National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review, 3308-3324 [2019-01317]
Download as PDF
3308
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by April 15, 2019.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 12, 2018.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(513)(ii)(B) to read
as follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan—in part.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(513) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) South Coast Air Quality
Management District. (1) The following
portions of the ‘‘Final 2016 Air Quality
Management Plan (March 2017),’’
adopted March 3, 2017: Chapter 5
(‘‘PM2.5 Modeling Approach’’), pages 5–
17 through 5–27; Appendix III (‘‘Base
and Future Emission Inventory’’),
Attachment A (‘‘Annual Average
Emissions by Source Category in South
Coast Air Basin’’) for PM2.5, NOX, SO2,
VOC, and NH3 for years 2012, 2017,
2019, and 2020 and Attachment D,
tables D–1, D–3, D–7 and D–9;
Appendix IV–A (‘‘SCAQMD’s Stationary
and Mobile Source Control Measures’’),
Table IV–A–4 and section 2 (‘‘PM2.5
Control Measures’’); Appendix IV–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
(‘‘Regional Transportation Strategy and
Control Measures’’), section IV (‘‘TCM
Best Available Control Measure (BACM)
Analysis for 2006 24-Hour and 2012
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS’’); Appendix V
(‘‘Modeling and Attainment
Demonstration’’), Chapter 7 (‘‘24-hour
PM2.5 Demonstration’’) and Attachment
8 (‘‘24-hour Unmonitored Area Analysis
Supplement’’); Appendix VI–A
(‘‘Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM)/Best Available
Control Measures (BACM)
Demonstration’’), pages VI–A–13
through VI–A–42, Attachment VI–A–1
(‘‘Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations’’), Attachment VI–A–2
(‘‘Control Measure Assessment’’), and
Attachment VI–A–3 (‘‘California Mobile
Source Control Program Best Available
Control Measures/Reasonably Available
Control Measures Assessment’’);
Appendix VI–C (‘‘Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) and Milestone Years’’),
pages VI–C–5 through VI–C–8, and
Attachment VI–C–1 (‘‘California
Existing Mobile Source Control
Program’’); Appendix VI–D (‘‘General
Conformity and Transportation
Conformity Budget’’), pages VI–D–2
through VI–D–6 and excluding tables
VI–D–1 through 3; and Appendix VI–F
(‘‘Precursor Requirements’’).
(2) Letter dated March 14, 2018 from
Philip Fine, Deputy Executive Officer,
Planning, Rule Development, and Area
Sources, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, to Amy Zimpfer,
Associate Director, Air Division, EPA
Region IX.
(3) Letter dated June 15, 2018 from
Philip Fine, Deputy Executive Officer,
Planning, Rule Development, and Area
Sources, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, to Amy Zimpfer,
Associate Director, Air Division, EPA
Region IX, regarding ‘‘Condensable and
Filterable Portions of PM2.5 Emissions in
the 2016 AQMD.’’
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–01922 Filed 2–11–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0194; FRL–9988–83–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AT70
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather
Finishing Operations Residual Risk
and Technology Review
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
Final rule.
This action finalizes the
residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Leather
Finishing Operations source category
regulated under national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP). In addition, we are taking
final action addressing startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM),
electronic reporting, and clarification of
rule provisions. These final
amendments address emissions during
periods of SSM, add electronic
reporting, and revise certain rule
requirements and provisions. Although
these amendments will not reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP), they are expected to improve
compliance and implementation of the
rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
February 12, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established
a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0194. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA
WJC West Building, Room Number
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time,
Monday through Friday. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Docket Center is (202)
566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this final action, contact
Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources
Group, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (E143–03), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
5032; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and
email address: schrock.bill@epa.gov. For
specific information regarding the risk
modeling methodology, contact
Matthew Woody, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C539–
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
3309
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541–1535; fax number:
(919) 541–0840; and email address:
woody.matthew@epa.gov. For
information about the applicability of
the NESHAP to a particular entity,
contact John Cox, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A),
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564–1395; and email
address: cox.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble
acronyms and abbreviations. We use
multiple acronyms and terms in this
preamble. While this list may not be
exhaustive, to ease the reading of this
preamble and for reference purposes,
the EPA defines the following terms and
acronyms here:
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface
CRA Congressional Review Act
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
REL recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Background information. On March
14, 2018 (83 FR 11314), the EPA
proposed revisions to the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP based on
our RTR. On May 15, 2018 (83 FR
22438), the EPA re-opened the comment
period on the proposed rule that closed
on April 30, 2018, extending the
comment period to June 14, 2018. In
this action, we are finalizing decisions
and revisions for the rule. We
summarize some of the more significant
comments we timely received regarding
the proposed rule and provide our
responses in this preamble. A summary
of all other public comments on the
proposal and the EPA’s responses to
those comments is available in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
document titled Summary of Public
Comments and the EPA’s Responses for
the Proposed Risk and Technology
Review and Amendments for the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP,
in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0194. A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the
regulatory language that incorporates
the changes in this action is available in
the docket.
Organization of this document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
B. What is the Leather Finishing
Operations source category and how
does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the
Leather Finishing Operations source
category in our March 14, 2018,
proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments
based on the risk review for the Leather
Finishing Operations source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
Leather Finishing Operations source
category?
C. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
D. What other changes have been made to
the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance
dates of the standards?
F. What are the requirements for
submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the
Leather Finishing Operations source
category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category
B. Technology Review for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category
C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction for
the Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category
D. Requirements for Submission of
Performance Tests for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category
E. Technical Revisions and Corrections for
the Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice
did we conduct?
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this
action are shown in Table 1 of this
preamble.
TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL
SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY
THIS FINAL ACTION
NAICS 1
code
NESHAP and source category
Leather finishing operations ...........
1 North
American
Industry
3161
Classification
System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be affected by the final
action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is
affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate
NESHAP. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of any aspect
of this NESHAP, please contact the
appropriate person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
3310
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a
copy of this final action at: https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/leather-finishing-operationsnational-emission-standards-hazardous.
Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical
documents at this same website.
Additional information is available on
the RTR website at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
This information includes an overview
of the RTR program, links to project
websites for the RTR source categories,
and detailed emissions and other data
we used as inputs to the risk
assessments.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section
307(b)(1), judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the Court) by April
15, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2),
the requirements established by this
final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that only an objection
to a rule or procedure which was raised
with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment (including
any public hearing) may be raised
during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to
reconsider the rule if the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable
to raise such objection within the period
for public comment or if the grounds for
such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule. Any person seeking
to make such a demonstration should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to
both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for
this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a
two-stage regulatory process to address
emissions of HAP from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must
identify categories of sources emitting
one or more of the HAP listed in CAA
section 112(b) and then promulgate
technology-based NESHAP for those
sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that
emit, or have the potential to emit, any
single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year
(tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources,
these standards are commonly referred
to as maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards and must
reflect the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements,
and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing
MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2)
directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes,
methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to those that
reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP
emissions through process changes,
substitution of materials, or other
modifications; enclose systems or
processes to eliminate emissions;
collect, capture, or treat HAP when
released from a process, stack, storage,
or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or
operational standards; or any
combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute
specifies certain minimum stringency
requirements, which are referred to as
MACT floor requirements, and which
may not be based on cost
considerations. See CAA section
112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT
floor cannot be less stringent than the
emission control achieved in practice by
the best-controlled similar source. The
MACT standards for existing sources
can be less stringent than floors for new
sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing
sources in the category or subcategory
(or the best-performing five sources for
categories or subcategories with fewer
than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider
control options that are more stringent
than the floor under CAA section
112(d)(2). We may establish standards
more stringent than the floor, based on
the consideration of the cost of
achieving the emissions reductions, any
non-air quality health and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory
process, the CAA requires the EPA to
undertake two different analyses, which
we refer to as the technology review and
the residual risk review. Under the
technology review, we must review the
technology-based standards and revise
them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)’’ no less
frequently than every 8 years, pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the
residual risk review, we must evaluate
the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based
standards and revise the standards, if
necessary, to provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health or to
prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
The residual risk review is required
within 8 years after promulgation of the
technology-based standards, pursuant to
CAA section 112(f). In conducting the
residual risk review, if the EPA
determines that the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, it is not necessary
to revise the MACT standards pursuant
to CAA section 112(f).1 For more
information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 83 FR 11314, March 14,
2018.
B. What is the Leather Finishing
Operations source category and how
does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP on
February 27, 2002 (67 FR 9156). The
standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTTT. The leather finishing
industry consists of facilities that adjust
and improve the physical and aesthetic
characteristics of the leather surface
through the multistage application of a
coating comprised of dyes, pigments,
film-forming materials, and performance
modifiers dissolved or suspended in
liquid carriers. The Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP does not apply to
equipment used solely for leather
tanning operations or to portions of
leather finishing operations using a
solvent degreasing process subject to the
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP
(see 40 CFR 63.5290(c)). The source
category covered by this MACT
1 The Court has affirmed this approach of
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA
determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an ’ample margin of safety,’ then
the Agency is free to readopt those standards during
the residual risk rulemaking.’’).
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
standard currently includes four
facilities.
Leather finishing is considered a dry
operation as opposed to the ‘‘wet-end’’
operations associated with leather
tanning. As further discussed in section
II.B of the proposal preamble (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018), leather
finishing operations can be co-located
with wet-end tannery operations or
performed in stand-alone facilities;
however, equipment used solely for
leather tanning (or retanning) operations
is not subject to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP. In the dry-end
leather finishing operations, coatings are
typically applied to the leather substrate
using spray, roll, and flow coating
techniques. The emission source types
subject to the emission limits under the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
include, but are not limited to, coating
and spraying equipment, coating storage
and mixing, and dryers. Refer to section
II.B of the proposal preamble (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018) for discussion of
emissions from these and additional
emission source types, including the
HAP emitted.
The MACT standards address
emissions from four types of leather
product process operations: (1)
Upholstery leather with greater than or
equal to 4 grams of add-on finish per
square foot of leather, (2) upholstery
leather with less than 4 grams of addon finish per square foot of leather, (3)
water-resistant leather, and (4) nonwater-resistant leather. The standards
limit emissions from new and existing
leather finishing operations and are
expressed in terms of total HAP
emissions per 1,000 square feet of
leather processed over a rolling 12month compliance period. Sources must
record the mass of HAP in coatings
applied to the leather either through an
inventory mass balance or ‘‘measure-asapplied’’ approach. Using the mass
balance approach, sources may choose
to account for disposal of excess finish
instead of assuming any excess finish is
also emitted. Emissions are calculated
based on the assumption that the entire
HAP content of the applied finish is
released to the environment. Sources
using an add-on control device may
account for the emission reduction
achieved from the control device as
measured by a performance test
conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP. We are not
finalizing any revisions to the numerical
emission limits nor to the methods for
determining compliance with these
limits.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
C. What changes did we propose for the
Leather Finishing Operations source
category in our March 14, 2018,
proposal?
On March 14, 2018, the EPA
published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TTTT, that took into
consideration the RTR analyses. In the
proposed rule, we proposed
amendments to the SSM provisions of
the MACT rule, a new requirement to
electronically report performance test
data, and clarifications to certain
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for control
devices and the provisions for
alternative schedules, as well as a
correction to the title of Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart TTTT. We
proposed no revisions to the numerical
emission limits based on our technology
review and risk analyses.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA’s
determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the
Leather Finishing Operations source
category. This action also finalizes other
changes to the NESHAP, including
amendments to the SSM provisions,
addition of electronic reporting of
performance test data, and clarifications
to certain monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements for control
devices and the provisions for
alternative schedules, as well as a
correction to the title of Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart TTTT.
A. What are the final rule amendments
based on the risk review for the Leather
Finishing Operations source category?
We found risk due to emissions of air
toxics to be acceptable from this source
category and determined that the
current NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health
and prevents an adverse environmental
effect. Therefore, we did not propose
and are not finalizing any revisions to
the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP based on our analyses
conducted under CAA section 112(f).
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
Leather Finishing Operations source
category?
We determined that there are no
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that warrant
revisions to the MACT standards for this
source category. Therefore, we are not
finalizing revisions to the MACT
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3311
C. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
We are finalizing the proposed
amendments to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP to remove and
revise provisions related to SSM. In its
2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), the Court
vacated portions of two provisions in
the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations
governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court
vacated the SSM exemption contained
in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards
or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA’s requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously. As detailed in section
IV.C of the proposal preamble (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018), the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP requires
that the standards apply at all times (see
40 CFR 63.5320(a)), consistent with the
Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). The EPA
took into account startup and shutdown
periods in the 2002 rulemaking by
applying a standard based on total
coating used and HAP content and
requiring a mass balance compliance
method that was applicable for all
operations, even periods of startup and
shutdown. As a result, the EPA is not
finalizing any changes to the current
requirement that all standards apply
during those periods. Refer to section
IV.C of the March 14, 2018, proposal
preamble for further discussion of the
EPA’s rationale for this decision.
Further, the EPA is not finalizing
standards for malfunctions. As
discussed in section IV.C of the March
14, 2018, proposal preamble, the EPA
interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored
into development of CAA section 112
standards, although the EPA has the
discretion to set standards for
malfunctions where feasible. For the
Leather Finishing Operations source
category, it is unlikely that a
malfunction would result in a violation
of the standards, and no comments were
submitted that would suggest otherwise.
There are no instances where pollution
control equipment could malfunction
because none of the four facilities
subject to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP use pollution
control equipment. Further, the
standards are expressed as a yearly
rolling average, and compliance is
primarily dependent on the coating’s
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
3312
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
HAP composition. Therefore, a
malfunction of process equipment is not
likely to result in a violation of the
standards, and we have no information
to suggest that it is feasible or necessary
to establish standards for any type of
malfunction associated with leather
finishing operations. Refer to section
IV.C of the March 14, 2018, proposal
preamble for further discussion of the
EPA’s rationale for the decision not to
set standards for malfunctions, as well
as a discussion of the actions a source
could take in the unlikely event that a
source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d)
standards as a result of a malfunction
event, given that administrative and
judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully
recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and
can accommodate those situations.
As is explained in more detail below,
we are finalizing two proposed revisions
to the General Provisions table to 40
CRF part 63, subpart TTTT, to eliminate
two General Provisions that include rule
language providing an exemption for
periods of SSM. Additionally, we are
finalizing our proposal to eliminate
language related to SSM that treats
periods of startup and shutdown the
same as periods of malfunction, as
explained further below. Finally, we are
finalizing our proposal to revise the
Deviation Notification Report and
related records as they relate to
malfunctions, as further described
below. As discussed in section IV.C of
the March 14, 2018, proposal preamble,
these revisions are consistent with the
requirement in 40 CFR 63.5320(a) that
the standards apply at all times. Refer to
sections III.C.1 through 5 of this
preamble for a detailed discussion of
these amendments.
