National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products Residual Risk and Technology Review, 47074-47114 [2019-18827]

Download as PDF 47074 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0243; FRL–9999–07– OAR] RIN 2060–AO66 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products Residual Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) to address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA is required to conduct under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is proposing to amend provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM); add provisions regarding electronic reporting; add repeat emissions testing requirements; and make technical and editorial changes. The EPA is proposing these amendments to improve the effectiveness of the NESHAP. While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action, if finalized, would result in improved monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 21, 2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before October 7, 2019. Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before September 11, 2019, the EPA will hold a hearing. Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/plywood-and-compositewood-products-manufacture-nationalemission. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– ADDRESSES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 OAR–2016–0243, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2016–0243 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0243. • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0243, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday—Friday (except federal holidays). Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action, contact Ms. Katie Hanks, 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– 2159; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and email address: hanks.katie@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Mr. Kevin McGinn, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D230–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 3796; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: mcginn.kevin@epa.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–1395; and email address: cox.john@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–0832 or by email at hunt.virginia@epa.gov to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0243. All documents in the docket are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 1742. Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0243. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov/ or email. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2016–0243. Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. The EPA uses 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: AEGL acute exposure guideline level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CARB California Air Resources Board CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMS continuous monitoring systems EAV equivalent annualized value EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool GACT generally available control technology HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrochloric acid HEM–3 Human Exposure Model-3 HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient ICR information collection request IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometer MACT maximum achievable control technology MDF medium density fiberboard mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MIR maximum individual risk NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEI National Emissions Inventory NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NSPS new source performance standards NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget OSB oriented Strandboard OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PBCO production-based compliance option PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47075 PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PCWP plywood and composite wood products PDF portable document format POM polycyclic organic matter ppm parts per million PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PV present value RATA relative accuracy test audit RCO regenerative catalytic oxidizer REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure model TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act UF uncertainty factor mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate USGS U.S. Geological Survey VCS voluntary consensus standards 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? II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? D. What other relevant background information and data are available? III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? B. How do we perform the technology review? C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? D. What other actions are we proposing? E. What compliance dates are we proposing? V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47076 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? VI. Request for Comments VII. Submitting Data Corrections VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July 1992), the Plywood and Particleboard source category is any facility engaged in the manufacturing of plywood and/or particle boards. This category includes, but is not limited to, manufacturing of chip waferboard, strandboard, waferboard, hardboard/cellulosic fiber board, oriented strandboard (OSB), hardboard plywood, medium density fiberboard (MDF), particleboard, softwood plywood, or other processes using wood and binder systems. The name of the source category was changed to Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63025), to more accurately reflect the types of manufacturing facilities covered by the source category. In addition, when the EPA proposed the PCWP rule on January 9, 2003 (68 FR 1276), the scope of the source category was broadened to include lumber kilns located at standalone kiln-dried lumber manufacturing facilities or at any other type of facility. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION NESHAP Plywood and Composite Wood Products .......... National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products. 1 North jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 NAICS code 1 Source category 321999, 321211, 321212, 321219, 321213. American Industry Classification System. 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 action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/plywoodand-composite-wood-productsmanufacture-national-emission. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0243). II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ‘‘developments in practices, processes, or control technologies’’ that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’ The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking. In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination ‘‘considers all health information, including risk estimation VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health ‘‘in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA considers whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less often than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which the EPA calls the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? Plywood and composite wood products are manufactured by bonding wood material (fibers, particles, strands, etc.) or agricultural fiber, generally with resin under heat and pressure, to form a structural panel or engineered wood product. Plywood and composite wood products manufacturing facilities also include facilities that manufacture dry 1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47077 veneer and lumber kilns located at any facility. Plywood and composite wood products include (but are not limited to) plywood, veneer, particleboard, OSB, hardboard, fiberboard, medium density fiberboard, laminated strand lumber, laminated veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-dried lumber, and glue-laminated beams. This proposal includes both a residual risk assessment and a technology review of the standards applicable to emission sources subject to the PCWP NESHAP. The NESHAP contains several compliance options for process units subject to the standards: (1) Installation and use of emissions control systems with an efficiency of at least 90 percent; (2) production-based limits that restrict HAP emissions per unit of product produced; and (3) emissions averaging that allows control of emissions from a group of sources collectively (at existing affected sources). These compliance options apply for the following process units: Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones (at new affected sources); green rotary dryers; hardboard ovens; press predryers (at new affected sources); pressurized refiners; primary tube dryers; secondary tube dryers; reconstituted wood product board coolers (at new affected sources); reconstituted wood product presses; softwood veneer dryer heated zones; rotary strand dryers; and conveyor strand dryers (zone one at existing affected sources, and zones one and two at new affected sources). In addition, the PCWP NESHAP includes work practice standards for dry rotary dryers, hardwood veneer dryers, softwood veneer dryers, veneer redryers, and group 1 miscellaneous coating operations (defined in 40 CFR 63.2292). In 2007, the D.C. Circuit remanded and vacated portions of the 2004 NESHAP promulgated by the EPA to establish MACT standards for the PCWP source category. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The EPA will address the partial remand and vacatur of the 2004 rule in a future action. The EPA is not addressing the partial remand and vacatur in this RTR. The Court vacated and remanded portions of the 2004 rule based on certain aspects of the MACT determinations made by the EPA. In the 2004 rule, the EPA had concluded that the MACT standards for several process units were represented by no emission reduction (or ‘‘no control’’ emission floors). The ‘‘no control’’ MACT conclusions were rejected because, as the Court clarified, in a related decision, the EPA must establish emission standards for listed HAP. 489 F.3d 1364, 1371, citing Sierra E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47078 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007). To address the remand, the EPA plans to develop emission standards for the relevant process units in a separate action subsequent to this proposed RTR action for the source category. As noted below, the EPA conducted an information collection prior to beginning the RTR process which supplemented the available HAP emission inventory for the category. The EPA will evaluate the data collected and any additional information submitted before initiating the rulemaking to address the remand. • Information and data analyses submitted by industry organizations; • Information obtained during site visits and meetings with stakeholders; • Information on air pollution control options in the PCWP industry from the EPA’s Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse; • Information on applicability and compliance issues from the EPA’s Applicability Determination Index; and • Literature review of recent information on PCWP practices, processes, and control technologies. C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making In this section, the EPA describes the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this proposal. On October 5, 2017, the EPA issued an Information Collection Request (ICR) to gather information from PCWP manufacturers to support conducting the PCWP NESHAP RTR. The ICR gathered detailed process data, emission release point characteristics, and HAP emissions data for PCWP process units located at major sources. The response rate for the ICR was over 99 percent. For more details on the data collection conducted to prepare inputs for the residual risk assessment, see the memorandum titled Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for the PCWP NESHAP in the docket for this rulemaking. For more details on the data collection conducted for the technology review, see the memoranda titled Technology Review for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP and Compilation of the Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) Information Collection Request (ICR) Responses into an ICR-Response Data Base, also available in the docket. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 D. What other relevant background information and data are available? In addition to ICR data spreadsheets provided by respondents, the EPA reviewed other information sources to determine if there have been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies by PCWP facilities to support the technology review of the NESHAP. These information sources include: • Emissions data (e.g., stack test reports, emissions calculations) submitted with survey responses; • Facility operating permits submitted with survey responses or obtained from state agencies; • Semiannual compliance reports submitted with survey responses; • Other documentation submitted with survey responses (e.g., compliance calculations; process flow diagrams); VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), the EPA applies a two-step approach to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.’’ 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, ‘‘the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 cause noncancer health effects.2 The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with the EPA’s response to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that: [t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA’s consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will ‘protect the public health’. See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include an MIR where 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable and risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be unacceptable, depending on all of the available information. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA believes the relative weight 2 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP exposure concentration to the noncancer doseresponse value; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system. E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.’’ Id. at 38061. The EPA also considers the uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety. The EPA notes that we have not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, the EPA does not attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category. The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. The EPA recognizes that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.’’ 3 In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates 3 Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ or target organ system. Although the EPA is interested in placing source category and facilitywide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission sources other than those that the EPA has studied in depth during this RTR review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable. B. How do we perform the technology review? Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where the EPA identifies such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. The EPA also considers the emission reductions associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions standards. In addition, the EPA considers the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ‘‘development’’: • Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction; PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47079 • Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and • Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards). In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time the EPA originally developed the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review. C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of analyses that the EPA generally performs during the risk assessment process. In some cases, the EPA does not perform a specific analysis because it is not relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB–HAP), the EPA would not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where the EPA does not perform an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section IV.A of this preamble). The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections that follow this paragraph describe how the EPA estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document which provides more information on the risk assessment E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47080 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009; 4 and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics? In October 2017, the EPA initiated an ICR to gather information from U.S. PCWP manufacturers to support conducting the PCWP RTR. The ICR response period ended in February 2018. The ICR gathered process data, emission release point characteristics, coordinates, and HAP emissions data for PCWP process units located at major sources of HAP. Assembly and quality assurance of the ICR data needed to construct the residual risk modeling file for the PCWP source category is discussed in Preparation of Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for the PCWP NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this action. 2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. The EPA discussed the consideration of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, the EPA noted that assessing the risk at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could emit and still 4 U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA–452/R–09– 006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/ rtrpg.html. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 comply with national emission standards. The EPA also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) The PCWP ICR requested that respondents provide estimates of allowable emissions based on their sitespecific circumstances (e.g., control measures in place). Therefore, unlike other RTR projects that develop a multiplier to estimate allowable emissions from actual emissions reported in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), the directly reported ICR data for allowable emissions were used for the PCWP category.5 The allowable emissions estimates provided by the ICR respondents were reviewed for completeness and to ensure they made sense relative to actual emissions. Approximately 95 percent of the allowable emissions estimates provided by respondents were reasonable and were used without revision. The remaining allowable emission estimates were either missing, provided as zero, or otherwise suspect compared to actual emissions. Because nearly all the allowable emissions estimates in need of gap-filling were for process units without PCWP MACT standards requiring use of add-on controls, the gaps and adjustments were completed by setting the MACTallowable emission rates equal to the actual emission rates.6 3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk? Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3).7 The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk using 5 Sroka, K., E. Rickman, and C. Moss, RTI, and K. Hanks, U.S. EPA. Preparation of Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for the PCWP NESHAP. Memorandum to the PCWP Docket File. February 7, 2019. 6 Id. 7 For more information about HEM–3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information. a. Dispersion Modeling The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.8 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block 9 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health risk. These are discussed below. b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, the EPA uses the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. For each facility, the EPA calculates the MIR as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. The EPA calculates individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk estimate 8 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). 9 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 (URE). The URE is an upper-bound estimate of an individual’s incremental risk of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, the EPA generally uses UREs from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, the EPA looks to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, the EPA may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/ dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants. To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, the EPA sums the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP 10 emitted by the modeled facility. The EPA estimates cancer risk at every census block within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, the EPA estimates the distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. The EPA also 10 The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.’’ These classifications also coincide with the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R–00/002), was published as a supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from https:// cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid= 20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) titled NATA—Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data— an SAB Advisory, available at https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ ecadv02001.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 estimates annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing this result by a 70-year lifetime. To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, the EPA calculates either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The EPA calculates an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, the EPA sums the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime’’ (https:// iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/ termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do? details=&vocabName= IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/ crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risks are available at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47081 c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other Than Cancer For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of the EPA’s efforts to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and the environment,11 we are revising our treatment of meteorological data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. The EPA will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019. To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed individual, the EPA uses the peak hourly emission rate for each emission point,12 reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, the EPA assumes that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions cooccur and that a person is present at the point of maximum exposure. To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, the EPA generally uses multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour 11 See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html). 12 In the absence of hourly emission data, the EPA develops estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking. E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47082 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 exposure durations, if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs. An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.’’ 13 Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.14 They are guideline levels for ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne 13 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 14 National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_ operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National Academies to publish final AEGLs (https:// www.epa.gov/aegl). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 15 Id. at 1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.’’ Id. at 1. An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 2s. The maximum HQs from the EPA’s acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, the EPA also reports the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG– 1). For this source category, estimates of short-term (maximum hourly) emissions were submitted by PCWP ICR respondents. In our review of the ICR data, the EPA compared the short-term emission estimates to annual emissions estimates to ensure the short-term emission estimates were reasonable. The EPA gap-filled short-term emission estimates that were missing or found to be invalid with short-term emission estimates calculated using a PCWP emission process-specific acute multiplier. The acute multiplier, which is a factor multiplied by annual 15 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating% 20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014% 20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-22014%29.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 emissions to estimate maximum hourly emissions, was derived from the ICR data for each emissions process group. The acute factors used to gap-fill missing or invalid short-term emission estimates in the PCWP ICR inventory ranged from 1.2 to 10. Further discussion of the process-specific factors chosen to fill gaps in the ICR data can be found in the memorandum, Preparation of Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for the PCWP NESHAP, available in the docket for this rulemaking. In the EPA’s acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, the EPA assesses the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-site location. For this source category, the data refinements employed consisted of evaluating residential properties outside the facility boundaries to estimate acute impacts that exceeded an HQ screen of 1. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this source category. 4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening assessment? The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume 1, Appendix D, at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-air-toxics-risk-assessmentreference-library). For the PCWP source category, we identified PB–HAP emissions of arsenic, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (dioxins/furans), polycyclic organic matter (POM), cadmium, mercury, and lead, so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB–HAP warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against previously developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB– HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB–HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, mercury compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_ reflibrary.pdf). In this assessment, we compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB–HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB– HAP to assess the potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a facility’s actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ‘‘screening value.’’ We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these PB– HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, dioxins/ furans, and POM) or, for HAP that cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB–HAP or combination of carcinogenic PB–HAP in the Tier 1 screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios that retain upperbound ingestion rates. In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher/farmer scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 50 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB–HAP for each facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and the USGS lakes database. In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures, with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish (adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption 16) and locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios 17). If PB–HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater than 1, we consider those PB– HAP emissions to pose risks below a level of concern. If the PB–HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the EPA may further refine the screening 16 Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 12:343–354. 17 U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F, 2011. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47083 assessment through a site-specific assessment. In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.18 Values below the level of the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for multipathway risk. For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, see Appendix 6 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment? a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological Benchmarks The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ as ‘‘any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.’’ The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ in its screening assessment: Six PB– HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and 18 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is requisite to protect public health and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))— differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other things, that the standard provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety to protect public health’’). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the most susceptible group in the human population— children, including children living near major lead emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS reflects an adequate margin of safety. E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47084 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA evaluates the following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, the EPA evaluates nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP (other than lead), both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities. An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each environmental HAP, the EPA identified the available ecological benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. The EPA identified, where possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, lowestobserved-adverse-effect level, and noobserved-adverse-effect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB–HAP and assessment endpoint, the EPA uses all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread. For further information on how the environmental risk screening assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the PCWP source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the PCWP source category, the EPA identified VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 emissions of arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, lead compounds, mercury compounds, POM, HCl, and HF. Because the above environmental HAP are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. c. PB–HAP Methodology The environmental screening assessment includes six PB–HAP, arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to backcalculate Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the reported emission rate for each PB–HAP was compared to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB–HAP for each assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the EPA evaluates the facility further in Tier 2. In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, the EPA evaluates the average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius for each facility and PB–HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the EPA evaluates the facility further in Tier 3. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the environmental screening assessment, the EPA examines the suitability of the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the screening threshold emission rate), the EPA may elect to conduct a more refined assessment using more sitespecific information. If, after additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect. To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from lead, the EPA compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM–3) of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can include ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’ d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, the EPA evaluates the following metrics: The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km2; the percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average screening value around each facility E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules (calculated by dividing the areaweighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments? To put the source category risks in context, the EPA typically examines the risks from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, the EPA examines the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which the EPA has data. For this source category, the EPA conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records of that NEI dataset were removed and replaced with the quality-assured ICR source category dataset described in the memorandum titled Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Input File for the PCWP NESHAP, in the docket for this rulemaking. This ICR source category dataset was then combined with the non-source category records from the NEI for that facility. The combined facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. The EPA also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks. 7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment? Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report. a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. For example, older emission factors that do not account for relatively recent reductions in resin formaldehyde content may have been used by some PCWP mills to estimate emissions from uncontrolled process units that are hard to test, resulting in overestimation of formaldehyde emissions. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. For facilities with missing or invalid shortterm emission estimates in their PCWP ICR data, the estimates of maximum hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47085 on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling The EPA recognizes there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, the EPA selects some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). The EPA selects other model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that the EPA selects have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach the EPA applies in the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. After reviewing the physical characteristics of emission releases from batch and continuous lumber kilns, dispersion and risk modelers at the EPA recommend the buoyant plume rise resulting from the elevated temperature of kiln exhaust be taken into account when modeling kiln fugitive emissions to improve accuracy. Appendix 12 of the document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this rulemaking describes the methodology and results. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As the EPA continues to update and expand the library of meteorological station data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability. c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in the EPA’s emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47086 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, the EPA reduces uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, the EPA analyzes large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. The EPA also adds additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in the EPA’s risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective’’ (the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1–7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs. Cancer UREs used in the EPA’s risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.19 That is, they represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity’’ (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be 19 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do? details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 greater.20 Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach,21 which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties. Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. The EPA established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but not all combinations of ecological assessment/ environmental HAP had benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and widespread. 20 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates. 21 See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Although the EPA makes every effort to identify appropriate human health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where the EPA concludes similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, the EPA may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options. For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), the EPA conservatively uses 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, the EPA also applies the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk. e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emission rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening assessment that the EPA conducts under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) co-occur. The EPA then includes the additional assumption that E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 a person is located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously. f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening Assessments For each source category, the EPA generally relies on site-specific levels of PB–HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models—TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD—that estimate environmental pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB–HAP (dioxins, POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For lead, the EPA uses AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.22 Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk assessments conducted in support of RTR. Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the multipathway and environmental 22 In the context of this discussion, the term ‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate the true result. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 screening assessments, the EPA configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This was accomplished by selecting upperend values from nationally representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. The EPA also assumes an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures. In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, the EPA refines the model inputs to account for meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end national values and identifies the actual location of lakes near the facility rather than the default lake location applied in Tier 1. By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local geographical and meteorological data, the EPA decreases the likelihood that concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the screening assessments, the EPA refines the model inputs again to account for hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. The EPA can also use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three tiers. For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, the EPA employs a single-tiered approach. The EPA uses the modeled air concentrations and compare those with ecological benchmarks. For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, the EPA’s approach to addressing model input uncertainty is generally cautious. The EPA chooses model inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the models, and assumes that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse impacts. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47087 Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), the EPA is confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not mean that impacts are significant, only that the EPA cannot rule out that possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the source category. The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. These HAP represent those HAP for which the EPA can conduct a meaningful multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, depending on the HAP, the EPA may not have appropriate multipathway models that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and resources allow. IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? 1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the PCWP source category was estimated to be 30-in-1 million. The risk driver is chiefly formaldehyde emissions from batch and continuous lumber kilns. The total estimated cancer incidence based on actual and allowable emission levels from all PCWP emission E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47088 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules sources is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 33 years, with emissions from the lumber kilns representing 43 percent of the modeled cancer incidence in the source category. Emissions of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and chromium VI compounds contributed 93 percent to this cancer incidence with formaldehyde being the largest contributor (76 percent of the incidence). Based upon actual emissions from the source category, approximately 200,000 people were exposed to cancer risks above or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values based on actual and allowable emissions for the source category were estimated to be less than 1. Based upon actual emissions from the source category, respiratory risks were driven by acrolein, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde emissions from batch lumber kilns. Based upon allowable emissions from the source category, the respiratory risk was driven by methylene diphenyl diisocyanate emissions from a miscellaneous coating operation and formaldehyde emissions from lumber kilns. TABLE 2—PLYWOOD AND COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 1 Risk assessment Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 3 Number of facilities 2 Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 4 Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 5 Baseline Actual Emissions Source Category .. 233 30 204,000 0.03 0.8 Facility-Wide ........ 233 30 260,000 0.04 1 0.03 0.8 4 (REL) 0.2 (AEGL–1). Baseline Allowable Emissions Source Category .. 233 30 230,000 1 Based on actual and allowable emissions. of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 230 operating facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD plus three existing facilities that are currently closed but maintain active operating permits. 3 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 4 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PCWP source category is the respiratory system. 5 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, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, the EPA also shows the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. 2 Number jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum refined offsite acute noncancer HQ values for the source category were equal to 4 from acrolein emissions and 2 from formaldehyde emissions (based on the acute (1-hr) REL for these pollutants). The acrolein and formaldehyde maximum HQ values were at separate facilities. No other acute health benchmarks were exceeded for this source category. The acute risk driver for acrolein was primarily from continuous lumber kilns and the MIR location for acute formaldehyde risks were from batch lumber kilns. The continuous and batch lumber kilns were modeled with hourly emissions ranging from 2 to 8 times the annual average hourly emissions rate. Acute HQs are not calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions. 3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that PB– HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) emitted from the source category exceeded the screening VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 values for the carcinogenic PB–HAP (arsenic, dioxin/furan, and POM compounds) and for the noncarcinogenic PB–HAP (cadmium and mercury) based upon emissions from 48 facilities reporting carcinogenic PB–HAP and 19 facilities reporting noncarcinogenic PB–HAP in the source category. For the PB–HAP and facilities that did not screen out at Tier 1, the EPA conducted a Tier 2 screening analysis. The Tier 2 screen replaces some of the assumptions used in Tier 1 with sitespecific data, the location of fishable lakes, and local wind direction and speed. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on high-end assumptions about consumption of local fish and locally grown or raised foods (adult female angler at 99th percentile consumption for fish 23 for the fisher scenario and 90th percentile for consumption of locally raised livestock and grown produce (vegetables and fruits) 24) for the farmer scenario and uses an 23 Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 12:343–354. 24 U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F, 2011. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 assumption that the same individual consumes each of these foods in high end quantities (i.e., that an individual has high end ingestion rates for each food). The result of this analysis was the development of site-specific concentrations of dioxin/furan, POM compounds, arsenic compounds, cadmium and mercury compounds. It is important to note that, even with the inclusion of some site-specific information in the Tier 2 analysis, the multipathway screening analysis is a still a very conservative, healthprotective assessment (e.g., upperbound consumption of local fish, locally grown, and/or raised foods) and in all likelihood will yield results that serve as an upper-bound multipathway risk associated with a facility. Based on this upper-bound Tier 2 screening assessment for carcinogens, the dioxin/furan and POM emission rates for all facilities and scenarios were below levels of concern. Arsenic emissions exceeded the screening value by a factor of 70 for the farmer scenario, a factor of 40 for the gardener scenario, and a factor of 6 for the fisher scenario. The Tier 2 gardener scenario is based upon the same ingestion rate of produce as the farmer for a rural environment. No additional refined screens or sitespecific assessments were conducted for E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules emissions of arsenic based upon the conservative nature of the Tier 2 screen and because the screening value was below the level of acceptability of 100in-1 million. For the non-carcinogens, emissions of cadmium were below an HQ of 1 for the Tier 2 fisher scenario. For mercury, three facilities exceeded the Tier 2 multipathway screening values of 1 by a factor of 2 based upon aggregate lake impacts by facilities within the source category for the fisher scenario. For mercury, the EPA conducted a Tier 3 multipathway screen for two facilities which included two of the three individual stages. These stages included a lake assessment for fishability and the mass lost due to plume rise, a time-series assessment was not conducted. A lake and plume rise assessment was conducted resulting in a maximum Tier 3 screening value of 2, a 20-percent reduction in their Tier 2 screening value was achieved due to plume rise. A screening value in any of the tiers is not an estimate of the cancer risk or a noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, a screening value represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be. For example, facility emissions resulting in a screening value of 2 for a non-carcinogen can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be lower than 2. Similarly, facility emissions resulting in a cancer screening value of 40 for a carcinogen means that we are confident that the cancer risk is lower than 40-in-1 million. Our confidence comes from the health-protective assumptions that are incorporated into the screens: We choose inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the screens; and we assume food consumption behaviors that would lead to high total exposure. This risk assessment estimates the maximum hazard for mercury through fish consumption based on upper bound screens and the maximum excess cancer risks from dioxins/furans and arsenic through ingestion of fish and farm produce. When we progress from the model designs of the Tier 1, 2, and 3 screens to a site-specific assessment, we refine the risk assessment through incorporation of additional site-specific data and enhanced model designs. Sitespecific refinements include the following; (1) improved spatial locations identifying the boundaries of the watershed and lakes within the watershed as it relates to surrounding facilities within the source category; (2) calculating actual soil/water run-off amounts to target lakes based upon VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 actual soil type(s) and elevation changes associated with the affected watershed versus assuming a worst-case assumption of 100-percent run-off to target lakes; and (3) incorporating AERMOD deposition of pollutants into TRIM.FaTE to accurately account for site-specific release parameters such as stack heights and exit gas temperatures, versus using TRIMFaTE’s simple dispersion algorithms that assume the pollutant is uniformly distributed within the airshed. These refinements have the net effect of improved modeling of the mass of HAP entering a lake by more accurately defining the watershed/lake boundaries as well as the dispersion of HAP into the atmosphere to better reflect deposition contours across all target watersheds and lakes in our 50 km model domain. The maximum mercury Tier 2 noncancer screening value for this source category is 2 with subsequent refinement resulting in a Tier 3 screening value of 2. No additional refinements to the Tier 3 screen value of 2 were conducted by the EPA. Risk results from four site-specific mercury assessments the EPA has conducted for four RTR source categories resulted in noncancer HQs that range from 50 to 800 times lower than the respective Tier 2 screening value for these facilities (refer to EPA Docket ID: EPA–HQ–OAR– 2016–0243 for a copy of these reports).25 Based on our review of these analyses, we would expect at least a one order of magnitude decrease in all Tier 2 noncancer screening values for mercury for the PCWP source category, if we were to perform a site-specific assessment. In addition, based upon the conservative nature of the screens and the level of additional refinements that would go into a site-specific multipathway assessment, were one to be conducted, we are confident that the HI for ingestion exposure, specifically mercury through fish ingestion, is less than 1. Further details on the Tier 3 screening assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood Composite and Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 25 EPA Docket records: Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Taconite Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule; and Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal and OilFired EGU Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47089 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of lead, the EPA compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the primary NAAQS level for lead (0.15 mg/ m3, arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month period. The highest annual average lead concentration of 0.013 mg/ m3 is below the NAAQS level for lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts. 4. Environmental Risk Screening Results The EPA conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the PCWP source category for the following pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/ furans, HCl, HF, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride), and POM. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB–HAP (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, and POM emissions had no Tier 1 exceedances for any ecological benchmark. Divalent mercury emissions at nine facilities had Tier 1 exceedances for the surface soil threshold levels (invertebrate and plant communities) by a maximum screening value of 5. Methyl mercury emissions at 13 facilities had Tier 1 exceedances for the surface soil NOAEL (avian ground insectivores) by a maximum screening value of 7. A Tier 2 screening assessment was performed for divalent mercury and methyl mercury. Divalent mercury and methyl mercury had no Tier 2 exceedances for any ecological benchmark. For lead, the EPA did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis, the EPA does not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. 5. Facility-Wide Risk Results Results of the assessment of facilitywide emissions indicate that of the 233 facilities, 182 facilities have a facilitywide MIR cancer risk greater than 1-in1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 30-in-1 million, mainly driven by formaldehyde emissions from batch and continuous lumber kilns. The E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47090 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 25 years. Approximately 260,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be equal to 1, driven by emissions of acrolein, chlorine, and HCl from noncategory sources. 6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, the EPA evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the PCWP source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities. The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. TABLE 3—PLYWOOD AND COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to PCWP Nationwide Total Population ......................................................................................................... Population with chronic hazard index above 1 due to PCWP 317,746,049 204,164 0 62 38 63 37 0 0 18 12 0.8 7 9 24 1.1 3 0 0 0 0 14 86 23 77 0 0 14 86 18 82 0 0 6 2 0 Race by Percent White .......................................................................................................................... All Other Races ......................................................................................................... Race by Percent Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ..................................................... African American ....................................................................................................... Native American ........................................................................................................ Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................. Income by Percent Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................. Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................. Education by Percent Over 25 and without a High School Diploma ............................................................ Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................. Linguistically Isolated by Percent jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................................. The results of the PCWP source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 200,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and zero people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in four of the eleven demographic groups (African American, Native American, below poverty level, and over 25 without a high school diploma) are greater than their respective nationwide percentages. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category, available in the docket for this action. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? 1. Risk Acceptability As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an ’acceptable risk’ that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.’’ (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from the PCWP source category. In determining whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as described above. Table 2 summarizes the risk assessment results for the source category. The results for the PCWP source category indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million (see discussion of presumptive risk in background section II.A). The residual risk assessment for the PCWP category 26 estimated cancer incidence rate at 0.03 cases per year based on both source category actual and allowable emissions. The low number for the predicted cancer incidence is, in part 26 Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0243. E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 due to the rural location of many PCWP facilities. The population estimate of 204,000 people exposed to a cancer risk equal to or above 1-in-1 million from source category actual emissions from 170 facilities reflects the rural nature of the source category. Another factor in the low incidence number is that the estimate of people exposed to a cancer risk greater than 10-in-1 million from source category actual emissions drops to 650 people. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual and allowable emissions from the source category. The results of the acute screening analysis showed maximum acute HQs of 4 for acrolein and 2 for formaldehyde emissions. The EPA is proposing to find the acute risks acceptable for the source category considering the conservative assumptions used that err on the side of overestimating acute risk (as discussed in section III.C.7.e). Maximum cancer risk due to ingestion exposures estimated using healthprotective risk screening assumptions are below 6-in-1 million for the Tier 2 fisher scenario and below 40-in-1 million for the Tier 2 rural gardener exposure scenario. While the Tier 3 screening analyses of mercury exposure due to fish ingestion determined that the maximum HQ for mercury would be less than 2, the EPA is confident that this estimate would be reduced if further refined to incorporate enhanced site-specific analyses such as improved model boundary identification with refined soil/water run-off calculations and use of AERMOD deposition outputs in the TRIM.FaTE model. Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, as well as the uncertainties discussed in section III of this preamble, we propose that the risks posed by emissions from the PCWP source category are acceptable after implementation of the existing MACT standards. 