut-off at 125% cut- (tpy) at 125%
major source scenario/ off scenario/ cut-off
NESHAP percent percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Furniture, subpart JJ.... 333 250/75% 0............... 26/8% 0-125
Metal Cans, subpart KKKK...... 5 1/20% 0............... 2/40% 0-4
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 371 268/72% 0............... 46/12% 0-160
Products, subpart MMMM.
Wet Formed Fiberglass, subpart 7 5/71% 0-6 single HAP; 0 0
HHHH. 0-33 combined
HAP.
HCl Production, subpart NNNNN. 19 3/16% 0-11 single HAP; 2/11% 0-4
0-27 combined
HAP.
Non-Gasoline OLD, subpart EEEE 177 82/46% 0-1,140 combined 19/11% 0-77
HAP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emission analysis of the 34 reclassification shows for most
sources that have reclassified or are in the process of reclassifying
the reclassification to area source status will have no change in the
sources' emissions. Specifically, the information that we have shows
that 31 of 34 sources will have no change on their emissions as a
result of reclassification. The analysis also shows that for three
sources the actions the reclassification resulted in additional
emission reductions.
The illustrative control cost analysis conducted under the 125%
scenario considered the potential control costs associated with major
sources reducing emissions as part of reclassifying to area sources in
five source categories. For two source categories (miscellaneous metal
parts and products, and wood furniture manufacturing operations), we
find some potential for the cost savings to be greater than the
illustrative control costs. More information on the analysis can be
found in the Illustrative 125% Scenario Cost Considerations Memorandum
that is in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
Based on the results of the EPA's analysis of the reclassifications
of 34 sources and the illustrative control cost analysis of five source
categories, this proposed rule may potentially result in both emission
reductions and increases from a broad array of affected sources. We are
uncertain as to the magnitude, direction, and distribution of changes
in emissions across the broad array of affected sources resulting from
this rulemaking. As we discuss above and in the docket of this proposed
rule, the emissions from different sources will be impacted in
different ways. Thus, we are unable to quantify the changes in
emissions across these sources. In place of quantitative estimates of
the number and economic value of the pollutant changes, we instead
characterize these impacts in qualitative terms. For more information
on this qualitative characterization, please refer to the benefits
analysis included in section 5 of the RIA for this proposed action.
The economic impact analysis (EIA), an analysis that is included in
the RIA, focuses on impacts at an industry level and impacts are
calculated for the scenario in which only facilities whose actual
emissions are below 75 percent of the major source thresholds would
reclassify from major to area source status. As part of the EIA, the
EPA considered the impact of this rulemaking to small entities (small
businesses, governments, and non-profit organizations). Impacts are
calculated as compliance costs (savings, in this instance) as a percent
of sales for businesses, and of budgets for other organizations. For
informational purposes, the RIA includes the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) definition of small entities by affected
industry categories (defined as North American Industry Classification
System) and potential burden reductions from title V and other
permitting programs. Since this rule significantly lessens the
regulatory burden resulting from ending the OIAI policy, no compliance
costs are imposed upon industry categories as a result of this
proposal. These avoided costs accrue because some reclassified sources
will not be required to obtain or maintain a title V permit or continue
meeting major source administrative requirements under section 112 of
the CAA. Some of the facilities benefitting from this action are owned
by small entities, and these entities along with large entities will
experience a reduction in costs from the burden reductions that would
take place as a result of this rule.
We find that the results of the EIA for the primary scenario show
that the annual cost savings per sales for all affected industries is
around 0.1 percent, using the median of these estimates, which is
approximately $9.1 billion per affected industry, to determine average
impact. The details of the EIA and impacts on employment are presented
in the RIA of the MM2A proposal, as well as results of the EIA
[[Page 36333]]
for the other two alternative scenarios, which is available in the
docket for this action.
VII. Request for Comments
Interested persons may submit comments on any matter that is
relevant to this proposed rule. Further, the EPA is expressly
soliciting comment on numerous aspects of the proposed rule in various
places in this preamble. The EPA has indexed each comment solicitation
with an alphanumeric identifier (e.g., ``C-1,'' ``C-2,'' ``C-3'') to
provide a consistent framework for effective and efficient provision of
comments. Accordingly, the EPA asks that commenters include the
corresponding identifier when providing comments relevant to that
comment solicitation. The EPA asks that commenters include the
identifier in a heading or within the text of each comment (e.g., ``In
response to solicitation of comment C-1, . . .'') to make clear which
comment solicitation is being addressed. The EPA emphasizes that the
Agency is not limiting comments to these identified areas and
encourages submission of any other comments relevant to this proposal.
Below we provide a list of the areas the EPA is expressly
soliciting comments on. The EPA invites comments:
On whether there are any other regulatory provisions in
any of the individual NESHAP subparts that would warrant modification
or clarification consistent with this proposal (Comment C-1 and Comment
C-53).
On all aspects of this proposal, including the EPA's
position that the withdrawal of the OIAI policy and the proposed
approach gives proper effect to the statutory definitions of ``major
source'' and ``area source'' in CAA section 112(a) and is consistent
with the plain language and structure of the CAA as well as the impacts
of the proposal on costs, benefits, and emissions impacts (Comment C-
2).
On (1) to what extent will theoretical emission increase
scenarios actually occur, including (a) what emissions restrictions
will be put in place as part of the PTE HAP limits that a major source
takes to be reclassified as an area source and (b) whether other
regulatory controls are in place and applicable to sources after
reclassification that will either continue to restrict the source from
emitting above the major source standard or prevent an emissions
increase after reclassification; and (2) whether the EPA should adopt
regulatory text to establish safeguards to prevent emissions increases
following reclassification (Comment C-3).
With respect on whether the EPA should adopt regulatory
text to establish safeguards to prevent emissions increases, the EPA is
seeking comment on what legal basis the agency would have for requiring
such safeguards (Comment C-4).
On the EPA's rationale for separating the timing of
reclassification from the sufficiency of the PTE limits that support
reclassification (Comment C-5).
On whether a requirement that PTE limits must include
safeguards to prevent emissions increases is a reasonable reading of
the ambiguous phrase ``potential to emit considering controls'' in
light of the other provisions in CAA section 112 (Comment C-6).
On whether the arguments presented in opposition to EPA's
plain language reading on timing are appropriately considered on the
question of the sufficiency of the PTE limit and support the conclusion
that PTE limits used to support reclassification must not allow sources
to increase emissions as a result of reclassification (Comment C-7).
Assuming that requiring safeguards against emission
increases in PTE limits is a reasonable reading of the statute, the EPA
is seeking comment on what safeguards should be required (Comment C-8).
On whether it is reasonable and appropriate to require
safeguards against emission increases following reclassification
(Comment C-9).
On the EPA's plain language reading discussed above and to
provide specific examples of, and/or provide additional information on
these and any other reasons why allowing major sources to reclassify as
areas sources would or would not increase emissions from such sources
and may even lead to a reduction in their emissions (Comment C-10).