1. 40 CFR 63.5320(b) General Duty
We are finalizing as proposed revision
of the General Provisions table to 40
CFR part 63, subpart TTTT (Table 2),
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by combining
all of paragraph (e) into one row and
changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column four to
‘‘no.’’ We are replacing reference to 40
CFR 63.6(e) with new general duty
regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5320(b) that
reflects the general duty to minimize
emissions while eliminating the
reference in 40 CFR 63.6(e) to periods
covered by an SSM exemption. Refer to
section IV.D.1.a of the proposal
preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018)
for further discussion of this revision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
2. 40 CFR 63.5360(b) Compliance With
Standards
We are finalizing as proposed removal
of the sentence, ‘‘This includes periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.’’
in 40 CFR 63.5360(b), which refers to
the requirement to report each instance
in which a source did not meet the
standard. Refer to section IV.D.1.b of the
proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018) for further discussion of this
revision.
3. 40 CFR 63.5380 Performance Testing
We are finalizing as proposed revision
of the General Provisions table to 40
CFR part 63, subpart TTTT (Table 2),
entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by adding a
separate row for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and
specifying ‘‘no’’ in column four. We are
replacing reference to 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1)
with a performance testing requirement
at 40 CFR 63.5380(b). Refer to section
IV.D.1.c of the proposal preamble (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018) for further
discussion of these revisions.
4. 40 CFR 63.5430 Recordkeeping
We are finalizing as proposed revision
of the Deviation Notification Report to
include two new reporting elements: (1)
An estimate of the quantity of HAP
emitted during the 12-month period of
the report in excess of the standard, and
(2) the cause of the events that resulted
in the deviation from the standard
(including unknown cause, if
applicable). We are finalizing the
proposed requirement that any source
submitting a Deviation Notification
Report also keep a record of this
information, as well as a record of the
actions taken to minimize emissions,
and we are finalizing revision of 40 CFR
63.5420(b)(3) to clarify records already
required. Finally, we are finalizing as
proposed revision of the General
Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTTT (table 2), entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2) to clarify the recordkeeping
requirements for facilities that deviate
from the standards as a result of a
malfunction. Refer to section IV.D.1.d of
the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314,
March 14, 2018) for further discussion
of these revisions.
5. 40 CFR 63.5420 Reporting
We are finalizing as proposed revision
of the General Provisions table to
subpart TTTT (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5) to clarify the reporting
requirements for facilities that deviate
from the standards as a result of a
malfunction. We are finalizing as
proposed revision of 40 CFR
63.5420(b)(3) to clarify that the
Deviation Notification Report should
include an indication of the 12-month
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
period of the report. We are also
finalizing as proposed two new
reporting elements to include in the
Deviation Notification Report: (1) the
cause of the events that resulted in the
source failing to meet the standard as
determined under 40 CFR 63.5330 (i.e.,
the compliance ratio exceeds 1.00)
during the 12-month period (including
unknown cause, if applicable) and (2)
an estimate of the quantity of HAP (in
pounds) emitted during the 12-month
period of the report in excess of the
standard, calculated by subtracting the
‘‘Allowable HAP Loss’’ from the ‘‘Actual
HAP Loss.’’ Refer to section IV.D.1.e of
the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314,
March 14, 2018) for further discussion
of these revisions.
6. 40 CFR 63.5460 Definitions
We are finalizing as proposed revision
of the definition of ‘‘Deviation’’ to read
‘‘Deviation means any instance in which
an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such
a source, fails to meet any requirement
or obligation established by this subpart,
including, but not limited to, any
emission limits or work practice
standards.’’ This revision removes
language that differentiated between
normal operations, startup, and
shutdown, and malfunction events.
Refer to section IV.D.1.f of the proposal
preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018)
for further discussion of this revision.
D. What other changes have been made
to the NESHAP?
We are finalizing as proposed
amendments to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP to clarify the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for control
devices and the provisions for
alternative schedules and to correct the
title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTTT. Refer to section IV.D.3 of
the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314,
March 14, 2018) for a detailed
description of these amendments.
E. What are the effective and
compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards
being promulgated in this action are
effective on February 12, 2019. The
compliance date for existing leather
finishing operations is February 12,
2019. New sources must comply with
all of the standards immediately upon
the effective date of the standard,
February 12, 2019, or upon startup,
whichever is later. The tasks necessary
for existing facilities to comply with
these proposed amendments related to
SSM periods will require no time or
resources. No facilities will be subject to
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
the requirement to submit reports
electronically (see below). Therefore,
existing facilities will be able to comply
with these proposed amendments
related to SSM periods and the use of
the electronic reporting software
discussed in section III.F of this
preamble as soon as the final rule is
effective, which will be the date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register.
F. What are the requirements for
submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
As we proposed, the EPA is taking a
step to increase the ease and efficiency
of data submittal and data accessibility.
Specifically, the EPA is finalizing the
requirement for owners and operators of
leather finishing operations facilities to
submit electronic copies of certain
required performance test reports.
Data will be collected by direct
computer-to-computer electronic
transfer using EPA-provided software.
This EPA-provided software is an
electronic performance test report tool
called the Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT). The ERT will generate an
electronic report package, which will be
submitted to the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA’s
Central Data Exchange (CDX). A
description of the ERT and instructions
for using ERT can be found at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/.
CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX
website (https://www.epa.gov/cdx).
The EPA estimates that no existing
leather finishing operation subject to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
uses a control device to comply with the
NESHAP. As such, no existing leather
finishing operation will conduct
performance tests or submit electronic
copies of test reports.
The requirement to submit
performance test data electronically to
the EPA does not create any additional
performance testing and will apply only
to those performance tests conducted
using test methods that are supported by
the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and
test methods supported by the ERT is
available at the ERT website. The EPA
believes, through this approach,
industry will save time in the
performance test submittal process.
Additionally, this rulemaking benefits
industry by reducing recordkeeping
costs as the performance test reports
that are submitted to the EPA using
CEDRI are no longer required to be kept
in hard copy.
State, local, and tribal agencies may
benefit from more streamlined and
accurate review of performance test data
that will become available to the public
through WebFIRE. Having such data
publicly available enhances
transparency and accountability. For a
more thorough discussion of electronic
reporting of performance tests using
direct computer-to-computer electronic
transfer and using EPA-provided
software, see the discussion in the
preamble of the proposal (83 FR 11314,
March 14, 2018).
In summary, in addition to supporting
regulation development, control strategy
development, and other air pollution
control activities, having an electronic
database populated with performance
test data will save industry, state, local,
tribal agencies, and the EPA significant
time, money, and effort while improving
the quality of emission inventories and
air quality regulations.
3313
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the
Leather Finishing Operations source
category?
For each issue, this section provides
a description of what we proposed and
what we are finalizing for the issue, the
EPA’s rationale for the final decisions
and amendments, and a summary of key
comments and responses. For all
comments not discussed in this
preamble, comment summaries and the
EPA’s responses can be found in the
document titled Summary of Public
Comments and the EPA’s Responses for
the Proposed Risk and Technology
Review and Amendments for the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP,
in the docket for this action.
A. Residual Risk Review for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(f) for the Leather
Finishing Operations source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we
conducted a residual risk review and
presented the results for the review,
along with our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety, in the March 14, 2018,
proposed rule for the Leather Finishing
Operations source category (83 FR
11314). The results of the risk
assessment are presented briefly in
Table 2 of this preamble and in more
detail in the residual risk document
titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category in Support of the December
2017 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
action.
TABLE 2—LEATHER FINISHING OPERATIONS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS IN THE MARCH 2018 PROPOSAL
[83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018]
Maximum individual
cancer risk
(in 1 million) 2
Number of
facilities 1
Based on
actual
emissions
level 2
Estimated population at
increased risk of cancer
≥1-in-1 million
Based on
allowable
emissions
level
Based on
actual
emissions
level 2
Based on
allowable
emissions
level
Estimated Annual
cancer incidence
(cases per year)
Based on
actual
emissions
level 2
Maximum chronic
noncancer
TOSHI 3
Based on
allowable
emissions
level
Based on
actual
emissions
level
Maximum screening acute
noncancer hazard quotient
(HQ) 4
Based on
allowable
emissions
level
Based on actual emissions level
4.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.04
0.3
HQREL = 3 (propyl cellosolve and
glycol ethers).
1 Number
of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Leather Finishing Operations source category is the reproductive target organ.
4 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown
use the lowest available acute threshold value; for propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers, this is the recommended exposure limit (REL).
2 Maximum
3 Maximum
The results of the inhalation risk
modeling using actual emissions data,
as shown in Table 2 of this preamble,
indicate the maximum chronic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
noncancer TOSHI value could be up to
0.04. While we would have estimated
incremental individual lifetime cancer
risks as discussed in section III.C.3.b of
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the preamble to the proposed
amendments (83 FR 11314, March 14,
2018), there were no carcinogenic HAP
emissions from this source category, so
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
3314
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
the maximum lifetime individual cancer
risk is 0, and the total estimated
national cancer incidence from these
facilities based on actual emission levels
is no excess cancer cases per year.
Table 2 of this preamble indicates that
for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category, the maximum HQ is 3,
driven by propyl cellosolve and glycol
ethers. The only acute dose-response
value for propyl cellosolve and glycol
ethers is the REL; therefore, only the
HQREL is provided. Refinement of the
acute risk results was performed using
aerial photos to ensure that the location
where the maximum risk was projected
to occur was, in fact, a location where
the general public could be exposed.
The result of this refinement confirmed
that the maximum acute risk result
occurred where the public could
potentially be exposed. This refinement,
therefore, had no impact on the
maximum HQ. For more detailed acute
risk results, refer to the draft residual
risk document titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category in Support
of the December 2017 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, in
the docket for this action.
An assessment of risk from facilitywide emissions was performed to
provide context for the source category
risks. Using the National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) data described in
sections II.C and III.C of the preamble to
the proposed amendments (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018), the maximum
cancer risk in the facility-wide
assessment was 0.09-in-1 million, and
the maximum chronic noncancer hazard
index (HI) was 0.1 (for the reproductive
system), both driven by emissions from
external combustion boilers.
To examine the potential for any
environmental justice issues that might
be associated with the source category,
we performed a demographic analysis,
which is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 5 kilometers
(km) and within 50 km of the facilities,
and we found that no one is exposed to
a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million
or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater
than 1. The methodology and the results
of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report titled
Risk and Technology Review—Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Leather Finishing
Operations, in the docket for this action.
We weighed all health risk factors in
our risk acceptability determination and
we proposed that the risk posed by
emissions from this source category is
acceptable. We then considered whether
the NESHAP provides an ample margin
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
of safety to protect public health and
whether more stringent standards were
necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect by taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors. In determining
whether the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health,
we examined the same risk factors that
we investigated for our acceptability
determination and also considered the
costs, technological feasibility, and
other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might
reduce risk associated with emissions
from the source category. As noted in
the discussion of the ample margin of
safety analysis in the preamble to the
proposed rule on March 14, 2018 (83 FR
11328), we considered options for
further reducing gaseous organic HAP
emissions from leather finishing
operations. We considered the reduction
in gaseous organic HAP emissions that
could be achieved by the application of
a biological treatment unit, the use of a
concentrator followed by a regenerative
thermal oxidizer (RTO), and the use of
a concentrator followed by biological
treatment. The total annual cost per
facility of a rotary concentrator alone or
biological treatment alone ranges from
$43,000 to $417,000 per year.
Application of a concentrator followed
by an RTO would achieve an estimated
annual HAP emission reduction of 5.2
tpy, and application of a concentrator
plus biological treatment would achieve
an estimated annual HAP emission
reduction of 4.5 tpy. The corresponding
cost effectiveness for application of a
rotary concentrator or biological
treatment would range from $30,000
and $110,000 per ton of HAP removed,
respectively. Due to our determinations
that cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million
and that the maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI value is below 1,
uncertainties associated with the acute
screening risk estimate (refer to the risk
report titled Residual Risk Assessment
for the Leather Finishing Operations
Source Category in Support of the
December 2017 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for
this action), and the substantial costs
associated with the control options, we
proposed that additional standards for
this source category are not required to
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, and that the
current standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health.
Based on the results of our
environmental risk screening
assessment, we also proposed that more
stringent standards are not necessary to
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
prevent an adverse environmental
effect.
2. How did the risk review change for
the Leather Finishing Operations source
category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018), neither the risk assessment
nor our determinations regarding risk
acceptability, ample margin of safety or
adverse environmental effects have
changed.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the risk review, and what are our
responses?
We received various comments
related to the risk review and some
commenters requested that we make
changes to our residual risk review
results and approach. However, we
evaluated the comments and
determined that no changes to our risk
assessment methods or conclusions are
warranted. An in-depth account of the
comments and responses is located in
the memorandum titled Summary of
Public Comments and the EPA’s
Responses for the Proposed Risk and
Technology Review and Amendments
for the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP, in the docket for this action.
The following paragraphs discuss the
major comments we received and our
responses.
Comment: One commenter stated that
there is evidence of hexavalent
chromium emissions from leather
finishing operations and leather tanning
processes and products, questioning
why the EPA did not evaluate these
emissions and health risks and establish
emission standards accordingly. The
commenter referenced NEI data showing
hexavalent chromium emissions from
leather finishing facilities.
Response: We disagree that there is
evidence of hexavalent chromium
emissions from the Leather Finishing
Operations source category. The NEI
data cited by the commenter represent
hexavalent chromium emissions from
boilers at the Tasman and S.B. Foot
facilities subject to the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP, but
boilers are not subject to the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP, and,
thus, such data do not create a basis for
the EPA to evaluate emissions and
health risks of hexavalent chromium for
source types at any facility subject to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP.
The NEI does not include hexavalent
chromium emission data for any other
emission source types at any facility
subject to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP. The EPA is not
aware of any source of hexavalent
chromium emissions data for the leather
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
finishing operations subject to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP,
and the commenters have provided no
such data. The references cited by the
commenters focus primarily on the
leather tanning processes, which do not
occur at the facilities covered by the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP.
Additionally, the references cited do not
directly address air emissions of
hexavalent chromium from leather
finishing operations and are, therefore,
not relevant to this rulemaking. Two
references cited by the commenter
mention the possibility of spontaneous
oxidation of trivalent chromium into its
hexavalent form in post-tanning
operations, but the references do not
provide any hexavalent chromium
emissions data, and no such data exist
for any of the leather finishing
operations subject to the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP. As a
result, there is no basis for the EPA to
evaluate the emissions and health risks
of hexavalent chromium from these four
facilities.
Comment: One commenter provided
data for actual monthly HAP use for the
S.B. Foot Tanning Co. facility subject to
the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP, stating that the data indicate
that hourly emissions could be up to 1.5
times greater than the emissions rate
that the EPA used to estimate acute
exposures. The data provided by the
commenter show monthly HAP
emissions for the S.B. Foot Tanning Co.
facility based on data of actual monthly
HAP use by the facility over a 4-year
period (i.e., 51 data points). To compare
with the EPA’s calculated acute HAP
emissions rate (i.e., 0.00467 tons/hour)
for the facility, the commenter estimated
the average hourly rate of HAP
emissions for each month in the 4-year
period using the facility’s actual
monthly HAP usage values and monthly
operating hours. To show months in
which the facility’s estimated hourly
HAP emissions rate exceeded the EPA’s
estimated acute hourly HAP emissions
rate for the S.B. Foot Tanning Co.
facility, the commenter calculated for
each month the ratio of the commenter’s
hourly HAP emissions rate to the EPA’s
calculated acute HAP emissions rate.