2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), the EPA conducted an analysis to determine if the current emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the risk assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 risk assessment. Although the EPA is proposing that the risks from this source category are acceptable for both inhalation and multipathway, risk estimates for approximately 200,000 people in the exposed population surrounding 170 facilities producing PCWP or kiln-dried lumber are equal to or above 1-in-1 million, caused primarily by formaldehyde emissions. The EPA considered whether the PCWP MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. The EPA did not identify methods for further reducing HAP emissions from the PCWP source category that would achieve meaningful risk reductions for purposes of the ample margin of safety analysis. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that the current PCWP standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and revision of the promulgated standards is not required. 3. Adverse Environmental Effect The EPA does not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on the EPA’s technology review? As described in section III.B of this preamble, the EPA’s technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for process units subject to standards under the NESHAP that have occurred since 2004 when emission standards were promulgated for the PCWP source category. The EPA reviewed ICR responses and other available information (described in sections II.C and II.D of this preamble) to conduct the technology review. The following process units were included in our review: Green rotary dryers, hardboard ovens, pressurized refiners, primary tube dryers, reconstituted wood product presses, softwood veneer dryer heated zones, rotary strand dryers, secondary tube dryers, conveyor strand dryers, fiberboard mat dryers, press predryers, and reconstituted wood product board coolers. The technological basis for the promulgated PCWP NESHAP was use of incinerationbased or biofilter add-on controls to reduce HAP emissions. Incinerationbased controls include regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs), regenerative catalytic oxidizers (RCOs), and PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47091 incineration of process exhaust in an onsite combustion unit (referred to as ‘‘process incineration’’). In addition to the add-on control device compliance options in Table 1B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, Table 1A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD contains productionbased compliance options (PBCO) for process units with low emissions due to pollution prevention measures inherent in their process (e.g., low-formaldehyde resins). An emissions averaging compliance option is also available for existing sources in 40 CFR 63.2240(c). One facility demonstrates compliance with the PCWP NESHAP using emissions averaging because none of the other compliance options were feasible for controlling the unique operations at this facility. Most facilities comply with the PCWP NESHAP using the add-on control options. The EPA observed in our review that many facilities route multiple process units of the same or different types into one shared control system. Facilities use RTOs, RCOs, process incineration, and biofilter control systems as expected. The numerous different process unit and control device combinations that are used in the source category underscore the ongoing utility of the compliance options in Table 1B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The EPA reviewed emissions test data for PCWP process units with add-on controls and concluded that no change in the add-on control emission limits is necessary considering emissions variability. The incremental cost of increasing the required HAP control efficiency from 90-to 95-percent reduction was estimated for new sources to be $670,000 nationwide for a nationwide HAP reduction of 47 tpy ($14,400 per ton of HAP reduced). The EPA is not adopting this option because it was not clearly supported by the emissions data reviewed. The emissions data reflected repeat emissions tests with variability spanning above and below the 95percent control level, suggesting that maintaining 95-percent HAP control with some compliance margin would be unachievable for the variety of process and control configurations used in the industry. Further, as discussed below, the HAP inlet concentration of some process units has decreased, making the 90-percent reduction options more challenging to achieve. Through our review of the ICR data, the EPA found a few facilities currently use the PBCO. Due to a development in the PCWP source category, the EPA expects the PBCO could become more widely used as current add-on air pollution controls for reconstituted E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 47092 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules wood products presses reach the end of their useful life. In 2008, after the PCWP NESHAP was promulgated, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) finalized an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from hardwood plywood, MDF, and particleboard. Consistent with the CARB ATCM, in July 2010, Congress passed the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, as title VI of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), [15 U.S.C. 2697], requiring the EPA to promulgate a national rule. The EPA subsequently proposed a rule in 2013 to implement TSCA title VI to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. The TSCA rule (Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products, RIN 2070– AJ44) was finalized by the EPA on December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89674), and an implementation rule was finalized on February 7, 2018 (83 FR 5340). Compliance with all aspects of the TSCA rule was required by December 2018. The CARB ATCM and the rule to implement TSCA title VI emphasize the use of low emission resins, including ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde and no added formaldehyde resin systems. As facilities conduct repeat testing, they may find that the inlet concentration of formaldehyde and methanol from their pressing operations has dropped if they are now using a different, lower-HAP resin system to comply with the CARB and TSCA standards. The decrease in inlet concentration may allow for use of the PBCO without an add-on control device providing a compliance option in addition to the current add-on control device compliance option. While the CARB and TSCA standards are a ‘‘development’’ within the context of CAA section 112(d)(6), these rules do not necessitate revision of the previously-promulgated PCWP emission standards because the promulgated PCWP emission standards already include the PBCO provisions for pollution prevention measures such as lower-HAP resins. The PCWP NESHAP also contains work practice standards for selected process units in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD; however, the EPA did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or controls for these units beyond those identified in the originally-promulgated PCWP NESHAP. Overall, the EPA’s review of the developments in technology for the process units subject to the PCWP NESHAP did not reveal any changes that require revisions to the emission standards. As discussed above, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 PCWP rule was promulgated with multiple options for reducing HAP emissions to demonstrate compliance with the standard. The EPA found that facilities are using each type of control system or pollution prevention measure that was anticipated when the PCWP emissions standards were promulgated. However, the EPA did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or controls for these units beyond those identified in the originally-promulgated PCWP NESHAP. Therefore, the EPA proposes that no revisions to the PCWP NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details on our technology review can be found in the memorandum, Technology Review for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this action. D. What other actions are we proposing? In addition to the proposed actions described above, the EPA is proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. The EPA is proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. The EPA is also proposing various other changes, including addition of electronic reporting, addition of a repeat testing requirement, revisions to parameter monitoring requirements, and other technical and editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below. 1. SSM In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 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 section 112 standards apply continuously. The EPA is proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule which appears at 40 CFR 63.2250. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. The EPA is also proposing several revisions to Table 10 (the General Provisions Applicability PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Table) as is explained in more detail below. For example, the EPA is proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. The EPA is also proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. As discussed in section IV.E of this preamble, facilities will have 6 months (180 days) after the effective date of the final rule to transition from use of the SSM exemption to compliance without the exemption beginning on the 181st day after the effective date of the amendments. A 5th column to Table 10 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD was added to clearly indicate which requirements apply before, and then on and after the date 181 days after the effective date. See section IV.E for more discussion of the compliance date. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. The EPA is specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has proposed alternate standards for specific periods. The EPA collected information with the PCWP ICR to use in determining whether applying the standards applicable under normal operations would be problematic for PCWP facilities during startup and shutdown. Based on the information collected, facilities can meet the PCWP compliance options, operating requirements, and work practices at all times with two exceptions during periods of startup and shutdown (discussed further below). Facilities operating control systems generally operate the control systems while the process unit(s) controlled are started up and shutdown. For example, RTOs and RCOs are warmed to their operating temperature set points using auxiliary fuel before the process unit(s) controlled startup and the oxidizers continue to maintain their temperature until the process unit(s) controlled shutdown. Biofilters operate within a biofilter bed temperature range that will be more easily achieved during startup and shutdown with changes in biofilter bed temperature operating range discussed in section IV.D. The two situations where standards for normal operation cannot be met during startup and shutdown are during safety-related shutdowns and E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns. The EPA is proposing work practice standards in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD to apply during these times to ensure that a CAA section 112 standard applies continuously. Work practices are appropriate during safety-related shutdowns and pressurized refiner startup/shutdown because it is not technically feasible to capture and route emissions to a control device during these periods, nor is it technically or economically feasible to measure emissions during the brief periods when these situations occur (i.e., less than the 1-hour test runs or 3 hours required for a full test). It is particularly infeasible to measure emissions from safety-related shutdowns because these shutdowns are unplanned. Safety-related shutdowns differ from routine shutdowns that allow facilities to continue routing process unit emissions to the control device until the process unit is shut down. Safetyrelated shutdowns occur often enough that they are also distinguished from malfunctions which are, by definition, infrequent. In addition, the PCWP process shuts down when these events are triggered. Safety-related shutdowns must occur rapidly in the event of unsafe conditions such as a suspected fire in a process unit heating flammable wood material. When unsafe conditions are detected, facilities must act quickly to shut off fuel flow (or indirect process heat) to the system, cease addition of raw materials (e.g., wood furnish, resin) to the process units, purge wood material and gases from the process unit, and isolate equipment to prevent loss of property or life and protect workers from injury. Because it is unsafe to continue to route process gases to the control system, the control system will be bypassed, in many cases automatically through a system of interlocks designed to prevent dangerous conditions from occurring. The EPA is proposing to define ‘‘safetyrelated shutdowns’’ in 40 CFR 63.2292, and to add a work practice for these shutdown events. The proposed work practice requires facilities to follow documented site-specific procedures such as use of automated controls or other measures developed to protect workers and equipment to ensure that the flow of raw materials (such as furnish or resin) and fuel or process heat (as applicable) ceases and that material is removed from the process unit(s) as expeditiously as possible given the system design. These actions are taken by all (including the best-performing) VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 facilities when safety-related shutdowns occur. Pressurized refiners typically operate in MDF and dry-process hardboard mills where they discharge refined furnish and exhaust gases from refining directly into a primary tube dryer. Pressurized refiners are unable to vent through the dryer to the control system (i.e., the dryer control system) for a brief time after they are initially fed wood material during startup or as wood material clears the refiner during shutdown because they are not producing useable furnish suitable for drying. During this time, instead of the pressurized refiner output being discharged into the dryer, exhaust is vented to the atmosphere and the wood is directed to storage for recycling back into the refining process once it is running steadily. Information from the PCWP industry indicates that no resin is mixed with the off-specification material and that the time periods are short (i.e., no more than 15 minutes) before the pressurized refiner begins to discharge wood furnish and exhaust through the dryer. Information collected through the ICR indicates a range of pressurized refiner startup times before wood furnish is introduced into the system (e.g., up to 4 hours) and that up to 45 minutes is required to shut down the pressurized refiner including time after the wood clears the system. Hence, the time when off-specification material is produced (when emissions are beginning to be generated during startup or diminishing during shutdown) is only a fraction of the pressurized refiner startup and shutdown time. Based on this information, the EPA is proposing a work practice requirement to apply during pressurized refiner startup and shutdown that limits the amount of time (and, thus, emissions) when wood is being processed through the system while exhaust is not routed through the dryer to its control system. The proposed work practice requires facilities to route exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to its control system no later than 15 minutes after furnish is fed to the pressurized refiner when starting up and no more than 15 minutes after furnish ceases to be fed to the pressurized refiner when shutting down. This practice is consistent with how the best-performing facilities complete startup and shutdown of pressurized refiners. The new definition in 40 CFR 63.2292 and the new work practice standards in Table 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD are designed to address safetyrelated shutdowns and refiner startup/ shutdown periods. Facilities have ample profit-incentive to keep the periods PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47093 when these work practice standards will be in effect as short as possible because they are unable to produce usable product during safety-related shutdowns or pressurized refiner startup/shutdown periods. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). 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 and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). Under section CAA 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in section CAA 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of ’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 47094 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances’’). As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’ ’’) See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.’’). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211–14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. The EPA also encourages commenters to provide any such information. In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation per 40 CFR 63.2 (Definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. 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. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 a. General Duty (40 CFR 63.2250) The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) and (2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5 which was added to specify requirements on and after the date 181 days after the effective date of the final amendments. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. The EPA is proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2250 that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.2250 eliminates that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). The EPA is also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.2250. b. SSM Plan The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. c. Compliance With Standards The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) through (9) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and changing the ‘‘NA’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. d. Performance Testing (40 CFR 63.2262) The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.2262(a)–(b). The performance testing requirements the EPA is proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption. The proposed performance testing provisions remove reference to 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), reiterate the requirement that was already included in the PCWP rule to conduct emissions tests under representative operating conditions, and clarify that representative operating conditions excludes periods of startup and shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 explanation to support that such conditions are representative. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records ‘‘as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test’’ upon request but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the information. The definition of ‘‘representative operating conditions’’ in 40 CFR 63.2292 is also proposed to be clarified to exclude periods of startup and shutdown. Representative operating conditions include a range of operating conditions under which the process unit and control device typically operate and are not limited to conditions of optimal performance of the process unit and control device. e. Monitoring The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions’ SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.2282(f) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ‘‘The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under 40 CFR 63.8(d)(2).’’ f. Recordkeeping (40 CFR 63.2282) The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) through (iv) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. The EPA is instead proposing to add recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 63.2282(a). When a source is subject to a different PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47095 standard during startup and shutdown, it will be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and end to determine compliance with the appropriate standard. Thus, the EPA is proposing to add language to 40 CFR 63.2282(a) requiring that sources subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the emission standard that applies at all other times must report the date, time, and duration of such periods. The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.2282(a). The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2282(a) a requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47096 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2282(a). The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) to the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source’s SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units. g. Reporting (40 CFR 63.2281) The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.2281(d) and (e). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. The EPA is proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual compliance report already required under this rule. The EPA is proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. The EPA will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. The EPA will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. 2. Electronic Reporting The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of PCWP facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports for continuous monitoring systems (CMS) measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants (i.e., total hydrocarbon monitors), selected notifications, and semiannual reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2016–0243. The proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website 27 at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For the PCWP semiannual report, the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for this report is included in the docket for this rulemaking.28 The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the template. In addition, the EPA is proposing to require future initial notifications developed according to 40 CFR 63.2280(b) and notifications of compliance status developed according to 40 CFR 63.2280(d) to be uploaded in CEDRI in a user-specified (e.g., PDF) format. Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2281(k). The situation 27 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 28 See 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD—Plywood and Composite Wood Products Semiannual Compliance Reporting Spreadsheet Template, available at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0243. E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2281(l). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA’s plan 29 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 30 developed in response to the White House’s Digital Government Strategy.31 For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2016–0243. 29 The EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 30 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf. 31 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 3. Repeat Emissions Testing As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the emissions testing requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, and is proposing to require facilities complying with the standards in Table 1B of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD using an add-on control system other than a biofilter to conduct repeat emissions performance testing every 5 years. Currently, facilities operating add-on controls are required to conduct an initial performance test by the date specified in 40 CFR 63.2261(a). In addition to the initial performance test, process units controlled by biofilters are already required by the PCWP NESHAP to conduct repeat performance testing every 2 years. Periodic performance tests for all types of control systems are already required by permitting authorities for many facilities. Further, the EPA believes that requiring repeat performance tests will help to ensure that control systems are properly maintained over time. As proposed in Table 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD (row 7) the first of the repeat performance tests would be required to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards or within 60 months following the previous performance test, whichever is later, and thereafter within 5 years (60 months) following the previous performance test. Section IV.E of this preamble provides more information on compliance dates. We specifically request comment on the proposed repeat testing requirements. 4. Biofilter Bed Temperature Facilities using a biofilter to comply with the PCWP NESHAP must monitor biofilter bed temperature and maintain the 24-hour block biofilter bed temperature within the range established during performance testing showing compliance with the emission limits. The upper and lower limits of the biofilter bed temperature are currently required to be established as the highest and lowest 15-minute average bed temperatures, respectively, during the three test runs. Facilities may conduct multiple performance tests to expand the biofilter bed operating temperature range. See 40 CFR 63.2262(m). The EPA has become aware that multiple facilities are having difficulty with the PCWP biofilter bed temperature monitoring requirements as originally promulgated. Biofilter bed temperature is affected by ambient temperature. Diurnal and seasonal PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47097 ambient temperature fluctuations do not necessarily impact the ability of the biofilter to reduce HAP emissions because biofilters reduce HAP (e.g., formaldehyde) emissions over a wide range of bed temperatures. Facilities have indicated they are not able to schedule performance tests on the warmest and coolest days of each season because test firms must plan and mobilize for tests weeks in advance and facilities must notify their delegated authority 60 days before conducting a performance test. For example, facilities may schedule a test in the winter with the intent of measuring emissions during the coldest conditions in which a biofilter performs, only to find that the weather changes on the test date to a warmer than expected ambient temperature. In consideration of this issue, the EPA reviewed biofilter temperature monitoring data, semiannual compliance reports, and test data showing that formaldehyde reductions in compliance with emission standards were achieved at a wide range of biofilter bed temperatures. The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.2262(m)(1) to add a 5-percent variability margin to the biofilter bed temperature upper and lower limits established during emissions testing. A 5-percent variability margin addresses the issues observed in the 24-hour block average biofilter temperature monitoring data reviewed. The EPA maintains that the currently-required 24-hour block averaging time is appropriate to monitor for harsh swings in biofilter bed temperature that could impact the viability of the microbial population. The 5-percent variability margin provides flexibility needed to account for small variations in biofilter bed temperature unlikely to impact the microbial population. While the proposed regulatory language does not explicitly state that facilities can use the 5-percent variability margin to expand the range of the biofilter bed temperature limit established though previously conducted performance tests, the EPA anticipates that facilities currently having difficulty maintaining the biofilter bed temperature limits may wish to adjust their temperature limits. As originally promulgated, 40 CFR 63.2262(m)(1) states that facilities may base their biofilter bed temperature range on values recorded during previous performance tests provided that the data used to establish the temperature ranges have been obtained using the required test methods; and that facilities using data from previous performance tests must certify that the E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47098 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 biofilter and associated process unit(s) have not been modified since the test. This provision (if met) clarifies that facilities can adjust their previously established biofilter temperature range to include the 5-percent variability margin, if desired. Facilities are encouraged to demonstrate the broadest limits of their compliant temperature operating parameters with their regular performance tests. 5. Thermocouple Calibration Facilities with controlled sources subject to the PCWP NESHAP that use regenerative thermal or catalytic oxidizers to comply with the standard are required to establish a minimum operating temperature during performance testing then maintain a 3hour block average firebox temperature above the minimum temperature established during the performance test to demonstrate ongoing compliance. Facilities with controlled sources subject to the PCWP NESHAP that use biofilters to comply with the standard are required to establish an operating temperature range during performance testing then maintain a 24-hour block average temperature within the temperature range established during the performance test to demonstrate ongoing compliance. (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, Table 2). Facilities with dry rotary dryers are required to maintain their 24-hour block average inlet dryer temperature less than 600 degrees Fahrenheit. (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, Table 3). Thermocouples are used to measure the temperature in the firebox, the biofilter, and the dry rotary dryer. At 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4), the PCWP NESHAP currently requires conducting an electronic calibration of the temperature monitoring device at least semiannually according to the procedures in the manufacturer’s owner’s manual. Facilities subject to the standard have explained to the EPA that they are not aware of a thermocouple manufacturer that provides procedures or protocols for conducting electronic calibration of thermocouples. Facilities have reported that since they cannot calibrate their thermocouples, the alternative is to replace them and requested that an alternative approach to the current requirement in 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4) be considered. The EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4) to allow multiple alternative approaches to thermocouple calibration. The first alternative would allow use of a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulator to confirm the accuracy of any thermocouple placed VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 into use for at least one semi-annual period, where the accuracy of the temperature measurement must be within 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by the NIST traceable device or 5 °F, whichever is greater. The second alternative would be to have the thermocouple manufacturer certify the electrical properties of the thermocouple. The third alternative would codify the common practice of replacing thermocouples every 6 months. The fourth alternative would be to permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as practicable to the process temperature sensor. The redundant sensors must read within 30 °F of each other for thermal and catalytic oxidizers, within 5 °F for biofilters, and within 20 °F for dry rotary dryers. The EPA plans to maintain the option of allowing facilities to follow calibration procedures developed by the thermocouple manufacturer when thermocouple manufacturers develop calibration procedures for their products. 6. Non-HAP Coating Definition The PCWP NESHAP requires use of ‘‘non-HAP coatings’’ for ‘‘Group 1 miscellaneous coating operations’’ as defined in 40 CFR 63.2292. As defined, PCWP non-HAP coatings exclude coatings with 0.1 percent or more (by mass) of carcinogenic HAP. The current ‘‘non-HAP coating’’ definition in 40 CFR 63.2292 references Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) which was amended (77 FR 17574, March 26, 2012) and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. The EPA is proposing to replace the references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) in the PCWP ‘‘non-HAP coating’’ definition with a reference to a new appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, that lists HAP that must be below 0.1 percent by mass for a PCWP coating to be considered as nonHAP coating. The HAP listed in the proposed appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, were categorized in the EPA’s Prioritized Chronic DoseResponse Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May 9, 2014) as a ‘‘human carcinogen,’’ ‘‘probable human carcinogen,’’ or ‘‘possible human carcinogen’’ according to The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/ 600/8–87/045, August 1987),32 or as ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be 32 https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response- assessment-assessing-health-risks-associatedexposure-hazardous-air-pollutants. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 carcinogenic to humans,’’ or with ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential’’ according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/ 630/P–03/001F, March 2005). 7. Technical and Editorial Changes The following lists additional proposed changes that address technical and editorial corrections: • The clarifying reference to ‘‘SSM plans’’ in 40 CFR 63.2252 was removed because SSM plans will no longer be applicable; • The redundant reference in 40 CFR 63.2281(c)(6) for submittal of performance test results with the compliance report was eliminated because performance test results will be required to be electronically reported; • The EPA revised 40 CFR 63.2281(d)(2) and added language to 40 CFR 63.2281(e)(12)–(13) to makes these sections more consistent to facilitate electronic reporting; • A provision stating that the EPA retains authority to approve alternatives to electronic reporting was added to 40 CFR 63.2291(c)(5); • Cross-references to the 40 CFR part 60 appendices containing test methods were updated in Table 4 of the rule; • Cross-references were updated throughout the rule, as needed, to match the proposed changes; • Cross-references to 40 CFR 63.14 to remove outdated paragraph references were updated; • The equation number crossreferenced in the definition of ‘‘MSF’’ was corrected; and • The cross-reference in 40 CFR 63.2290 to include all sections of the General Provisions was updated. E. What compliance dates are we proposing? The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources and other affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 6, 2019 must comply with all of the amendments 6 months (180 days) after the effective date of the final rule.33 For existing sources, the EPA is proposing changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the EPA is proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. The EPA 33 The final action is not expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules is also proposing addition of electronic reporting requirements that will require use of a semiannual reporting template once the template has been available on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for 6 months. The EPA’s experience with similar industries shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time-period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their operations to reflect the revised requirements. From our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with this regulation’s revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation’s effective date. All existing affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of this NESHAP until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon initial startup, whichever is later. Also, the EPA is proposing new requirements to conduct repeat performance testing every 5 years for facilities using an add-on control system other than a biofilter (see section IV.D.3 of this preamble). Establishing a compliance date earlier than 3 years for the first repeat performance test can cause scheduling issues as affected sources compete for a limited number of testing contractors. Considering these scheduling issues, the first of the repeat performance tests would be required to be conducted within 3 years after the effective date of the revised standards, or within 60 months following the previous performance test, whichever is later, and thereafter within 5 years (60 months) following the previous performance test. Thus, facilities with relatively new affected sources that recently conducted the initial performance test by the date specified in 40 CFR 63.2261(a) or facilities that were required by their delegated authorities to conduct a performance test to show VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 ongoing compliance with the PCWP standards would have 5 years (60 months) from the previous test before being required to conduct the first of the repeat tests required by the proposed amendment to add repeat testing. The EPA specifically seeks comment on whether the compliance times described in this section provide enough time for owners and operators to comply with these proposed amendments, and if the proposed time window is not adequate, we request that commenters provide an explanation of specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. The EPA notes that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance date. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? The EPA has identified 230 facilities that are currently operating and subject to the PCWP NESHAP. This includes 109 facilities manufacturing one or more PCWP products (e.g., plywood, veneer, particleboard, OSB, hardboard, fiberboard, MDF, engineered wood products) and 121 facilities that produce kiln-dried lumber. Sixteen facilities produce PCWP products and kiln-dried lumber. Information on currently operational facilities is included in the Technology Review for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP, available in the docket for this action. In addition, the EPA is aware of 13 greenfield facilities (four PCWP and nine kiln-dried lumber mills) that recently commenced construction as major sources of HAP emissions. The EPA is projecting that two new OSB mills will be constructed as major sources within the next 5 years, and that existing facilities will add or replace process units during this same time frame. More details on our projections of new sources are available in Projections of the Number of New and Reconstructed Sources for the Subpart DDDD Technology Review, in the docket for this action. B. What are the air quality impacts? The nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the 230 facilities in the PCWP source category are estimated to be 7,600 tons/year. Emissions of the six compounds defined as ‘‘total HAP’’ in the PCWP NESHAP (acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde) make up PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47099 96 percent of the nationwide emissions. The proposed amendments include removal of the SSM exemption and addition of repeat emissions testing for controls other than biofilters (which are already require repeat tests). Although the EPA is unable to quantify the emission reduction associated with these changes, we expect that emissions will be reduced by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during periods of SSM and that the repeat emissions testing requirements will encourage operation of add-on controls to achieve optimum performance. The EPA is not proposing other revisions to the emission limits that would impact emissions, so there are no quantifiable air quality impacts resulting from the proposed amendments. C. What are the cost impacts? No capital costs are estimated to be incurred to comply with the proposed amendments. The costs associated with the proposed amendments are related to recordkeeping and reporting labor costs and repeat performance testing. Because repeat performance testing would be required every 5 years, costs are estimated and summarized over a 5-year period. The nationwide cost of the proposed amendments is estimated to include a one-time cost of $1.3 million for facilities to review the revised rule and make record systems adjustments and a cost of $3.5 million every 5 years for repeat emissions testing. These costs are in 2018 dollars. Another metric for presenting the one-time costs is as a present value (PV), which is a technique that converts a stream of costs over time into a one-time estimate for the present year or other year. The EPA estimates that the PV of costs for this proposal is $5.6 million at a discount rate of 7 percent and $6.9 million at a discount rate of 3 percent. In addition, the EPA presents these costs as an equivalent annualized value (EAV) in order to provide an estimate of annual costs consistent with the present value. The EAV for this proposal is estimated to be $0.9 million at a discount rate of 7 percent and $1.0 million at a discount rate of 3 percent. The PV and EAV cost estimates are in 2016 dollars in part to conform to Executive Order 13771 requirements. For further information on the costs associated with the proposed amendments, see the memorandum, Cost, Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for Subpart DDDD, and the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Products Risk and Technology Review E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47100 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules (RTR) NESHAP, both available in the docket for this action. D. What are the economic impacts? The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for this proposal, as detailed in the memorandum titled Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Risk and Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this action. The economic impacts of the proposal are calculated as the percentage of annualized costs incurred by affected ultimate parent owners to their revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of PCWP facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. The EPA estimates that none of the ultimate parent owners affected by this proposal will incur annualized costs of 1.0 percent or greater of their revenues. Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies and the industries impacted by this proposal, and there will not be substantial impacts in the markets for affected products. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 E. What are the benefits? The EPA is not proposing changes to emissions limits, and estimates the proposed changes (i.e., changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring) are not economically significant. Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emissions reductions were estimated, the EPA did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions. VI. Request for Comments The EPA solicits comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, the EPA is also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. The EPA is specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data. VII. Submitting Data Corrections The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 stationary-sources-air-pollution/ plywood-and-composite-wood-productsmanufacture-national-emission. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source category. If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if available. When you submit data, the EPA requests that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps: 1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information. 2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments). 3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations). 4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2016–0243 (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). The EPA requests that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/plywood-and-compositewood-products-manufacture-nationalemission. VIII. 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 Order 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. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not expected to be 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 proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1984.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions standards. The information collection activities also include paperwork requirements associated with initial and repeat performance testing and parameter monitoring. The proposed amendments to the rule would eliminate the paperwork requirements associated with the SSM plan and recordkeeping of SSM events and require electronic submittal of performance test results and semiannual compliance reports. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, that produce plywood, composite wood products, or kiln-dried lumber. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD). Estimated number of respondents: 244 facilities (including existing and new facilities projected to begin reporting during the ICR period). Frequency of response: The frequency varies depending on the type of response (e.g., initial notification, semiannual compliance report). Total estimated burden: 39,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: $6,930,000 (per year), includes $2,365,000 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA at oira_submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than October 7, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. 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. Of the 69 ultimate parent entities that are subject to the rule, 28 are small according to the Small Business Administration’s small business size standards and standards regarding other entities (e.g., federally recognized tribes). None of the 28 small entities have annualized costs of 1 percent or greater of sales. The EPA has, therefore, concluded that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate 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. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments own facilities that are impacted by the proposed changes to the NESHAP. 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 this preamble and further documented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found 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) and 1 CFR Part 51 This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use the standards currently listed in Table 4 of the rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD). While the EPA has identified another 18 voluntary consensus standards (VCS) as being potentially applicable to this proposed rule, the EPA has decided not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other important technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for NESHAP: Plywood and Composite Wood Products RTR, in the docket for PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47101 this proposed rule for the reasons for these determinations. The EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR 63.14 to incorporate by reference EPA Method 0011 for measurement of formaldehyde. EPA Method 0011 (Revision 0, December 1996) is available in ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’ EPA Publication No. SW–846. This method was included in the PCWP rule when it was promulgated in 2004. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule or any amendments. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. 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, lowincome 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 IV.A.6 of this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category, in the public docket for this action. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 22, 2019. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed to be 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: ■ E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47102 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 2. Section 63.14 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (n)(7) through (24) as (n)(8) through (25) and adding new paragraph (n)(7) to read as follows: ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. * * * * * (n) * * * (7) SW–846–0011, Sampling for Selected Aldehyde and Ketone Emissions from Stationary Sources, Revision 0, December 1996, in EPA Publication No. SW–846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, IBR approved for table 4 to subpart DDDD. * * * * * Subpart DDDD—[Amended] 3. Section 63.2233 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.2233 When do I have to comply with this subpart? (a) * * * (1) If the initial startup of your affected source is before September 28, 2004, then you must comply with the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new and reconstructed sources in this subpart no later than September 28, 2004, except as otherwise specified in §§ 63.2250, 63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6), 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 7, 9, and 10 to this subpart. (2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after September 28, 2004, then you must comply with the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new and reconstructed sources in this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source, except as otherwise specified in §§ 63.2250, 63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6), 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 7, 9, and 10 to this subpart. (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements for existing sources no later than October 1, 2007, except as otherwise specified in §§ 63.2240(c)(2)(vi)(A), 63.2250, 63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6) and (c)(4), 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 7, 9, and 10 to this subpart. * * * * * ■ 4. Section 63.2240 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(A) to read as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 § 63.2240 What are the compliance options and operating requirements and how must I meet them? * * * * * (c) * * * (2) * * * (vi) * * * (A) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction as described in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], emissions during safety-related shutdowns or pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns. * * * * * ■ 5. Section 63.2250 is amended by: ■ a. Adding two sentences to the end of paragraph (a); ■ b. Revising paragraph (b); ■ c. Revising paragraph (c); and ■ d. Adding new paragraphs (e) through (g). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.2250 What are the general requirements? (a) * * * For any affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph does not apply on and after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is later. For all other affected sources, this paragraph does not apply on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). For any affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph does not apply on and after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is later. For all other affected sources, this paragraph does not apply on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (c) You must develop a written SSMP according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). For any affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph does not apply on and PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is later. For all other affected sources, this paragraph does not apply on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. * * * * * (e) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 10 to this subpart. (f) Upon [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for all other affected sources, you must be in compliance with the compliance options, operating requirements, and the work practice requirements in this subpart when the process unit(s) subject to the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements are operating, except as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Prior to process unit initial startup. (2) During safety-related shutdowns conducted according to the work practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart. (3) During pressurized refiner startup and shutdown according to the work practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart. (4) You must minimize the length of time when compliance options and operating requirements in this subpart are not met due to the conditions in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this section. (g) For affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 and for all other affected sources on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels required by this subpart. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. ■ 6. Section 63.2252 is revised to read as follows: § 63.2252 What are the requirements for process units that have no control or work practice requirements? For process units not subject to the compliance options or work practice requirements specified in § 63.2240 (including, but not limited to, lumber kilns), you are not required to comply with the compliance options, work practice requirements, performance testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping or reporting requirements of this subpart, or any other requirements in subpart A of this part, except for the initial notification requirements in § 63.9(b). ■ 7. Section 63.2262 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (m)(1) and (n)(1) to read as follows: jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.2262 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating requirements? (a) You must conduct each performance test according to the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (o) of this section, and according to the methods specified in Table 4 to this subpart. (b) Periods when performance tests must be conducted. You must conduct each performance test based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on representative operating conditions as defined in § 63.2292) of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must describe representative operating conditions in your performance test report for the process and control systems and explain why they are representative. You 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 are representative. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. * * * * * (m) * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 (1) During the performance test, you must continuously monitor the biofilter bed temperature during each of the required 1-hour test runs. To monitor biofilter bed temperature, you may use multiple thermocouples in representative locations throughout the biofilter bed and calculate the average biofilter bed temperature across these thermocouples prior to reducing the temperature data to 15-minute averages for purposes of establishing biofilter bed temperature limits. The biofilter bed temperature range must be established as the temperature values 5 percent below the minimum and 5 percent above the maximum 15-minute biofilter bed temperatures monitored during the three test runs. You may base your biofilter bed temperature range on values recorded during previous performance tests provided that the data used to establish the temperature ranges have been obtained using the test methods required in this subpart. If you use data from previous performance tests, you must certify that the biofilter and associated process unit(s) have not been modified subsequent to the date of the performance tests. Replacement of the biofilter media with the same type of material is not considered a modification of the biofilter for purposes of this section. * * * * * (n) * * * (1) During the performance test, you must identify and document the process unit controlling parameter(s) that affect total HAP emissions during the threerun performance test. The controlling parameters you identify must coincide with the representative operating conditions you describe according to paragraph (b) of this section. For each parameter, you must specify appropriate monitoring methods, monitoring frequencies, and for continuously monitored parameters, averaging times not to exceed 24 hours. The operating limit for each controlling parameter must then be established as the minimum, maximum, range, or average (as appropriate depending on the parameter) recorded during the performance test. Multiple three-run performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of parameter values under different operating conditions. * * * * * ■ 8. Section 63.2269 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows. § 63.2269 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? * * * (b) * * * PO 00000 Frm 00031 * Fmt 4701 * Sfmt 4702 47103 (4) Validate the temperature sensor’s reading at least semiannually using the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of this section: (i) Compare measured readings to a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulate a typical operating temperature using a NIST traceable temperature simulation device. When the temperature measurement device method is used, the sensor of the NIST traceable calibrated device must be placed as close as practicable to the process sensor, and both devices must be subjected to the same environmental conditions. The accuracy of the temperature measured must be 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by the NIST traceable device or 5 °F, whichever is greater. (ii) Follow applicable procedures in the thermocouple manufacturer owner’s manual. (iii) Request thermocouple manufacturer to certify or re-certify electromotive force (electrical properties) of the thermocouple. (iv) Replace thermocouple with a new certified thermocouple in lieu of validation. (v) Permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as practicable to the process temperature sensor. The sensors must yield a reading within 30 °F of each other for thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers; within 5 °F of each other for biofilters; and within 20 °F of each other for dry rotary dryers. * * * * * ■ 9. Section 63.2270 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.2270 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? * * * * * (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities; or data recorded during periods of safetyrelated shutdown, pressurized refiner startup or shutdown, or control device downtime covered in any approved routine control device maintenance exemption in data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control system. * * * * * E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47104 § 63.2271 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules [Amended] § 63.2280 What notifications must I submit and when? jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (b) You must submit an Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after September 28, 2004, or after initial startup, whichever is later, as specified in § 63.9(b)(2). Initial Notifications required to be submitted after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for all other affected sources must be submitted following the procedure specified in § 63.2281(h), (k), and (l). * * * * * (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design evaluation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as specified in § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for all other affected sources, submit all subsequent Notifications of Compliance Status following the procedure specified in § 63.2281(h), (k), and (l). * * * * * (2) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test. * * * * * ■ 12. Section 63.2281 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; ■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(6); ■ c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 d. Revising paragraph (c)(4); e. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(6); ■ f. Revising paragraph (d)(2); ■ g. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text; ■ h. Revising paragraph (e)(2); ■ i. Adding paragraphs (e)(12) and (13); and ■ j. Adding paragraphs (h) through (l). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ 10. Section 63.2271 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2). ■ 11. Section 63.2280 is amended by revising paragraph (b), paragraph (d) introductory text, and paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows: ■ Jkt 247001 ■ § 63.2281 when? What reports must I submit and * * * * * (b) Unless the EPA Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10(a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 9 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section. * * * * * (6) After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for all other affected sources, submit all subsequent reports following the procedure specified in paragraph (h), (k) and (l) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section. * * * * * (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information specified in § 63.10(d)(5)(i) before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction before September 6, 2019. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) Information on the date, time, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. (e) For each deviation from a compliance option or operating requirement occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the compliance options and operating requirements in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (6) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) of this section. * * * * * * * * (2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. * * * * * (12) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (13) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. * * * * * (h) Submitting reports electronically. If you are required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). For semiannual compliance reports required in this section and Table 9 (row 1) of this subpart, you must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/ electronic-reporting-air-emissions/ compliance-and-emissions-datareporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart once the reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 6 months. The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in § 63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 6 months you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. Initial Notifications developed according to § 63.2280(b) and Notifications of Compliance Status developed according to § 63.2280(d) may be uploaded in a user-specified format such as portable document format (PDF). The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (i) Performance tests. Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) 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/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) 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. The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under this paragraph (i) is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be 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. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (i) of this section. (j) Performance evaluations. Within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in § 63.2), you must submit the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 results of the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under this paragraph (j) is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be 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. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (j) of this section. (k) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to electronically submit a report or notification through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 47105 (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due. (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned. (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying: (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The 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. (6) 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. (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. (l) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (l)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a 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). (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47106 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (3) You must provide to the Administrator: (i) A written description of the force majeure event; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The 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. (4) 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. (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. ■ 13. Section 63.2282 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2); ■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and ■ c. Adding paragraph (f). The revisions and additions read as follows: jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.2282 What records must I keep? (a) * * * (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction before September 6, 2019. After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] for all other affected sources, the records related to startup and shutdown, failures to meet the standard, and actions taken to minimize emissions, specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Record the date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown period, including the periods when the affected source was subject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown; (ii) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, record the number of failures; for each failure, record the date, time, cause and duration of each failure; (iii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions; and (iv) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.2250(g), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan, with the program of corrective action included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2). * * * * * (f) You must keep the written CMS quality control procedures required by § 63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this subpart, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2). ■ 14. Section 63.2283 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 63.2283 In what form and how long must I keep my records? * * * * * (d) 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. ■ 15. Section 63.2290 is revised to read as follows: § 63.2290 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 10 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. ■ 16. Section 63.2291 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows: § 63.2291 Who implements and enforces this subpart? * PO 00000 * * Frm 00034 * Fmt 4701 * Sfmt 4702 (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section. * * * * * (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. ■ 17. Section 63.2292 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the definitions of ‘‘MSF,’’ ‘‘non-HAP coating’’ and ‘‘representative operating conditions’’; ■ b. Adding the definition of ‘‘safetyrelated shutdown’’ in alphabetical order; and ■ c. Removing the definition of ‘‘startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.’’ The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.2292 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * MSF means thousand square feet (92.9 square meters). Square footage of panels is usually measured on a thickness basis, such as 3⁄8-inch, to define the total volume of panels. Equation 3 of § 63.2262(j) shows how to convert from one thickness basis to another. * * * * * Non-HAP coating means a coating with HAP contents below 0.1 percent by mass for the carcinogenic HAP compounds listed in Appendix B to this subpart and below 1.0 percent by mass for other HAP compounds. * * * * * Representative operating conditions means operation of a process unit during performance testing under the conditions that the process unit will typically be operating in the future, including use of a representative range of materials (e.g., wood material of a typical species mix and moisture content or typical resin formulation) and representative operating temperature range. Representative operating conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. * * * * * Safety-related shutdown means an unscheduled shutdown of a process unit subject to a compliance option in Table 1B to this subpart (or a process unit with HAP control under an emissions averaging plan developed according to § 63.2240(c)) during which time emissions from the process unit cannot be safely routed to the control system in place to meet the compliance options or operating requirements in this subpart without imminent danger to the process, control system, or system operator. * * * * * E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 47107 18. Table 3 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 3 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS For the following process units at existing or new affected sources . . . You must . . . (1) Dry rotary dryers ................................................................................. Process furnish with a 24-hour block average inlet moisture content of less than or equal to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis); AND operate with a 24-hour block average inlet dryer temperature of less than or equal to 600 °F. Process less than 30 volume percent softwood species on an annual basis. Minimize fugitive emissions from the dryer doors through (proper maintenance procedures) and the green end of the dryers (through proper balancing of the heated zone exhausts). Process veneer that has been previously dried, such that the 24-hour block average inlet moisture content of the veneer is less than or equal to 25 percent (by weight, dry basis). Use non-HAP coatings as defined in § 63.2292. Follow documented site-specific procedures such as use of automated controls or other measures that you have developed to protect workers and equipment to ensure that the flow of raw materials (such as furnish or resin) and fuel or process heat (as applicable) ceases and that material is removed from the process unit(s) as expeditiously as possible given the system design. Route exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to its control system no later than 15 minutes after furnish is fed from the pressurized refiner to the tube dryer when starting up, and no more than 15 minutes after furnish ceases to be fed to the pressurized refiner when shutting down. (2) Hardwood veneer dryers .................................................................... (3) Softwood veneer dryers ...................................................................... (4) Veneer redryers .................................................................................. (5) Group 1 miscellaneous coating operations ........................................ (6) Process units and control systems undergoing safety-related shutdown on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] except as noted in footnote ‘‘a’’ to this table. (7) Pressurized refiners undergoing startup or shutdown on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] except as noted in footnote ‘‘a’’ to this table. a New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with this requirement beginning on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or upon initial startup, whichever is later. 19. Table 4 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: ■ jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 4 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS For . . . You must . . . Using . . . (1) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1A or 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). (2) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1A or 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). (3) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1A or 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). (4) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1A or 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). (5) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1B to this subpart for which you choose to demonstrate compliance using a total HAP as THC compliance option. select sampling port’s location and the number of traverse ports. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 (as appropriate). determine velocity and volumetric flow rate .... Method 2 in addition to Method 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in appendix A–1 and A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 (as appropriate). conduct gas molecular weight analysis ........... Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 (as appropriate). measure moisture content of the stack gas .... (6) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1A to this subpart; OR for each process unit used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). measure emissions of total HAP (as defined in § 63.2292). Method 4 in appendix A–3 to 40 CFR part 60; OR Method 320 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR ASTM D6348–03 (IBR, see § 63.14). Method 25A in appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60. You may measure emissions of methane using EPA Method 18 in appendix A–6 to 40 CFR part 60 and subtract the methane emissions from the emissions of total HAP as THC. Method 320 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR the NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–99.02 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method ISS/FP–A105.01 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR ASTM D6348–03 (IBR, see § 63.14) provided that percent R as determined in Annex A5 of ASTM D6348–03 is equal or greater than 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 measure emissions of total HAP as THC ........ PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47108 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued For . . . You must . . . Using . . . (7) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1B to this subpart for which you choose to demonstrate compliance using a methanol compliance option. measure emissions of methanol ...................... (8) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1B to this subpart for which you choose to demonstrate compliance using a formaldehyde compliance option. measure emissions of formaldehyde ............... (9) each reconstituted wood product press at a new or existing affected source or reconstituted wood product board cooler at a new affected source subject to a compliance option in table 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). meet the design specifications included in the definition of wood products enclosure in § 63.2292; or determine the percent capture efficiency of the enclosure directing emissions to an add-on control device. (10) each reconstituted wood product press at a new or existing affected source or reconstituted wood product board cooler at a new affected source subject to a compliance option in table 1A to this subpart. determine the percent capture efficiency ........ (11) each process unit subject to a compliance option in tables 1A and 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). establish the site-specific operating requirements (including the parameter limits or THC concentration limits) in Table 2 to this subpart. Method 308 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR Method 320 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR the NCASI Method CI/WP– 98.01 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–99.02 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method ISS/FP– A105.01 (IBR, see § 63.14). Method 316 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR Method 320 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR Method 0011 in ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods’’ (EPA Publication No. SW– 846) for formaldehyde (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method CI/WP–98.01 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method IM/ CAN/WP–99.02 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method ISS/FP–A105.01 (IBR, see § 63.14). Methods 204 and 204A through 204F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, to determine capture efficiency (except for wood products enclosures as defined in § 63.2292). Enclosures that meet the definition of wood products enclosure or that meet Method 204 requirements for a permanent total enclosure (PTE) are assumed to have a capture efficiency of 100 percent. Enclosures that do not meet either the PTE requirements or design criteria for a wood products enclosure must determine the capture efficiency by constructing a TTE according to the requirements of Method 204 and applying Methods 204A through 204F (as appropriate). As an alternative to Methods 204 and 204A through 204F, you may use the tracer gas method contained in appendix A to this subpart. a TTE and Methods 204 and 204A through 204F (as appropriate) of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M. As an alternative to installing a TTE and using Methods 204 and 204A through 204F, you may use the tracer gas method contained in appendix A to this subpart. Enclosures that meet the design criteria (1) through (4) in the definition of wood products enclosure, or that meet Method 204 requirements for a PTE (except for the criteria specified in section 6.2 of Method 204) are assumed to have a capture efficiency of 100 percent. Measured emissions divided by the capture efficiency provides the emission rate. data from the parameter monitoring system or THC CEMS and the applicable performance test method(s). 20. Table 7 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 47109 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 7 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS For . . . For the following compliance options and operating requirements . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . (1) Each process unit listed in Table 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). Compliance options in Table 1B to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option in § 63.2240(c) and the operating requirements in Table 2 to this subpart based on monitoring of operating parameters. (2) Each process unit listed in Tables 1A and 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). Compliance options in Tables 1A and 1B to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option in § 63.2240(c) and the operating requirements in Table 2 of this subpart based on THC CEMS data. (3) Each process unit using a biofilter ............... Compliance options in Tables 1B to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option in § 63.2240(c). (4) Each process unit using a catalytic oxidizer Compliance options in Table 1B to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option in § 63.2240(c). (5) Each process unit listed in Table 1A to this subpart, or each process unit without a control device used in calculation of an emissions averaging debit under § 63.2240(c). Compliance options in Table 1A to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option in § 63.2240(c) and the operating requirements in Table 2 to this subpart based on monitoring of process unit controlling operating parameters. (6) Each Process unit listed in Table 1B to this subpart using a wet control device as the sole means of reducing HAP emissions. Compliance options in Table 1B to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option in § 63.2240(c). (7) Each process unit listed in Table 1B to this subpart using a control device other than a biofilter. Compliance options in Tables 1B to this subpart. Collecting and recording the operating parameter monitoring system data listed in Table 2 to this subpart for the process unit according to § 63.2269(a) through (b) and § 63.2270; AND reducing the operating parameter monitoring system data to the specified averages in units of the applicable requirement according to calculations in § 63.2270; AND maintaining the average operating parameter at or above the minimum, at or below the maximum, or within the range (whichever applies) established according to § 63.2262. Collecting and recording the THC monitoring data listed in Table 2 to this subpart for the process unit according to § 63.2269(d); AND reducing the CEMS data to 3-hour block averages according to calculations in § 63.2269(d); AND maintaining the 3-hour block average THC concentration in the exhaust gases less than or equal to the THC concentration established according to § 63.2262. Conducting a repeat performance test using the applicable method(s) specified in Table 4 to this subpart within 2 years following the previous performance test and within 180 days after each replacement of any portion of the biofilter bed media with a different type of media or each replacement of more than 50 percent (by volume) of the biofilter bed media with the same type of media. Checking the activity level of a representative sample of the catalyst at least every 12 months and taking any necessary corrective action to ensure that the catalyst is performing within its design range. Collecting and recording on a daily basis process unit controlling operating parameter data; AND maintaining the operating parameter at or above the minimum, at or below the maximum, or within the range (whichever applies) established according to § 63.2262. Implementing your plan to address how organic HAP captured in the wastewater from the wet control device is contained or destroyed to minimize re-release to the atmosphere. Conducting a repeat performance test using the applicable method(s) specified in Table 4 to this subpart by [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or within 60 months following the previous performance test, whichever is later, and thereafter within 60 months following the previous performance test. 21. Table 9 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47110 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 9 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS You must submit a(n) . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . (1) Compliance report ......................................... The information in § 63.2281(c) through (g) .... (2) immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your SSMP before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]a. (i) Actions taken for the event ......................... Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.2281(b). By fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the plan. (ii) The information in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ............. (3) Performance test report ................................ (4) CMS performance evaluation ....................... The information required in § 63.7(g) .............. The information required in § 63.7(g) .............. By letter within 7 working days after the end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting authority. According to the requirements of § 63.2281(i). According to the requirements of § 63.2281(j). a The requirement for the SSM report in row 2 of this table does not apply for new or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019. 22. Table 10 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART DDDD Citation Subject Brief description § 63.1 .............................. Applicability .................................... § 63.2 .............................. § 63.3 .............................. § 63.4 .............................. Definitions ...................................... Units and Abbreviations ................. Prohibited Activities and Circumvention. Preconstruction Review and Notification Requirements. Applicability .................................... Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications. Definitions for part 63 standards ........................................................... Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards ...................................... Prohibited activities; compliance date; circumvention, fragmentation ... § 63.5 .............................. § 63.6(a) ......................... § 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ............... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. § 63.6(b)(5) ..................... Notification ..................................... § 63.6(b)(6) ..................... § 63.6(b)(7) ..................... [Reserved]. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources that Become Major. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ............... § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ............... § 63.6(c)(5) ..................... § 63.6(d) ......................... § 63.6(e)(1)(i) .................. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................ § 63.6(e)(2) ..................... § 63.6(e)(3) ..................... § 63.6(f)(1) ...................... jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ................ § 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ............... § 63.6(h)(1) ..................... § 63.6(h)(2)–(9) ............... § 63.6(i)(1)–(14) .............. § 63.6(i)(15) .................... § 63.6(i)(16) .................... § 63.6(j) ........................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 [Reserved]. Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources that Become Major. [Reserved]. General Duty to Minimize Emissions.. Requirement to Correct Malfunctions ASAP. Operation and Maintenance Requirements. [Reserved]. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). SSM Exemption ............................. Methods for Determining Compliance/Finding of Compliance. Alternative Standard ...................... SSM Exemption ............................. Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards. Compliance Extension ................... [Reserved]. Compliance Extension ................... Presidential Compliance Exemption. 18:07 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 Applies to subpart DDDD before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] except as noted in footnote ‘‘a’’ to this table Applies to subpart DDDD on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] except as noted in footnote ‘‘a’’ to this table Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. ................................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Preconstruction review requirements of section 112(i)(1) ..................... Yes .................................... Yes. GP apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become major. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for section 112(f). Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards immediately upon becoming major, regardless of whether required to comply when they were an area source. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date; for section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (e.g., 3 years). Yes .................................... Yes. You must operate and maintain affected source in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. You must correct malfunctions as soon as practicable after their occurrence. Operation and maintenance requirements are enforceable independent of emissions limitations or other requirements in relevant standards. Yes .................................... No, see § 63.2250 for general duty requirement. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... Yes. Requirement for SSM and SSMP; content of SSMP ............................ Yes .................................... No. You must comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM. Compliance based on performance test, operation and maintenance plans, records, inspection. Procedures for getting an alternative standard ..................................... You must comply with opacity and visible emission standards at all times except during SSM. Requirements for opacity and visible emission standards .................... Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... NA ..................................... Yes. No. NA ..................................... NA. Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. Yes .................................... Yes. Compliance extension and Administrator’s authority ............................. President may exempt source category from requirement to comply with rule. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47111 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART DDDD—Continued Applies to subpart DDDD on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] except as noted in footnote ‘‘a’’ to this table Yes. Citation Subject Brief description § 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ............... Performance Test Dates ................ Yes .................................... § 63.7(a)(3) ..................... Section 114 Authority .................... § 63.7(b)(1) ..................... § 63.7(b)(2) ..................... Notification of Performance Test ... Notification of Rescheduling .......... § 63.7(c) .......................... Quality Assurance/Test Plan ......... § 63.7(d) ......................... § 63.7(e)(1) ..................... Testing Facilities ............................ Performance Testing ..................... § 63.7(e)(2) ..................... § 63.7(e)(3) ..................... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Test Run Duration ......................... § 63.7(f) .......................... Alternative Test Method ................. § 63.7(g) ......................... Performance Test Data Analysis ... § 63.7(h) ......................... § 63.8(a)(1) ..................... Waiver of Tests .............................. Applicability of Monitoring Requirements. Performance Specifications ........... [Reserved]. Monitoring with Flares ................... Monitoring ...................................... Dates for conducting initial performance testing and other compliance demonstrations; must conduct 180 days after first subject to rule. Administrator may require a performance test under CAA section 114 at any time. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test ................................. If have to reschedule performance test, must notify Administrator as soon as practicable. Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 60 days before the test or on date Administrator agrees with; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA procedures for testing. Requirements for testing facilities .......................................................... Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions; cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. Must conduct according to rule and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative. Must have three test runs for at least the time specified in the relevant standard; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; specifies conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Must include raw data in performance test report; must submit performance test data 60 days after end of test with the notification of compliance status; keep data for 5 years. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test ...................... Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard ............................... § 63.8(a)(2) § 63.8(a)(3) § 63.8(a)(4) § 63.8(b)(1) ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... § 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ............... Multiple Effluents and Monitoring Systems. § 63.8(c)(1) ..................... Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Operation and Maintenance of CMS. Spare Parts for CMS ..................... Requirements to Develop SSMP for CMS. Monitoring System Installation ....... § 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................ § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ............... jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Applies to subpart DDDD before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] except as noted in footnote ‘‘a’’ to this table Multiple § 63.8(c)(4) ..................... Continuous Monitoring (CMS) Requirements. § 63.8(c)(5) ..................... § 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ............... Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) Minimum Procedures. CMS Requirements ....................... § 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ............... § 63.8(d)(3) ..................... CMS Quality Control ...................... Written Procedures for CMS ......... § 63.8(e) ......................... § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ................ § 63.8(f)(6) ...................... § 63.8(g) ......................... CMS Performance Evaluation ....... Alternative Monitoring Method ....... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Data Reduction .............................. § 63.9(a) ......................... § 63.9(b)(1)–(2) ............... Notification Requirements .............. Initial Notifications .......................... § 63.9(b)(3) ..................... § 63.9(b)(4)–(5) ............... [Reserved]. Initial Notifications .......................... § 63.9(c) .......................... Request for Compliance Extension § 63.9(d) ......................... Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. Notification of Performance Test ... Notification of Visible Emissions/ Opacity Test. Additional Notifications When Using CMS. § 63.9(e) ......................... § 63.9(f) .......................... § 63.9(g) ......................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Sep 05, 2019 System Jkt 247001 Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. No, see § 63.2262(a)–(b). Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Performance specifications in appendix B of part 60 apply .................. Yes .................................... Yes. Requirements for flares in § 63.11 apply ............................................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems; must install on each effluent before it is combined and before it is released to the atmosphere unless Administrator approves otherwise; if more than one monitoring system on an emission point, must report all monitoring system results, unless one monitoring system is a backup. Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with and good air pollution control practices. Must maintain and operate CMS in accordance with § 63.6(e)(1) ........ NA ..................................... Yes .................................... NA. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... No. Must maintain spare parts for routine CMS repairs .............................. Must develop and implement SSMP for CMS ....................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. No. Must install to get representative emission of parameter measurements; must verify operational status before or at performance test. CMS must be operating except during breakdown, out-of-control, repair, maintenance, and high-level calibration drifts; COMS must have a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analysis for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6-minute period; CEMS must have a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. COMS minimum procedures .................................................................. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. NA ..................................... NA. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. No, see § 63.2282(f). Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Submit notification 120 days after effective date; notification of intent to construct/reconstruct; notification of commencement of construct/ reconstruct; notification of startup; contents of each. Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed best available control technology/lowest achievable emission rate. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Notify EPA Administrator 60 days prior ................................................. Notify EPA Administrator 30 days prior ................................................. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... No ..................................... Yes. No. Notification of performance evaluation; notification using COMS data; notification that exceeded criterion for relative accuracy. Yes .................................... Yes. Zero and high-level calibration check requirements; out-of-control periods. Requirements for CMS quality control, including calibration, etc. ......... Must keep quality control plan on record for 5 years. Keep old versions for 5 years after revisions. May incorporate as part of SSMP to avoid duplication.. Notification, performance evaluation test plan, reports ......................... Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring ........... Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy tests for CEMS. COMS 6-minute averages calculated over at least 36 evenly spaced data points; CEMS 1 hour averages computed over at least 4 equally spaced data points; data that can’t be used in average; rounding of data. Applicability and State delegation .......................................................... Submit notification 120 days after effective date; contents of notification. PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 47112 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART DDDD—Continued Citation Subject Brief description § 63.9(h)(1)–(6) ............... Notification of Compliance Status § 63.9(i) ........................... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines § 63.9(j) ........................... § 63.10(a) ....................... Change in Previous Information .... Recordkeeping/Reporting .............. § 63.10(b)(1) ................... Recordkeeping/Reporting .............. § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ................ Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet a Standard. § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............... § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............. Maintenance Records .................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ........ Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSM. CMS Records ................................ § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x)– (xi). § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(ix) ...... Records .......................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ............. § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ............ § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ............ Records .......................................... Records .......................................... Records .......................................... § 63.10(b)(3) ................... § 63.10(c)(1)–(6), (9)– (14). § 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ............. Records .......................................... Records .......................................... Records .......................................... § 63.10(c)(15) ................. Use of SSMP ................................. § 63.10(d)(1) ................... § 63.10(d)(2) ................... § 63.10(d)(4) ................... General Reporting Requirements .. Report of Performance Test Results. Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. Progress Reports ........................... § 63.10(d)(5)(i) ................ Periodic SSM Reports ................... § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ............... § 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ............. Immediate SSM Reports ............... Additional CMS Reports ................ § 63.10(e)(3) ................... § 63.10(e)(4) ................... § 63.10(f) ........................ Reports .......................................... Reporting COMS Data ................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting. Control Device and Work Practice Requirements. State Authority and Delegations .... Addresses ...................................... Incorporations by Reference ......... Availability of Information and Confidentiality. Performance Track Provisions ...... § 63.10(d)(3) ................... § 63.11 ............................ § 63.12 § 63.13 § 63.14 § 63.15 ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ § 63.16 ............................ Contents; due 60 days after end of performance test or other compliance demonstration, except for opacity/VE, which are due 30 days after; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority. Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Must submit within 15 days after the change ........................................ Applies to all, unless compliance extension; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority; procedures for owners of more than one source. General Requirements; keep all records readily available; keep for 5 years. Records of occurrence and duration of each startup or shutdown that causes source to exceed emission limitation. Records of occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation or air pollution control and monitoring equipment. Applies to subpart DDDD before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] except as noted in footnote ‘‘a’’ to this table Applies to subpart DDDD on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] except as noted in footnote ‘‘a’’ to this table Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... No, see § 63.2282(a). Yes .................................... Records of maintenance performed on air pollution control and monitoring equipment. Records of actions taken during SSM to minimize emissions .............. Yes .................................... No, see § 63.2282(a) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. Yes. Yes .................................... No. Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control ................................................ Yes .................................... Yes. Measurements to demonstrate compliance with compliance options and operating requirements; performance test, performance evaluation, and visible emission observation results; measurements to determine conditions of performance tests and performance evaluations. Records when under waiver .................................................................. Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test ..................... All documentation supporting initial notification and notification of compliance status. Applicability determinations .................................................................... Additional records for CMS .................................................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. Records of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances for CMS. Use SSMP to satisfy recordkeeping requirements for identification of malfunction, correction action taken, and nature of repairs to CMS. Requirement to report ............................................................................ When to submit to Federal or State authority ....................................... No ..................................... No. Yes .................................... No. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes. What to report and when ....................................................................... NA ..................................... NA. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Contents and submission of periodic SSM reports ............................... Yes .................................... Yes. Yes .................................... Contents and submission of immediate SSM reports ........................... Must report results for each CEM on a unit; written copy of performance evaluation; 3 copies of COMS performance evaluation. Excess emission reports ........................................................................ Must submit COMS data with performance test data ........................... Procedures for EPA Administrator to waive .......................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No, see § 63.2281(d)–(e) for malfunction reporting requirements. No. Yes. No ..................................... NA ..................................... Yes .................................... No. NA. Yes. Requirements for flares and alternative work practice for equipment leaks. State authority to enforce standards ..................................................... Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are sent ............ Test methods incorporated by reference ............................................... Public and confidential information ........................................................ NA ..................................... NA. Yes Yes Yes Yes .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Requirements for Performance Track member facilities ....................... Yes .................................... Yes. or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with the requirements in column 5 of this table beginning on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or upon initial startup, whichever is later. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 a New 23. Subpart DDDD is amended by adding Appendix B to read as follows: ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 47113 APPENDIX B TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED RELATIVE TO THE PLYWOOD AND COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS ‘‘NON-HAP COATING’’ DEFINITION IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Chemical name CAS No. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,3-Butadiene ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,3-Dichloropropene ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,4-Dioxane ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture) ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,4-Toluene diamine ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2-Nitropropane ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dimethoxybenzidine ................................................................................................................................................................. 3,3′-Dimethylbenzidine .................................................................................................................................................................... 4,4′-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) .................................................................................................................................................. Acetaldehyde ................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylamide ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylonitrile ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Allyl chloride ..................................................................................................................................................................................... alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH) .......................................................................................................................................... Aniline .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Benzene ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzidine ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzotrichloride ............................................................................................................................................................................... Benzyl chloride ................................................................................................................................................................................ beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH) ............................................................................................................................................ Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ................................................................................................................................................................ Bis(chloromethyl)ether ..................................................................................................................................................................... Bromoform ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Captan ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Carbon tetrachloride ........................................................................................................................................................................ Chlordane ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Chlorobenzilate ................................................................................................................................................................................ Chloroform ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Chloroprene ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Cresols (mixed) ................................................................................................................................................................................ DDE ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Dichloroethyl ether ........................................................................................................................................................................... Dichlorvos ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Epichlorohydrin ................................................................................................................................................................................ Ethyl acrylate ................................................................................................................................................................................... Ethylene dibromide .......................................................................................................................................................................... Ethylene dichloride .......................................................................................................................................................................... Ethylene oxide ................................................................................................................................................................................. Ethylene thiourea ............................................................................................................................................................................. Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane) ...................................................................................................................................... Formaldehyde .................................................................................................................................................................................. Heptachlor ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Hexachlorobenzene ......................................................................................................................................................................... Hexachlorobutadiene ....................................................................................................................................................................... Hexachloroethane ............................................................................................................................................................................ Hydrazine ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Isophorone ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers) ............................................................................................................................... m-Cresol .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Methylene chloride ........................................................................................................................................................................... Naphthalene ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Nitrobenzene .................................................................................................................................................................................... Nitrosodimethylamine ...................................................................................................................................................................... o-Cresol ........................................................................................................................................................................................... o-Toluidine ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Parathion .......................................................................................................................................................................................... p-Cresol ........................................................................................................................................................................................... p-Dichlorobenzene ........................................................................................................................................................................... Pentachloronitrobenzene ................................................................................................................................................................. Pentachlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................................................... Propoxur .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Propylene dichloride ........................................................................................................................................................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 79–34–5 79–00–5 57–14–7 96–12–8 122–66–7 106–99–0 542–75–6 123–91–1 88–06–2 25321–14–6 121–14–2 95–80–7 79–46–9 91–94–1 119–90–4 119–93–7 101–14–4 75–07–0 79–06–1 107–13–1 107–05–1 319–84–6 62–53–3 71–43–2 92–87–5 98–07–7 100–44–7 319–85–7 117–81–7 542–88–1 75–25–2 133–06–2 56–23–5 57–74–9 510–15–6 67–66–3 126–99–8 1319–77–3 3547–04–4 111–44–4 62–73–7 106–89–8 140–88–5 106–93–4 107–06–2 75–21–8 96–45–7 75–34–3 50–00–0 76–44–8 118–74–1 87–68–3 67–72–1 302–01–2 78–59–1 58–89–9 108–39–4 75–09–2 91–20–3 98–95–3 62–75–9 95–48–7 95–53–4 56–38–2 106–44–5 106–46–7 82–68–8 87–86–5 114–26–1 78–87–5 47114 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules APPENDIX B TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED RELATIVE TO THE PLYWOOD AND COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS ‘‘NON-HAP COATING’’ DEFINITION IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS—Continued Chemical name CAS No. Propylene oxide ............................................................................................................................................................................... Quinoline .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Tetrachloroethene ............................................................................................................................................................................ Toxaphene ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Trichloroethylene ............................................................................................................................................................................. Trifluralin .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Vinyl bromide ................................................................................................................................................................................... Vinyl chloride ................................................................................................................................................................................... Vinylidene chloride ........................................................................................................................................................................... [FR Doc. 2019–18827 Filed 9–5–19; 8:45 am] jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Sep 05, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06SEP2.SGM 06SEP2 75–56–9 91–22–5 127–18–4 8001–35–2 79–01–6 1582–09–8 593–60–2 75–01–4 75–35–4