On whether the Agency's reading is a permissible
interpretation of the statute even if it is not the only possible
reading (Comment C-11).
On whether it would be appropriate to include in the
General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 the minimum requirements that a
major source of HAP must submit to its regulatory authority when
seeking to obtain HAP PTE limitations to reclassify as area sources
under section 112 of the CAA (Comment C-13), and on whether adding the
same or similar requirements that are now in 40 CFR 49.158(a)(1) to 40
CFR 63.10 would be appropriate to create the minimum requirements that
a major source of HAP must submit to its regulatory authority when
seeking to obtain PTE HAP limitations to reclassify as area sources
under section 112 of the CAA (Comment C-15).
On whether the EPA should include in the General
Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 the hierarchy of acceptable data and
methods a source seeking reclassification would use to determine the
source PTE. This hierarchy could be the same or similar to the one
provided in 40 CFR 49.158(a)(2) (Comment C-14 and Comment C-16).
On the proposed criteria required for effective HAP PTE
limits for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source
under 40 CFR 63.2 and whether the EPA's proposed criteria and their
corresponding elements are necessary and sufficient to ensure HAP PTE
limits are effective to support reclassification of a major source to
an area source (Comment C-12, Comment C-17, Comment C-18, Comment C-19,
Comment C-26, Comment C-27).
On the proposed legally enforceable criterion that HAP PTE
limits must identify the legal authority under which the limits are
being issued, the appropriateness of this requirement, and on whether
there are other considerations that warrant being part of the criterion
of legal authority to issue HAP PTE limits (Comment C-21).
On whether state-only or local-only enforcement authority
alone is sufficient to impose a credible risk of enforcement and,
therefore, ensure compliance with the HAP PTE limits, or whether to be
effective, the EPA and/or citizens, through the enforcement authorities
in the CAA must also have the authority to enforce the HAP PTE limits
that are being used to avoid a federal requirement (Comment C-22).
On whether enforceability of a PTE limit by the EPA and/or
citizens reduces the implementation burden for all parties and provides
a level of compliance incentive unmatched by enforcement by only a
state or local authority that warrants it to be part of the
effectiveness criteria (Comment C-23).
On the inclusion of the specific considerations for
monitoring, discussed above in the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63
proposed regulatory text defining practicably enforceable (Comment C-
24) and on whether other criteria are needed to ensure the emission
limitations are practicably enforceable (Comment C-50).
On whether, as a result of this rulemaking, facility
owners or operators of sources that reclassify will cease to properly
operate their control devices
[[Page 36334]]
where the operation of the control device is needed to restrict the PTE
and appropriate MRR are established as enforceable conditions (Comment
C-25).
On whether there are other criteria that should be
required for ensuring effectiveness of HAP PTE limits including whether
public notice and comment procedures should be part of the required
effectiveness criteria (Comment C-20, Comment C-13, Comment C-19).
On whether to be effective, HAP PTE limits need to undergo
public notice and comment procedures (Comment C-28, Comment C-30,
Comment C-35).
On whether HAP PTE limits can be properly and legally
established if the limits do not go through public notice and comment
procedures (Comment C-29).
On how requiring public comment and notice procedures for
issuance of HAP PTE limits enhance or is needed for ensuring
effectiveness of such limits (Comment C-31).
On whether the concerns raised in the past are still an
issue if EPA were to require that HAP PTE limits that will be used as
the basis for reclassifying major sources to area source status need to
be subject to a public notice and comment procedures (Comment C-32).
On whether there are specific criteria for deciding under
what circumstances a source's proposed HAP PTE limits would need to
undergo public review and comment under the state or local program
(e.g., controversial or complex sources, sources with actual emissions
close to the major source thresholds, etc.) (Comment C-33).
Given that the EPA recognizes that some state-programs may
process HAP PTE limits concurrently with a minor NSR or other
permitting action such that the EPA and the interested public would
have the opportunity to provide comments on PTE limits in that case, on
whether the public notice and comment procedures provided in those
circumstances would be sufficient (Comment C-34).
On the appropriateness of the proposed case-by-case
compliance extension date approach, including, for example, the type of
information that should be requested from the source seeking the
proposed compliance extension and whether the limitations proposed
above (i.e., the compliance extension is only available if the affected
source must undergo a physical change or install additional control
equipment to meet the area source NESHAP) are appropriate (Comment C-
36).
On the appropriate process for requesting the compliance
extension and on the mechanics of obtaining the compliance extension
(Comment C-37).
On whether the proposed compliance date extension
provision in 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(i) should be available to major sources
that reclassify to area source status prior to the compliance date of
an applicable area source standard, to the extent that the remaining
time before the compliance date is not sufficient time for the source
to comply (Comment C-38).
On whether our information and expectations that sources
that reclassify to area source status would in most cases, if not all,
achieve and maintain area source status by operating the emission
controls or continuing to implement the practices (i.e., use of no-HAP
or low-HAP compliant coating) they used to meet the major source NESHAP
requirements are correct (Comment 39) on the proposed compliance time
frame for sources that reclassify from major source to area source and
then revert back to major source status, and whether the proposed
regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(ii)(B) adequately captures the
intended exception if the major source standard has changed such that
the source must undergo a physical change, install additional emission
controls, and/or implement new emission control measures (Comment C-
40).
On the appropriateness of the proposed immediate
compliance rule for sources that reclassify between major and area
source status more than once and whether such a rule should be
finalized, and on whether, if it is finalized, there are other
situations in addition to the one noted above that would necessitate an
extension of the time period specified for compliance with the major
source NESHAP requirements. (Comment C-41, Comment C-42).
Or whether the EPA should instead allow all sources that
revert back to major source status a specific period of time in which
to comply with the major source NESHAP requirements which would be
consistent with the approach provided for in 40 CFR 63.6(c)(5) and to
the extent a commenter proposes a compliance time frame, we request
that the commenter explain the basis for providing that time frame with
enough specificity for the EPA to evaluate the request (Comment C-43,
Comment C-44, Comment C-45).
On the mechanics of obtaining a compliance extension if a
case-by-case approach is finalized, including, for example, the type of
information to request from the source seeking the proposed compliance
extension, the process to be used to obtain the extension, and any
limitations on providing extensions (Comment C-46).
On the approach of providing a specified compliance
extension in the final rule for certain defined factual scenarios
(Comment C-47) and on the nature of the scenario that would warrant
such an extension, the specific amount of additional time that would be
needed to comply with the major source NESHAP requirements and why such
a period of time is needed to comply (Comment C-48).
On whether a source that cannot immediately comply with
previously or newly applicable major source NESHAP requirements at the
time it requests reclassification should be required to continue to
comply with the HAP PTE limits until the source can comply with the
corresponding major source NESHAP requirements (Comment C-49).
On the proposed amendment to remove the time limit for
record retention in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3) so sources that obtain new
enforceable PTE limits are required to keep the required record of the
applicability determinations until the source becomes subject to major
source requirements (Comment C-51).