Ratios above 1.0 would show months in
which the facility’s estimated hourly
HAP emissions rate exceeds the EPA’s
acute hourly HAP emissions rate,
calling into question the EPA’s
calculated acute HAP emissions rate of
0.00467 tons per hour and the EPA’s
acute factor of 1.8.
Response: The EPA reviewed the
commenter’s submitted data and
determined that the data support the
EPA’s acute HAP emissions rate of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
0.00467 tons/hour and acute factor of
1.8. The ratios calculated by the
commenter indicate an average ratio of
0.41 and a median of 0.392. Of the 51
months of data provided by the
commenter, only two values exceed 1.0,
and five values exceed 0.8. To
investigate the two data points that
exceed 1.0, we contacted the
commenter, and the commenter referred
us to S.B. Foot Tanning Co. The S.B.
Foot Tanning Co. facility representative
indicated that HAP emissions referred
to in the commenter’s data are primarily
associated with a storage tank and that
the two data points in question resulted
from the inaccurate process of
measuring the material’s volume (see
the memorandum titled Clarification of
Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Usage
Data for S.B. Foot Tanning Co.,
Submitted by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, in the docket for this
action). From this information, we
conclude that the two data points are
erroneous. Based on these results, the
data, excluding the two erroneous data
points, submitted by the commenter
support our acute factor of 1.8 and we
are not revising the factor.
Comment: Two commenters objected
to the EPA’s decision that the acute risk
result for the Leather Finishing
Operations source category (i.e., HQ of
3) is acceptable. One commenter noted
that the HQ of 3 is driven entirely by
propyl cellosolve and expressed
concern for the toxicity of this pollutant.
The commenter expressed concern that
short-term outdoor human exposures
have a high potential of occurring and
the highest HQ was predicted well
within residential areas. One
commenter asserted that the EPA
provides no rational justification for
ignoring the acute risk (HQ of 3) and the
finding that there are chronic noncancer
risks to the reproductive system. The
commenter listed various human health
effects associated with propyl cellosolve
and cited references for these health
effects.
Response: We disagree that the risk
acceptability determination as it relates
to the acute risk HQ of 3 for propyl
cellosolve is not sufficiently justified.
For this source category, we concluded
that the risks are acceptable based on all
of the available health information—
cancer, chronic noncancer, and acute
noncancer risk assessment results—and
associated uncertainties. It is important
to note that we have not established,
under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, a
numerical range for risk acceptability
for noncancer effects (chronic or acute),
nor have we determined that there is a
bright line above which acceptability is
denied. However, we have established
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3315
that, as exposure increases above a
reference level (as indicated by a HQ or
TOSHI greater than 1), confidence that
the public will not experience adverse
health effects decreases and the
likelihood that an effect will occur
increases.
As discussed in the preamble to the
proposed amendments (83 FR 11314,
March 14, 2018), in conducting risk
assessments for a group of compounds
that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers),
we conservatively use the most
protective dose-response value of an
individual compound in that group to
estimate risk. Similarly, for an
individual compound in a group (e.g.,
ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does
not have a specified dose-response
value, we apply the most protective
dose-response value from the other
compounds in the group to estimate
risk. In the case of propyl cellosolve, for
acute screening-level assessment, we
used the acute REL for ethylene glycol
monomethyl ether as a surrogate for
propyl cellosolve since there is no
specific acute inhalation health
benchmark for this glycol ether. Given
that ethylene glycol monomethyl ether
is more toxic than other glycol ethers,
the use of this surrogate is a healthprotective choice in the EPA’s risk
assessment.
The acute screening analysis resulted
in a maximum acute noncancer HQ of
3 based on the acute REL for ethylene
glycol monomethyl ether. For acute
screening-level assessments, to better
characterize the potential health risks
associated with estimated worst-case
acute exposures to HAP, we typically
examine a wider range of available acute
health metrics than we do for our
chronic risk assessments. This is in
acknowledgement that there are
generally more data gaps and
uncertainties in acute reference values
than there are in chronic reference
values. By definition, the acute REL
represents a health-protective level of
exposure, with effects not anticipated
below those levels, even for repeated
exposures; however, the level of
exposure that would cause health effects
is not specifically known. As the
exposure concentration increases above
the acute REL, the potential for effects
increases. Therefore, when an REL is
exceeded and an AEGL–1 or ERPG–1 is
available (i.e., levels at which mild,
reversible effects are anticipated in the
general population for a single
exposure), we typically use them as
additional comparative measures.
However, neither of these is available
for propyl cellosolve or for ethylene
glycol monomethyl ether. Taking into
account the conservatism included in
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
3316
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
the acute screening-level assessment,
including use of an acute REL for a
highly toxic glycol ether, we would not
expect acute exposures at levels that
would cause adverse effects.
Additional conservatism in the acute
exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review
under section 112 of the CAA includes
several factors. The degree of accuracy
of an acute inhalation exposure
assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of
independent factors that may vary
greatly, such as hourly emissions rates,
meteorology, and the presence of
humans at the location of the maximum
concentration. We also assume that peak
emissions from each emission point in
the source category and worst-case
meteorological conditions co-occur,
thus, resulting in maximum ambient
concentrations. These two events are
unlikely to occur at the same time,
making these assumptions conservative.
We then include the additional
assumption that a person is located at
this point during the same time period.
For this source category, these
assumptions are likely to overestimate
the true worst-case actual exposures as
it is unlikely that a person would be
located at the point of maximum
exposure during the time when peak
emissions and worst-case
meteorological conditions occur
simultaneously. Thus, as discussed in
the document titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category in Support
of the Risk and Technology Review
December 2017 Proposed Rule, in the
docket for this action, by assuming the
co-occurrence of independent factors for
the acute screening assessment, the
results are intentionally biased high and
are, thus, health-protective.
For the Leather Finishing Operations
source category, we considered all of the
health risk information and factors
discussed above, including other
uncertainties associated with the risk
assessment, to ensure that our decisions
are health and environmentally
protective (a discussion of these
uncertainties is available in section III.C
of the preamble to the proposed
amendments (83 FR 11314, March 14,
2018) and in the document titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the
Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review December 2017
Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
action), in proposing that the risks from
the Leather Finishing Operations source
category are acceptable. The risk
analysis for the proposed rule
amendments indicated that the cancer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
risks to the individual most exposed are
below 1-in-1 million from both actual
and allowable emissions. These risks are
considerably less than 100-in-1 million,
which is the presumptive upper limit of
acceptable risk. The risk analysis also
showed no cancer incidence, as well as
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI
value of 0.04, which is significantly
below 1. In addition, the risk assessment
indicated no significant potential for
multipathway health effects.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach and final decisions for the risk
review?
We evaluated all of the comments on
the EPA’s risk review and determined
that no changes to the review are
needed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that the
risks from the Leather Finishing
Operations source category are
acceptable, and the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect. Therefore,
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we
are finalizing our residual risk review as
proposed.
B. Technology Review for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Leather
Finishing Operations source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we
conducted a technology review, which
focused on identifying and evaluating
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies for the
emission sources in the source category.
After conducting the CAA section
112(d)(6) technology review of the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP,
we proposed that revisions to the
standards are not necessary because we
identified no cost-effective
developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies. More information
concerning our technology review is in
the memorandum titled CAA section
112(d)(6) Technology Review for the
Leather Finishing Source Category, in
the docket for this action and in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR
11314–11337, March 14, 2018).
2. How did the technology review
change for the Leather Finishing
Operations source category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018), the technology review has not
changed.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3. What key comments did we receive
on the technology review, and what are
our responses?
No commenters provided input on the
proposed technology review.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the technology review?
For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that no
cost-effective developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies were
identified in our technology review to
warrant revisions to the standards. We
evaluated all of the comments on the
EPA’s technology review and
determined that no changes to the
review are needed. More information
concerning our technology review is in
the memorandum titled CAA section
112(d)(6) Technology Review for the
Leather Finishing Source Category, in
the docket for this action, and in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR
11314–11337, March 14, 2018).
Therefore, pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), we are finalizing our
technology review as proposed.
C. SSM for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category
1. What did we propose for the Leather
Finishing Operations source category?
We proposed amendments to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
to remove and revise provisions related
to SSM that are not consistent with the
requirement that the standards apply at
all times. More information concerning
the elimination of SSM provisions is in
the preamble to the proposed rule (83
FR 11314–11337, March 14, 2018).
2. How did the SSM provisions change
for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category?
We are finalizing the SSM provisions
as proposed with no changes (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018).
3. What key comments did we receive
on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
We received two comments related to
our proposed revisions to the SSM
provisions. One commenter generally
supported the proposed revisions to the
SSM provisions. One commenter
requested that we revise our approach to
handling force majeure events. We
evaluated the comments and
determined that no changes to the
proposed SSM provisions are
warranted. A summary of these
comments and our responses are located
in the memorandum titled Summary of
Public Comments and the EPA’s
Responses for the Proposed Risk and
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Technology Review and Amendments
for the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP, in the docket for this action.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that proposed 40 CFR
63.5420(c)(5) provides an exemption
from reporting due to force majeure
events. The commenter noted that the
Court rejected similar ‘‘affirmative
defense’’ to civil penalties for
malfunctions (NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d
1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). The commenter
also argued that adding such an
exemption would be arbitrary and
unlawful because it would undermine
the reporting requirements by providing
a justification to delay reporting, and,
thus, undermine compliance,
enforcement, and fulfillment of the
emissions standards designed to protect
public health and the environment at
the core of the CAA’s and section 7412’s
purpose (42 U.S.C. 740).
Response: The commenter is incorrect
in referring to 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(5) as
an ‘‘exemption.’’ This provision
provides instructions for actions an
affected source should take if it is
unable to submit an electronic report
(required under 40 CFR 63.5420(c))
‘‘due to a force majeure event that is
about to occur, occurs, or has occurred,
or if there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the
date the submission is due’’ under 40
CFR 63.5420(c). We note that there is no
exception or exemption to reporting,
only a method for requesting an
extension of the reporting deadline. As
specified in 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(5), ‘‘[t]he
decision to accept the claim of force
majeure and allow an extension to the
reporting deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator.’’ There
is no predetermined timeframe for the
length of extension that can be granted,
as this is something best determined by
the Administrator when reviewing the
circumstances surrounding the request.
Different circumstances may require a
different length of extension for
electronic reporting. For example, a
tropical storm may delay electronic
reporting for a day, but a category 5
hurricane event may delay electronic
reporting much longer, especially if the
facility has no power, and, as such, the
owner or operator has no ability to
access electronically stored data or to
submit reports electronically. The
Administrator will be the most
knowledgeable on the events leading to
the request for extension and will assess
whether an extension is appropriate
and, if so, determine a reasonable
length. The Administrator may even
request that the report be sent in
hardcopy until electronic reporting can
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
be resumed. While no new fixed
duration deadline is set, the regulation
does require that the report be
submitted electronically as soon as
possible after the CEDRI outage is
resolved or after the force majeure event
occurs.
We also note that the force majeure
mimics long-standing language in 40
CFR 63.7(a)(4) and 60.8(a)(1) regarding
the time granted for conducting a
performance test and such language has
not undermined compliance or
enforcement.
Moreover, we disagree that the
reporting extension will undermine
enforcement because the Administrator
has full discretion to accept or reject the
claim of a CEDRI system outage or force
majeure. As such, an extension is not
automatic and is agreed to on an
individual basis by the Administrator. If
the Administrator determines that a
facility has not acted in good faith to
reasonably report in a timely manner,
the Administrator can reject the claim
and find that the failure to report timely
is a deviation from the regulation.
CEDRI system outages are infrequent,
but the EPA knows when they occur
and whether a facility’s claim is
legitimate. Force majeure events (e.g.,
natural disasters impacting a facility)
are also usually well-known events.
We also disagree that the ability to
request a reporting extension would
undermine compliance and fulfillment
of the emissions standards. While
reporting is an important mechanism for
the EPA and air agencies to assess
whether owners and operators are in
compliance with emissions standards,
reporting obligations have nothing to do
with whether an owner or operator is
required to be in compliance with an
emissions standard, especially where
the deadline for meeting the standard
has already passed and the owner or
operator has certified that they are in
compliance with the standard.
Additionally, the ability to request a
reporting extension does not apply to a
broad category of circumstances; on the
contrary, the scope for submitting a
reporting extension request is very
limited in that claims can only be made
for events outside of the owner’s or
operator’s control that occur in the 5
business days prior to the reporting
deadline. The claim must then be
approved by the Administrator, and, in
approving such a claim, the
Administrator agrees that something
outside the control of the owner or
operator prevented the owner or
operator from meeting its reporting
obligation. In no circumstance does this
reporting extension allow for the owner
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3317
or operator to be out of compliance with
the emissions standards.
The reporting deadline extension
differs from the affirmative defense to
civil penalties for malfunctions the D.C.
Circuit vacated as beyond EPA’s
authority under the CAA in NRDC v.
EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Unlike the affirmative defense
addressed in NRDC, the reporting
provision does not address penalty
liability for noncompliance with
emission standards, but merely
addresses, under a narrow set of
circumstances outside the control of the
facilities, the deadline for reporting.
Based on our evaluation of the
comments, we have determined that no
changes to our proposed revisions to the
SSM provisions are warranted.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the SSM provisions?
We evaluated all of the comments on
the EPA’s proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that these amendments
remove and revise provisions related to
SSM that are not consistent with the
requirement that the standards apply at
all times. More information concerning
the proposed amendments to the SSM
provisions is in the preamble to the
proposed rule (83 FR 11314–11337,
March 14, 2018). Therefore, we are
finalizing our approach for the SSM
provisions as proposed.
D. Requirements for Submission of
Performance Tests for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category
1. What did we propose for the Leather
Finishing Operations source category?
We proposed amendments to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
to require owners and operators of
leather finishing operations facilities to
submit electronic copies of certain
required performance test reports. More
information concerning these proposed
revisions is in the preamble to the
proposed rule (83 FR 11314–11337,
March 14, 2018).
2. How did the requirements for
submission of performance tests change
for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018), the requirement for owners
and operators of leather finishing
operations facilities to submit electronic
copies of certain required performance
test reports has not changed.
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
3318
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
3. What key comments did we receive
on submission of performance tests, and
what are our responses?
We received one comment providing
input on the proposed requirement for
owners and operators of leather
finishing operations facilities to submit
electronic copies of certain required
performance test reports, and the
commenter generally supported our
amendments. We evaluated the
comment and determined that no
changes to our proposed electronic
reporting requirements are warranted. A
summary of this comment and our
response are located in the
memorandum titled Summary of Public
Comments and the EPA’s Responses for
the Proposed Risk and Technology
Review and Amendments for the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP,
in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach on requirements for
submission of performance tests?