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47074-47114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18827]



[[Page 47073]]

Vol. 84

Friday,

No. 173

September 6, 2019

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and 
Composite Wood Products Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 47074]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243; FRL-9999-07-OAR]
RIN 2060-AO66


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood 
and Composite Wood Products Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) to 
address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) 
that the EPA is required to conduct under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 
EPA is proposing to amend provisions addressing periods of startup, 
shutdown and malfunction (SSM); add provisions regarding electronic 
reporting; add repeat emissions testing requirements; and make 
technical and editorial changes. The EPA is proposing these amendments 
to improve the effectiveness of the NESHAP. While the proposed 
amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP), this action, if finalized, would result in improved 
monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 21, 2019. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before October 7, 2019.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before September 11, 2019, the EPA will hold a hearing. 
Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be 
published in a subsequent Federal Register document and posted at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/plywood-and-composite-wood-products-manufacture-national-emission. See 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering 
for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0243, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0243 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0243.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Environmental Protection Agency Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
0243, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., 
Monday--Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Ms. Katie Hanks, 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) 541-2159; fax number: (919) 541-0516; 
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information 
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, 
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-0881; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: 
[email protected]. For questions about monitoring and testing 
requirements, contact Mr. Kevin McGinn, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (D230-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3796; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 
and email address: [email protected]. For information about the 
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John 
Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2221A), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 
564-1395; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 
or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to 
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a 
public hearing will be held.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243. All documents in the docket are 
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0243. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This 
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points

[[Page 47075]]

you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or 
comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on 
the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional 
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information 
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making 
effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the digital storage media the specific information that is 
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments 
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the 
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly 
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions 
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain 
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does 
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the 
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. The EPA uses 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:

AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS continuous monitoring systems
EAV equivalent annualized value
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model-3
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MDF medium density fiberboard
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSB oriented Strandboard
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PBCO production-based compliance option
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PCWP plywood and composite wood products
PDF portable document format
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV present value
RATA relative accuracy test audit
RCO regenerative catalytic oxidizer
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
UF uncertainty factor
[mu]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    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?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
    A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
    B. How do we perform the technology review?
    C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source 
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, 
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
    C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    D. What other actions are we proposing?
    E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?