On whether any other NESHAP subparts warrant amendment to
reference the new General Provision 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6) or the CEDRI
submission procedures in 40 CFR 63.9(k) (Comment C-52).
The EPA specifically requests information and specific
examples of sources that would consider investing in additional
emissions reduction measures, including changing processes or
installing additional emission controls (intrinsic to the source or
additional add-on controls), installing new lower emitting equipment,
or implementing P2 initiatives to avail themselves of the potential to
seek reclassification to area source status (Comment C-54). The Agency
is interested both in comments in which the commenters themselves would
consider investing in additional emissions reduction measures, and
comments identifying specific types of facilities that would be able to
invest in additional emissions reduction measures (Comment C-55).
On the analysis of the reclassification actions presented
above and in more details in the Emission Impacts Analysis TSM
available in the docket. (Comment C-56) and on whether there are other
factual factors to consider for the emission evaluation of these
reclassifications (Comment C-57).
[[Page 36335]]
On our emissions analysis (analysis of reclassification
actions and illustrative analysis) and illustrative control cost
analysis discussed above and in the docket for this proposed rule, and
in general on the potential impacts on emissions resulting from the
reclassification of major sources to area source status (Comment C-58).
In particular, the EPA is interested in data and analysis on the number
and type of major sources that may reclassify from major source to area
source status and whether the HAP emissions from those sources will
decrease or increase or stay the same (Comment C-59).
Finally, as noted above, even though the EPA is expressly
soliciting comment on numerous aspects of the proposed rule, the EPA
emphasizes that the Agency is not limiting comment to these identified
areas and encourages submission of any other comments relevant to this
proposal. For any other comments relevant to this proposal, the
submission can be identified by identifier (C-other).
VIII. The Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, the RIA
for the proposed MM2A rule, is available in the docket and is
summarized in section I.C of this preamble.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated potential cost savings of this
proposed rule can be found in the RIA that is the EPA's analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. Specifically, this rule requires the electronic
reporting of the one-time notification of the already required in 40
CFR 63.9(j) in the case where the facility is notifying of a change in
major source status. OMB has previously approved the information
collection activities contained in the existing regulations. These
amendments would neither require additional reports nor require that
additional content be added to already required reports. Therefore,
this action would not impose any new information collection burden.
Sources reclassifying to area source status may experience some burden
reduction as they would no longer be subject to major source NESHAP
requirements. Any changes in MRR would be done through the regulatory
mechanism of the responsible regulatory authority. It is not possible
to identify how many sources would choose to reclassify, nor is it
possible to determine what, if any, changes to reporting and
recordkeeping would be made. Regulatory authorities may, in fact,
choose to establish NESHAP provisions themselves as the enforceable PTE
limits and change little or nothing.
Furthermore, approval of an information collection request (ICR) is
not required in connection with these proposed amendments. This is
because the General Provisions do not themselves require any reporting
and recordkeeping activities, and no ICR was submitted in connection
with their original promulgation or their subsequent amendment. Any
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are imposed only through the
incorporation of specific elements of the General Provisions in the
individual MACT standards which are promulgated for particular source
categories which have their own ICRs.
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.
Small entities that are subject to major source NESHAP requirements
would not be required to take any action under this proposal; any
action a source takes to reclassify as an area source would be
voluntary. In addition, we expect that sources that reclassify will
experience cost savings that will outweigh any additional cost of
achieving area source status. The only cost that would be incurred by
regulatory authorities would be the cost of reviewing a sources'
application for area source status and issuing enforceable HAP PTE
limits. No small government jurisdictions operate their own air
pollution control permitting agencies, so none would be required to
incur costs under the proposal. In addition, any costs associated with
the reclassification of major sources as area sources (i.e.,
application reviews and PTE issuance) are expected to be offset by
reduced Agency oversight obligations for sources that no longer must
meet major source NESHAP requirements.
Based on the considerations above, we have, therefore, concluded
that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all regulated small
entities that reclassify to area source status. Nevertheless, we
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed
amendments on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to
such impacts. We also note that a small entity analysis, prepared at
the discretion of the EPA, reflecting the relief in regulatory burden
was prepared for this proposal and is included in the RIA, which is
available in the public docket for this rulemaking. The results of this
small entity analysis show relatively small reductions in burden
estimate annual costs (about 0.10 percent) as a percentage of sales
using the median estimate as the average of impacts.
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. This 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 has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments,
[[Page 36336]]
nor preempt tribal law. There are two tribes that currently implement
title V permit programs and one that implements an approved TIP for
minor source permitting, which also has a major source. As a result,
these tribes may have additional actions needed for sources in their
jurisdiction. In addition, any tribal government that owns or operates
a source subject to major source NESHAP requirements would not be
required to take action under this proposal; the provisions in the
proposed amendments would be strictly voluntary. In addition, achieving
area source status would result in reduced burden on any source that no
longer must meet major source NESHAP requirements. Under the proposed
amendments, a tribal government with an air pollution control agency to
which we have delegated CAA section 112 authority would be required to
review permit applications and to modify permits as necessary. However,
any burden associated with the review and modification of permits will
be offset by reduced Agency oversight obligations for sources no longer
required to meet major source requirements. The EPA specifically
solicits comment on the proposed amendments from tribal officials and,
consistent with EPA policy, intends to specifically offer to consult
with the potentially impacted tribes and other tribes on their request.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This action implements the plain reading of the statutory definitions
of major source and area source of section 112 of the CAA and,
therefore, is not subject to Executive Order 13045.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded that this proposal is
not likely to have any adverse energy effects.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental
health or safety standard. The proposed amendments to the General
Provisions are procedural changes and does not impact the technology
performance nor level of control of the NESHAP governed by the General
Provisions.
L. Determination Under Section CAA 307(d)
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator determines
that this action is subject to the provisions of CAA section 307(d).
Section 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA provides that the provisions of CAA
section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may
determine.''
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Area sources, General provisions, Major
sources, Potential to emit, Hazardous air pollutants.
Dated: June 25, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Add Sec. 63.1(c)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) A major source may become an area source at any time by
limiting its potential to emit (PTE) hazardous air pollutants, as
defined in this subpart, to below the major source thresholds
established in Sec. 63.2, subject to the provisions in paragraphs
(c)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section. Until the PTE limitations
become effective, the source remains subject to major source
requirements. After the PTE limitations become effective, the source is
subject to any applicable requirements for area sources.
(i) A major source that becomes an area source must meet all
applicable area source requirements promulgated under this part
immediately upon becoming an area source, provided the first
substantive compliance date for the area source standard has passed,
except that the regulatory authority may grant additional time, up to 3
years, if the source must undergo physical changes or install
additional control equipment in order for the source (or portion
thereof) to comply with the applicable area source standard and the EPA
(or a delegated authority), determines that such additional time is
warranted based on the record. A source seeking additional compliance
time must submit a request to the EPA (or a delegated authority), that
identifies the area source standard; the steps that must be taken to
come into compliance with the standard; the amount of additional time
requested to come into compliance with the standard, and a detailed
justification supporting the requested additional time. Owners and
operators of major sources that become area sources subject to
standards under this part must comply with the initial notification
requirements of Sec. 63.9(b), unless the source was previously subject
to that area source standard and such notification was previously
submitted. Owners and operators of major sources that become area
sources must also provide to the Administrator any change in the
information already provided under Sec. 63.9(b) per Sec. 63.9(j).