We evaluated the comment on the
EPA’s proposed amendments requiring
owners and operators of leather
finishing operations facilities to submit
electronic copies of certain required
performance test reports. In light of this
evaluation and for the reasons explained
in the proposed rule, we determined
that these amendments would increase
the ease and efficiency of data submittal
and data accessibility. Further, the EPA
estimates that while no existing leather
finishing operation subject to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
uses a control device to comply with the
NESHAP, the rule allows for a source to
use a control device to comply, and
these electronic reporting provisions are
necessary. As such, no existing leather
finishing operation is required to
conduct performance tests, submit test
reports, or submit electronic copies of
test reports. More information
concerning the proposed requirement
for owners and operators of leather
finishing operations facilities to submit
electronic copies of certain required
performance test reports is in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR
11314–11337). Therefore, we are
finalizing our approach on requirements
for submission of performance tests as
proposed.
E. Technical Revisions and Corrections
for the Leather Finishing Operations
Source Category
1. What did we propose for the Leather
Finishing Operations source category?
We proposed amendments to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
to clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
and reporting requirements for control
devices and the provisions for
alternative schedules, and to correct the
title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTTT. More information
concerning these proposed revisions is
in the preamble to the proposed rule (83
FR 11314–11337).
2. How did the technical revisions and
corrections change for the Leather
Finishing Operations source category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018), the technical revisions and
corrections have not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the technical revisions and
corrections, and what are our responses?
No commenters provided input on the
proposed technical revisions and
corrections to clarify the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for control devices and the
provisions for alternative schedules, and
to correct the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TTTT.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the technical revisions and
corrections?
For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that these
amendments clarify the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for control devices and the
provisions for alternative schedules.
More information concerning the
proposed technical revisions and
correction is in the preamble to the
proposed rule (83 FR 11314–11337).
Therefore, we are finalizing our
technical revisions and corrections as
proposed.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
There are currently four existing
leather finishing operations facilities
that were identified as subject to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP:
S.B. Foot Tanning Company of Red
Wing, Minnesota; Alliance Leather, Inc.
of Peabody, Massachusetts; Pearl
Leather Finishers, Inc. of Johnstown,
New York; and Tasman Leather Group,
LLC of Hartland, Maine.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The EPA estimates that annual
organic HAP emissions from the four
leather finishing operations facilities
subject to the rule are approximately
22.5 tpy. This final rule does not require
compliance with more stringent
emission limits or require additional
controls; therefore, no air quality
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
impacts are expected as a result of the
amendments.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The four leather finishing operations
facilities subject to these final
amendments will incur costs to review
the final amendments. Nationwide
annual costs associated with the final
amendments are estimated to be a total
of $832 for the initial year only. We
believe that the four leather finishing
operations facilities that are known to
be subject to final amendments can
comply without incurring additional
capital or operational costs. Therefore,
the only costs associated with these
final amendments are related to
reviewing the rule. For further
information on the final amendments,
see section IV of the proposal preamble
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018). For
further information on the costs
associated with the final amendments,
see the supporting statement for the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
(EPA Information Collection Request
(ICR) Number 1985.09, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control
Number 2060–0478), the memorandum
titled Costs for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category Risk and
Technology Review—Final
Amendments, and the memorandum
titled CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology
Review for the Leather Finishing Source
Category, in the docket for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The total national cost to comply with
these final amendments is estimated to
be $832 in 2016 dollars, which is a onetime cost that will be incurred in the
first year following promulgation of
these final amendments. There are no
additional emission control costs or
additional emission reductions
associated with this rule. The estimated
cost of $832 consists of equal costs
incurred by each of the four affected
facilities, with each facility estimated to
incur one-time labor costs of
approximately $208 in order to become
familiar with the rule. These costs are
not expected to result in business
closures, significant price increases, or
substantial profit loss. No impacts on
employment are expected given the
minimal economic impact of the action
on the affected firms. For further
information on the economic impacts
associated with these final amendments,
see the memorandum titled Final
Economic Impact Analysis for the
Reconsideration of the Risk and
Technology Review: Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category, in the
docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
E. What are the benefits?
Although the amendments in this
final rule will not result in reductions
in emissions of HAP, this final rule will
improve implementation of the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP by
clarifying the rule requirements as
discussed in sections IV.D.1 and IV.D.3
of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314,
March 14, 2018). Also, adding electronic
reporting of test reports for any control
devices used in the future to comply
with these final amendments will
provide the benefits discussed in
section IV.D.2 of the proposal preamble
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018),
including assisting state and local
agencies that elect to use ERT to track
compliance of the rule.
F. What analysis of environmental
justice did we conduct?
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low
income populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is
contained in section IV.A of this
preamble and the technical report titled
Risk and Technology Review—Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Leather Finishing
Operations, in the docket for this action.
As discussed in section IV.A of this
preamble, we performed a demographic
analysis, which is an assessment of risks
to individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 50 km and
within 5 km of the facilities. In this
analysis, we evaluated the distribution
of HAP-related cancer risks and
noncancer hazards from the leather
finishing operations across different
social, demographic, and economic
groups within the populations living
near operations identified as having the
highest risks.
The analysis indicates that the
minority population living within 50
km (4,632,781 people, of which 25
percent are minority) and within 5 km
(158,482 people, of which 13 percent
are minority) of the four leather
finishing operations facilities is less
than the minority population found
nationwide (38 percent). The proximity
results indicate that the population
percentage for the ‘‘Other and
Multiracial’’ demographic group within
50 km of leather finishing operations
emissions is slightly greater than the
corresponding nationwide percentage
for that same demographic. The
percentage of people ages 65 and older
residing within 5 km of leather finishing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
operations (18 percent) is 4 percentage
points higher than the corresponding
nationwide percentage (14 percent). The
other demographic groups included in
the assessment within 5 km of leather
finishing operations emissions were the
same or lower than the corresponding
nationwide percentages.
When examining the cancer risk
levels of those exposed to emissions
from the four leather finishing
operations, we find that there are no
people within a 50-km radius of
modeled facilities exposed to a cancer
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million as a result of emissions from
leather finishing operations. There are
no known cancer risks posed by HAP
emissions from the four facilities,
because the HAP emitted have no
known cancer risks. When examining
the noncancer risk levels, we find that
there are no people within a 50-km
radius of modeled facilities exposed to
a noncancer risk (in this analysis,
reproductive HI) greater than 1 as a
result of emissions from leather
finishing operations.
The EPA has determined that this
action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations,
and/or indigenous peoples because the
health risks based on actual emissions
are low (below 2-in-1 million), the
population exposed to risks greater than
1-in-1 million is relatively small (750
persons), and the rule maintains or
increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any
population, including any minority,
low-income, or indigenous populations.
Further, the EPA believes that
implementation of this rule will provide
an ample margin of safety to protect
public health of all demographic groups.
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action’s health and risk
assessments are contained in sections III
and IV of the proposal preamble (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018) and further
documented in the report titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the
Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category in Support of the December
2017 Risk and Technology Review
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3319
Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this
action is not significant under Executive
Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in this rule have been submitted for
approval to OMB under the PRA. The
ICR document that the EPA prepared
has been assigned EPA ICR number
1985.09. You can find a copy of the ICR
in the docket for this action (Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0194), and it
is briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are
not enforceable until OMB approves
them.
The information requirements are
based on notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements in the
NESHAP General Provisions, which are
essential in determining compliance
and mandatory for all operators subject
to national emissions standards. These
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized
by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414).
All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to Agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.
We are finalizing changes to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
paperwork requirements in the form of
requiring review of the final rule in the
initial year. We are finalizing no new
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category.
Respondents/affected entities:
Respondents include leather finishing
operations.
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
3320
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (authorized by section 114 of
the CAA).
Estimated number of respondents:
Four leather finishing operations.
Frequency of response: Initially.
Total estimated burden: 9 hours (per
year) for the responding facilities and 0
hours (per year) for the Agency.
Total estimated cost: $832 (per year).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. In making this
determination, the impact of concern is
any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities. An agency may
certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, has
no net burden or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The Agency
has determined that of the four entities
subject to this action, three are small
businesses. The Agency has determined
that each of the three small entities
impacted by this action may experience
an impact of less than 0.01 percent of
sales. Details of this analysis are
presented in the memorandum titled
Final Economic Impact Analysis for the
Reconsideration of the Risk and
Technology Review: Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category, in the
docket for this action. We have,
therefore, concluded that this action
will have no net regulatory burden for
all directly regulated small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
Order 13175. No tribal facilities are
known to be engaged in the leather
finishing operations industry that would
be affected by this action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action’s health and risk
assessments are contained in sections III
and IV of the proposal preamble (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018) and further
documented in the report titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the
Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category in Support of the December
2017 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action involves technical
standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Leather
Finishing Operations Sector RTR
through the Enhanced National
Standards Systems Network Database
managed by the American National
Standards Institute. We also contacted
voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
organizations and accessed and
searched their databases. We conducted
searches for EPA Methods 24 and 311
and identified six VCS as potentially
acceptable alternatives for the purpose
of this rule. Refer to section VIII.J of the
proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018) for a list of these methods. As
proposed, we are not including these
VCS in the final rule as alternative test
methods because the methods are either
impractical as an alternative to EPA
Methods 24 and 311, do not address the
parameter required to be measured, or
have expired. Further, no alternative
test methods were brought to our
attention in public comments on the
March 14, 2018, proposal. A brief
summary of these results is provided in
section VIII.J of the March 14, 2018,
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
proposal preamble. A thorough
summary of the search conducted, and
results are included in the
memorandum titled Voluntary
Consensus Standard Results for
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Leather
Finishing Operations, in the docket for
this action.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low
income populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision
is contained in section V.F of this
preamble and the technical report titled
Risk and Technology Review—Analysis
of Socio-Economic Factors for
Populations Living Near Leather
Finishing Operations, in the public
docket for this action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 21, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TTTT—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Leather Finishing Operations
2. Section 63.5320 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
§ 63.5320 How does my affected major
source comply with the HAP emission
standards?
§ 63.5380
tests?
(a) All affected sources must be in
compliance with the requirements of
this subpart at all times.
(b) At all times, the owner or operator
must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air
pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner
consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require
the owner or operator to make any
further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable
standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is
operating in compliance with operation
and maintenance requirements will be
based on information available to the
Administrator that may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results,
review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and
maintenance records, and inspection of
the affected source.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 63.5360 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to read
as follows:
§ 63.5360 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission
standards?
(a) * * *
(2) If you use an emission control
device, you must comply with
§ 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS of this part)
and collect the monitoring data as
specified therein.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) You must report each instance in
which you did not meet the emission
standards in § 63.5305. These deviations
must be reported according to the
requirements in § 63.5420(b).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 63.5375 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 63.5375 When must I conduct a
performance test or initial compliance
demonstration?
You must conduct performance tests
after the installation of any emission
control device that reduces HAP
emissions and will be used to comply
with the HAP emission requirements of
this subpart. You must complete your
performance tests not later than 60
calendar days before the end of the 12month period used in the initial
compliance determination.
■ 5. Section 63.5380 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
How do I conduct performance
(a) Each performance test must be
conducted according to the
requirements in § 63.7(e)(2) through (4)
and the procedures of § 63.997(e)(1) and
(2).
(b) Performance tests shall be
conducted under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies to the owner or
operator based on representative
performance of the affected source for
the period being tested. Representative
conditions exclude periods of startup
and shutdown. The owner or operator
may not conduct performance tests
during periods of malfunction. The
owner or operator must record the
process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation.
Upon request, the owner or operator
shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 63.5420 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) introductory text
and (b)(3) and (4) and adding
paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) and (c) to read
as follows:
§ 63.5420
when?
What reports must I submit and
*
*
*
*
*
(b) You must submit a Deviation
Notification Report for each compliance
determination you make in which the
compliance ratio exceeds 1.00, as
determined under § 63.5330. Submit the
deviation report by the fifteenth of the
following month in which you
determined the deviation from the
compliance ratio. The Deviation
Notification Report must include the
items in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of
this section:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) The 12-month period covered by
the report and each type of leather
product process operation performed
during the 12-month period.
(4) The compliance ratio comprising
the deviation. You may reduce the
frequency of submittal of the Deviation
Notification Report if the Administrator
of these NESHAP approves an
alternative schedule.
(5) An estimate of the quantity of HAP
(in pounds) emitted during the 12
months specified in paragraph (b)(3) of
this section in excess of the allowable
HAP loss. Calculate this estimate of
excess emissions by subtracting the
allowable HAP loss determined as
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3321
specified in § 63.5340 from the actual
HAP loss determined as specified in
§ 63.5335.
(6) The cause of the events that
resulted in the source failing to meet an
applicable standard (including
unknown cause, if applicable).
(c) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test (as
defined in § 63.2) required by this
subpart, you must submit the results of
the performance test following the
procedures specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test
methods supported by the EPA’s
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as
listed on the EPA’s ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/
electronicreporting-air-emissions/
electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time
of the test, you must submit the results
of the performance test to the EPA via
the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI
Interface can be accessed through the
EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test
data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of the EPA’s
ERT or an alternate electronic file
format consistent with the extensible
markup language (XML) schema listed
on the EPA’s ERT website.
(2) For data collected using test
methods that are not supported by the
EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT
website at the time of the test, you must
submit the results of the performance
test to the Administrator at the
appropriate address listed in § 63.13
unless the Administrator agrees to or
specifies an alternate reporting method.
(3) If you claim that some of the
performance test information being
submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section is confidential business
information (CBI), you must submit a
complete file generated through the use
of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT
website, including information claimed
to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive
or other commonly used electronic
storage medium to the EPA. The
electronic medium must be clearly
marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention:
Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd.,
Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or
alternate file with the CBI omitted must
be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s
CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section.
(4) If you are required to
electronically submit a report through
the CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, and due
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
3322
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
to a planned or actual outage of either
the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems within
the period of time beginning 5 business
days prior to the date that the
submission is due, you will be or are
precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX
and submitting a required report within
the time prescribed, you may assert a
claim of EPA system outage for failure
to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. You must submit
notification to the Administrator in
writing as soon as possible following the
date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the
event may cause or caused a delay in
reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description
identifying the date, time and length of
the outage; a rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the EPA system outage;
describe the measures taken or to be
taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and identify a date by which
you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date you
reported. In any circumstance, the
report must be submitted electronically
as soon as possible after the outage is
resolved. The decision to accept the
claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the
Administrator.