[[Page 47076]]

    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for 
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to 
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As 
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the 
Plywood and Particleboard source category is any facility engaged in 
the manufacturing of plywood and/or particle boards. This category 
includes, but is not limited to, manufacturing of chip waferboard, 
strandboard, waferboard, hardboard/cellulosic fiber board, oriented 
strandboard (OSB), hardboard plywood, medium density fiberboard (MDF), 
particleboard, softwood plywood, or other processes using wood and 
binder systems. The name of the source category was changed to Plywood 
and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63025), 
to more accurately reflect the types of manufacturing facilities 
covered by the source category. In addition, when the EPA proposed the 
PCWP rule on January 9, 2003 (68 FR 1276), the scope of the source 
category was broadened to include lumber kilns located at stand-alone 
kiln-dried lumber manufacturing facilities or at any other type of 
facility.

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category                NESHAP          NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plywood and Composite Wood        National Emission   321999, 321211,
 Products.                         Standards for       321212, 321219,
                                   Hazardous Air       321213.
                                   Pollutants:
                                   Plywood and
                                   Composite Wood
                                   Products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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 action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/plywood-and-composite-wood-products-manufacture-national-emission. Following publication in the Federal Register, the 
EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key 
technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall 
RTR program is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of 
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards 
for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first 
stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second 
stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional 
standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP 
emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual 
risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also 
requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 
years to determine if there are ``developments in practices, processes, 
or control technologies'' that may be appropriate to incorporate into 
the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology 
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, 
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The 
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections 
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement 
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears 
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: 
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, 
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) 
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP 
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major 
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different 
requirements for major source standards and area source standards. 
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major 
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based 
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly 
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also

[[Page 47077]]

establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the 
MACT ``floor.'' The EPA must also consider control options that are 
more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor 
are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain 
instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work 
practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a 
numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) 
gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available 
control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu 
of MACT standards.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and 
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA 
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, 
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this 
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources 
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for 
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions 
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene 
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA 
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use 
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently 
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC 
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to 
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines 
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14, 
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions 
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without 
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA 
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health 
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than 
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, 
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and 
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must 
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being 
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After 
conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA considers 
whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In 
conducting this review, which the EPA calls the ``technology review,'' 
the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural 
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 
2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 
(D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to 
revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?

    Plywood and composite wood products are manufactured by bonding 
wood material (fibers, particles, strands, etc.) or agricultural fiber, 
generally with resin under heat and pressure, to form a structural 
panel or engineered wood product. Plywood and composite wood products 
manufacturing facilities also include facilities that manufacture dry 
veneer and lumber kilns located at any facility. Plywood and composite 
wood products include (but are not limited to) plywood, veneer, 
particleboard, OSB, hardboard, fiberboard, medium density fiberboard, 
laminated strand lumber, laminated veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-
dried lumber, and glue-laminated beams.
    This proposal includes both a residual risk assessment and a 
technology review of the standards applicable to emission sources 
subject to the PCWP NESHAP. The NESHAP contains several compliance 
options for process units subject to the standards: (1) Installation 
and use of emissions control systems with an efficiency of at least 90 
percent; (2) production-based limits that restrict HAP emissions per 
unit of product produced; and (3) emissions averaging that allows 
control of emissions from a group of sources collectively (at existing 
affected sources). These compliance options apply for the following 
process units: Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones (at new affected 
sources); green rotary dryers; hardboard ovens; press predryers (at new 
affected sources); pressurized refiners; primary tube dryers; secondary 
tube dryers; reconstituted wood product board coolers (at new affected 
sources); reconstituted wood product presses; softwood veneer dryer 
heated zones; rotary strand dryers; and conveyor strand dryers (zone 
one at existing affected sources, and zones one and two at new affected 
sources). In addition, the PCWP NESHAP includes work practice standards 
for dry rotary dryers, hardwood veneer dryers, softwood veneer dryers, 
veneer redryers, and group 1 miscellaneous coating operations (defined 
in 40 CFR 63.2292).
    In 2007, the D.C. Circuit remanded and vacated portions of the 2004 
NESHAP promulgated by the EPA to establish MACT standards for the PCWP 
source category. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The EPA 
will address the partial remand and vacatur of the 2004 rule in a 
future action. The EPA is not addressing the partial remand and vacatur 
in this RTR. The Court vacated and remanded portions of the 2004 rule 
based on certain aspects of the MACT determinations made by the EPA. In 
the 2004 rule, the EPA had concluded that the MACT standards for 
several process units were represented by no emission reduction (or 
``no control'' emission floors). The ``no control'' MACT conclusions 
were rejected because, as the Court clarified, in a related decision, 
the EPA must establish emission standards for listed HAP. 489 F.3d 
1364, 1371, citing Sierra

[[Page 47078]]

Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
    To address the remand, the EPA plans to develop emission standards 
for the relevant process units in a separate action subsequent to this 
proposed RTR action for the source category. As noted below, the EPA 
conducted an information collection prior to beginning the RTR process 
which supplemented the available HAP emission inventory for the 
category. The EPA will evaluate the data collected and any additional 
information submitted before initiating the rulemaking to address the 
remand.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    On October 5, 2017, the EPA issued an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) to gather information from PCWP manufacturers to support 
conducting the PCWP NESHAP RTR. The ICR gathered detailed process data, 
emission release point characteristics, and HAP emissions data for PCWP 
process units located at major sources. The response rate for the ICR 
was over 99 percent. For more details on the data collection conducted 
to prepare inputs for the residual risk assessment, see the memorandum 
titled Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for the 
PCWP NESHAP in the docket for this rulemaking. For more details on the 
data collection conducted for the technology review, see the memoranda 
titled Technology Review for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products 
NESHAP and Compilation of the Plywood and Composite Wood Products 
(PCWP) Information Collection Request (ICR) Responses into an ICR-
Response Data Base, also available in the docket.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    In addition to ICR data spreadsheets provided by respondents, the 
EPA reviewed other information sources to determine if there have been 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies by PCWP 
facilities to support the technology review of the NESHAP. These 
information sources include:
     Emissions data (e.g., stack test reports, emissions 
calculations) submitted with survey responses;
     Facility operating permits submitted with survey responses 
or obtained from state agencies;
     Semiannual compliance reports submitted with survey 
responses;
     Other documentation submitted with survey responses (e.g., 
compliance calculations; process flow diagrams);
     Information and data analyses submitted by industry 
organizations;
     Information obtained during site visits and meetings with 
stakeholders;
     Information on air pollution control options in the PCWP 
industry from the EPA's Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best 
Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 
Clearinghouse;
     Information on applicability and compliance issues from 
the EPA's Applicability Determination Index; and
     Literature review of recent information on PCWP practices, 
processes, and control technologies.

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

    In this section, the EPA describes the analyses performed to 
support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed 
in this proposal.

A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?

    As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene 
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2), the EPA applies a two-step approach to determine whether or 
not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the 
Benzene NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be 
reduced to any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator 
believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best 
judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and 
information.'' 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard 
to the ample margin of safety determination, ``the Agency again 
considers all of the health risk and other health information 
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional 
factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be 
considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, 
technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant 
factors.'' Id.
    The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors 
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh 
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk 
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP 
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index 
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer 
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP 
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment 
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the 
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's 
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our 
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a 
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where 
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP 
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI 
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ 
system.

    [t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration 
of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be 
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health 
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, 
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well 
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be 
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the 
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an 
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to 
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional 
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any 
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's 
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and 
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of 
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.

See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only 
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The 
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10 
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become 
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be 
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making 
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a 
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the 
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other 
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include 
an MIR where 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable and 
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be 
unacceptable, depending on all of the available information. Similarly, 
with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in 
the Benzene NESHAP that: ``EPA believes the relative weight

[[Page 47079]]

of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin 
of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. 
This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along 
with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source 
category.'' Id. at 38061. The EPA also considers the uncertainties 
associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this 
preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of 
safety.
    The EPA notes that we have not considered certain health 
information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this 
time, the EPA does not attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be 
associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the 
source category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source 
emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric 
transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. The EPA 
recognizes that such consideration may be particularly important when 
assessing noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health 
reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on 
the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For 
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to 
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the 
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a 
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in 
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other 
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to 
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review Panel 
are provided in their report, which is available at: https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide 
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as 
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures 
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same 
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative 
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the 
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all 
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens 
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
    Although the EPA is interested in placing source category and 
facility-wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all 
sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about 
the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from 
emission sources other than those that the EPA has studied in depth 
during this RTR review would have significantly greater associated 
uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such 
aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, 
making the assessments too unreliable.

B. How do we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where the EPA 
identifies such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, 
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental 
impacts. The EPA also considers the emission reductions associated with 
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of 
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In 
addition, the EPA considers the appropriateness of applying controls to 
new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we 
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions 
reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time the EPA originally 
developed the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our 
investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to 
consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information 
on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the 
technology review.

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?

    In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of 
analyses that the EPA generally performs during the risk assessment 
process. In some cases, the EPA does not perform a specific analysis 
because it is not relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of 
HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-
HAP), the EPA would not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. 
Where the EPA does not perform an analysis, we state that we do not and 
provide the reason. While we present all of our risk assessment 
methods, we only present risk assessment results for the analyses 
actually conducted (see section IV.A of this preamble).
    The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the 
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the 
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential 
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to 
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The 
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk 
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections 
that follow this paragraph describe how the EPA estimated emissions and 
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains 
the following document which provides more information on the risk 
assessment

[[Page 47080]]

inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and 
Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as 
described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those 
described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA's 
SAB in 2009; \4\ and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. 
They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that 
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with 
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    In October 2017, the EPA initiated an ICR to gather information 
from U.S. PCWP manufacturers to support conducting the PCWP RTR. The 
ICR response period ended in February 2018. The ICR gathered process 
data, emission release point characteristics, coordinates, and HAP 
emissions data for PCWP process units located at major sources of HAP. 
Assembly and quality assurance of the ICR data needed to construct the 
residual risk modeling file for the PCWP source category is discussed 
in Preparation of Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for the PCWP 
NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this action.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include 
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT 
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred 
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. The EPA discussed the 
consideration of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final 
Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the 
proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 
2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those 
actions, the EPA noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable 
level is inherently reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum 
level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission 
standards. The EPA also explained that it is reasonable to consider 
actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the 
risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 
38044, September 14, 1989.)
    The PCWP ICR requested that respondents provide estimates of 
allowable emissions based on their site-specific circumstances (e.g., 
control measures in place). Therefore, unlike other RTR projects that 
develop a multiplier to estimate allowable emissions from actual 
emissions reported in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), the 
directly reported ICR data for allowable emissions were used for the 
PCWP category.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Sroka, K., E. Rickman, and C. Moss, RTI, and K. Hanks, U.S. 
EPA. Preparation of Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for the PCWP 
NESHAP. Memorandum to the PCWP Docket File. February 7, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The allowable emissions estimates provided by the ICR respondents 
were reviewed for completeness and to ensure they made sense relative 
to actual emissions. Approximately 95 percent of the allowable 
emissions estimates provided by respondents were reasonable and were 
used without revision. The remaining allowable emission estimates were 
either missing, provided as zero, or otherwise suspect compared to 
actual emissions. Because nearly all the allowable emissions estimates 
in need of gap-filling were for process units without PCWP MACT 
standards requiring use of add-on controls, the gaps and adjustments 
were completed by setting the MACT-allowable emission rates equal to 
the actual emission rates.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation 
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\7\ The HEM-3 
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting 
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient 
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to 
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk 
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Dispersion Modeling
    The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of 
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations 
from industrial facilities.\8\ To perform the dispersion modeling and 
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data 
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used 
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of 
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological 
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto 
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \9\ 
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human 
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census 
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill 
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health 
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \9\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, the EPA 
uses the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each 
HAP emitted by each source in the source category. The HAP air 
concentrations at each nearby census block centroid located within 50 
km of the facility are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. A 
distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 
1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the 
limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD.
    For each facility, the EPA calculates the MIR as the cancer risk 
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per 
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum 
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. The EPA 
calculates individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime 
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate

[[Page 47081]]

(URE). The URE is an upper-bound estimate of an individual's 
incremental risk of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a 
concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. 
For residual risk assessments, the EPA generally uses UREs from the 
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic 
pollutants without IRIS values, the EPA looks to other reputable 
sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA 
(CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically 
credible dose-response values have been developed in a manner 
consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process 
similar to that used by the EPA, the EPA may use such dose-response 
values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. 
The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health 
risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
    To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, 
the EPA sums the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \10\ emitted by 
the modeled facility. The EPA estimates cancer risk at every census 
block within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is 
the highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those 
census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, the EPA estimates 
the distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by 
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose 
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. The EPA also 
estimates annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime 
cancer risk at each census block by the number of people residing in 
that block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then 
dividing this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to 
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of 
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with 
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible 
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the 
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, 
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of 
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement 
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing 
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative 
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in 
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment 
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 
exposure to HAP, the EPA calculates either an HQ or a target organ-
specific hazard index (TOSHI). The EPA calculates an HQ when a single 
noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, 
the EPA sums the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target 
organ or target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated 
exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is 
a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic 
noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate 
(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 
continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including 
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk 
of deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC 
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that 
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer 
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized 
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: 
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the 
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically 
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner 
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review 
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other 
Than Cancer
    For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response 
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks 
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes 
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and 
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of the EPA's 
efforts to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks 
that HAP emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human 
health and the environment,\11\ we are revising our treatment of 
meteorological data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion 
conditions in our acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-
case air dispersion conditions. This revised treatment of 
meteorological data and the supporting rationale are described in more 
detail in Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood 
Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology 
Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support 
Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. The EPA will be applying 
this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support 
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft 
Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed 
individual, the EPA uses the peak hourly emission rate for each 
emission point,\12\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions 
(i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. 
Specifically, the EPA assumes that peak emissions from the source 
category and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur 
and that a person is present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In the absence of hourly emission data, the EPA develops 
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the 
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a 
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for 
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of 
the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 
of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening 
Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, the EPA generally uses 
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute 
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning 
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour

[[Page 47082]]

exposure durations, if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ 
is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure concentration by 
the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-
response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs.
    An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below 
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 
exposure duration.'' \13\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, 
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical 
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most 
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of 
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to 
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not 
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent 
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to 
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\14\ They are 
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to 
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' 
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne 
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\ 
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is 
predicted that the general population, including susceptible 
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not 
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of 
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations 
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and 
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, 
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' 
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as 
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above 
which it is predicted that the general population, including 
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other 
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to 
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot 
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in 
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne 
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
    \14\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating 
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program 
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National 
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \15\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum 
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing 
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving 
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is 
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one 
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious 
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability 
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American 
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than 
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are 
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding 
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from 
the EPA's acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result 
when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute 
HQ exceeds 1, the EPA also reports the HQ based on the next highest 
acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
    For this source category, estimates of short-term (maximum hourly) 
emissions were submitted by PCWP ICR respondents. In our review of the 
ICR data, the EPA compared the short-term emission estimates to annual 
emissions estimates to ensure the short-term emission estimates were 
reasonable. The EPA gap-filled short-term emission estimates that were 
missing or found to be invalid with short-term emission estimates 
calculated using a PCWP emission process-specific acute multiplier. The 
acute multiplier, which is a factor multiplied by annual emissions to 
estimate maximum hourly emissions, was derived from the ICR data for 
each emissions process group. The acute factors used to gap-fill 
missing or invalid short-term emission estimates in the PCWP ICR 
inventory ranged from 1.2 to 10. Further discussion of the process-
specific factors chosen to fill gaps in the ICR data can be found in 
the memorandum, Preparation of Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for 
the PCWP NESHAP, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In the EPA's acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute 
impacts are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than 
or equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In 
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, the 
EPA assesses the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at 
an off-site location. For this source category, the data refinements 
employed consisted of evaluating residential properties outside the 
facility boundaries to estimate acute impacts that exceeded an HQ 
screen of 1. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source 
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed 
Rule, which is available in the docket for this source category.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening 
assessment?
    The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the 
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via 
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine 
whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the 
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume 1, Appendix D, at 
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
    For the PCWP source category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of 
arsenic, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (dioxins/furans), 
polycyclic organic matter (POM), cadmium, mercury, and lead, so we 
proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the 
human health risk screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of three 
progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine 
whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB-HAP 
warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through

[[Page 47083]]

ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions 
against previously developed screening threshold emission rates for 
several PB-HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening 
exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total 
Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure 
(TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates 
are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, mercury 
compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and 
bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a conservative 
list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See 
Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf). In this assessment, we 
compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the 
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the 
potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway. 
We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening 
assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission rate to the Tier 
1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening value.''
    We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these 
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess 
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, 
dioxins/furans, and POM) or, for HAP that cause noncancer health 
effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury compounds), a maximum HQ 
of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP or combination of 
carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening assessment exceeds the Tier 
1 screening threshold emission rate for any facility (i.e., the 
screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a second screening 
assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment. The Tier 2 
screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combined fisher and farmer 
exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios that 
retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
    In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility 
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to 
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher/farmer 
scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 screening 
assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the facility. As 
part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 50 km of 
each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from lakes 
within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between local 
meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1 
screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each facility 
based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for 
the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and the 
USGS lakes database.
    In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the 
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer 
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the 
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by 
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures, 
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. 
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion 
rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end 
food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish 
(adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption \16\) and 
locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally 
grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios \17\). If 
PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater 
than 1, we consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks below a level 
of concern. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 
2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening 
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: 
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of 
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
    \17\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement 
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating 
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, 
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing 
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on 
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the 
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific 
assessment.
    In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of 
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission 
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure 
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\18\ Values below the level of the primary 
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for 
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a 
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health 
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other 
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to 
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a 
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the 
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to 
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting 
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, 
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk 
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS 
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, 
see Appendix 6 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and 
Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for 
this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological 
Benchmarks
    The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse 
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, 
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of 
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of 
environmental quality over broad areas.''
    The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as 
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two 
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and

[[Page 47084]]

methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the 
screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride 
(HF).
    HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental 
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The 
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented 
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the 
environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA evaluates the 
following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies 
(includes water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by 
wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, the EPA evaluates 
nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the 
ecological entity and its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), 
both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For 
acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant 
communities.
    An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has 
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each 
environmental HAP, the EPA identified the available ecological 
benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. The EPA identified, where 
possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: 
Probable effect levels, lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-
observed-adverse-effect level. In cases where multiple effect levels 
were available for a particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, the EPA 
uses all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether 
ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be 
considered significant and widespread.
    For further information on how the environmental risk screening 
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics 
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological 
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category 
in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which 
is available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the PCWP source category emitted 
any of the environmental HAP. For the PCWP source category, the EPA 
identified emissions of arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/
furans, lead compounds, mercury compounds, POM, HCl, and HF. Because 
the above environmental HAP are emitted by at least one facility in the 
source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the 
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk 
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model 
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. 
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission 
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that 
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant 
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the 
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to 
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each 
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do 
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility 
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated 
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility 
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the EPA evaluates 
the facility further in Tier 2.
    In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening 
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology 
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did 
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, the EPA evaluates 
the average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km 
radius for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish 
tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each 
pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not 
exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility 
``passes'' the screening assessment and typically is not evaluated 
further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening 
threshold emission rate, the EPA evaluates the facility further in Tier 
3.
    As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of 
the environmental screening assessment, the EPA examines the 
suitability of the lakes around the facilities to support life and 
remove those that are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled 
in or are industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and 
conduct hour-by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 
adjustments to the screening threshold emission rates still indicate 
the potential for an adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility 
emission rate exceeds the screening threshold emission rate), the EPA 
may elect to conduct a more refined assessment using more site-specific 
information. If, after additional refinement, the facility emission 
rate still exceeds the screening threshold emission rate, the facility 
may have the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect.
    To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from 
lead, the EPA compared the average modeled air concentrations (from 
HEM-3) of lead around each facility in the source category to the level 
of the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a 
reasonable means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to 
provide substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which 
can include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made 
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage 
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as 
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the 
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to 
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening 
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that 
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the 
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential 
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the 
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, the EPA evaluates the following 
metrics: The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds 
the ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the 
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average 
screening value around each facility

[[Page 47085]]