(ii)(A) A major source subject to standards under this part that
subsequently becomes an area source, and then later becomes a major
source again by increasing its emissions to at or above the major
source thresholds, must comply with the major source requirements of
this part immediately upon becoming a major source again,
notwithstanding Sec. 63.6(c)(5), except as noted in paragraph
(c)(6)(ii)(B) of this section. Such major sources must comply with the
notification requirements of Sec. 63.9(b).
(B) If a source becomes subject to the standard for major sources
again, but that standard has been revised since the source was last
subject to the standard and, in order to comply, the source must
undergo a physical change, install additional emission controls and/or
implement new control measures, the owner or operator will have up to
the same amount of time to comply as the amount of time allowed for
existing sources subject to the revised standard.
[[Page 36337]]
(iii) Becoming an area source does not absolve a source subject to
an enforcement action or investigation for major source violations or
infractions from the consequences of any actions occurring when the
source was major. Becoming a major source does not absolve a source
subject to an enforcement action or investigation for area source
violations or infractions from the consequences of any actions
occurring when the source was an area source.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 63.2 by:
0
a. Adding the definition ``Legally enforceable'' in alphabetical order;
0
b. Revising the definition ``Potential to emit''; and
0
c. Adding the definition ``Practicably enforceable'' in alphabetical
order.
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 63.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Legally enforceable means that an emission limitation or other
standard meet the following criteria:
(1) Must identify the legal authority under which the limitation or
standards are being issued.
(2) Must provide the right for the issuing authority to enforce it.
* * * * *
Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source
to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the stationary
source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment
and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of
material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of
its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions
is legally and practicably enforceable as defined in this subpart
(i.e., effective).
Practicably enforceable means that an emission limitation or other
standards meet the following criteria:
(1) Must be written so that it is possible to verify compliance and
to document violations when enforcement action is necessary.
(2) Must specify a technically accurate numerical limitation and
identify the portions of the source subject to the limitation. The time
frame for the limitation (e.g., hourly, daily, monthly and annual
limits such as annual limits rolled on a monthly basis) must take into
account the type of restriction employed (an indirect indicator of
emissions such as a CMS limit should have a shorter time frame than a
direct measurement to account for the layers of complexity between
direct measurement of HAP and the limitation).
(3) Must specify the method of determining compliance, including
appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements must be sufficient to
demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations of each
pollutant.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec. 63.6(c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6 Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Compliance dates for existing sources. (1) After the effective
date of a relevant standard established under this part pursuant to
section 112(d) or 112(h) of the Act, the owner or operator of an
existing source shall comply with such standard by the compliance date
established by the Administrator in the applicable subpart(s) of this
part. Except as otherwise provided for in section 112 of the Act, in no
case will the compliance date established for an existing source in an
applicable subpart of this part exceed 3 years after the effective date
of such standard. Except as provided in Sec. 63.1(c)(6)(ii) such
sources must comply by the date specified in the standards for existing
area sources that become major sources.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 63.9, revise paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (j) and add
paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9 Notification requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) If an area source subsequently increases its emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (or its potential to emit hazardous air
pollutants) such that the source is a major source that is subject to
the emission standard or other requirement, such source shall be
subject to the notification requirements of this section. Area sources
previously subject to major source requirements that again become major
sources are also subject to the notification requirements of this
paragraph and must submit the notification according to the
requirements of paragraph (k) of this section.
* * * * *
(j) Change in information already provided. Any change in the
information already provided under this section shall be provided to
the Administrator within 15 calendar days after the change. The owner
or operator of a major source that reclassifies to area source status
is also subject to the notification requirements of this paragraph. The
owner or operator may use the application for reclassification with the
regulatory authority (e.g., permit application) to fulfill the
requirements of this paragraph. The owner or operator of a major source
that reclassifies to area source status must submit the notification
according to the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section.
(k) Electronic Submission of Notifications or Reports. If you are
required to submit notifications or reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph (k), you must submit notifications or
reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The notification or
report must be submitted by the deadline specified. If you claim some
of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential
business information (CBI), submit a complete notification or report,
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. Submit the file on
a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium
to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's
CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (k).
(1) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or
report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA
system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (vii) of this
section.
(i) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required notification or report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(ii) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the notification or
report is due.
(iii) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(iv) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should
[[Page 36338]]
have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in
reporting.
(v) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(B) A rationale for attributing the delay in submitting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
submitting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to submit, or if you have already
met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date
you submitted the notification or report.
(vi) 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.
(vii) In any circumstance, the notification or report must be
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is
resolved.
(2) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or
report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force
majeure for failure to timely comply with the submittal requirement. To
assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. 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
notification or 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).
(ii) 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 has caused a
delay in submitting through CEDRI.
(iii) You must provide to the Administrator:
(A) A written description of the force majeure event;
(B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(D) The date by which you propose to submit the notification or
report, or if you have already met the submittal requirement at the
time of the notification, the date you submitted the notification or
report.
(iv) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the submittal deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(v) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
6. In Sec. 63.10, revise paragraph (b)(3) and add paragraph (g) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.10 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) If an owner or operator determines that his or her existing or
new stationary source is in the source category regulated by a standard
established pursuant to CAA section 112, but that source is not subject
to the relevant standard (or other requirement established under this
part) because of legally and practicably enforceable limitations on the
source's potential to emit, or the source otherwise qualifies for an
exclusion, the owner or operator must keep a record of the
applicability determination on site at the source until the source
changes its operations to become an affected source. The record of the
applicability determination must be signed by the person making the
determination and include an emissions analysis (or other information)
that demonstrates the owner or operator's conclusion that the source is
unaffected (e.g., because the source is an area source). The analysis
(or other information) must be sufficiently detailed to allow the
Administrator to make an applicability finding for the source with
regard to the relevant standard or other requirement. If applicable,
the analysis must be performed in accordance with requirements
established in relevant subparts of this part for this purpose for
particular categories of stationary sources. If relevant, the analysis
should be performed in accordance with EPA guidance materials published
to assist sources in making applicability determinations under CAA
section 112 if any guidance is available, or industry standards or
engineering calculations. The requirements to determine applicability
of a standard under Sec. 63.1(b)(3) and to record the results of that
determination under this paragraph (b)(3) of this section shall not by
themselves create an obligation for the owner or operator to obtain a
title V permit.