(5) If you are required to
electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX and a force
majeure event is about to occur, occurs,
or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the
period of time beginning 5 business
days prior to the date the submission is
due, the owner or operator may assert a
claim of force majeure for failure to
timely comply with the reporting
requirement. For the purposes of this
section, a force majeure event is defined
as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the
control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by
the affected facility that prevents you
from complying with the requirement to
submit a report electronically within the
time period prescribed. Examples of
such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts
of war or terrorism, or equipment failure
or safety hazard beyond the control of
the affected facility (e.g., large scale
power outage). If you intend to assert a
claim of force majeure, you must submit
notification to the Administrator in
writing as soon as possible following the
date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the
event may cause or caused a delay in
reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of
the force majeure event and a rationale
for attributing the delay in reporting
beyond the regulatory deadline to the
force majeure event; describe the
measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay in reporting; and
identify a date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the reporting must
occur as soon as possible after the force
majeure event occurs. The decision to
accept the claim of force majeure and
allow an extension to the reporting
deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
■ 7. Section 63.5430 is amended by
revising the introductory text and
paragraph (g) and adding paragraphs (h)
and (i) to read as follows:
§ 63.5430
What records must I keep?
You must satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements in paragraphs (a) through
(i) of this section by the compliance date
specified in § 63.5295.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) If you use an emission control
device, you must keep records of
monitoring data as specified at
§ 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS of this part).
(h) In the event that the compliance
ratio exceeded 1.00, as determined
under § 63.5330, keep a record of the
information specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (5) of this section for each
exceedance.
(1) The 12-month period in which the
exceedance occurred, as reported in
§ 63.5420(b).
(2) Each type of leather product
process operation performed during the
12-month period in which the
exceedance occurred, as reported in
§ 63.5420(b).
(3) Estimate of the quantity of HAP (in
pounds) emitted during the 12 months
specified in § 63.5420(b)(3) in excess of
the allowable HAP loss, as reported in
§ 63.5420(b).
(4) Cause of the events that resulted
in the source failing to meet an
applicable standard (including
unknown cause, if applicable), as
reported in § 63.5420(b).
(5) Actions taken to minimize
emissions in accordance with
§ 63.5320(b), and any corrective actions
taken to return the affected unit to its
normal or usual manner of operation.
(i) Any records required to be
maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA’s
CEDRI may be maintained in electronic
format. This ability to maintain
electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make
records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency
or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
8. Section 63.5460 is amended by
revising the definition for ‘‘Deviation’’
to read as follows:
■
§ 63.5460
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
*
*
*
*
*
Deviation means any instance in
which an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such
a source fails to meet any requirement
or obligation established by this subpart,
including, but not limited to, any
emission limits or work practice
standards.
*
*
*
*
*
9. Table 2 to subpart TTTT of part 63
is revised to read as follows:
As required in § 63.5450, you must
meet the appropriate NESHAP General
Provision requirements in the following
table:
■
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART TTTT OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART TTTT
General provisions citation
Subject of citation
Brief description of requirement
§ 63.1 ........................................
Applicability ...............................
§ 63.2 ........................................
Definitions .................................
§ 63.3 ........................................
Units and abbreviations ............
Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications..
Definitions for Part 63 standards.
Units and abbreviations for Part
63 standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Applies to
subpart
Explanation
Yes.
Yes .............
Except as specifically provided in this subpart.
Yes.
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
3323
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART TTTT OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART TTTT—Continued
Applies to
subpart
General provisions citation
Subject of citation
Brief description of requirement
§ 63.4 ........................................
Prohibited activities and circumvention.
Yes.
§ 63.5 ........................................
Construction/reconstruction ......
Prohibited activities; compliance
date; circumvention, severability.
Applicability; applications; approvals.
Yes .............
Except for paragraphs of § 63.5 as listed below.
§ 63.5(c) ....................................
§ 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) .......................
[Reserved] .................................
Application for approval ............
Type and quantity of HAP, operating parameters..
No ...............
All sources emit HAP. Subpart TTTT does not
require control from specific emission points.
§ 63.5(d)(1)(i) ............................
§ 63.5(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2), (d)(3)(ii)
[Reserved].
Application for approval ............
No ..............
§ 63.6 ........................................
Applicability of general provisions.
Compliance dates, new and reconstructed sources.
[Reserved].
[Reserved].
[Reserved].
Operation and maintenance requirements.
[Reserved].
Operation and maintenance requirements.
Compliance with nonopacity
emission standards except
during SSM.
Opacity/visible emission (VE)
standards.
Compliance extension ..............
Applicability of general provisions.
Yes .............
The requirements of the application for approval for new and reconstructed sources are
described in § 63.5320(b). General provision
requirements for identification of HAP emission points or estimates of actual emissions
are not required. Descriptions of control and
methods, and the estimated and actual control efficiency of such do not apply. Requirements for describing control equipment and
the estimated and actual control efficiency of
such equipment apply only to control equipment to which the subpart TTTT requirements for quantifying solvent destroyed by an
add-on control device would be applicable.
Except for paragraphs of § 63.6 as listed below.
§ 63.6(b)(1)–(3) .........................
§ 63.6(b)(6) ................................
§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) .........................
§ 63.6(d) ....................................
§ 63.6(e)(1) ................................
§ 63.6(e)(2) ................................
§ 63.6(e)(3) ................................
§ 63.6(f)–(g) ...............................
§ 63.6(h) ....................................
§ 63.6(i) .....................................
No ...............
...................................................
No ..............
See § 63.5320(b) for general duty requirement.
Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan requirements.
Comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM.
...................................................
No ..............
Subpart TTTT does not have any startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan requirements.
Subpart TTTT does not have nonopacity requirements.
Procedures and criteria for responsible agency to grant
compliance extension.
President may exempt source
category from requirement to
comply with subpart.
Schedule, conditions, notifications and procedures.
Yes.
No ...............
No ..............
Presidential compliance exemption.
§ 63.7 ........................................
Performance
ments.
testing
require-
§ 63.7(a)(2) (i) and (iii) ..............
Performance
ments.
testing
require-
Applicability and performance
dates.
No ...............
§ 63.7(e)(1) ................................
Conduct of performance tests ..
No ...............
§ 63.8 ........................................
Monitoring requirements ...........
§ 63.9 ........................................
Notification requirements ..........
§ 63.9(e) ....................................
Notification of performance test
§ 63.9(f) .....................................
Notification of VE/opacity observations.
Defines representative conditions; provides an exemption
from the standards for periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction; requires that,
upon request, the owner or
operator shall make available
to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary
to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
Applicability, conduct of monitoring, operation and maintenance, quality control, performance evaluations, use of
alternative monitoring method, reduction of monitoring
data.
Applicability and State delegation.
Notify responsible agency 60
days ahead.
Notify responsible agency 30
days ahead.
19:18 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Section § 63.5283 specifies the compliance
dates for new and reconstructed sources.
....................
§ 63.6(j) .....................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Explanation
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Subpart TTTT has no opacity or visual emission standards.
Yes.
Yes .............
Except for paragraphs of § 63.7 as listed below.
Subpart TTTT requires performance testing
only if the source applies additional control
that destroys solvent. § 63.5311 requires
sources to follow the performance testing
guidelines of the General Provisions if a control is added.
§ 63.5310(a) of subpart TTTT specifies the requirements of performance testing dates for
new and existing sources.
See § 63.5380.
No ..............
See § 63.5360(a)(2) for monitoring requirements.
Yes .............
Except for paragraphs of § 63.9 as listed below.
Yes .............
Applies only if performance testing is performed.
Subpart TTTT has no opacity or visual emission standards.
No ...............
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
3324
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART TTTT OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART TTTT—Continued
General provisions citation
Subject of citation
Applies to
subpart
Notification of performance
evaluation; notification using
COMS data; notification that
exceeded criterion for relative
accuracy.
Contents ....................................
No ...............
See § 63.5360(a)(2) for CMS requirements.
No ..............
Yes .............
§ 63.5320(d) specifies requirements for the notification of compliance status.
Except for paragraphs of § 63.10 as listed
below.
See § 63.5360 for CMS recordkeeping requirements, except see § 63.5430(h) for CMS recordkeeping requirements if there is a deviation from the standard.
See § 63.5360(a)(2) for CMS recordkeeping requirements.
Applies only if performance testing is performed.
Subpart TTTT has no opacity or visible emission standards.
Applies if a condition of compliance extension.
See § 63.5420(b) for reporting requirements if
there is a deviation from the standard.
See § 63.5360(a)(2) for monitoring requirements.
Applies only if your source uses a flare to control solvent emissions. Subpart TTTT does
not require flares.
§ 63.9(g) ....................................
Additional notifications
using a continuous
toring system (CMS).
§ 63.9(h) ....................................
§ 63.10 ......................................
Notification of compliance status.
Recordkeeping/reporting ...........
§ 63.10(b)(2) ..............................
Recordkeeping ..........................
Schedule for reporting, record
storage.
CMS
recordkeeping;
CMS
records of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction events.
§ 63.10(c) ..................................
Recordkeeping ..........................
Additional CMS recordkeeping
No ..............
§ 63.10(d)(2) ..............................
Reporting ..................................
Yes .............
§ 63.10(d)(3) ..............................
Reporting ..................................
§ 63.10(d)(4) ..............................
§ 63.10(d)(5) ..............................
Reporting ..................................
Reporting ..................................
§ 63.10(e) ..................................
Reporting ..................................
Reporting performance test results.
Reporting opacity or VE observations.
Progress reports .......................
Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reporting.
Additional CMS reports .............
§ 63.11 ......................................
Control device requirements .....
Requirements for flares ............
Yes .............
§ 63.12 ......................................
State authority and delegations
Yes.
§ 63.13 ......................................
State/regional addresses ..........
§ 63.14 ......................................
Incorporation by reference ........
§ 63.15 ......................................
Availability of information and
confidentiality.
State authority to enforce
standards.
Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are
sent.
Test methods incorporated by
reference.
Public and confidential information.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122, 124 and 125
[EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0145; FRL9988–87–
OW]
RIN 2040–AF25
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES):
Applications and Program Updates
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
19:18 Feb 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
No ...............
Yes .............
No ..............
No ...............
Yes.
Yes.
This final rule is effective on
June 12, 2019.
The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0145. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
Yes.
DATES:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing certain
revisions to the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
permitting regulations proposed on May
18, 2016. The final regulatory changes
are minor and will improve and clarify
the regulations in the following major
categories: Regulatory definitions (‘‘new
discharger’’ and two definitions related
to the discharge of pesticides from
pesticides application); permit
applications; and public notice. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014
No ...............
final rule also updates the EPA contact
information and web addresses for
electronic databases, updates outdated
references to best management practices
guidance documents, and deletes a
provision relating to best practicable
waste treatment technology for publicly
owned treatment works that is no longer
applicable. The final revisions
modernize the NPDES regulations,
promote submission of complete permit
applications, and clarify regulatory
requirements to allow more timely
development of NPDES permits that
protect human health and the
environment.
[FR Doc. 2019–01317 Filed 2–11–19; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY:
when
moni-
Brief description of requirement
available electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank Sylvester, Water Permits Division,
Office of Wastewater Management, Mail
Code 4203M, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564–1279; email address:
sylvester.francis@epa.gov; or Janita
Aguirre, Water Permits Division, Office
of Wastewater Management, Mail Code
4203M, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 566–1149; email address:
aguirre.janita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What action is the Agency taking and
why?
C. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
D. What are the incremental costs and
benefits of this action?
E. How was the final rule developed?
II. Rule Revisions Finalized in This Action
A. Revisions to Part 122
B. Revisions to Part 124
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3308-3324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01317]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194; FRL-9988-83-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT70
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather
Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Leather Finishing Operations source category
regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), electronic reporting, and
clarification of rule provisions. These final amendments address
emissions during periods of SSM, add electronic reporting, and revise
certain rule requirements and provisions. Although these amendments
will not reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), they are
expected to improve compliance and implementation of the rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 12, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194. All
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number
for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources Group, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5032; fax
number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: schrock.bill@epa.gov. For
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact
Matthew Woody, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-
[[Page 3309]]
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-1535; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email
address: woody.matthew@epa.gov. For information about the applicability
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact John Cox, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and
email address: cox.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not
be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CRA Congressional Review Act
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
REL recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Background information. On March 14, 2018 (83 FR 11314), the EPA
proposed revisions to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP based on
our RTR. On May 15, 2018 (83 FR 22438), the EPA re-opened the comment
period on the proposed rule that closed on April 30, 2018, extending
the comment period to June 14, 2018. In this action, we are finalizing
decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and
provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public
comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is
available in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and the
EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology Review and
Amendments for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory
language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in
the docket.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the Leather Finishing Operations source category and
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the Leather Finishing
Operations source category in our March 14, 2018, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Leather Finishing Operations
Source Category
B. Technology Review for the Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category
C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category
D. Requirements for Submission of Performance Tests for the
Leather Finishing Operations Source Category
E. Technical Revisions and Corrections for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS \1\
NESHAP and source category code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leather finishing operations................................. 3161
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the
[[Page 3310]]
internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will
post a copy of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/leather-finishing-operations-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication in the Federal Register, the
EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents
at this same website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by April 15, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited
to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture,
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards; or any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an 'ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the Leather Finishing Operations source category and how
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP on
February 27, 2002 (67 FR 9156). The standards are codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TTTT. The leather finishing industry consists of
facilities that adjust and improve the physical and aesthetic
characteristics of the leather surface through the multistage
application of a coating comprised of dyes, pigments, film-forming
materials, and performance modifiers dissolved or suspended in liquid
carriers. The Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP does not apply to
equipment used solely for leather tanning operations or to portions of
leather finishing operations using a solvent degreasing process subject
to the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.5290(c)). The
source category covered by this MACT
[[Page 3311]]
standard currently includes four facilities.
Leather finishing is considered a dry operation as opposed to the
``wet-end'' operations associated with leather tanning. As further
discussed in section II.B of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018), leather finishing operations can be co-located with wet-end
tannery operations or performed in stand-alone facilities; however,
equipment used solely for leather tanning (or retanning) operations is
not subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP. In the dry-end
leather finishing operations, coatings are typically applied to the
leather substrate using spray, roll, and flow coating techniques. The
emission source types subject to the emission limits under the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP include, but are not limited to, coating
and spraying equipment, coating storage and mixing, and dryers. Refer
to section II.B of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018)
for discussion of emissions from these and additional emission source
types, including the HAP emitted.
The MACT standards address emissions from four types of leather
product process operations: (1) Upholstery leather with greater than or
equal to 4 grams of add-on finish per square foot of leather, (2)
upholstery leather with less than 4 grams of add-on finish per square
foot of leather, (3) water-resistant leather, and (4) non-water-
resistant leather. The standards limit emissions from new and existing
leather finishing operations and are expressed in terms of total HAP
emissions per 1,000 square feet of leather processed over a rolling 12-
month compliance period. Sources must record the mass of HAP in
coatings applied to the leather either through an inventory mass
balance or ``measure-as-applied'' approach. Using the mass balance
approach, sources may choose to account for disposal of excess finish
instead of assuming any excess finish is also emitted. Emissions are
calculated based on the assumption that the entire HAP content of the
applied finish is released to the environment. Sources using an add-on
control device may account for the emission reduction achieved from the
control device as measured by a performance test conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP. We are not finalizing any revisions to the numerical emission
limits nor to the methods for determining compliance with these limits.