(calculated by dividing the area-weighted average concentration over 
the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological benchmark for each acid 
gas). For further information on the environmental screening assessment 
approach, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in 
the docket for this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
    To put the source category risks in context, the EPA typically 
examines the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility 
includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under 
common control. In other words, the EPA examines the HAP emissions not 
only from the source category emission points of interest, but also 
emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for 
which the EPA has data. For this source category, the EPA conducted the 
facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. 
The source category records of that NEI dataset were removed and 
replaced with the quality-assured ICR source category dataset described 
in the memorandum titled Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling 
Input File for the PCWP NESHAP, in the docket for this rulemaking. This 
ICR source category dataset was then combined with the non-source 
category records from the NEI for that facility. The combined facility-
wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP 
that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 
50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source 
category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk 
analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the 
facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks 
that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this 
proposal. The EPA also specifically examined the facility that was 
associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the 
percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of 
interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite 
Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this 
action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide 
analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of 
source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although 
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are 
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the 
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to acute 
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our 
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in 
the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment 
was performed for this source category, a full discussion of the 
uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 
11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual 
Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved 
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions 
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to 
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions 
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission 
estimates, and other factors. For example, older emission factors that 
do not account for relatively recent reductions in resin formaldehyde 
content may have been used by some PCWP mills to estimate emissions 
from uncontrolled process units that are hard to test, resulting in 
overestimation of formaldehyde emissions. The emission estimates 
considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain 
years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the 
course of a year or variations from year to year. For facilities with 
missing or invalid short-term emission estimates in their PCWP ICR 
data, the estimates of maximum hourly emission rates for the acute 
effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment 
factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are 
intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility 
operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    The EPA recognizes there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, the EPA selects some model options that 
have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., 
not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). The EPA 
selects other model options that have the potential to underestimate 
ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options 
that the EPA selects have the potential to either under- or 
overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). 
On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties 
commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion 
models, the approach the EPA applies in the RTR assessments should 
yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. After reviewing 
the physical characteristics of emission releases from batch and 
continuous lumber kilns, dispersion and risk modelers at the EPA 
recommend the buoyant plume rise resulting from the elevated 
temperature of kiln exhaust be taken into account when modeling kiln 
fugitive emissions to improve accuracy. Appendix 12 of the document, 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products 
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule, in the docket for this rulemaking describes the 
methodology and results. We also note that the selection of meteorology 
dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As the EPA 
continues to update and expand the library of meteorological station 
data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this 
variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in the EPA's emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our

[[Page 47086]]

exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor 
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the 
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. 
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high 
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants 
or larger particles. For all factors, the EPA reduces uncertainty when 
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, the EPA 
analyzes large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the 
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. The 
EPA also adds additional receptor locations where the population of a 
block is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in the EPA's risk assessments for cancer effects 
from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and 
acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed 
quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative 
terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-
response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for 
Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA 
actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency 
policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are 
used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be 
health protective'' (the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 
Assessment, page 1-7). This is the approach followed here as summarized 
in the next paragraphs.
    Cancer UREs used in the EPA's risk assessments are those that have 
been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of 
risk.\19\ That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true 
value of a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low 
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\20\ 
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic 
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To 
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without 
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor 
(UF) approach,\21\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps 
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response 
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \20\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
    \21\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference 
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for 
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of 
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in 
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to 
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often 
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations 
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all 
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care 
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of 
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values 
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of 
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be 
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
    Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks 
for the environmental risk screening assessment. The EPA established a 
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of 
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment 
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but 
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had 
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels 
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used 
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk 
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    Although the EPA makes every effort to identify appropriate human 
health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the 
sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source 
category are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these 
pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, 
which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To 
help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where the EPA concludes 
similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we 
use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which 
no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates 
appreciable risk, the EPA may identify a need to increase priority for 
an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, 
generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental 
exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have 
been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, 
HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed 
qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs 
the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP 
reductions achieved by various control options.
    For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol 
ethers), the EPA conservatively uses 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, the 
EPA also applies the most protective dose-response value from the other 
compounds in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA 
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emission rates, meteorology, and the presence of a 
person. In the acute screening assessment that the EPA conducts under 
the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category 
and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th 
percentile) co-occur. The EPA then includes the additional assumption 
that

[[Page 47087]]

a person is located at this point at the same time. Together, these 
assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In 
most cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point 
of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable 
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening 
Assessments
    For each source category, the EPA generally relies on site-specific 
levels of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a 
refined assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is 
necessary or whether it is necessary to perform an environmental 
screening assessment. This determination is based on the results of a 
three-tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from 
models--TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant 
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM, 
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For 
lead, the EPA uses AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, 
which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two 
important types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models 
in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on 
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty'' 
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in 
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing 
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in 
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents 
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur 
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the 
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is 
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from 
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the 
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk 
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
    Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have 
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, the EPA 
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This 
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally 
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the 
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of 
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface 
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. The 
EPA also assumes an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human 
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
    In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, the EPA refines the model inputs to account for 
meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using 
upper-end national values and identifies the actual location of lakes 
near the facility rather than the default lake location applied in Tier 
1. By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local 
geographical and meteorological data, the EPA decreases the likelihood 
that concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby 
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the 
screening assessments, the EPA refines the model inputs again to 
account for hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. 
The EPA can also use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a 
TRIM.FaTE run using the screening configuration corresponding to the 
lake location. These refinements produce a more accurate estimate of 
chemical concentrations in the media of interest, thereby reducing the 
uncertainty with those estimates. The assumptions and the associated 
uncertainties regarding the selected ingestion exposure scenario are 
the same for all three tiers.
    For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, the EPA 
employs a single-tiered approach. The EPA uses the modeled air 
concentrations and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
    For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, the EPA's approach to addressing model input uncertainty 
is generally cautious. The EPA chooses model inputs from the upper end 
of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in 
the models, and assumes that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion 
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach 
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse 
impacts.
    Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities 
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), 
the EPA is confident that the potential for adverse multipathway 
impacts on human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual 
pollutants or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, 
it does not mean that impacts are significant, only that the EPA cannot 
rule out that possibility and that a refined assessment for the site 
might be necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for 
the source category.
    The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or 
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, 
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl 
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can 
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air 
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils 
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. 
These HAP represent those HAP for which the EPA can conduct a 
meaningful multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For 
other HAP not included in our screening assessments, the model has not 
been parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some 
cases, depending on the HAP, the EPA may not have appropriate 
multipathway models that allow us to predict the concentration of that 
pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are 
evaluating may have the potential to cause adverse effects and, 
therefore, the EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as 
modeling science and resources allow.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?

1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the 
inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation 
cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current 
actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the PCWP source 
category was estimated to be 30-in-1 million. The risk driver is 
chiefly formaldehyde emissions from batch and continuous lumber kilns. 
The total estimated cancer incidence based on actual and allowable 
emission levels from all PCWP emission

[[Page 47088]]

sources is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 33 
years, with emissions from the lumber kilns representing 43 percent of 
the modeled cancer incidence in the source category. Emissions of 
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and chromium VI compounds contributed 93 
percent to this cancer incidence with formaldehyde being the largest 
contributor (76 percent of the incidence). Based upon actual emissions 
from the source category, approximately 200,000 people were exposed to 
cancer risks above or equal to 1-in-1 million.
    The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values based on actual and 
allowable emissions for the source category were estimated to be less 
than 1. Based upon actual emissions from the source category, 
respiratory risks were driven by acrolein, acetaldehyde, and 
formaldehyde emissions from batch lumber kilns. Based upon allowable 
emissions from the source category, the respiratory risk was driven by 
methylene diphenyl diisocyanate emissions from a miscellaneous coating 
operation and formaldehyde emissions from lumber kilns.

                                   Table 2--Plywood and Composite Wood Products Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Estimated
                                                            Maximum         population at     Estimated annual   Maximum chronic     Maximum screening
          Risk assessment               Number of      individual cancer  increased risk of   cancer incidence   noncancer TOSHI     acute noncancer HQ
                                      facilities \2\       risk (in 1      cancer >=1-in-1    (cases per year)         \4\                  \5\
                                                          million) \3\         million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Baseline Actual Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category...................                233                 30            204,000               0.03                0.8  4 (REL) 0.2 (AEGL-1).
Facility-Wide.....................                233                 30            260,000               0.04                  1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Baseline Allowable Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category...................                233                 30            230,000               0.03                0.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 230 operating facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD plus three existing
  facilities that are currently closed but maintain active operating permits.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PCWP source category is the respiratory system.
\5\ 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, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, the EPA also shows the HQ using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there 
is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum 
refined off-site acute noncancer HQ values for the source category were 
equal to 4 from acrolein emissions and 2 from formaldehyde emissions 
(based on the acute (1-hr) REL for these pollutants). The acrolein and 
formaldehyde maximum HQ values were at separate facilities. No other 
acute health benchmarks were exceeded for this source category. The 
acute risk driver for acrolein was primarily from continuous lumber 
kilns and the MIR location for acute formaldehyde risks were from batch 
lumber kilns. The continuous and batch lumber kilns were modeled with 
hourly emissions ranging from 2 to 8 times the annual average hourly 
emissions rate. Acute HQs are not calculated for allowable or whole 
facility emissions.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that 
PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) emitted from 
the source category exceeded the screening values for the carcinogenic 
PB-HAP (arsenic, dioxin/furan, and POM compounds) and for the 
noncarcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury) based upon emissions from 
48 facilities reporting carcinogenic PB-HAP and 19 facilities reporting 
non-carcinogenic PB-HAP in the source category. For the PB-HAP and 
facilities that did not screen out at Tier 1, the EPA conducted a Tier 
2 screening analysis.
    The Tier 2 screen replaces some of the assumptions used in Tier 1 
with site-specific data, the location of fishable lakes, and local wind 
direction and speed. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on high-end 
assumptions about consumption of local fish and locally grown or raised 
foods (adult female angler at 99th percentile consumption for fish \23\ 
for the fisher scenario and 90th percentile for consumption of locally 
raised livestock and grown produce (vegetables and fruits) \24\) for 
the farmer scenario and uses an assumption that the same individual 
consumes each of these foods in high end quantities (i.e., that an 
individual has high end ingestion rates for each food). The result of 
this analysis was the development of site-specific concentrations of 
dioxin/furan, POM compounds, arsenic compounds, cadmium and mercury 
compounds. It is important to note that, even with the inclusion of 
some site-specific information in the Tier 2 analysis, the multipathway 
screening analysis is a still a very conservative, health-protective 
assessment (e.g., upper-bound consumption of local fish, locally grown, 
and/or raised foods) and in all likelihood will yield results that 
serve as an upper-bound multipathway risk associated with a facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: 
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of 
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
    \24\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this upper-bound Tier 2 screening assessment for 
carcinogens, the dioxin/furan and POM emission rates for all facilities 
and scenarios were below levels of concern. Arsenic emissions exceeded 
the screening value by a factor of 70 for the farmer scenario, a factor 
of 40 for the gardener scenario, and a factor of 6 for the fisher 
scenario. The Tier 2 gardener scenario is based upon the same ingestion 
rate of produce as the farmer for a rural environment. No additional 
refined screens or site-specific assessments were conducted for

[[Page 47089]]

emissions of arsenic based upon the conservative nature of the Tier 2 
screen and because the screening value was below the level of 
acceptability of 100-in-1 million. For the non-carcinogens, emissions 
of cadmium were below an HQ of 1 for the Tier 2 fisher scenario. For 
mercury, three facilities exceeded the Tier 2 multipathway screening 
values of 1 by a factor of 2 based upon aggregate lake impacts by 
facilities within the source category for the fisher scenario.
    For mercury, the EPA conducted a Tier 3 multipathway screen for two 
facilities which included two of the three individual stages. These 
stages included a lake assessment for fishability and the mass lost due 
to plume rise, a time-series assessment was not conducted. A lake and 
plume rise assessment was conducted resulting in a maximum Tier 3 
screening value of 2, a 20-percent reduction in their Tier 2 screening 
value was achieved due to plume rise. A screening value in any of the 
tiers is not an estimate of the cancer risk or a noncancer HQ (or HI). 
Rather, a screening value represents a high-end estimate of what the 
risk or hazard may be. For example, facility emissions resulting in a 
screening value of 2 for a non-carcinogen can be interpreted to mean 
that we are confident that the HQ would be lower than 2. Similarly, 
facility emissions resulting in a cancer screening value of 40 for a 
carcinogen means that we are confident that the cancer risk is lower 
than 40-in-1 million. Our confidence comes from the health-protective 
assumptions that are incorporated into the screens: We choose inputs 
from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential 
parameters used in the screens; and we assume food consumption 
behaviors that would lead to high total exposure. This risk assessment 
estimates the maximum hazard for mercury through fish consumption based 
on upper bound screens and the maximum excess cancer risks from 
dioxins/furans and arsenic through ingestion of fish and farm produce.
    When we progress from the model designs of the Tier 1, 2, and 3 
screens to a site-specific assessment, we refine the risk assessment 
through incorporation of additional site-specific data and enhanced 
model designs. Site-specific refinements include the following; (1) 
improved spatial locations identifying the boundaries of the watershed 
and lakes within the watershed as it relates to surrounding facilities 
within the source category; (2) calculating actual soil/water run-off 
amounts to target lakes based upon actual soil type(s) and elevation 
changes associated with the affected watershed versus assuming a worst-
case assumption of 100-percent run-off to target lakes; and (3) 
incorporating AERMOD deposition of pollutants into TRIM.FaTE to 
accurately account for site-specific release parameters such as stack 
heights and exit gas temperatures, versus using TRIMFaTE's simple 
dispersion algorithms that assume the pollutant is uniformly 
distributed within the airshed. These refinements have the net effect 
of improved modeling of the mass of HAP entering a lake by more 
accurately defining the watershed/lake boundaries as well as the 
dispersion of HAP into the atmosphere to better reflect deposition 
contours across all target watersheds and lakes in our 50 km model 
domain.
    The maximum mercury Tier 2 noncancer screening value for this 
source category is 2 with subsequent refinement resulting in a Tier 3 
screening value of 2. No additional refinements to the Tier 3 screen 
value of 2 were conducted by the EPA. Risk results from four site-
specific mercury assessments the EPA has conducted for four RTR source 
categories resulted in noncancer HQs that range from 50 to 800 times 
lower than the respective Tier 2 screening value for these facilities 
(refer to EPA Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243 for a copy of these 
reports).\25\ Based on our review of these analyses, we would expect at 
least a one order of magnitude decrease in all Tier 2 noncancer 
screening values for mercury for the PCWP source category, if we were 
to perform a site-specific assessment. In addition, based upon the 
conservative nature of the screens and the level of additional 
refinements that would go into a site-specific multipathway assessment, 
were one to be conducted, we are confident that the HI for ingestion 
exposure, specifically mercury through fish ingestion, is less than 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ EPA Docket records: Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Taconite Manufacturing Source Category in Support 
of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of 
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel 
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 
Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Portland Cement Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule; and Appendix 11 of the 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal and Oil-Fired EGU Source 
Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further details on the Tier 3 screening assessment can be found in 
Appendix 11 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood Composite and 
Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action.
    In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions 
of lead, the EPA compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the 
primary NAAQS level for lead (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\, arithmetic mean 
concentration over a 3-month period. The highest annual average lead 
concentration of 0.013 [micro]g/m\3\ is below the NAAQS level for lead, 
indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The EPA conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for 
the PCWP source category for the following pollutants: Arsenic, 
cadmium, dioxins/furans, HCl, HF, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and 
mercuric chloride), and POM.
    In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which 
was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, and POM 
emissions had no Tier 1 exceedances for any ecological benchmark. 
Divalent mercury emissions at nine facilities had Tier 1 exceedances 
for the surface soil threshold levels (invertebrate and plant 
communities) by a maximum screening value of 5. Methyl mercury 
emissions at 13 facilities had Tier 1 exceedances for the surface soil 
NOAEL (avian ground insectivores) by a maximum screening value of 7.
    A Tier 2 screening assessment was performed for divalent mercury 
and methyl mercury. Divalent mercury and methyl mercury had no Tier 2 
exceedances for any ecological benchmark. For lead, the EPA did not 
estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl and HF, 
the average modeled concentration around each facility (i.e., the 
average concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling 
domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition, each 
individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., each off-site 
data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks 
for all facilities. Based on the results of the environmental risk 
screening analysis, the EPA does not expect an adverse environmental 
effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that 
of the 233 facilities, 182 facilities have a facility-wide MIR cancer 
risk greater than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer risk 
is 30-in-1 million, mainly driven by formaldehyde emissions from batch 
and continuous lumber kilns. The

[[Page 47090]]

total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.04 excess 
cancer cases per year, or one case in every 25 years. Approximately 
260,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 
million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated 
to be equal to 1, driven by emissions of acrolein, chlorine, and HCl 
from non-category sources.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, the EPA evaluated the 
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the PCWP 
source category across different demographic groups within the 
populations living near facilities.
    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the 
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living 
within 50 km of the facilities.

                 Table 3--Plywood and Composite Wood Products Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Population with
                                                                            cancer risk at or   Population with
                                                             Nationwide        above 1-in-1      chronic hazard
                                                                              million due to   index above 1 due
                                                                                   PCWP             to PCWP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................        317,746,049            204,164                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 62                 63                  0
All Other Races........................................                 38                 37                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite).......                 18                  9                  0
African American.......................................                 12                 24                  0
Native American........................................                0.8                1.1                  0
Other and Multiracial..................................                  7                  3                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................                 14                 23                  0
Above Poverty Level....................................                 86                 77                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma..............                 14                 18                  0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................                 86                 82                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................                  6                  2                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the PCWP source category demographic analysis 
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 
200,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and zero 
people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of 
the at-risk population in four of the eleven demographic groups 
(African American, Native American, below poverty level, and over 25 
without a high school diploma) are greater than their respective 
nationwide percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Plywood and 
Composite Wood Products Source Category, available in the docket for 
this action.

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards 
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting 
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an 'acceptable 
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation 
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).
    In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and 
allowable emissions from the PCWP source category. In determining 
whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all available health 
information and risk estimation uncertainty, as described above. Table 
2 summarizes the risk assessment results for the source category. The 
results for the PCWP source category indicate that both the actual and 
allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are 
below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million (see 
discussion of presumptive risk in background section II.A). The 
residual risk assessment for the PCWP category \26\ estimated cancer 
incidence rate at 0.03 cases per year based on both source category 
actual and allowable emissions. The low number for the predicted cancer 
incidence is, in part

[[Page 47091]]

due to the rural location of many PCWP facilities. The population 
estimate of 204,000 people exposed to a cancer risk equal to or above 
1-in-1 million from source category actual emissions from 170 
facilities reflects the rural nature of the source category. Another 
factor in the low incidence number is that the estimate of people 
exposed to a cancer risk greater than 10-in-1 million from source 
category actual emissions drops to 650 people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood 
Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology 
Review Proposed Rule, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is 
less than 1 for actual and allowable emissions from the source 
category. The results of the acute screening analysis showed maximum 
acute HQs of 4 for acrolein and 2 for formaldehyde emissions. The EPA 
is proposing to find the acute risks acceptable for the source category 
considering the conservative assumptions used that err on the side of 
overestimating acute risk (as discussed in section III.C.7.e).
    Maximum cancer risk due to ingestion exposures estimated using 
health-protective risk screening assumptions are below 6-in-1 million 
for the Tier 2 fisher scenario and below 40-in-1 million for the Tier 2 
rural gardener exposure scenario. While the Tier 3 screening analyses 
of mercury exposure due to fish ingestion determined that the maximum 
HQ for mercury would be less than 2, the EPA is confident that this 
estimate would be reduced if further refined to incorporate enhanced 
site-specific analyses such as improved model boundary identification 
with refined soil/water run-off calculations and use of AERMOD 
deposition outputs in the TRIM.FaTE model. Considering all of the 
health risk information and factors discussed above, as well as the 
uncertainties discussed in section III of this preamble, we propose 
that the risks posed by emissions from the PCWP source category are 
acceptable after implementation of the existing MACT standards.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), the EPA conducted an analysis 
to determine if the current emissions standards provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety 
analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the risk 
assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available control 
technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and 
costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to 
this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) 
due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment. Although the 
EPA is proposing that the risks from this source category are 
acceptable for both inhalation and multipathway, risk estimates for 
approximately 200,000 people in the exposed population surrounding 170 
facilities producing PCWP or kiln-dried lumber are equal to or above 1-
in-1 million, caused primarily by formaldehyde emissions. The EPA 
considered whether the PCWP MACT standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. The EPA did not identify methods for 
further reducing HAP emissions from the PCWP source category that would 
achieve meaningful risk reductions for purposes of the ample margin of 
safety analysis. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that the current PCWP 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health 
and revision of the promulgated standards is not required.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    The EPA does not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect 
as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are 
proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to 
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other 
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on the EPA's 
technology review?

    As described in section III.B of this preamble, the EPA's 
technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies for process units subject to 
standards under the NESHAP that have occurred since 2004 when emission 
standards were promulgated for the PCWP source category. The EPA 
reviewed ICR responses and other available information (described in 
sections II.C and II.D of this preamble) to conduct the technology 
review. The following process units were included in our review: Green 
rotary dryers, hardboard ovens, pressurized refiners, primary tube 
dryers, reconstituted wood product presses, softwood veneer dryer 
heated zones, rotary strand dryers, secondary tube dryers, conveyor 
strand dryers, fiberboard mat dryers, press predryers, and 
reconstituted wood product board coolers. The technological basis for 
the promulgated PCWP NESHAP was use of incineration-based or biofilter 
add-on controls to reduce HAP emissions. Incineration-based controls 
include regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs), regenerative catalytic 
oxidizers (RCOs), and incineration of process exhaust in an onsite 
combustion unit (referred to as ``process incineration''). In addition 
to the add-on control device compliance options in Table 1B to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart DDDD, Table 1A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD 
contains production-based compliance options (PBCO) for process units 
with low emissions due to pollution prevention measures inherent in 
their process (e.g., low-formaldehyde resins). An emissions averaging 
compliance option is also available for existing sources in 40 CFR 
63.2240(c). One facility demonstrates compliance with the PCWP NESHAP 
using emissions averaging because none of the other compliance options 
were feasible for controlling the unique operations at this facility.
    Most facilities comply with the PCWP NESHAP using the add-on 
control options. The EPA observed in our review that many facilities 
route multiple process units of the same or different types into one 
shared control system. Facilities use RTOs, RCOs, process incineration, 
and biofilter control systems as expected. The numerous different 
process unit and control device combinations that are used in the 
source category underscore the ongoing utility of the compliance 
options in Table 1B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The EPA reviewed 
emissions test data for PCWP process units with add-on controls and 
concluded that no change in the add-on control emission limits is 
necessary considering emissions variability. The incremental cost of 
increasing the required HAP control efficiency from 90-to 95-percent 
reduction was estimated for new sources to be $670,000 nationwide for a 
nationwide HAP reduction of 47 tpy ($14,400 per ton of HAP reduced). 
The EPA is not adopting this option because it was not clearly 
supported by the emissions data reviewed. The emissions data reflected 
repeat emissions tests with variability spanning above and below the 
95-percent control level, suggesting that maintaining 95-percent HAP 
control with some compliance margin would be unachievable for the 
variety of process and control configurations used in the industry. 
Further, as discussed below, the HAP inlet concentration of some 
process units has decreased, making the 90-percent reduction options 
more challenging to achieve.
    Through our review of the ICR data, the EPA found a few facilities 
currently use the PBCO. Due to a development in the PCWP source 
category, the EPA expects the PBCO could become more widely used as 
current add-on air pollution controls for reconstituted