* * * * *
(g) Electronic Recordkeeping. 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
7. Revise Sec. 63.12(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.12 State authority and delegations.
* * * * *
(c) All information required to be submitted to the EPA under this
part also shall be submitted to the appropriate state agency of any
state to which authority has been delegated under section 112(l) of the
CAA, provided that each specific delegation may exempt sources from a
certain federal or state reporting requirement with the exception of
federal electronic reporting requirements under this part. The
Administrator may permit all or some of the information to be submitted
to the appropriate state agency only, instead of to the EPA and the
state agency.
Subpart F--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry
0
8. Table 3 to subpart F of part 63 is amended by adding an entry for
Sec. 63.1(c)(6) in numerical order, revising the entry for Sec.
63.9(j), and adding an entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in
numerical order to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart F of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subparts F, G, and Ha to Subpart F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subparts F, G, Comment
and H
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36339]]
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(j)....................... Yes. Only as related to
change to major
source status.
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Wherever subpart A specifies ``postmark'' dates, submittals may be
sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier).
Submittals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not
necessarily required.
* * * * *
Subpart J--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production
0
9. Amend Sec. 63.215 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and
adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.215 What General Provisions apply to me?
* * * * *
(b) The provisions in subpart A of this part also apply to this
subpart as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) The specific notification procedure of Sec. 63.9(j) and (k)
relating to a change in major source status and Sec. 63.10(g).
Subpart L--National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries
0
10. Revise Sec. 63.311(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.311 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) General requirements. After the effective date of an approved
permit in a state under part 70 of this chapter, the owner or operator
shall submit all notifications and reports required by this subpart to
the state permitting authority except a source which reclassifies to an
area source must follow the notification procedures of Sec. 63.9(j)
and (k). Use of information provided by the certified observer shall be
a sufficient basis for notifications required under Sec. 70.5(c)(9) of
this chapter and the reasonable inquiry requirement of Sec. 70.5(d) of
this chapter.
* * * * *
Subpart M--National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for
Dry Cleaning Facilities
0
11. Add Sec. 63.324(g) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.324 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(g) Each owner or operator of a dry cleaning facility that
reclassifies from a major source to an area source must follow the
procedures of Sec. 63.9(j) and (k) to provide notification of the
change in status.
Subpart N-National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions From
Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
Tanks
0
12. Table 1 to subpart N of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart N of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
General provisions reference subpart N Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart O--Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization
Facilities
0
13. In Sec. 63.360, amend Table 1 of Section 63.360 by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.360 Applicability.
* * * * *
[[Page 36340]]
Table 1 of Section 63.360--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart O
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to sources Applies to sources
Reference using 10 tons in using 1 to 10 tons in Comment
subpart O a subpart O a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6)........................... Yes.
* * * * * * *
63.9(k).............................. Yes.
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)............................. Yes.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ See definition.
* * * * *
Subpart Q-National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Industrial Process Cooling Towers
0
14. Table 1 to subpart Q of part 63 is amended by revising the entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9 and 63.10 in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart Q of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart Q
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart Q Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c), Yes..............
(h)(1), (h)(3), (h)(6), (j),
and (k).
* * * * * * *
63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(xii), Yes. Section 63.406
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (d), requires an onsite
(f), and (g). record retention of
5 years.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart R-National Emission Standards for Gasoline Distribution
Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations)
0
15. Table 1 to subpart R of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart R of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart R
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart R Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36341]]
Subpart S-National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Pulp and Paper Industry
0
16. Table 1 to subpart S of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart S of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart S a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart S Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Wherever subpart A specifies ``postmark'' dates, submittals may be
sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier).
Submittals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not
required.
Subpart T--National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent
Cleaning
0
17. Appendix B to subpart T of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart T of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart T
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart T
Reference -------------------------------------------------- Comments
BCC BVI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6)........................... Yes.................... Yes....................
* * * * * * *
63.9(k).............................. Yes.................... Yes....................
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)............................. Yes.................... Yes....................
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart U--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
0
18. Table 1 to subpart U of part 63 is amended by adding an entry for
Sec. 63.1(c)(6) in numerical order, revising the entry for Sec.
63.9(j), and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in
numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart U of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart U Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart U Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6)............. Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(j)................ Yes.............. For change in major
source status only.
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Yes..............
[[Page 36342]]
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart W-National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Epoxy Resins Production and Non-Nylon Polyamides Production
0
19. Table 1 to subpart W of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart W of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart W
------------------------------------------------------------
WSR alternative
standard, and BLR
Reference equipment leak Comment
BLR WSR standard (40 CFR
part 63, subpart
H)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6)............... Yes............... Yes............... Yes...............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k).................. Yes............... Yes............... Yes...............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)................. Yes............... Yes............... Yes...............
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart X--National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants
From Secondary Lead Smelting
0
20. Table 1 to subpart X of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart X of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart X Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart Y--National Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel
Loading Operations
0
21. Table 1 of Sec. 63.560 is amended by adding entries for Sec. Sec.
63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.560 Applicability and designation of affected sources.
* * * * *
[[Page 36343]]
Table 1 to Sec. 63.560--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference affected sources Comment
in subpart Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart AA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants
0
22. Appendix A to subpart AA of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to
read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart AA of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
AA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR citation Requirement Applies to subpart AA Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... ....................... Yes.................... None.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... ....................... Yes.................... None.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... ....................... Yes.................... None.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart BB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants
0
23. Appendix A to subpart BB of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to
read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart BB of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
BB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR citation Requirement Applies to subpart BB Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... ....................... Yes.................... None.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... ....................... Yes.................... None.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... ....................... Yes.................... None.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36344]]
Subpart CC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries
0
24. In appendix to subpart CC of part 63, Table 6 is amended by adding
an entry for Sec. 63.1(c)(6) in numerical order, revising the entry
for Sec. 63.9(j), and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and
63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Appendix to Subpart CC of Part 63--Tables
* * * * *
Table 6-General Provisions Applicability to Subpart CC a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart CC Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(j)....................... Yes..............
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Wherever subpart A specifies ``postmark'' dates, submittals may be
sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier).
Submittals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not
required.
* * * * *
Subpart DD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
0
25. Table 2 to subpart DD of part 63 is amended by adding an entry for
Sec. 63.1(c)(6) in numerical order, revising the entry for Sec.
63.9(j), and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in
numerical order to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart DD of Part 63--Applicability of Paragraphs in Subpart
A of this Part 63--General Provisions to Subpart DD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Subpart A reference subpart DD Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(j)....................... Yes.............. For change in major
source status only.
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart EE--National Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Operations
0
26. Table 1 to subpart EE of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart EE of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart EE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart EE Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
[[Page 36345]]
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart GG--National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing
and Rework Facilities
0
27. Table 1 to subpart GG of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart GG of Part 63-General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart GG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference affected sources Comment
in subpart GG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart HH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities
0
28. In appendix to subpart HH of part 63, Table 2 is amended by adding
entries for Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical
order to read as follows:
Appendix to Subpart HH of Part 63--Tables
* * * * *
Table 2 to Subpart HH of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63
General Provisions to Subpart HH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
General provisions reference subpart HH Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6)............. Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart JJ--National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations
0
29. Table 1 to subpart JJ of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
[[Page 36346]]
Table 1 to Subpart JJ of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart JJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart JJ Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart KK--National Emission Standards for the Printing and
Publishing Industry
0
30. Table 1 to subpart KK of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart KK of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart KK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
General provisions reference subpart KK Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6)............. Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart LL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
0
31. Appendix A to subpart LL of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to
read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart LL of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference sections(s) Requirement Applies to subpart LL Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6)........................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
63.9(k).............................. Electronic reporting Yes.................... Only as specified in
procedures. 63.9(j).