C. What changes did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category in our March 14, 2018, proposal?
On March 14, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTTT, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the
proposed rule, we proposed amendments to the SSM provisions of the MACT
rule, a new requirement to electronically report performance test data,
and clarifications to certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for control devices and the provisions for alternative
schedules, as well as a correction to the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TTTT. We proposed no revisions to the numerical
emission limits based on our technology review and risk analyses.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category. This action also finalizes other changes to the
NESHAP, including amendments to the SSM provisions, addition of
electronic reporting of performance test data, and clarifications to
certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
control devices and the provisions for alternative schedules, as well
as a correction to the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
TTTT.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
Leather Finishing Operations source category?
We found risk due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from
this source category and determined that the current NESHAP provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents an adverse
environmental effect. Therefore, we did not propose and are not
finalizing any revisions to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
based on our analyses conducted under CAA section 112(f).
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM. In
its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008),
the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section
112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of
the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. As detailed in
section IV.C of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018),
the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP requires that the standards
apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.5320(a)), consistent with the Court
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). The EPA
took into account startup and shutdown periods in the 2002 rulemaking
by applying a standard based on total coating used and HAP content and
requiring a mass balance compliance method that was applicable for all
operations, even periods of startup and shutdown. As a result, the EPA
is not finalizing any changes to the current requirement that all
standards apply during those periods. Refer to section IV.C of the
March 14, 2018, proposal preamble for further discussion of the EPA's
rationale for this decision.
Further, the EPA is not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As
discussed in section IV.C of the March 14, 2018, proposal preamble, the
EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA
section 112 standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set
standards for malfunctions where feasible. For the Leather Finishing
Operations source category, it is unlikely that a malfunction would
result in a violation of the standards, and no comments were submitted
that would suggest otherwise. There are no instances where pollution
control equipment could malfunction because none of the four facilities
subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP use pollution
control equipment. Further, the standards are expressed as a yearly
rolling average, and compliance is primarily dependent on the coating's
[[Page 3312]]
HAP composition. Therefore, a malfunction of process equipment is not
likely to result in a violation of the standards, and we have no
information to suggest that it is feasible or necessary to establish
standards for any type of malfunction associated with leather finishing
operations. Refer to section IV.C of the March 14, 2018, proposal
preamble for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the decision
not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the
actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source fails
to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result
of a malfunction event, given that administrative and judicial
procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize
that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can
accommodate those situations.
As is explained in more detail below, we are finalizing two
proposed revisions to the General Provisions table to 40 CRF part 63,
subpart TTTT, to eliminate two General Provisions that include rule
language providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, we
are finalizing our proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that
treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as periods of
malfunction, as explained further below. Finally, we are finalizing our
proposal to revise the Deviation Notification Report and related
records as they relate to malfunctions, as further described below. As
discussed in section IV.C of the March 14, 2018, proposal preamble,
these revisions are consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR
63.5320(a) that the standards apply at all times. Refer to sections
III.C.1 through 5 of this preamble for a detailed discussion of these
amendments.
1. 40 CFR 63.5320(b) General Duty
We are finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions
table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT (Table 2), entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e) by combining all of paragraph (e) into one row and changing the
``yes'' in column four to ``no.'' We are replacing reference to 40 CFR
63.6(e) with new general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5320(b) that
reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the
reference in 40 CFR 63.6(e) to periods covered by an SSM exemption.
Refer to section IV.D.1.a of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018) for further discussion of this revision.
2. 40 CFR 63.5360(b) Compliance With Standards
We are finalizing as proposed removal of the sentence, ``This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.'' in 40 CFR
63.5360(b), which refers to the requirement to report each instance in
which a source did not meet the standard. Refer to section IV.D.1.b of
the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further
discussion of this revision.
3. 40 CFR 63.5380 Performance Testing
We are finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions
table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT (Table 2), entry for 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) by adding a separate row for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and
specifying ``no'' in column four. We are replacing reference to 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) with a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.5380(b).
Refer to section IV.D.1.c of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March
14, 2018) for further discussion of these revisions.
4. 40 CFR 63.5430 Recordkeeping
We are finalizing as proposed revision of the Deviation
Notification Report to include two new reporting elements: (1) An
estimate of the quantity of HAP emitted during the 12-month period of
the report in excess of the standard, and (2) the cause of the events
that resulted in the deviation from the standard (including unknown
cause, if applicable). We are finalizing the proposed requirement that
any source submitting a Deviation Notification Report also keep a
record of this information, as well as a record of the actions taken to
minimize emissions, and we are finalizing revision of 40 CFR
63.5420(b)(3) to clarify records already required. Finally, we are
finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions table to 40
CFR part 63, subpart TTTT (table 2), entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) to
clarify the recordkeeping requirements for facilities that deviate from
the standards as a result of a malfunction. Refer to section IV.D.1.d
of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further
discussion of these revisions.
5. 40 CFR 63.5420 Reporting
We are finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions
table to subpart TTTT (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) to clarify
the reporting requirements for facilities that deviate from the
standards as a result of a malfunction. We are finalizing as proposed
revision of 40 CFR 63.5420(b)(3) to clarify that the Deviation
Notification Report should include an indication of the 12-month period
of the report. We are also finalizing as proposed two new reporting
elements to include in the Deviation Notification Report: (1) the cause
of the events that resulted in the source failing to meet the standard
as determined under 40 CFR 63.5330 (i.e., the compliance ratio exceeds
1.00) during the 12-month period (including unknown cause, if
applicable) and (2) an estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds)
emitted during the 12-month period of the report in excess of the
standard, calculated by subtracting the ``Allowable HAP Loss'' from the
``Actual HAP Loss.'' Refer to section IV.D.1.e of the proposal preamble
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further discussion of these
revisions.
6. 40 CFR 63.5460 Definitions
We are finalizing as proposed revision of the definition of
``Deviation'' to read ``Deviation means any instance in which an
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of
such a source, fails to meet any requirement or obligation established
by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limits or
work practice standards.'' This revision removes language that
differentiated between normal operations, startup, and shutdown, and
malfunction events. Refer to section IV.D.1.f of the proposal preamble
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further discussion of this revision.
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
We are finalizing as proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP to clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for control devices and the provisions for
alternative schedules and to correct the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TTTT. Refer to section IV.D.3 of the proposal preamble
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for a detailed description of these
amendments.
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on February 12, 2019. The compliance date for
existing leather finishing operations is February 12, 2019. New sources
must comply with all of the standards immediately upon the effective
date of the standard, February 12, 2019, or upon startup, whichever is
later. The tasks necessary for existing facilities to comply with these
proposed amendments related to SSM periods will require no time or
resources. No facilities will be subject to
[[Page 3313]]
the requirement to submit reports electronically (see below).
Therefore, existing facilities will be able to comply with these
proposed amendments related to SSM periods and the use of the
electronic reporting software discussed in section III.F of this
preamble as soon as the final rule is effective, which will be the date
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
As we proposed, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the
EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners and operators of leather
finishing operations facilities to submit electronic copies of certain
required performance test reports.
Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an
electronic performance test report tool called the Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT). The ERT will generate an electronic report package, which
will be submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX). A description of the ERT and instructions for using ERT can be
found at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/. CEDRI can be
accessed through the CDX website (https://www.epa.gov/cdx).
The EPA estimates that no existing leather finishing operation
subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP uses a control
device to comply with the NESHAP. As such, no existing leather
finishing operation will conduct performance tests or submit electronic
copies of test reports.
The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT website. The EPA believes,
through this approach, industry will save time in the performance test
submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking benefits industry by
reducing recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are
submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept in
hard copy.
State, local, and tribal agencies may benefit from more streamlined
and accurate review of performance test data that will become available
to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data publicly available
enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough
discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct
computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided
software, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018).
In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development, and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies, and the
EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of
emission inventories and air quality regulations.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the document titled
Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Responses for the Proposed
Risk and Technology Review and Amendments for the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP, in the docket for this action.
A. Residual Risk Review for the Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Leather
Finishing Operations source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk review
and presented the results for the review, along with our proposed
decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in
the March 14, 2018, proposed rule for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category (83 FR 11314). The results of the risk assessment are
presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble and in more detail in the
residual risk document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the December 2017
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
action.
Table 2--Leather Finishing Operations Inhalation Risk Assessment Results in the March 2018 Proposal
[83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population Estimated Annual Maximum chronic Maximum screening
cancer risk (in 1 at increased risk of cancer incidence noncancer TOSHI \3\ acute noncancer
million) \2\ cancer >=1-in-1 (cases per year) ------------------------ hazard quotient (HQ)
------------------------ million ------------------------ \4\
Number of facilities \1\ ------------------------ Based on Based on ----------------------
Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on actual allowable
actual allowable actual allowable actual allowable emissions emissions Based on actual
emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions level level emissions level
level \2\ level level \2\ level level \2\ level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4................................
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.3 HQREL = 3 (propyl
cellosolve and
glycol ethers).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Leather Finishing Operations source category is
the reproductive target organ.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value; for propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers, this is the recommended exposure limit (REL).
The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions
data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.04. While we would have
estimated incremental individual lifetime cancer risks as discussed in
section III.C.3.b of the preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018), there were no carcinogenic HAP emissions from
this source category, so
[[Page 3314]]
the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk is 0, and the total
estimated national cancer incidence from these facilities based on
actual emission levels is no excess cancer cases per year.
Table 2 of this preamble indicates that for the Leather Finishing
Operations source category, the maximum HQ is 3, driven by propyl
cellosolve and glycol ethers. The only acute dose-response value for
propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers is the REL; therefore, only the
HQREL is provided. Refinement of the acute risk results was
performed using aerial photos to ensure that the location where the
maximum risk was projected to occur was, in fact, a location where the
general public could be exposed. The result of this refinement
confirmed that the maximum acute risk result occurred where the public
could potentially be exposed. This refinement, therefore, had no impact
on the maximum HQ. For more detailed acute risk results, refer to the
draft residual risk document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the December
2017 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
action.
An assessment of risk from facility-wide emissions was performed to
provide context for the source category risks. Using the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) data described in sections II.C and III.C of
the preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018),
the maximum cancer risk in the facility-wide assessment was 0.09-in-1
million, and the maximum chronic noncancer hazard index (HI) was 0.1
(for the reproductive system), both driven by emissions from external
combustion boilers.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and within 50 km of the facilities, and we found that no one is exposed
to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer
TOSHI greater than 1. The methodology and the results of the
demographic analysis are presented in a technical report titled Risk
and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Leather Finishing Operations, in the docket for this
action.
We weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination and we proposed that the risk posed by emissions from
this source category is acceptable. We then considered whether the
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and
whether more stringent standards were necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect by taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors. In determining whether the
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
we examined the same risk factors that we investigated for our
acceptability determination and also considered the costs,
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with
emissions from the source category. As noted in the discussion of the
ample margin of safety analysis in the preamble to the proposed rule on
March 14, 2018 (83 FR 11328), we considered options for further
reducing gaseous organic HAP emissions from leather finishing
operations. We considered the reduction in gaseous organic HAP
emissions that could be achieved by the application of a biological
treatment unit, the use of a concentrator followed by a regenerative
thermal oxidizer (RTO), and the use of a concentrator followed by
biological treatment. The total annual cost per facility of a rotary
concentrator alone or biological treatment alone ranges from $43,000 to
$417,000 per year. Application of a concentrator followed by an RTO
would achieve an estimated annual HAP emission reduction of 5.2 tpy,
and application of a concentrator plus biological treatment would
achieve an estimated annual HAP emission reduction of 4.5 tpy. The
corresponding cost effectiveness for application of a rotary
concentrator or biological treatment would range from $30,000 and
$110,000 per ton of HAP removed, respectively. Due to our
determinations that cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million and that the
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value is below 1, uncertainties
associated with the acute screening risk estimate (refer to the risk
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category in Support of the December 2017 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action), and
the substantial costs associated with the control options, we proposed
that additional standards for this source category are not required to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and that
the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. Based on the results of our environmental risk screening
assessment, we also proposed that more stringent standards are not
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Leather Finishing Operations
source category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), neither the risk
assessment nor our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety or adverse environmental effects have changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
We received various comments related to the risk review and some
commenters requested that we make changes to our residual risk review
results and approach. However, we evaluated the comments and determined
that no changes to our risk assessment methods or conclusions are
warranted. An in-depth account of the comments and responses is located
in the memorandum titled Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's
Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology Review and Amendments
for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, in the docket for this
action. The following paragraphs discuss the major comments we received
and our responses.
Comment: One commenter stated that there is evidence of hexavalent
chromium emissions from leather finishing operations and leather
tanning processes and products, questioning why the EPA did not
evaluate these emissions and health risks and establish emission
standards accordingly. The commenter referenced NEI data showing
hexavalent chromium emissions from leather finishing facilities.
Response: We disagree that there is evidence of hexavalent chromium
emissions from the Leather Finishing Operations source category. The
NEI data cited by the commenter represent hexavalent chromium emissions
from boilers at the Tasman and S.B. Foot facilities subject to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, but boilers are not subject to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, and, thus, such data do not create
a basis for the EPA to evaluate emissions and health risks of
hexavalent chromium for source types at any facility subject to the
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP. The NEI does not include
hexavalent chromium emission data for any other emission source types
at any facility subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP. The
EPA is not aware of any source of hexavalent chromium emissions data
for the leather
[[Page 3315]]
finishing operations subject to the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP, and the commenters have provided no such data. The references
cited by the commenters focus primarily on the leather tanning
processes, which do not occur at the facilities covered by the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP. Additionally, the references cited do not
directly address air emissions of hexavalent chromium from leather
finishing operations and are, therefore, not relevant to this
rulemaking. Two references cited by the commenter mention the
possibility of spontaneous oxidation of trivalent chromium into its
hexavalent form in post-tanning operations, but the references do not
provide any hexavalent chromium emissions data, and no such data exist
for any of the leather finishing operations subject to the Leather
Finishing Operations NESHAP. As a result, there is no basis for the EPA
to evaluate the emissions and health risks of hexavalent chromium from
these four facilities.
Comment: One commenter provided data for actual monthly HAP use for
the S.B. Foot Tanning Co. facility subject to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP, stating that the data indicate that hourly emissions
could be up to 1.5 times greater than the emissions rate that the EPA
used to estimate acute exposures. The data provided by the commenter
show monthly HAP emissions for the S.B. Foot Tanning Co. facility based
on data of actual monthly HAP use by the facility over a 4-year period
(i.e., 51 data points). To compare with the EPA's calculated acute HAP
emissions rate (i.e., 0.00467 tons/hour) for the facility, the
commenter estimated the average hourly rate of HAP emissions for each
month in the 4-year period using the facility's actual monthly HAP
usage values and monthly operating hours. To show months in which the
facility's estimated hourly HAP emissions rate exceeded the EPA's
estimated acute hourly HAP emissions rate for the S.B. Foot Tanning Co.
facility, the commenter calculated for each month the ratio of the
commenter's hourly HAP emissions rate to the EPA's calculated acute HAP
emissions rate. Ratios above 1.0 would show months in which the
facility's estimated hourly HAP emissions rate exceeds the EPA's acute
hourly HAP emissions rate, calling into question the EPA's calculated
acute HAP emissions rate of 0.00467 tons per hour and the EPA's acute
factor of 1.8.