[[Page 47092]]

wood products presses reach the end of their useful life. In 2008, 
after the PCWP NESHAP was promulgated, the California Air Resources 
Board (CARB) finalized an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to 
reduce formaldehyde emissions from hardwood plywood, MDF, and 
particleboard. Consistent with the CARB ATCM, in July 2010, Congress 
passed the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, as 
title VI of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), [15 U.S.C. 2697], 
requiring the EPA to promulgate a national rule. The EPA subsequently 
proposed a rule in 2013 to implement TSCA title VI to reduce 
formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. The TSCA rule 
(Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products, RIN 2070-
AJ44) was finalized by the EPA on December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89674), and 
an implementation rule was finalized on February 7, 2018 (83 FR 5340). 
Compliance with all aspects of the TSCA rule was required by December 
2018. The CARB ATCM and the rule to implement TSCA title VI emphasize 
the use of low emission resins, including ultra-low-emitting 
formaldehyde and no added formaldehyde resin systems. As facilities 
conduct repeat testing, they may find that the inlet concentration of 
formaldehyde and methanol from their pressing operations has dropped if 
they are now using a different, lower-HAP resin system to comply with 
the CARB and TSCA standards. The decrease in inlet concentration may 
allow for use of the PBCO without an add-on control device providing a 
compliance option in addition to the current add-on control device 
compliance option. While the CARB and TSCA standards are a 
``development'' within the context of CAA section 112(d)(6), these 
rules do not necessitate revision of the previously-promulgated PCWP 
emission standards because the promulgated PCWP emission standards 
already include the PBCO provisions for pollution prevention measures 
such as lower-HAP resins.
    The PCWP NESHAP also contains work practice standards for selected 
process units in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD; however, the 
EPA did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or 
controls for these units beyond those identified in the originally-
promulgated PCWP NESHAP. Overall, the EPA's review of the developments 
in technology for the process units subject to the PCWP NESHAP did not 
reveal any changes that require revisions to the emission standards. As 
discussed above, the PCWP rule was promulgated with multiple options 
for reducing HAP emissions to demonstrate compliance with the standard. 
The EPA found that facilities are using each type of control system or 
pollution prevention measure that was anticipated when the PCWP 
emissions standards were promulgated. However, the EPA did not identify 
any developments in practices, processes, or controls for these units 
beyond those identified in the originally-promulgated PCWP NESHAP. 
Therefore, the EPA proposes that no revisions to the PCWP NESHAP are 
necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details on our 
technology review can be found in the memorandum, Technology Review for 
the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP, which is available in 
the docket for this action.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, the EPA is 
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. The EPA is proposing 
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure 
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that 
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise 
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. 
The EPA is also proposing various other changes, including addition of 
electronic reporting, addition of a repeat testing requirement, 
revisions to parameter monitoring requirements, and other technical and 
editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these 
issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
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 section 112 standards apply continuously.
    The EPA is proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this 
rule which appears at 40 CFR 63.2250. Consistent with Sierra Club v. 
EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in this rule that apply at all 
times. The EPA is also proposing several revisions to Table 10 (the 
General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail 
below. For example, the EPA is proposing to eliminate the incorporation 
of the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM 
plan. The EPA is also proposing to eliminate and revise certain 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption 
as further described below. As discussed in section IV.E of this 
preamble, facilities will have 6 months (180 days) after the effective 
date of the final rule to transition from use of the SSM exemption to 
compliance without the exemption beginning on the 181st day after the 
effective date of the amendments. A 5th column to Table 10 of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart DDDD was added to clearly indicate which requirements 
apply before, and then on and after the date 181 days after the 
effective date. See section IV.E for more discussion of the compliance 
date.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are 
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. The EPA is specifically seeking 
comment on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has proposed alternate standards for specific periods. The EPA 
collected information with the PCWP ICR to use in determining whether 
applying the standards applicable under normal operations would be 
problematic for PCWP facilities during startup and shutdown. Based on 
the information collected, facilities can meet the PCWP compliance 
options, operating requirements, and work practices at all times with 
two exceptions during periods of startup and shutdown (discussed 
further below). Facilities operating control systems generally operate 
the control systems while the process unit(s) controlled are started up 
and shutdown. For example, RTOs and RCOs are warmed to their operating 
temperature set points using auxiliary fuel before the process unit(s) 
controlled startup and the oxidizers continue to maintain their 
temperature until the process unit(s) controlled shutdown. Biofilters 
operate within a biofilter bed temperature range that will be more 
easily achieved during startup and shutdown with changes in biofilter 
bed temperature operating range discussed in section IV.D.
    The two situations where standards for normal operation cannot be 
met during startup and shutdown are during safety-related shutdowns and

[[Page 47093]]

pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns. The EPA is proposing work 
practice standards in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD to apply 
during these times to ensure that a CAA section 112 standard applies 
continuously. Work practices are appropriate during safety-related 
shutdowns and pressurized refiner startup/shutdown because it is not 
technically feasible to capture and route emissions to a control device 
during these periods, nor is it technically or economically feasible to 
measure emissions during the brief periods when these situations occur 
(i.e., less than the 1-hour test runs or 3 hours required for a full 
test). It is particularly infeasible to measure emissions from safety-
related shutdowns because these shutdowns are unplanned.
    Safety-related shutdowns differ from routine shutdowns that allow 
facilities to continue routing process unit emissions to the control 
device until the process unit is shut down. Safety-related shutdowns 
occur often enough that they are also distinguished from malfunctions 
which are, by definition, infrequent. In addition, the PCWP process 
shuts down when these events are triggered. Safety-related shutdowns 
must occur rapidly in the event of unsafe conditions such as a 
suspected fire in a process unit heating flammable wood material. When 
unsafe conditions are detected, facilities must act quickly to shut off 
fuel flow (or indirect process heat) to the system, cease addition of 
raw materials (e.g., wood furnish, resin) to the process units, purge 
wood material and gases from the process unit, and isolate equipment to 
prevent loss of property or life and protect workers from injury. 
Because it is unsafe to continue to route process gases to the control 
system, the control system will be bypassed, in many cases 
automatically through a system of interlocks designed to prevent 
dangerous conditions from occurring. The EPA is proposing to define 
``safety-related shutdowns'' in 40 CFR 63.2292, and to add a work 
practice for these shutdown events. The proposed work practice requires 
facilities to follow documented site-specific procedures such as use of 
automated controls or other measures developed to protect workers and 
equipment to ensure that the flow of raw materials (such as furnish or 
resin) and fuel or process heat (as applicable) ceases and that 
material is removed from the process unit(s) as expeditiously as 
possible given the system design. These actions are taken by all 
(including the best-performing) facilities when safety-related 
shutdowns occur.
    Pressurized refiners typically operate in MDF and dry-process 
hardboard mills where they discharge refined furnish and exhaust gases 
from refining directly into a primary tube dryer. Pressurized refiners 
are unable to vent through the dryer to the control system (i.e., the 
dryer control system) for a brief time after they are initially fed 
wood material during startup or as wood material clears the refiner 
during shutdown because they are not producing useable furnish suitable 
for drying. During this time, instead of the pressurized refiner output 
being discharged into the dryer, exhaust is vented to the atmosphere 
and the wood is directed to storage for recycling back into the 
refining process once it is running steadily. Information from the PCWP 
industry indicates that no resin is mixed with the off-specification 
material and that the time periods are short (i.e., no more than 15 
minutes) before the pressurized refiner begins to discharge wood 
furnish and exhaust through the dryer. Information collected through 
the ICR indicates a range of pressurized refiner startup times before 
wood furnish is introduced into the system (e.g., up to 4 hours) and 
that up to 45 minutes is required to shut down the pressurized refiner 
including time after the wood clears the system. Hence, the time when 
off-specification material is produced (when emissions are beginning to 
be generated during startup or diminishing during shutdown) is only a 
fraction of the pressurized refiner startup and shutdown time. Based on 
this information, the EPA is proposing a work practice requirement to 
apply during pressurized refiner startup and shutdown that limits the 
amount of time (and, thus, emissions) when wood is being processed 
through the system while exhaust is not routed through the dryer to its 
control system. The proposed work practice requires facilities to route 
exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to its control system no 
later than 15 minutes after furnish is fed to the pressurized refiner 
when starting up and no more than 15 minutes after furnish ceases to be 
fed to the pressurized refiner when shutting down. This practice is 
consistent with how the best-performing facilities complete startup and 
shutdown of pressurized refiners.
    The new definition in 40 CFR 63.2292 and the new work practice 
standards in Table 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD are designed to 
address safety-related shutdowns and refiner startup/shutdown periods. 
Facilities have ample profit-incentive to keep the periods when these 
work practice standards will be in effect as short as possible because 
they are unable to produce usable product during safety-related 
shutdowns or pressurized refiner startup/shutdown periods.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) 
(Definition of malfunction). 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 and this reading 
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under section CAA 112, emissions 
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level 
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing 
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in 
the category. There is nothing in section CAA 112 that directs the 
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' 
by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the 
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of '' sources ``says nothing 
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' 
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. 
Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions 
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider 
malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat 
a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in 
performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A 
malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or 
usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider 
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for 
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of

[[Page 47094]]

various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the EPA would have 
to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of 
possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor 
mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly 
generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances''). As such, the 
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' 
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. 
Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the 
extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally 
defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect 
scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources to conduct 
the perfect study.' '') See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 
1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general 
limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate 
all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of 
regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' 
such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a 
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative 
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification 
in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions during a 
malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any 
other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution 
control device with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a 
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse 
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that 
would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent 
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The 
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher 
than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day 
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source 
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for 
malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and 
significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA 
section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions 
is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation 
of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a 
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in 
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events 
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices 
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80 
FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether 
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of 
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to 
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard 
for such malfunctions. The EPA also encourages commenters to provide 
any such information.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor 
maintenance or careless operation per 40 CFR 63.2 (Definition of 
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. 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. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. General Duty (40 CFR 63.2250)
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) and (2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in 
column 5 which was added to specify requirements on and after the date 
181 days after the effective date of the final amendments. Section 
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of 
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in 
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. The EPA is proposing 
instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2250 that 
reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the 
reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language 
in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails 
during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there 
is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and 
shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. 
Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.2250 
eliminates that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    The EPA is also proposing to revise the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a 
``no'' in column 5. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that 
are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are 
redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 
63.2250.
b. SSM Plan
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to 
a ``no'' in column 5. Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) 
require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is 
proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will 
be subject to an emission standard during such events. The 
applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources 
have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the 
SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing

[[Page 47095]]

the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in column 5. The current language 
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during 
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated 
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA 
requires that some CAA section 112 standard apply continuously. 
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards 
in this rule to apply at all times.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) through (9) by redesignating it as 40 
CFR 63.6(h)(1) and changing the ``NA'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in 
column 5. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources 
from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the 
Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision 
and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards 
apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing 
to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing (40 CFR 63.2262)
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to 
a ``no'' in column 5. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing 
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing 
requirement at 40 CFR 63.2262(a)-(b). The performance testing 
requirements the EPA is proposing to add differ from the General 
Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The 
regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that 
restated the SSM exemption. The proposed performance testing provisions 
remove reference to 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), reiterate the requirement that 
was already included in the PCWP rule to conduct emissions tests under 
representative operating conditions, and clarify that representative 
operating conditions excludes periods of startup and shutdown. As in 40 
CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should 
not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during 
malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating 
conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the 
owner or operator to 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 are 
representative. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator 
make available to the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary 
to determine the condition of the performance test'' upon request but 
does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The 
regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on 
that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the 
information.
    The definition of ``representative operating conditions'' in 40 CFR 
63.2292 is also proposed to be clarified to exclude periods of startup 
and shutdown. Representative operating conditions include a range of 
operating conditions under which the process unit and control device 
typically operate and are not limited to conditions of optimal 
performance of the process unit and control device.
e. Monitoring
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no'' in column 5. The cross-references to the general 
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary 
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air 
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the 
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 
CFR 63.8(d)).
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in 
column 5. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General 
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA 
is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.2282(f) text that is 
identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is 
replaced with the following sentence: ``The program of corrective 
action should be included in the plan required under 40 CFR 
63.8(d)(2).''
f. Recordkeeping (40 CFR 63.2282)
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) through (iv) by redesignating it as 
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' 
in column 5. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping 
requirements during startup and shutdown. The EPA is instead proposing 
to add recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 63.2282(a). When a source 
is subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will 
be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and 
end to determine compliance with the appropriate standard. Thus, the 
EPA is proposing to add language to 40 CFR 63.2282(a) requiring that 
sources subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that 
differs from the emission standard that applies at all other times must 
report the date, time, and duration of such periods.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a 
``no'' in column 5. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping 
requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such 
requirements to 40 CFR 63.2282(a). The regulatory text the EPA is 
proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in 
that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a 
record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, 
air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing 
that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable 
standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and 
duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also 
proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2282(a) a requirement that sources keep 
records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and 
actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of 
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source 
failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-
loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when 
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. 
The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this 
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the 
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to 
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to 
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable 
standard.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a 
``no'' in column 5. When applicable, the provision requires sources to 
record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent 
with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer

[[Page 47096]]

appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The 
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is 
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2282(a).
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) by adding 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) to the entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in column 5. When applicable, 
the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM 
events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. 
The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no 
longer be required.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' 
in column 5. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer 
apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to 
use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the 
recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 
63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement 
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. Reporting (40 CFR 63.2281)
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in 
column 5. Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting requirements 
for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General 
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting 
requirements to 40 CFR 63.2281(d) and (e). The replacement language 
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates 
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. The EPA is proposing 
language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard 
at any time to report the information concerning such events in the 
semiannual compliance report already required under this rule. The EPA 
is proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time, 
duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if 
applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. 
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass 
balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document 
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a 
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    The EPA will no longer require owners or operators to determine 
whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an 
SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed 
amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required 
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These 
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be 
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and 
submittal requirements.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a 
``no'' in column 5. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate 
report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed 
to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. The EPA 
will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions 
taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent 
with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
2. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of PCWP facilities 
submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, 
performance evaluation reports for continuous monitoring systems (CMS) 
measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants (i.e., total 
hydrocarbon monitors), selected notifications, and semiannual reports 
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the 
electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum, 
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243. The 
proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using 
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool 
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \27\ at the time of the test be 
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that 
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format 
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance 
evaluation results of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are supported 
by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format 
generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation 
results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the PCWP semiannual report, the proposed rule requires that 
owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for this 
report is included in the docket for this rulemaking.\28\ The EPA 
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall 
design of the template. In addition, the EPA is proposing to require 
future initial notifications developed according to 40 CFR 63.2280(b) 
and notifications of compliance status developed according to 40 CFR 
63.2280(d) to be uploaded in CEDRI in a user-specified (e.g., PDF) 
format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD--Plywood and Composite 
Wood Products Semiannual Compliance Reporting Spreadsheet Template, 
available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both 
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional 
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and 
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these 
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance 
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the 
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation 
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or 
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system 
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2281(k). The 
situation

[[Page 47097]]

where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which 
is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or 
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 
63.2281(l). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or 
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of 
the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \29\ to 
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's 
Agency-wide policy \30\ developed in response to the White House's 
Digital Government Strategy.\31\ For more information on the benefits 
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, 
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \30\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \31\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Repeat Emissions Testing
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various 
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the emissions 
testing requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, and is proposing 
to require facilities complying with the standards in Table 1B of 40 
CFR part 63, subpart DDDD using an add-on control system other than a 
biofilter to conduct repeat emissions performance testing every 5 
years. Currently, facilities operating add-on controls are required to 
conduct an initial performance test by the date specified in 40 CFR 
63.2261(a). In addition to the initial performance test, process units 
controlled by biofilters are already required by the PCWP NESHAP to 
conduct repeat performance testing every 2 years. Periodic performance 
tests for all types of control systems are already required by 
permitting authorities for many facilities. Further, the EPA believes 
that requiring repeat performance tests will help to ensure that 
control systems are properly maintained over time. As proposed in Table 
7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD (row 7) the first of the repeat 
performance tests would be required to be conducted within 3 years of 
the effective date of the revised standards or within 60 months 
following the previous performance test, whichever is later, and 
thereafter within 5 years (60 months) following the previous 
performance test. Section IV.E of this preamble provides more 
information on compliance dates. We specifically request comment on the 
proposed repeat testing requirements.
4. Biofilter Bed Temperature
    Facilities using a biofilter to comply with the PCWP NESHAP must 
monitor biofilter bed temperature and maintain the 24-hour block 
biofilter bed temperature within the range established during 
performance testing showing compliance with the emission limits. The 
upper and lower limits of the biofilter bed temperature are currently 
required to be established as the highest and lowest 15-minute average 
bed temperatures, respectively, during the three test runs. Facilities 
may conduct multiple performance tests to expand the biofilter bed 
operating temperature range. See 40 CFR 63.2262(m).
    The EPA has become aware that multiple facilities are having 
difficulty with the PCWP biofilter bed temperature monitoring 
requirements as originally promulgated. Biofilter bed temperature is 
affected by ambient temperature. Diurnal and seasonal ambient 
temperature fluctuations do not necessarily impact the ability of the 
biofilter to reduce HAP emissions because biofilters reduce HAP (e.g., 
formaldehyde) emissions over a wide range of bed temperatures. 
Facilities have indicated they are not able to schedule performance 
tests on the warmest and coolest days of each season because test firms 
must plan and mobilize for tests weeks in advance and facilities must 
notify their delegated authority 60 days before conducting a 
performance test. For example, facilities may schedule a test in the 
winter with the intent of measuring emissions during the coldest 
conditions in which a biofilter performs, only to find that the weather 
changes on the test date to a warmer than expected ambient temperature. 
In consideration of this issue, the EPA reviewed biofilter temperature 
monitoring data, semiannual compliance reports, and test data showing 
that formaldehyde reductions in compliance with emission standards were 
achieved at a wide range of biofilter bed temperatures. The EPA is 
proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.2262(m)(1) to add a 5-percent variability 
margin to the biofilter bed temperature upper and lower limits 
established during emissions testing. A 5-percent variability margin 
addresses the issues observed in the 24-hour block average biofilter 
temperature monitoring data reviewed. The EPA maintains that the 
currently-required 24-hour block averaging time is appropriate to 
monitor for harsh swings in biofilter bed temperature that could impact 
the viability of the microbial population. The 5-percent variability 
margin provides flexibility needed to account for small variations in 
biofilter bed temperature unlikely to impact the microbial population.
    While the proposed regulatory language does not explicitly state 
that facilities can use the 5-percent variability margin to expand the 
range of the biofilter bed temperature limit established though 
previously conducted performance tests, the EPA anticipates that 
facilities currently having difficulty maintaining the biofilter bed 
temperature limits may wish to adjust their temperature limits. As 
originally promulgated, 40 CFR 63.2262(m)(1) states that facilities may 
base their biofilter bed temperature range on values recorded during 
previous performance tests provided that the data used to establish the 
temperature ranges have been obtained using the required test methods; 
and that facilities using data from previous performance tests must 
certify that the

[[Page 47098]]

biofilter and associated process unit(s) have not been modified since 
the test. This provision (if met) clarifies that facilities can adjust 
their previously established biofilter temperature range to include the 
5-percent variability margin, if desired. Facilities are encouraged to 
demonstrate the broadest limits of their compliant temperature 
operating parameters with their regular performance tests.
5. Thermocouple Calibration
    Facilities with controlled sources subject to the PCWP NESHAP that 
use regenerative thermal or catalytic oxidizers to comply with the 
standard are required to establish a minimum operating temperature 
during performance testing then maintain a 3-hour block average firebox 
temperature above the minimum temperature established during the 
performance test to demonstrate ongoing compliance. Facilities with 
controlled sources subject to the PCWP NESHAP that use biofilters to 
comply with the standard are required to establish an operating 
temperature range during performance testing then maintain a 24-hour 
block average temperature within the temperature range established 
during the performance test to demonstrate ongoing compliance. (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart DDDD, Table 2). Facilities with dry rotary dryers are 
required to maintain their 24-hour block average inlet dryer 
temperature less than 600 degrees Fahrenheit. (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDD, Table 3). Thermocouples are used to measure the temperature in 
the firebox, the biofilter, and the dry rotary dryer. At 40 CFR 
63.2269(b)(4), the PCWP NESHAP currently requires conducting an 
electronic calibration of the temperature monitoring device at least 
semiannually according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owner's 
manual. Facilities subject to the standard have explained to the EPA 
that they are not aware of a thermocouple manufacturer that provides 
procedures or protocols for conducting electronic calibration of 
thermocouples. Facilities have reported that since they cannot 
calibrate their thermocouples, the alternative is to replace them and 
requested that an alternative approach to the current requirement in 40 
CFR 63.2269(b)(4) be considered.
    The EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4) to allow 
multiple alternative approaches to thermocouple calibration. The first 
alternative would allow use of a National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulator 
to confirm the accuracy of any thermocouple placed into use for at 
least one semi-annual period, where the accuracy of the temperature 
measurement must be within 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by 
the NIST traceable device or 5 [deg]F, whichever is greater. The second 
alternative would be to have the thermocouple manufacturer certify the 
electrical properties of the thermocouple. The third alternative would 
codify the common practice of replacing thermocouples every 6 months. 
The fourth alternative would be to permanently install a redundant 
temperature sensor as close as practicable to the process temperature 
sensor. The redundant sensors must read within 30 [deg]F of each other 
for thermal and catalytic oxidizers, within 5 [deg]F for biofilters, 
and within 20 [deg]F for dry rotary dryers. The EPA plans to maintain 
the option of allowing facilities to follow calibration procedures 
developed by the thermocouple manufacturer when thermocouple 
manufacturers develop calibration procedures for their products.
6. Non-HAP Coating Definition
    The PCWP NESHAP requires use of ``non-HAP coatings'' for ``Group 1 
miscellaneous coating operations'' as defined in 40 CFR 63.2292. As 
defined, PCWP non-HAP coatings exclude coatings with 0.1 percent or 
more (by mass) of carcinogenic HAP. The current ``non-HAP coating'' 
definition in 40 CFR 63.2292 references Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) which was amended (77 FR 17574, March 26, 2012) and no 
longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. The EPA is 
proposing to replace the references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 29 
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) in the PCWP ``non-HAP coating'' definition with a 
reference to a new appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, that 
lists HAP that must be below 0.1 percent by mass for a PCWP coating to 
be considered as non-HAP coating. The HAP listed in the proposed 
appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, were categorized in the 
EPA's Prioritized Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk 
Assessments (dated May 9, 2014) as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable 
human carcinogen,'' or ``possible human carcinogen'' according to The 
Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\32\ 
or as ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be carcinogenic to 
humans,'' or with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential'' 
according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-
03/001F, March 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Technical and Editorial Changes
    The following lists additional proposed changes that address 
technical and editorial corrections:
     The clarifying reference to ``SSM plans'' in 40 CFR 
63.2252 was removed because SSM plans will no longer be applicable;
     The redundant reference in 40 CFR 63.2281(c)(6) for 
submittal of performance test results with the compliance report was 
eliminated because performance test results will be required to be 
electronically reported;
     The EPA revised 40 CFR 63.2281(d)(2) and added language to 
40 CFR 63.2281(e)(12)-(13) to makes these sections more consistent to 
facilitate electronic reporting;
     A provision stating that the EPA retains authority to 
approve alternatives to electronic reporting was added to 40 CFR 
63.2291(c)(5);
     Cross-references to the 40 CFR part 60 appendices 
containing test methods were updated in Table 4 of the rule;
     Cross-references were updated throughout the rule, as 
needed, to match the proposed changes;
     Cross-references to 40 CFR 63.14 to remove outdated 
paragraph references were updated;
     The equation number cross-referenced in the definition of 
``MSF'' was corrected; and
     The cross-reference in 40 CFR 63.2290 to include all 
sections of the General Provisions was updated.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources and other 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 6, 2019 must comply with all of the amendments 6 
months (180 days) after the effective date of the final rule.\33\ For 
existing sources, the EPA is proposing changes that would impact 
ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. As 
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the EPA is proposing to change 
the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the 
requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing 
the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. The EPA