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)............................. Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36347]]
Subpart MM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda,
Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills
0
32. Table 1 to subpart MM of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart MM of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart MM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions reference Summary of requirements Applies to subpart MM Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6)........................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
63.9(k).............................. Electronic reporting Yes.................... Only as specified in
procedures. 63.9(j).
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)............................. Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart CCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants
0
33. Table 1 to subpart CCC of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.9(j), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 1 to Subpart CCC of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart CCC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart CCC Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.9(j)....................... Yes..............
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart DDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production
0
34. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
DDD of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... ....................... Yes....................
[[Page 36348]]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Additional CMS Reports Yes....................
Excess Emission/CMS
Performance Reports
COMS Data Reports
Recordkeeping/
Reporting Waiver
Recordkeeping for
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart EEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Hazardous Waste Combustors
0
35. Table 1 to subpart EEE of part 63 is amended by adding an entry for
Sec. 63.9(k) to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart EEE of Part 63--General Provisions Applicable to
Subpart EEE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart EEE Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart GGG--National Emission Standards for Pharmaceuticals
Production
0
36. Table 1 to subpart GGG of part 63 is amended by adding an entry for
Sec. 63.1(c)(6) in numerical order, revising the entry for Sec.
63.9(j), and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in
numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart GGG of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart GGG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions reference Summary of requirements Applies to subpart GGG Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6)........................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
63.9(j).............................. Change in information Yes. For change in major
provided. source status only
63.9(k).............................. Electronic reporting Yes. Only as specified in
procedures. 63.9(j)
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)............................. Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart HHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities
0
37. Table 2 to subpart HHH of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
[[Page 36349]]
Appendix: Table 2 to Subpart HHH of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR
Part 63 General Provisions to Subpart HHH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
General provisions Reference subpart HHH Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6)............. Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart III--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production
0
38. Table 1 to subpart III of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart III of Part 63--Applicability General Provisions (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart III
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Subpart A reference subpart III Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart JJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins
0
39. Table 1 to subpart JJJ of part 63 is amended by adding an entry for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6) in numerical order, revising the entry for Sec.
63.9(j), and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in
numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart JJJ of Part 63-Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart JJJ Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart JJJ Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6)............. Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(j)................ Yes.............. For change in major
source status only
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36350]]
Subpart LLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry
0
40. Table 1 to subpart LLL of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to subpart LLL Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6)........................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
63.9(k).............................. Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)............................. Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart MMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
0
41. Table 1 to subpart MMM of part 63 is amended by adding an entry for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6) in numerical order, revising the entry for Sec.
63.9(j), and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in
numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart MMM of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart MMM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference to subpart A subpart MMM Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6)............. Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(j)................ Yes.............. For change in major
source status only,
63.1368(h) specifies
procedures for other
notification of
changes.
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
0
42. Table 1 to subpart NNN of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9-(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to
read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
NNN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... ....................... Yes. .......................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... ....................... Yes. .......................
[[Page 36351]]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Additional CMS Reports Yes. .......................
Excess Emission/CMS
Performance Reports
COMS Data Reports
Recordkeeping/
Reporting Waiver
Recordkeeping for
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart OOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins
0
43. Table 1 to subpart OOO of part 63 is amended by adding an entry for
Sec. 63.1(c)(6) in numerical order, revising the entry for Sec.
63.9(j), and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in
numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart OOO of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart OOO Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart OOO Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(j)....................... Yes.............. For change in major
source status only.
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart PPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions for Polyether Polyols Production
0
44. Table 1 to subpart PPP of part 63 is amended by adding an entry for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6) in numerical order, revising the entry for Sec.
63.9(j), and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in
numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart PPP of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart PPP Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart PPP Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(6).................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.9(j)....................... Yes.............. For change in major
source status only.
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36352]]
Subpart QQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Primary Copper Smelting
0
45. Revise Sec. 63.1441 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1441 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a primary
copper smelter that is (or is part of) a major source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions, and your primary copper smelter uses batch
copper converters as defined in Sec. 63.1459. Your primary copper
smelter is a major source of HAP if it emits or has the potential to
emit any single HAP at the rate of 10 tons or more per year or any
combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year.
0
46. Table 1 to subpart QQQ of part 63 is amended by adding an entry for
Sec. 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
* * * * *
Table 1 to Subpart QQQ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies to subpart QQQ Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10 (g)..................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart RRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production
0
47. Appendix A to subpart RRR of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to
read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability
to Subpart RRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to subpart RRR Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart TTT--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Primary Lead Smelting
0
48. Table 1 to subpart TTT of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.9(j), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 1 to Subpart TTT of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart TTT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart TTT Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.9(j)....................... Yes..............
63.9(k)....................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36353]]
Subpart UUU--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units,
Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units
0
49. Table 44 to subpart UUU of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
* * * * *
Table 44 to Subpart UUU of Part 63--Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions to Subpart UUU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies to subpart UUU Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart VVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works
0
50. Table 1 to subpart VVV of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart VVV of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR part 63
General Provisions to Subpart VVV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
General provisions reference subpart VVV Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6)............. Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart XXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and
Silicomanganese
0
51. Table 1 to subpart XXX of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart XXX of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart XXX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart XXX Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36354]]
Subpart DDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products
0
52. Table 10 to subpart DDDD of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 10 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart DDDD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart DDDD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Electronic reporting Yes.
procedures. procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Recordkeeping for Yes.
electronic reporting. electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart EEEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
0
53. Table 12 to subpart EEEE of part 63 is amended by revising the
entry for Sec. 63.9(j) and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and
63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 12 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart EEEE
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart EEEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(j)....................... Change in Previous Must submit within 15 Yes for change to major
Information. days after the change. source status, other
changes are reported
in the first and
subsequent compliance
reports.
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Procedure to report Yes.
procedures. electronically for
notification in
63.9(j).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for ....................... Yes.
electronic reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart FFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
0
54. Table 12 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by revising the
entry for Sec. 63.9(j) and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and
63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 12 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart FFFF
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(j)................ Change in Yes for change in
previous major source status,
information. otherwise Sec.
63.2520(e) specifies
reporting
requirements for
process changes.
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Electronic Yes, as specified in
reporting 63.9(j).
procedures.
[[Page 36355]]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Recordkeeping for Yes.
electronic
reporting.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart GGGG--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production
0
55. Table 1 to Sec. 63.2870 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.9(j), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2870 What Parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
* * * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 63.2870--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A, to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject of Brief description
General provisions citation citation of requirement Applies to subpart Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(j).................. Notification Change in previous Yes...............
requirements. information.