Response: The EPA reviewed the commenter's submitted data and
determined that the data support the EPA's acute HAP emissions rate of
0.00467 tons/hour and acute factor of 1.8. The ratios calculated by the
commenter indicate an average ratio of 0.41 and a median of 0.392. Of
the 51 months of data provided by the commenter, only two values exceed
1.0, and five values exceed 0.8. To investigate the two data points
that exceed 1.0, we contacted the commenter, and the commenter referred
us to S.B. Foot Tanning Co. The S.B. Foot Tanning Co. facility
representative indicated that HAP emissions referred to in the
commenter's data are primarily associated with a storage tank and that
the two data points in question resulted from the inaccurate process of
measuring the material's volume (see the memorandum titled
Clarification of Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Usage Data for S.B. Foot
Tanning Co., Submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, in
the docket for this action). From this information, we conclude that
the two data points are erroneous. Based on these results, the data,
excluding the two erroneous data points, submitted by the commenter
support our acute factor of 1.8 and we are not revising the factor.
Comment: Two commenters objected to the EPA's decision that the
acute risk result for the Leather Finishing Operations source category
(i.e., HQ of 3) is acceptable. One commenter noted that the HQ of 3 is
driven entirely by propyl cellosolve and expressed concern for the
toxicity of this pollutant. The commenter expressed concern that short-
term outdoor human exposures have a high potential of occurring and the
highest HQ was predicted well within residential areas. One commenter
asserted that the EPA provides no rational justification for ignoring
the acute risk (HQ of 3) and the finding that there are chronic
noncancer risks to the reproductive system. The commenter listed
various human health effects associated with propyl cellosolve and
cited references for these health effects.
Response: We disagree that the risk acceptability determination as
it relates to the acute risk HQ of 3 for propyl cellosolve is not
sufficiently justified. For this source category, we concluded that the
risks are acceptable based on all of the available health information--
cancer, chronic noncancer, and acute noncancer risk assessment
results--and associated uncertainties. It is important to note that we
have not established, under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, a numerical
range for risk acceptability for noncancer effects (chronic or acute),
nor have we determined that there is a bright line above which
acceptability is denied. However, we have established that, as exposure
increases above a reference level (as indicated by a HQ or TOSHI
greater than 1), confidence that the public will not experience adverse
health effects decreases and the likelihood that an effect will occur
increases.
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018), in conducting risk assessments for a group of
compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively
use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound
in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound
in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a
specified dose-response value, we apply the most protective dose-
response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk.
In the case of propyl cellosolve, for acute screening-level assessment,
we used the acute REL for ethylene glycol monomethyl ether as a
surrogate for propyl cellosolve since there is no specific acute
inhalation health benchmark for this glycol ether. Given that ethylene
glycol monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use
of this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA's risk
assessment.
The acute screening analysis resulted in a maximum acute noncancer
HQ of 3 based on the acute REL for ethylene glycol monomethyl ether.
For acute screening-level assessments, to better characterize the
potential health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute
exposures to HAP, we typically examine a wider range of available acute
health metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in
acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and
uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic
reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-
protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those
levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the level of exposure
that would cause health effects is not specifically known. As the
exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for
effects increases. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or
ERPG-1 is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible effects are
anticipated in the general population for a single exposure), we
typically use them as additional comparative measures. However, neither
of these is available for propyl cellosolve or for ethylene glycol
monomethyl ether. Taking into account the conservatism included in
[[Page 3316]]
the acute screening-level assessment, including use of an acute REL for
a highly toxic glycol ether, we would not expect acute exposures at
levels that would cause adverse effects.
Additional conservatism in the acute exposure assessment that the
EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA
includes several factors. The degree of accuracy of an acute inhalation
exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of
independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions
rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans at the location of the
maximum concentration. We also assume that peak emissions from each
emission point in the source category and worst-case meteorological
conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations.
These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these
assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption
that a person is located at this point during the same time period. For
this source category, these assumptions are likely to overestimate the
true worst-case actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would
be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak
emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions occur
simultaneously. Thus, as discussed in the document titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology Review December 2017 Proposed Rule,
in the docket for this action, by assuming the co-occurrence of
independent factors for the acute screening assessment, the results are
intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-protective.
For the Leather Finishing Operations source category, we considered
all of the health risk information and factors discussed above,
including other uncertainties associated with the risk assessment, to
ensure that our decisions are health and environmentally protective (a
discussion of these uncertainties is available in section III.C of the
preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) and
in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review December 2017 Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
action), in proposing that the risks from the Leather Finishing
Operations source category are acceptable. The risk analysis for the
proposed rule amendments indicated that the cancer risks to the
individual most exposed are below 1-in-1 million from both actual and
allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1
million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The
risk analysis also showed no cancer incidence, as well as maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value of 0.04, which is significantly below 1.
In addition, the risk assessment indicated no significant potential for
multipathway health effects.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the
Leather Finishing Operations source category are acceptable, and the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant
to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our residual risk review as
proposed.
B. Technology Review for the Leather Finishing Operations Source
Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
Leather Finishing Operations source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources
in the source category. After conducting the CAA section 112(d)(6)
technology review of the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, we
proposed that revisions to the standards are not necessary because we
identified no cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies. More information concerning our technology review
is in the memorandum titled CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
the Leather Finishing Source Category, in the docket for this action
and in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14,
2018).
2. How did the technology review change for the Leather Finishing
Operations source category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), the technology review
has not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
No commenters provided input on the proposed technology review.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that
no cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies were identified in our technology review to warrant
revisions to the standards. We evaluated all of the comments on the
EPA's technology review and determined that no changes to the review
are needed. More information concerning our technology review is in the
memorandum titled CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the
Leather Finishing Source Category, in the docket for this action, and
in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14,
2018). Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing
our technology review as proposed.
C. SSM for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category
1. What did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations source
category?
We proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent
with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. More
information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14, 2018).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Leather Finishing
Operations source category?
We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no changes
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018).
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
We received two comments related to our proposed revisions to the
SSM provisions. One commenter generally supported the proposed
revisions to the SSM provisions. One commenter requested that we revise
our approach to handling force majeure events. We evaluated the
comments and determined that no changes to the proposed SSM provisions
are warranted. A summary of these comments and our responses are
located in the memorandum titled Summary of Public Comments and the
EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and
[[Page 3317]]
Technology Review and Amendments for the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP, in the docket for this action.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that proposed 40 CFR
63.5420(c)(5) provides an exemption from reporting due to force majeure
events. The commenter noted that the Court rejected similar
``affirmative defense'' to civil penalties for malfunctions (NRDC v.
EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). The commenter also argued that
adding such an exemption would be arbitrary and unlawful because it
would undermine the reporting requirements by providing a justification
to delay reporting, and, thus, undermine compliance, enforcement, and
fulfillment of the emissions standards designed to protect public
health and the environment at the core of the CAA's and section 7412's
purpose (42 U.S.C. 740).
Response: The commenter is incorrect in referring to 40 CFR
63.5420(c)(5) as an ``exemption.'' This provision provides instructions
for actions an affected source should take if it is unable to submit an
electronic report (required under 40 CFR 63.5420(c)) ``due to a force
majeure event that is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred, or if
there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of
time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is
due'' under 40 CFR 63.5420(c). We note that there is no exception or
exemption to reporting, only a method for requesting an extension of
the reporting deadline. As specified in 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(5), ``[t]he
decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to
the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the
Administrator.'' There is no predetermined timeframe for the length of
extension that can be granted, as this is something best determined by
the Administrator when reviewing the circumstances surrounding the
request. Different circumstances may require a different length of
extension for electronic reporting. For example, a tropical storm may
delay electronic reporting for a day, but a category 5 hurricane event
may delay electronic reporting much longer, especially if the facility
has no power, and, as such, the owner or operator has no ability to
access electronically stored data or to submit reports electronically.
The Administrator will be the most knowledgeable on the events leading
to the request for extension and will assess whether an extension is
appropriate and, if so, determine a reasonable length. The
Administrator may even request that the report be sent in hardcopy
until electronic reporting can be resumed. While no new fixed duration
deadline is set, the regulation does require that the report be
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the CEDRI outage is
resolved or after the force majeure event occurs.
We also note that the force majeure mimics long-standing language
in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4) and 60.8(a)(1) regarding the time granted for
conducting a performance test and such language has not undermined
compliance or enforcement.
Moreover, we disagree that the reporting extension will undermine
enforcement because the Administrator has full discretion to accept or
reject the claim of a CEDRI system outage or force majeure. As such, an
extension is not automatic and is agreed to on an individual basis by
the Administrator. If the Administrator determines that a facility has
not acted in good faith to reasonably report in a timely manner, the
Administrator can reject the claim and find that the failure to report
timely is a deviation from the regulation. CEDRI system outages are
infrequent, but the EPA knows when they occur and whether a facility's
claim is legitimate. Force majeure events (e.g., natural disasters
impacting a facility) are also usually well-known events.
We also disagree that the ability to request a reporting extension
would undermine compliance and fulfillment of the emissions standards.
While reporting is an important mechanism for the EPA and air agencies
to assess whether owners and operators are in compliance with emissions
standards, reporting obligations have nothing to do with whether an
owner or operator is required to be in compliance with an emissions
standard, especially where the deadline for meeting the standard has
already passed and the owner or operator has certified that they are in
compliance with the standard.
Additionally, the ability to request a reporting extension does not
apply to a broad category of circumstances; on the contrary, the scope
for submitting a reporting extension request is very limited in that
claims can only be made for events outside of the owner's or operator's
control that occur in the 5 business days prior to the reporting
deadline. The claim must then be approved by the Administrator, and, in
approving such a claim, the Administrator agrees that something outside
the control of the owner or operator prevented the owner or operator
from meeting its reporting obligation. In no circumstance does this
reporting extension allow for the owner or operator to be out of
compliance with the emissions standards.
The reporting deadline extension differs from the affirmative
defense to civil penalties for malfunctions the D.C. Circuit vacated as
beyond EPA's authority under the CAA in NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055
(D.C. Cir. 2014). Unlike the affirmative defense addressed in NRDC, the
reporting provision does not address penalty liability for
noncompliance with emission standards, but merely addresses, under a
narrow set of circumstances outside the control of the facilities, the
deadline for reporting.
Based on our evaluation of the comments, we have determined that no
changes to our proposed revisions to the SSM provisions are warranted.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule,
we determined that these amendments remove and revise provisions
related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. More information concerning the proposed
amendments to the SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed
rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14, 2018). Therefore, we are finalizing
our approach for the SSM provisions as proposed.
D. Requirements for Submission of Performance Tests for the Leather
Finishing Operations Source Category
1. What did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations source
category?
We proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
to require owners and operators of leather finishing operations
facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance
test reports. More information concerning these proposed revisions is
in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14,
2018).
2. How did the requirements for submission of performance tests change
for the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), the requirement for
owners and operators of leather finishing operations facilities to
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports
has not changed.
[[Page 3318]]
3. What key comments did we receive on submission of performance tests,
and what are our responses?
We received one comment providing input on the proposed requirement
for owners and operators of leather finishing operations facilities to
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports,
and the commenter generally supported our amendments. We evaluated the
comment and determined that no changes to our proposed electronic
reporting requirements are warranted. A summary of this comment and our
response are located in the memorandum titled Summary of Public
Comments and the EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology
Review and Amendments for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, in
the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach on requirements for
submission of performance tests?
We evaluated the comment on the EPA's proposed amendments requiring
owners and operators of leather finishing operations facilities to
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports.
In light of this evaluation and for the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that these amendments would increase the
ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Further,
the EPA estimates that while no existing leather finishing operation
subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP uses a control
device to comply with the NESHAP, the rule allows for a source to use a
control device to comply, and these electronic reporting provisions are
necessary. As such, no existing leather finishing operation is required
to conduct performance tests, submit test reports, or submit electronic
copies of test reports. More information concerning the proposed
requirement for owners and operators of leather finishing operations
facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance
test reports is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-
11337). Therefore, we are finalizing our approach on requirements for
submission of performance tests as proposed.
E. Technical Revisions and Corrections for the Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category
1. What did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations source
category?
We proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP
to clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
for control devices and the provisions for alternative schedules, and
to correct the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT. More
information concerning these proposed revisions is in the preamble to
the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337).
2. How did the technical revisions and corrections change for the
Leather Finishing Operations source category?
Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), the technical
revisions and corrections have not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technical revisions and
corrections, and what are our responses?
No commenters provided input on the proposed technical revisions
and corrections to clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for control devices and the provisions for alternative
schedules, and to correct the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTTT.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technical
revisions and corrections?
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that
these amendments clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for control devices and the provisions for alternative
schedules. More information concerning the proposed technical revisions
and correction is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-
11337). Therefore, we are finalizing our technical revisions and
corrections as proposed.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
There are currently four existing leather finishing operations
facilities that were identified as subject to the Leather Finishing
Operations NESHAP: S.B. Foot Tanning Company of Red Wing, Minnesota;
Alliance Leather, Inc. of Peabody, Massachusetts; Pearl Leather
Finishers, Inc. of Johnstown, New York; and Tasman Leather Group, LLC
of Hartland, Maine.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The EPA estimates that annual organic HAP emissions from the four
leather finishing operations facilities subject to the rule are
approximately 22.5 tpy. This final rule does not require compliance
with more stringent emission limits or require additional controls;
therefore, no air quality impacts are expected as a result of the
amendments.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The four leather finishing operations facilities subject to these
final amendments will incur costs to review the final amendments.
Nationwide annual costs associated with the final amendments are
estimated to be a total of $832 for the initial year only. We believe
that the four leather finishing operations facilities that are known to
be subject to final amendments can comply without incurring additional
capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs associated with
these final amendments are related to reviewing the rule. For further
information on the final amendments, see section IV of the proposal
preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018). For further information on the
costs associated with the final amendments, see the supporting
statement for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP (EPA Information
Collection Request (ICR) Number 1985.09, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Control Number 2060-0478), the memorandum titled Costs for
the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category Risk and Technology
Review--Final Amendments, and the memorandum titled CAA section
112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Leather Finishing Source Category,
in the docket for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The total national cost to comply with these final amendments is
estimated to be $832 in 2016 dollars, which is a one-time cost that
will be incurred in the first year following promulgation of these
final amendments. There are no additional emission control costs or
additional emission reductions associated with this rule. The estimated
cost of $832 consists of equal costs incurred by each of the four
affected facilities, with each facility estimated to incur one-time
labor costs of approximately $208 in order to become familiar with the
rule. These costs are not expected to result in business closures,
significant price increases, or substantial profit loss. No impacts on
employment are expected given the minimal economic impact of the action
on the affected firms. For further information on the economic impacts
associated with these final amendments, see the memorandum titled Final
Economic Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the Risk and
Technology Review: Leather Finishing Operations Source Category, in the
docket for this action.