Sec. 63.9(k).................. Notification Electronic Yes...............
requirements. reporting
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)................. Recordkeeping..... Recordkeeping for Yes...............
electronic
reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart HHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
0
56. Table 2 to subpart HHHH of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart HHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
HHHH
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to subpart HHHH Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... ....................... Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36356]]
Subpart IIII--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
0
57. Table 2 to subpart IIII of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart IIII of Part 63
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject IIII Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart JJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating
0
58. Table 2 to subpart JJJJ of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63
General Provisions to Subpart JJJJ
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
General provisions reference subpart JJJJ Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6)............. Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart KKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans
0
59. Table 5 to subpart KKKK of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart KKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKK
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject KKKK Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
[[Page 36357]]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart MMMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products
0
60. Table 2 to subpart MMMM of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart MMMM of Part 63
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject MMMM Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart NNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances
0
61. Table 2 to subpart NNNN of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart NNNN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNN
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject NNNN Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36358]]
Subpart OOOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles
0
62. Table 3 to subpart OOOO of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart OOOO of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart OOOO
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject OOOO Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart PPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
0
63. Table 2 to subpart PPPP of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
* * * * *
Table 2 to Subpart PPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPP of Part 63
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject PPPP Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart QQQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Wood Building Products
0
64. Table 4 to subpart QQQQ of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject QQQQ Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
[[Page 36359]]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart RRRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
0
65. Table 2 to subpart RRRR of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart RRRR of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRR
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applicable to subpart Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart SSSS--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Coil
0
66. Table 2 to subpart SSSS of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart SSSS
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
General provisions reference subpart SSSS Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6)............. Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Yes..............
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Yes..............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36360]]
Subpart TTTT--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Leather Finishing Operations
0
67. Table 2 to subpart TTTT of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.9(j), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart TTTT
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject of Brief description
General provisions citation citation of requirement Applies to subpart Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(j).................. Notification Change in previous Yes...............
requirements. information.
Sec. 63.9(k).................. Notification Electronic Yes...............
requirements. reporting
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)................. Recordkeeping..... Recordkeeping for Yes...............
electronic
reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart UUUU--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing
0
68. Table 8 to subpart UUUU of part 63 is amended by revising entry 7
to read as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Reporting Requirements
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must submit a compliance report, which
must contain the following information . . and you must submit the
. report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
7. the report must contain any changes in
information already provided, as specified
in Sec. 63.9(j), except changes in major
source status must be reported per Sec.
63.9(j);
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
69. Table 10 to subpart UUUU of part 63 is amended by revising the
entry for Sec. 63.9(j) and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and
63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart UUUU
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart UUUU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(j)....................... Change in previous Must submit within 15 Yes, except the
information. days of the change. notification for all
but change in major
source status must be
submitted as part of
the next semiannual
compliance report, as
specified in Table 8
to this subpart.
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Procedure for Yes, as specified in
procedures. electronically 63.9(j).
reporting the
notification required
by 63.9(j).
[[Page 36361]]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Electronically reported Yes.
electronic reporting. data may be stored
electronically.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart VVVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing
0
70. Table 8 to subpart VVVV of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read
as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart VVVV of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
VVVV
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to subpart VVVV Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... ....................... Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart WWWW--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
0
71. Table 2 to subpart WWWW of part 63 is amended by revising entry 1
to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Compliance Dates for New and
Existing Reinforced Plastic Composites Facilities
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you must comply
If your facility is . . . And . . . by this date . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An existing source......... a. Is a major April 21, 2006.
source on or
before the
publication date
of this subpart.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
72. Table 15 to subpart WWWW of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to
read as follows:
[[Page 36362]]
Table 15 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart WWWW of Part 63
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to the
The general provisions reference . . That addresses . . . And applies to subpart following additional
. WWWW of part 63 . . . information . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart XXXX--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing
0
73. Table 17 to subpart XXXX of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 17 to Subpart XXXX of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to This Subpart XXXX
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart XXXX?
Brief description ---------------------------------------
Citation Subject of applicable Using a control Not using a
sections device control device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k).................. Notification...... Electronic Yes............... Yes.
reporting
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)................. Recordkeeping..... Recordkeeping for Yes............... Yes.
report submitted
electronically.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart YYYY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines
0
74. Table 7 to subpart YYYY of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart YYYY
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to subpart YYYY Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36363]]
Subpart ZZZZ--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
0
75. Table 8 to subpart ZZZZ of part 63 is amended by adding entries for
Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and Sec. 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to subpart Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart AAAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants
0
76. Table 8 to subpart AAAAA of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to
read as follows:
* * * * *
Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAA
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I subject to this
Citation Summary of requirement requirement? Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Becoming an area source Yes....................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart CCCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
0
77. Table 1 to subpart CCCCC of part 63 is amended by adding entry for
Sec. 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart CCCCC of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart CCCCC
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Subject CCCCC? Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36364]]
Subpart DDDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters
0
78. Table 10 to subpart DDDDD of part 63 is amended by adding an entry
for Sec. 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 10 to Subpart DDDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart DDDDD
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject DDDDD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes.
reports
submitted
electronically.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart EEEEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries
0
79. Table 1 to subpart EEEEE of part 63 is amended by adding an entry
for Sec. 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart EEEEE
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Subject EEEEE? Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)............................. Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart FFFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
0
80. Table 4 to subpart FFFFF of part 63 is amended by adding an entry
for Sec. 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart FFFFF
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Subject FFFFF Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart GGGGG--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Site Remediation
0
81. Table 3 to subpart GGGGG of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
[[Page 36365]]
Table 3 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart GGGGG
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description GGGGG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Electronic reporting Yes.
procedures. procedures for
notifications per
63.9(j).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Electronically reported Yes.
electronic reporting. data may be stored
electronically.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart HHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
0
82. Table 10 to subpart HHHHH of part 63 is amended by revising the
entry for Sec. 63.9(j) and adding entries for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and
63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart HHHHH
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(j)................ Change in Yes for change in
previous major source status,
information. otherwise Sec.
63.8075(e)(8)
specifies reporting
requirements for
process changes.
Sec. 63.9(k)................ Electronic Yes, as specified in
reporting 63.9(j).
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Recordkeeping for Yes.
electronic
reporting.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart IIIII--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Mercury Emissions From Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants
0
83. Table 10 to subpart IIIII of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 10 to Subpart IIIII of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart IIIII
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject IIIII Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36366]]
Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing
0
84. Table 10 to subpart JJJJJ of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 10 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description JJJJJ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Electronic reporting Yes.
procedures. procedures for
notifications per
63.9(j).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Electronically reported Yes.
electronic reporting. data may be stored
electronically.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart KKKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
0
85. Table 11 to subpart KKKKK of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 11 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKKK
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description KKKKK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Electronic reporting Yes.
procedures. procedures for
notifications per
63.9(j).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Electronically reported Yes.
electronic reporting. data may be stored
electronically.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart LLLLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
0
86. Table 7 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Electronic reporting Yes.
procedures. procedures for
notifications per
63.9(j).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Electronically reported Yes.
electronic reporting. data may be stored
electronically.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36367]]
Subpart MMMMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations
0
87. Table 7 to subpart MMMMM of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 7 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart MMMMM
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Requirement MMMMM Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart NNNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Hydrochloric Acid Production
0
88. Table 7 to subpart NNNNN of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and Sec. 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 7 to Subpart NNNNN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNNN
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Requirement NNNNN Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart PPPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Engine Test Cells/Stands
0
89. Table 7 to subpart PPPPP of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.1(c)(6), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to
read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPPP
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description PPPPP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(6).................... Applicability.......... Becoming an area source Yes.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Notifications.......... Electronic reporting Yes.