[[Page 3319]]
E. What are the benefits?
Although the amendments in this final rule will not result in
reductions in emissions of HAP, this final rule will improve
implementation of the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP by clarifying
the rule requirements as discussed in sections IV.D.1 and IV.D.3 of the
proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018). Also, adding
electronic reporting of test reports for any control devices used in
the future to comply with these final amendments will provide the
benefits discussed in section IV.D.2 of the proposal preamble (83 FR
11314, March 14, 2018), including assisting state and local agencies
that elect to use ERT to track compliance of the rule.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of this
preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Leather
Finishing Operations, in the docket for this action. As discussed in
section IV.A of this preamble, we performed a demographic analysis,
which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 50 km and within 5 km of the facilities. In
this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer
risks and noncancer hazards from the leather finishing operations
across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the
populations living near operations identified as having the highest
risks.
The analysis indicates that the minority population living within
50 km (4,632,781 people, of which 25 percent are minority) and within 5
km (158,482 people, of which 13 percent are minority) of the four
leather finishing operations facilities is less than the minority
population found nationwide (38 percent). The proximity results
indicate that the population percentage for the ``Other and
Multiracial'' demographic group within 50 km of leather finishing
operations emissions is slightly greater than the corresponding
nationwide percentage for that same demographic. The percentage of
people ages 65 and older residing within 5 km of leather finishing
operations (18 percent) is 4 percentage points higher than the
corresponding nationwide percentage (14 percent). The other demographic
groups included in the assessment within 5 km of leather finishing
operations emissions were the same or lower than the corresponding
nationwide percentages.
When examining the cancer risk levels of those exposed to emissions
from the four leather finishing operations, we find that there are no
people within a 50-km radius of modeled facilities exposed to a cancer
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million as a result of emissions
from leather finishing operations. There are no known cancer risks
posed by HAP emissions from the four facilities, because the HAP
emitted have no known cancer risks. When examining the noncancer risk
levels, we find that there are no people within a 50-km radius of
modeled facilities exposed to a noncancer risk (in this analysis,
reproductive HI) greater than 1 as a result of emissions from leather
finishing operations.
The EPA has determined that this action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples because the health risks based on actual emissions
are low (below 2-in-1 million), the population exposed to risks greater
than 1-in-1 million is relatively small (750 persons), and the rule
maintains or increases the level of environmental protection for all
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. Further,
the EPA believes that implementation of this rule will provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health of all demographic groups.
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14,
2018) and further documented in the report titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in
Support of the December 2017 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
in the docket for this action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1985.09. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0194), and it is briefly summarized here. The information
collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions, which are essential in determining compliance and mandatory
for all operators subject to national emissions standards. These
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by
CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
We are finalizing changes to the Leather Finishing Operations
NESHAP paperwork requirements in the form of requiring review of the
final rule in the initial year. We are finalizing no new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements for the Leather Finishing Operations source
category.
Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include leather
finishing operations.
[[Page 3320]]
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (authorized by
section 114 of the CAA).
Estimated number of respondents: Four leather finishing operations.
Frequency of response: Initially.
Total estimated burden: 9 hours (per year) for the responding
facilities and 0 hours (per year) for the Agency.
Total estimated cost: $832 (per year).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The Agency has determined that of the
four entities subject to this action, three are small businesses. The
Agency has determined that each of the three small entities impacted by
this action may experience an impact of less than 0.01 percent of
sales. Details of this analysis are presented in the memorandum titled
Final Economic Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the Risk and
Technology Review: Leather Finishing Operations Source Category, in the
docket for this action. We have, therefore, concluded that this action
will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small
entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
the leather finishing operations industry that would be affected by
this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14,
2018) and further documented in the report titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in
Support of the December 2017 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
in the docket for this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Leather Finishing Operations Sector RTR
through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database
managed by the American National Standards Institute. We also contacted
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and
searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 24 and
311 and identified six VCS as potentially acceptable alternatives for
the purpose of this rule. Refer to section VIII.J of the proposal
preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for a list of these methods. As
proposed, we are not including these VCS in the final rule as
alternative test methods because the methods are either impractical as
an alternative to EPA Methods 24 and 311, do not address the parameter
required to be measured, or have expired. Further, no alternative test
methods were brought to our attention in public comments on the March
14, 2018, proposal. A brief summary of these results is provided in
section VIII.J of the March 14, 2018, proposal preamble. A thorough
summary of the search conducted, and results are included in the
memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Leather Finishing
Operations, in the docket for this action.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section V.F of
this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near
Leather Finishing Operations, in the public docket for this action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 21, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TTTT--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Leather Finishing Operations
0
2. Section 63.5320 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
[[Page 3321]]
Sec. 63.5320 How does my affected major source comply with the HAP
emission standards?
(a) All affected sources must be in compliance with the
requirements of this subpart at all times.
(b) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain
any affected source, including associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The
general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or
operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels
required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination
of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and
maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected
source.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.5360 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.5360 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission standards?
(a) * * *
(2) If you use an emission control device, you must comply with
Sec. 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS of this part) and collect the monitoring
data as specified therein.
* * * * *
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet the
emission standards in Sec. 63.5305. These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.5420(b).
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.5375 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5375 When must I conduct a performance test or initial
compliance demonstration?
You must conduct performance tests after the installation of any
emission control device that reduces HAP emissions and will be used to
comply with the HAP emission requirements of this subpart. You must
complete your performance tests not later than 60 calendar days before
the end of the 12-month period used in the initial compliance
determination.
0
5. Section 63.5380 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.5380 How do I conduct performance tests?
(a) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(2) through (4) and the procedures of
Sec. 63.997(e)(1) and (2).
(b) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as
the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on
representative performance of the affected source for the period being
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and
shutdown. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests
during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the
owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance
tests.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.5420 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory
text and (b)(3) and (4) and adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.5420 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) You must submit a Deviation Notification Report for each
compliance determination you make in which the compliance ratio exceeds
1.00, as determined under Sec. 63.5330. Submit the deviation report by
the fifteenth of the following month in which you determined the
deviation from the compliance ratio. The Deviation Notification Report
must include the items in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section:
* * * * *
(3) The 12-month period covered by the report and each type of
leather product process operation performed during the 12-month period.
(4) The compliance ratio comprising the deviation. You may reduce
the frequency of submittal of the Deviation Notification Report if the
Administrator of these NESHAP approves an alternative schedule.
(5) An estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted during
the 12 months specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section in excess
of the allowable HAP loss. Calculate this estimate of excess emissions
by subtracting the allowable HAP loss determined as specified in Sec.
63.5340 from the actual HAP loss determined as specified in Sec.
63.5335.
(6) The cause of the events that resulted in the source failing to
meet an applicable standard (including unknown cause, if applicable).
(c) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec. 63.2) required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit
the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI Interface can be
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic
file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema
listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13 unless
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
(3) If you claim that some of the performance test information
being submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is confidential
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website,
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive
or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The
electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via
the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due
[[Page 3322]]
to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems
within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date
that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing
CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time
prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to
timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit
notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible
following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You
must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the
date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system
outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the
delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report,
or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report
must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage
is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator.
(5) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
7. Section 63.5430 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (g) and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5430 What records must I keep?
You must satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of this section by the compliance date specified in Sec.
63.5295.
* * * * *
(g) If you use an emission control device, you must keep records of
monitoring data as specified at Sec. 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS of this
part).
(h) In the event that the compliance ratio exceeded 1.00, as
determined under Sec. 63.5330, keep a record of the information
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this section for each
exceedance.
(1) The 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred, as
reported in Sec. 63.5420(b).
(2) Each type of leather product process operation performed during
the 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred, as reported in
Sec. 63.5420(b).
(3) Estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted during the
12 months specified in Sec. 63.5420(b)(3) in excess of the allowable
HAP loss, as reported in Sec. 63.5420(b).
(4) Cause of the events that resulted in the source failing to meet
an applicable standard (including unknown cause, if applicable), as
reported in Sec. 63.5420(b).
(5) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.5320(b), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(i) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
8. Section 63.5460 is amended by revising the definition for
``Deviation'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5460 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source fails to meet
any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including,
but not limited to, any emission limits or work practice standards.
* * * * *
0
9. Table 2 to subpart TTTT of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
As required in Sec. 63.5450, you must meet the appropriate NESHAP
General Provision requirements in the following table:
Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart TTTT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief description Applies to
General provisions citation Subject of citation of requirement subpart Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1..................... Applicability...... Initial Yes.............
applicability
determination;
applicability
after standard
established;
permit
requirements;
extensions,
notifications..
Sec. 63.2..................... Definitions........ Definitions for Yes............. Except as
Part 63 standards. specifically
provided in this
subpart.
Sec. 63.3..................... Units and Units and Yes.............
abbreviations. abbreviations for
Part 63 standards.
[[Page 3323]]
Sec. 63.4..................... Prohibited Prohibited Yes.............
activities and activities;
circumvention. compliance date;
circumvention,
severability.
Sec. 63.5..................... Construction/ Applicability; Yes............. Except for
reconstruction. applications; paragraphs of
approvals. Sec. 63.5 as
listed below.
Sec. 63.5(c).................. [Reserved].........
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H)........ Application for Type and quantity No.............. All sources emit
approval. of HAP, operating HAP. Subpart TTTT
parameters.. does not require
control from
specific emission
points.
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)(i)............ [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2), Application for No.............. The requirements
(d)(3)(ii). approval. of the
application for
approval for new
and reconstructed
sources are
described in Sec.
63.5320(b).
General provision
requirements for
identification of
HAP emission
points or
estimates of
actual emissions
are not required.
Descriptions of
control and
methods, and the
estimated and
actual control
efficiency of
such do not
apply.
Requirements for
describing
control equipment
and the estimated
and actual
control
efficiency of
such equipment
apply only to
control equipment
to which the
subpart TTTT
requirements for
quantifying
solvent destroyed
by an add-on
control device
would be
applicable.
Sec. 63.6..................... Applicability of Applicability of Yes............. Except for
general provisions. general provisions. paragraphs of
Sec. 63.6 as
listed below.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(3)........... Compliance dates, No.............. Section Sec.
new and 63.5283 specifies
reconstructed the compliance
sources. dates for new and
reconstructed
sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)............... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)........... [Reserved]. ................
Sec. 63.6(d).................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)............... Operation and ................... No.............. See Sec.
maintenance 63.5320(b) for
requirements. general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)............... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)............... Operation and Startup, shutdown, No.............. Subpart TTTT does
maintenance and malfunction not have any
requirements. plan requirements. startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction plan
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(f)-(g).............. Compliance with Comply with No.............. Subpart TTTT does
nonopacity emission standards not have
emission standards at all times nonopacity
except during SSM. except during SSM. requirements.
Sec. 63.6(h).................. Opacity/visible ................... No.............. Subpart TTTT has
emission (VE) no opacity or
standards. visual emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i).................. Compliance Procedures and Yes.............
extension. criteria for
responsible agency
to grant
compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(j).................. Presidential President may Yes.............
compliance exempt source
exemption. category from
requirement to
comply with
subpart.
Sec. 63.7..................... Performance testing Schedule, Yes............. Except for
requirements. conditions, paragraphs of
notifications and Sec. 63.7 as
procedures. listed below.
Subpart TTTT
requires
performance
testing only if
the source
applies
additional
control that
destroys solvent.
Sec. 63.5311
requires sources
to follow the
performance
testing
guidelines of the
General
Provisions if a
control is added.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2) (i) and (iii). Performance testing Applicability and No.............. Sec. 63.5310(a)
requirements. performance dates. of subpart TTTT
specifies the
requirements of
performance
testing dates for
new and existing
sources.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)............... Conduct of Defines No.............. See Sec.
performance tests. representative 63.5380.
conditions;
provides an
exemption from the
standards for
periods of
startup, shutdown,
and malfunction;
requires that,
upon request, the
owner or operator
shall make
available to the
Administrator such
records as may be
necessary to
determine the
conditions of
performance tests.
Sec. 63.8..................... Monitoring Applicability, No.............. See Sec.
requirements. conduct of 63.5360(a)(2) for
monitoring, monitoring
operation and requirements.
maintenance,
quality control,
performance
evaluations, use
of alternative
monitoring method,
reduction of
monitoring data.
Sec. 63.9..................... Notification Applicability and Yes............. Except for
requirements. State delegation. paragraphs of
Sec. 63.9 as
listed below.
Sec. 63.9(e).................. Notification of Notify responsible Yes............. Applies only if
performance test. agency 60 days performance
ahead. testing is
performed.
Sec. 63.9(f).................. Notification of VE/ Notify responsible No.............. Subpart TTTT has
opacity agency 30 days no opacity or
observations. ahead. visual emission
standards.
[[Page 3324]]
Sec. 63.9(g).................. Additional Notification of No.............. See Sec.
notifications when performance 63.5360(a)(2) for
using a continuous evaluation; CMS requirements.
monitoring system notification using
(CMS). COMS data;
notification that
exceeded criterion
for relative
accuracy.
Sec. 63.9(h).................. Notification of Contents........... No.............. Sec. 63.5320(d)
compliance status. specifies
requirements for
the notification
of compliance
status.
Sec. 63.10.................... Recordkeeping/ Schedule for Yes............. Except for
reporting. reporting, record paragraphs of
storage. Sec. 63.10 as
listed below.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2).............. Recordkeeping...... CMS recordkeeping; No.............. See Sec. 63.5360
CMS records of for CMS
startup, shutdown, recordkeeping
and malfunction requirements,
events. except see Sec.
63.5430(h) for
CMS recordkeeping
requirements if
there is a
deviation from
the standard.
Sec. 63.10(c)................. Recordkeeping...... Additional CMS No.............. See Sec.
recordkeeping. 63.5360(a)(2) for
CMS recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2).............. Reporting.......... Reporting Yes............. Applies only if
performance test performance
results. testing is
performed.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3).............. Reporting.......... Reporting opacity No.............. Subpart TTTT has
or VE observations. no opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4).............. Reporting.......... Progress reports... Yes............. Applies if a
condition of
compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5).............. Reporting.......... Startup, shutdown, No.............. See Sec.
and malfunction 63.5420(b) for
reporting. reporting
requirements if
there is a
deviation from
the standard.
Sec. 63.10(e)................. Reporting.......... Additional CMS No.............. See Sec.
reports. 63.5360(a)(2) for
monitoring
requirements.
Sec. 63.11.................... Control device Requirements for Yes............. Applies only if
requirements. flares. your source uses
a flare to
control solvent
emissions.
Subpart TTTT does
not require
flares.
Sec. 63.12.................... State authority and State authority to Yes.............
delegations. enforce standards.
Sec. 63.13.................... State/regional Addresses where Yes.............
addresses. reports,
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14.................... Incorporation by Test methods Yes.............
reference. incorporated by
reference.
Sec. 63.15.................... Availability of Public and Yes.............
information and confidential
confidentiality. information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-01317 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P