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping.......... Recordkeeping for Yes.
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36368]]
Subpart QQQQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
0
90. Revise Sec. 63.9485(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9485 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a
friction materials manufacturing facility (as defined in Sec. 63.9565)
that is (or is part of) a major source of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) emissions. Your friction materials manufacturing facility is a
major source of HAP if it emits or has the potential to emit any single
HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any
combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per
year.
* * * * *
0
91. Table 1 to subpart QQQQQ of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(j), 63.9(k), and 63.10(g) in numerical order to
read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQQQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject QQQQQ? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(j)....................... Changes to information Yes....................
already provided.
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart RRRRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing
0
92. Revise Sec. 63.9581 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9581 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a taconite
iron ore processing plant that is (or is part of) a major source of
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. Your taconite iron ore
processing plant is a major source of HAP if it emits or has the
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year
or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year.
0
93. Table 2 to subpart RRRRR of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject RRRRR Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart SSSSS--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Refractory Products Manufacturing
0
94. Table 11 to subpart SSSSS of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 11 to Subpart SSSSS of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart SSSSS
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description SSSSS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Notifications.......... Electronic reporting Yes.
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping.......... Recordkeeping for Yes.
electronic reporting.
[[Page 36369]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart TTTTT--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Primary Magnesium Refining
0
95. Table 5 to subpart TTTTT of part 63 is amended by adding an entry
for Sec. 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject TTTTT Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.10(g)............................. Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart UUUUU--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units
0
96. Table 9 to subpart UUUUU of part 63 is amended by adding an entry
for Sec. 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as follows:
Table 9 to Subpart UUUUU of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63
General Provisions to Subpart UUUUU
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject UUUUU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)............... Recordkeeping for Yes
electronic
reporting.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart WWWWW--National Emission Standards for Hospital Ethylene
Oxide Sterilizers
0
97. Table 1 to subpart WWWWW of part 63 is amended by removing the
entry for Sec. 63.9(d)-(j), and adding entries in alphanumerical order
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(d)-(i), 63.9(j)-(k), and 63.10(g) to read as
follows:
Table 1 to Subpart WWWWW of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart WWWWW
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject WWWWW Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(d)-(i)................... Other notifications.... No.....................
Sec. 63.9(j)-(k)................... Change in information Yes....................
already submitted
Electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
[[Page 36370]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart BBBBBB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline Distribution Bulk
Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities
0
98. Table 3 to subpart BBBBBB of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 3 to Subpart BBBBBB of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description BBBBBB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Notifications.......... Electronic reporting Yes.
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping.......... Recordkeeping for Yes.
electronic reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart CCCCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
0
99. Table 3 to subpart CCCCCC of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and Sec. 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 3 to Subpart CCCCCC of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description CCCCCC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Notifications.......... Electronic reporting Yes.
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping.......... Recordkeeping for Yes.
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart HHHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources
0
100. Revise Sec. 63.11175(a) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11175 What notifications must I submit?
(a) Initial Notification. If you are the owner or operator of a
paint stripping operation using paint strippers containing MeCl and/or
a surface coating operation subject to this subpart, you must submit
the initial notification required by Sec. 63.9(b). For a new affected
source, you must submit the Initial Notification no later than 180 days
after initial startup or July 7, 2008, whichever is later. For an
existing affected source, you must submit the initial notification no
later than January 11, 2010 or no later than 120 days after the source
becomes subject to this subpart. The initial notification must provide
the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this
section.
* * * * *
Subpart XXXXXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Area Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and
Finishing Source Categories
0
101. Revise Sec. 63.11519(a)(1) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11519 What are my notifications, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
(a) What notifications must I submit?--(1) Initial notification. If
you are the owner or operator of an area source in one of the nine
metal
[[Page 36371]]
fabrication and finishing source categories, as defined in Sec.
63.11514, you must submit the initial notification required by Sec.
63.9(b), for a new affected source no later than 120 days after initial
startup or November 20, 2008, whichever is later. For an existing
affected source, you must submit the initial notification no later than
July 25, 2011 or no later than 120 days after the source becomes
subject to this subpart. Your initial notification must provide the
information specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
* * * * *
Subpart YYYYYY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production Facilities
0
102. Revise Sec. 63.11529(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11529 What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?
(a) Initial notification. You must submit the initial notification
required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) no later than 120 days after December 23,
2008 or no later than 120 days after the source becomes subject to this
subpart. The initial notification must include the information
specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(iv).
* * * * *
Subpart AAAAAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing
0
103. Revise Sec. 63.11564(a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11564 What are my notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
(a) * * *
(2) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you have an existing
affected source, you must submit an initial notification not later than
120 calendar days after December 2, 2009 or no later than 120 days
after the source becomes subject to this subpart.
* * * * *
Subpart BBBBBBB--[Amended]
0
104. Revise Sec. 63.11585(b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11585 What are my notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Initial notification of applicability. If you own or operate an
existing affected source, you must submit an initial notification of
applicability as required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) no later than April 29,
2010 or no later than 120 days after the source becomes subject to this
subpart. If you own or operate a new affected source, you must submit
an initial notification of applicability required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2)
no later than 120 days after initial start-up of operation or April 29,
2010, whichever is later. The initial notification of applicability
must include the information specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through
(iii).
* * * * *
Subpart CCCCCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing
0
105. Revise Sec. 63.11603(a)(1) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11603 What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
(a) * * *
(1) Initial notification of applicability. If you own or operate an
existing affected source, you must submit an initial notification of
applicability required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) no later than June 1, 2010,
or no later than 120 days after the source becomes subject to this
subpart. If you own or operate a new affected source, you must submit
an initial notification of applicability required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2)
no later than 180 days after initial start-up of the operations or June
1, 2010, whichever is later. The notification of applicability must
include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii)
of this section.
* * * * *
Subpart HHHHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers
Production
0
106. Table 4 to subpart HHHHHHH of part 63 is amended by adding entries
for Sec. Sec. 63.9(k) and 63.10(g) in numerical order to read as
follows:
Table 4 to Subpart HHHHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject HHHHHHH Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.9(k)....................... Electronic reporting Yes....................
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(g)...................... Recordkeeping for Yes....................
electronic reporting.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-14252 Filed 7-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P