[[Page 47099]]

is also proposing addition of electronic reporting requirements that 
will require use of a semiannual reporting template once the template 
has been available on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for 6 months. The EPA's experience with 
similar industries shows that this sort of regulated facility generally 
requires a time-period of 180 days to read and understand the amended 
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can 
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in 
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their 
operations to reflect the revised requirements. From our assessment of 
the time frame needed for compliance with the revised requirements, the 
EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious 
compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that existing 
affected sources be in compliance with this regulation's revised 
requirements within 180 days of the regulation's effective date. All 
existing affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current 
requirements of this NESHAP until the applicable compliance date of the 
amended rule. Affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with all 
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed, 
no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon initial 
startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule 
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 
112(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the EPA is proposing new requirements to conduct repeat 
performance testing every 5 years for facilities using an add-on 
control system other than a biofilter (see section IV.D.3 of this 
preamble). Establishing a compliance date earlier than 3 years for the 
first repeat performance test can cause scheduling issues as affected 
sources compete for a limited number of testing contractors. 
Considering these scheduling issues, the first of the repeat 
performance tests would be required to be conducted within 3 years 
after the effective date of the revised standards, or within 60 months 
following the previous performance test, whichever is later, and 
thereafter within 5 years (60 months) following the previous 
performance test. Thus, facilities with relatively new affected sources 
that recently conducted the initial performance test by the date 
specified in 40 CFR 63.2261(a) or facilities that were required by 
their delegated authorities to conduct a performance test to show 
ongoing compliance with the PCWP standards would have 5 years (60 
months) from the previous test before being required to conduct the 
first of the repeat tests required by the proposed amendment to add 
repeat testing.
    The EPA specifically seeks comment on whether the compliance times 
described in this section provide enough time for owners and operators 
to comply with these proposed amendments, and if the proposed time 
window is not adequate, we request that commenters provide an 
explanation of specific actions that would need to be undertaken to 
comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to 
make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised 
requirements. The EPA notes that information provided may result in 
changes to the proposed compliance date.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The EPA has identified 230 facilities that are currently operating 
and subject to the PCWP NESHAP. This includes 109 facilities 
manufacturing one or more PCWP products (e.g., plywood, veneer, 
particleboard, OSB, hardboard, fiberboard, MDF, engineered wood 
products) and 121 facilities that produce kiln-dried lumber. Sixteen 
facilities produce PCWP products and kiln-dried lumber. Information on 
currently operational facilities is included in the Technology Review 
for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP, available in the 
docket for this action. In addition, the EPA is aware of 13 greenfield 
facilities (four PCWP and nine kiln-dried lumber mills) that recently 
commenced construction as major sources of HAP emissions. The EPA is 
projecting that two new OSB mills will be constructed as major sources 
within the next 5 years, and that existing facilities will add or 
replace process units during this same time frame. More details on our 
projections of new sources are available in Projections of the Number 
of New and Reconstructed Sources for the Subpart DDDD Technology 
Review, in the docket for this action.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the 230 facilities in 
the PCWP source category are estimated to be 7,600 tons/year. Emissions 
of the six compounds defined as ``total HAP'' in the PCWP NESHAP 
(acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and 
propionaldehyde) make up 96 percent of the nationwide emissions. The 
proposed amendments include removal of the SSM exemption and addition 
of repeat emissions testing for controls other than biofilters (which 
are already require repeat tests). Although the EPA is unable to 
quantify the emission reduction associated with these changes, we 
expect that emissions will be reduced by requiring facilities to meet 
the applicable standard during periods of SSM and that the repeat 
emissions testing requirements will encourage operation of add-on 
controls to achieve optimum performance. The EPA is not proposing other 
revisions to the emission limits that would impact emissions, so there 
are no quantifiable air quality impacts resulting from the proposed 
amendments.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    No capital costs are estimated to be incurred to comply with the 
proposed amendments. The costs associated with the proposed amendments 
are related to recordkeeping and reporting labor costs and repeat 
performance testing. Because repeat performance testing would be 
required every 5 years, costs are estimated and summarized over a 5-
year period. The nationwide cost of the proposed amendments is 
estimated to include a one-time cost of $1.3 million for facilities to 
review the revised rule and make record systems adjustments and a cost 
of $3.5 million every 5 years for repeat emissions testing. These costs 
are in 2018 dollars. Another metric for presenting the one-time costs 
is as a present value (PV), which is a technique that converts a stream 
of costs over time into a one-time estimate for the present year or 
other year. The EPA estimates that the PV of costs for this proposal is 
$5.6 million at a discount rate of 7 percent and $6.9 million at a 
discount rate of 3 percent. In addition, the EPA presents these costs 
as an equivalent annualized value (EAV) in order to provide an estimate 
of annual costs consistent with the present value. The EAV for this 
proposal is estimated to be $0.9 million at a discount rate of 7 
percent and $1.0 million at a discount rate of 3 percent. The PV and 
EAV cost estimates are in 2016 dollars in part to conform to Executive 
Order 13771 requirements. For further information on the costs 
associated with the proposed amendments, see the memorandum, Cost, 
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for Subpart 
DDDD, and the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis 
for the Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Products Risk and 
Technology Review

[[Page 47100]]

(RTR) NESHAP, both available in the docket for this action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for this proposal, as 
detailed in the memorandum titled Economic Impact and Small Business 
Analysis for the Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Risk and 
Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP, which is available in the docket for 
this action. The economic impacts of the proposal are calculated as the 
percentage of annualized costs incurred by affected ultimate parent 
owners to their revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the direct 
economic impact to ultimate parent owners of PCWP facilities while 
presuming no impact on consumers. The EPA estimates that none of the 
ultimate parent owners affected by this proposal will incur annualized 
costs of 1.0 percent or greater of their revenues. Thus, these economic 
impacts are low for affected companies and the industries impacted by 
this proposal, and there will not be substantial impacts in the markets 
for affected products.

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA is not proposing changes to emissions limits, and estimates 
the proposed changes (i.e., changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting, 
and monitoring) are not economically significant. Because these 
proposed amendments are not considered economically significant, as 
defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emissions reductions 
were estimated, the EPA did not estimate any benefits from reducing 
emissions.

VI. Request for Comments

    The EPA solicits comments on this proposed action. In addition to 
general comments on this proposed action, the EPA is also interested in 
additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other 
analyses. The EPA is specifically interested in receiving any 
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles 
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting 
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the 
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII 
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for 
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/plywood-and-composite-wood-products-manufacture-national-emission. The data files include detailed information for each HAP 
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, the EPA requests that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243 (through the method described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple 
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file 
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility 
(or facilities). The EPA requests that all data revision comments be 
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are 
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are 
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/plywood-and-composite-wood-products-manufacture-national-emission.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be 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 proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that 
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1984.08. You can find 
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    The information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart DDDD. The information requirements are based on 
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for 
all operators subject to national emissions standards. The information 
collection activities also include paperwork requirements associated 
with initial and repeat performance testing and parameter monitoring. 
The proposed amendments to the rule would eliminate the paperwork 
requirements associated with the SSM plan and recordkeeping of SSM 
events and require electronic submittal of performance test results and 
semiannual compliance reports. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 
7414).
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of facilities 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, that produce plywood, 
composite wood products, or kiln-dried lumber.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart DDDD).
    Estimated number of respondents: 244 facilities (including existing 
and new facilities projected to begin reporting during the ICR period).
    Frequency of response: The frequency varies depending on the type 
of response (e.g., initial notification, semiannual compliance report).
    Total estimated burden: 39,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $6,930,000 (per year), includes $2,365,000 
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB

[[Page 47101]]

control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to OIRA at [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer 
for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than October 7, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

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. Of the 69 ultimate parent entities that 
are subject to the rule, 28 are small according to the Small Business 
Administration's small business size standards and standards regarding 
other entities (e.g., federally recognized tribes). None of the 28 
small entities have annualized costs of 1 percent or greater of sales. 
The EPA has, therefore, concluded that this action will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate 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. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments 
own facilities that are impacted by the proposed changes to the NESHAP. 
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 this preamble and further documented in the risk 
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite 
Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found 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) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use 
the standards currently listed in Table 4 of the rule (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart DDDD). While the EPA has identified another 18 voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS) as being potentially applicable to this 
proposed rule, the EPA has decided not to use these VCS in this 
rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of 
equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other important 
technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled 
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for NESHAP: Plywood and Composite 
Wood Products RTR, in the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons 
for these determinations.
    The EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR 63.14 to incorporate by reference 
EPA Method 0011 for measurement of formaldehyde. EPA Method 0011 
(Revision 0, December 1996) is available in ``Test Methods for 
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication 
No. SW-846. This method was included in the PCWP rule when it was 
promulgated in 2004.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially 
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this 
regulation.

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 IV.A.6 
of this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Plywood and 
Composite Wood Products Source Category, in the public docket for this 
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: August 22, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed 
to be 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:


[[Page 47102]]


    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (n)(7) through 
(24) as (n)(8) through (25) and adding new paragraph (n)(7) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (7) SW-846-0011, Sampling for Selected Aldehyde and Ketone 
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Revision 0, December 1996, in EPA 
Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 
Physical/Chemical Methods, IBR approved for table 4 to subpart DDDD.
* * * * *

Subpart DDDD--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.2233 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and 
paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2233   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (1) If the initial startup of your affected source is before 
September 28, 2004, then you must comply with the compliance options, 
operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new and 
reconstructed sources in this subpart no later than September 28, 2004, 
except as otherwise specified in Sec. Sec.  63.2250, 63.2280(b) and 
(d), 63.2281(b)(6), 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 7, 9, and 10 to this 
subpart.
    (2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after 
September 28, 2004, then you must comply with the compliance options, 
operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new and 
reconstructed sources in this subpart upon initial startup of your 
affected source, except as otherwise specified in Sec. Sec.  63.2250, 
63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6), 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 7, 9, 
and 10 to this subpart.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice 
requirements for existing sources no later than October 1, 2007, except 
as otherwise specified in Sec. Sec.  63.2240(c)(2)(vi)(A), 63.2250, 
63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6) and (c)(4), 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 
3, 7, 9, and 10 to this subpart.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.2240 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(A) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.2240   What are the compliance options and operating 
requirements and how must I meet them?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (A) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], emissions during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction as described in the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan (SSMP). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], emissions during 
safety-related shutdowns or pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.2250 is amended by:
0
a. Adding two sentences to the end of paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (e) through (g).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2250  What are the general requirements?

    (a) * * * For any affected source that commences construction or 
reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph does not apply 
on and after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is 
later. For all other affected sources, this paragraph does not apply on 
and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment according to 
the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). For any affected source that 
commences construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this 
paragraph does not apply on and after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected 
source, whichever is later. For all other affected sources, this 
paragraph does not apply on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (c) You must develop a written SSMP according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.6(e)(3). For any affected source that commences construction 
or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph does not 
apply on and after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is 
later. For all other affected sources, this paragraph does not apply on 
and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER].
* * * * *
    (e) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of 
this part, except as noted in Table 10 to this subpart.
    (f) Upon [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is 
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS 
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for 
all other affected sources, you must be in compliance with the 
compliance options, operating requirements, and the work practice 
requirements in this subpart when the process unit(s) subject to the 
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice 
requirements are operating, except as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) Prior to process unit initial startup.
    (2) During safety-related shutdowns conducted according to the work 
practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (3) During pressurized refiner startup and shutdown according to 
the work practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (4) You must minimize the length of time when compliance options 
and operating requirements in this subpart are not met due to the 
conditions in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this section.
    (g) For affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 6, 2019 and for all other affected 
sources on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must always operate and maintain 
your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control 
practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels required by 
this subpart. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require 
you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required 
by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether 
a source is

[[Page 47103]]

operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements 
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may 
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 
records, and inspection of the source.
0
6. Section 63.2252 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2252  What are the requirements for process units that have no 
control or work practice requirements?

    For process units not subject to the compliance options or work 
practice requirements specified in Sec.  63.2240 (including, but not 
limited to, lumber kilns), you are not required to comply with the 
compliance options, work practice requirements, performance testing, 
monitoring, and recordkeeping or reporting requirements of this 
subpart, or any other requirements in subpart A of this part, except 
for the initial notification requirements in Sec.  63.9(b).
0
7. Section 63.2262 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (m)(1) 
and (n)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2262  How do I conduct performance tests and establish 
operating requirements?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b) through (o) of this section, and 
according to the methods specified in Table 4 to this subpart.
    (b) Periods when performance tests must be conducted. You must 
conduct each performance test based on representative performance 
(i.e., performance based on representative operating conditions as 
defined in Sec.  63.2292) of the affected source for the period being 
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and 
shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
malfunction. You must describe representative operating conditions in 
your performance test report for the process and control systems and 
explain why they are representative. You 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 are representative. Upon request, you shall make available 
to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (1) During the performance test, you must continuously monitor the 
biofilter bed temperature during each of the required 1-hour test runs. 
To monitor biofilter bed temperature, you may use multiple 
thermocouples in representative locations throughout the biofilter bed 
and calculate the average biofilter bed temperature across these 
thermocouples prior to reducing the temperature data to 15-minute 
averages for purposes of establishing biofilter bed temperature limits. 
The biofilter bed temperature range must be established as the 
temperature values 5 percent below the minimum and 5 percent above the 
maximum 15-minute biofilter bed temperatures monitored during the three 
test runs. You may base your biofilter bed temperature range on values 
recorded during previous performance tests provided that the data used 
to establish the temperature ranges have been obtained using the test 
methods required in this subpart. If you use data from previous 
performance tests, you must certify that the biofilter and associated 
process unit(s) have not been modified subsequent to the date of the 
performance tests. Replacement of the biofilter media with the same 
type of material is not considered a modification of the biofilter for 
purposes of this section.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) During the performance test, you must identify and document the 
process unit controlling parameter(s) that affect total HAP emissions 
during the three-run performance test. The controlling parameters you 
identify must coincide with the representative operating conditions you 
describe according to paragraph (b) of this section. For each 
parameter, you must specify appropriate monitoring methods, monitoring 
frequencies, and for continuously monitored parameters, averaging times 
not to exceed 24 hours. The operating limit for each controlling 
parameter must then be established as the minimum, maximum, range, or 
average (as appropriate depending on the parameter) recorded during the 
performance test. Multiple three-run performance tests may be conducted 
to establish a range of parameter values under different operating 
conditions.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.2269 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 
follows.


Sec.  63.2269  What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Validate the temperature sensor's reading at least semiannually 
using the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or 
(v) of this section:
    (i) Compare measured readings to a National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or 
simulate a typical operating temperature using a NIST traceable 
temperature simulation device. When the temperature measurement device 
method is used, the sensor of the NIST traceable calibrated device must 
be placed as close as practicable to the process sensor, and both 
devices must be subjected to the same environmental conditions. The 
accuracy of the temperature measured must be 2.5 percent of the 
temperature measured by the NIST traceable device or 5 [deg]F, 
whichever is greater.
    (ii) Follow applicable procedures in the thermocouple manufacturer 
owner's manual.
    (iii) Request thermocouple manufacturer to certify or re-certify 
electromotive force (electrical properties) of the thermocouple.
    (iv) Replace thermocouple with a new certified thermocouple in lieu 
of validation.
    (v) Permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as 
practicable to the process temperature sensor. The sensors must yield a 
reading within 30 [deg]F of each other for thermal oxidizers and 
catalytic oxidizers; within 5 [deg]F of each other for biofilters; and 
within 20 [deg]F of each other for dry rotary dryers.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.2270 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.2270  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

* * * * *
    (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities; or data recorded during periods of safety-related shutdown, 
pressurized refiner startup or shutdown, or control device downtime 
covered in any approved routine control device maintenance exemption in 
data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating 
levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum data 
availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data 
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the 
control system.
* * * * *

[[Page 47104]]

Sec.  63.2271  [Amended]

0
10. Section 63.2271 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(b)(2).
0
11. Section 63.2280 is amended by revising paragraph (b), paragraph (d) 
introductory text, and paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2280  What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) You must submit an Initial Notification no later than 120 
calendar days after September 28, 2004, or after initial startup, 
whichever is later, as specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2). Initial 
Notifications required to be submitted after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for affected sources that commence 
construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 and on and after 
[DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER] for all other affected sources must be submitted following 
the procedure specified in Sec.  63.2281(h), (k), and (l).
* * * * *
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design 
evaluation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in 
Tables 4, 5, and 6 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of 
Compliance Status as specified in Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii). After [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for affected sources 
that commence construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 
and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for all other affected sources, submit all 
subsequent Notifications of Compliance Status following the procedure 
specified in Sec.  63.2281(h), (k), and (l).
* * * * *
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Tables 5 
and 6 to this subpart that includes a performance test conducted 
according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must 
submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance 
test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day 
following the completion of the performance test.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.2281 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(4);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(6);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
0
g. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text;
0
h. Revising paragraph (e)(2);
0
i. Adding paragraphs (e)(12) and (13); and
0
j. Adding paragraphs (h) through (l).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2281  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) Unless the EPA Administrator has approved a different schedule 
for submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each 
report by the date in Table 9 to this subpart and as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6) After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER] for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 6, 2019 and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS 
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for 
all other affected sources, submit all subsequent reports following the 
procedure specified in paragraph (h), (k) and (l) of this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the 
compliance report must include the information specified in Sec.  
63.10(d)(5)(i) before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction before September 6, 2019.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Information on the date, time, duration, and cause of 
deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and 
the corrective action taken.
    (e) For each deviation from a compliance option or operating 
requirement occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS 
to comply with the compliance options and operating requirements in 
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (6) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
    (2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
    (12) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
    (13) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
* * * * *
    (h) Submitting reports electronically. If you are required to 
submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you 
must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). For semiannual 
compliance reports required in this section and Table 9 (row 1) of this 
subpart, you must use the appropriate electronic report template on the 
CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this 
subpart once the reporting template has been available on the CEDRI 
website for 6 months. The date report templates become available will 
be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the 
semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available 
in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report 
to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in Sec.  
63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 6 months you must 
begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. Initial 
Notifications developed according to Sec.  63.2280(b) and Notifications 
of Compliance Status developed according to Sec.  63.2280(d) may be 
uploaded in a user-specified format such as portable document format 
(PDF). The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this 
subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If 
you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is 
confidential business information (CBI), submit a complete report, 
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be 
generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the 
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic 
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic 
medium to

[[Page 47105]]

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement 
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's 
CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (i) Performance tests. Within 60 days after the date of completing 
each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the 
results of the performance test following the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) 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/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through 
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a 
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, 
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup 
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) 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. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under this paragraph (i) is CBI, you must 
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the 
EPA. The file must be 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. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or 
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the 
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI 
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted 
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in 
paragraph (i) of this section.
    (j) Performance evaluations. Within 60 days after the date of 
completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance 
evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2), you must submit the results of 
the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test 
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed 
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the 
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can 
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you 
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that 
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance 
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the 
EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under this paragraph (j) is CBI, you must 
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the 
EPA. The file must be 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. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or 
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the 
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI 
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted 
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in 
paragraph (j) of this section.
    (k) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to 
electronically submit a report or notification through CEDRI in the 
EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to 
timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA 
system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs 
(k)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The 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.
    (6) 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.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (l) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically 
submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim 
of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the 
requirements outlined in paragraphs (l)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a 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).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as

[[Page 47106]]

possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence 
should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in 
reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The 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.
    (4) 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.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
13. Section 63.2282 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2282   What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through 
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for affected sources 
that commenced construction or reconstruction before September 6, 2019. 
After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 6, 2019 and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] for all other 
affected sources, the records related to startup and shutdown, failures 
to meet the standard, and actions taken to minimize emissions, 
specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Record the date, time, and duration of each startup and/or 
shutdown period, including the periods when the affected source was 
subject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown;
    (ii) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures; for each failure, record the 
date, time, cause and duration of each failure;
    (iii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions; and
    (iv) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.2250(g), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan, with the program of corrective action included in the 
plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
* * * * *
    (f) You must keep the written CMS quality control procedures 
required by Sec.  63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the affected 
source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the 
provisions of this subpart, to be made available for inspection, upon 
request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is 
revised, you must keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the 
performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for 
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years 
after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action 
should be included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
0
14. Section 63.2283 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.2283  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

* * * * *
    (d) 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
15. Section 63.2290 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2290   What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 10 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 
Provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.
0
16. Section 63.2291 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory 
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2291  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.
0
17. Section 63.2292 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``MSF,'' ``non-HAP coating'' and 
``representative operating conditions'';
0
b. Adding the definition of ``safety-related shutdown'' in alphabetical 
order; and
0
c. Removing the definition of ``startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan.''
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2292  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    MSF means thousand square feet (92.9 square meters). Square footage 
of panels is usually measured on a thickness basis, such as \3/8\-inch, 
to define the total volume of panels. Equation 3 of Sec.  63.2262(j) 
shows how to convert from one thickness basis to another.
* * * * *
    Non-HAP coating means a coating with HAP contents below 0.1 percent 
by mass for the carcinogenic HAP compounds listed in Appendix B to this 
subpart and below 1.0 percent by mass for other HAP compounds.
* * * * *
    Representative operating conditions means operation of a process 
unit during performance testing under the conditions that the process 
unit will typically be operating in the future, including use of a 
representative range of materials (e.g., wood material of a typical 
species mix and moisture content or typical resin formulation) and 
representative operating temperature range. Representative operating 
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown.
* * * * *
    Safety-related shutdown means an unscheduled shutdown of a process 
unit subject to a compliance option in Table 1B to this subpart (or a 
process unit with HAP control under an emissions averaging plan 
developed according to Sec.  63.2240(c)) during which time emissions 
from the process unit cannot be safely routed to the control system in 
place to meet the compliance options or operating requirements in this 
subpart without imminent danger to the process, control system, or 
system operator.
* * * * *

[[Page 47107]]

0
18. Table 3 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

     Table 3 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Work Practice Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   For the following process units at
 existing or new affected sources . . .           You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dry rotary dryers..................  Process furnish with a 24-hour
                                          block average inlet moisture
                                          content of less than or equal
                                          to 30 percent (by weight, dry
                                          basis); AND operate with a 24-
                                          hour block average inlet dryer
                                          temperature of less than or
                                          equal to 600 [deg]F.
(2) Hardwood veneer dryers.............  Process less than 30 volume
                                          percent softwood species on an
                                          annual basis.
(3) Softwood veneer dryers.............  Minimize fugitive emissions
                                          from the dryer doors through
                                          (proper maintenance
                                          procedures) and the green end
                                          of the dryers (through proper
                                          balancing of the heated zone
                                          exhausts).
(4) Veneer redryers....................  Process veneer that has been
                                          previously dried, such that
                                          the 24-hour block average
                                          inlet moisture content of the
                                          veneer is less than or equal
                                          to 25 percent (by weight, dry
                                          basis).
(5) Group 1 miscellaneous coating        Use non-HAP coatings as defined
 operations.                              in Sec.   63.2292.
(6) Process units and control systems    Follow documented site-specific
 undergoing safety-related shutdown on    procedures such as use of
 and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF   automated controls or other
 PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE         measures that you have
 FEDERAL REGISTER] except as noted in     developed to protect workers
 footnote ``a'' to this table.            and equipment to ensure that
                                          the flow of raw materials
                                          (such as furnish or resin) and
                                          fuel or process heat (as
                                          applicable) ceases and that
                                          material is removed from the
                                          process unit(s) as
                                          expeditiously as possible
                                          given the system design.
(7) Pressurized refiners undergoing      Route exhaust gases from the
 startup or shutdown on and after [DATE   pressurized refiner to its
 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF    control system no later than
 FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]      15 minutes after furnish is
 except as noted in footnote ``a'' to     fed from the pressurized
 this table.                              refiner to the tube dryer when
                                          starting up, and no more than
                                          15 minutes after furnish
                                          ceases to be fed to the
                                          pressurized refiner when
                                          shutting down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or
  reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with this
  requirement beginning on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
  FEDERAL REGISTER] or upon initial startup, whichever is later.

0
19. Table 4 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

 Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For . . .              You must . . .          Using . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) each process unit         select sampling       Method 1 or 1A of 40
 subject to a compliance       port's location and   CFR part 60,
 option in table 1A or 1B to   the number of         appendix A-1 (as
 this subpart or used in       traverse ports.       appropriate).
 calculation of an emissions
 average under Sec.
 63.2240(c).
(2) each process unit         determine velocity    Method 2 in addition
 subject to a compliance       and volumetric flow   to Method 2A, 2C,
 option in table 1A or 1B to   rate.                 2D, 2F, or 2G in
 this subpart or used in                             appendix A-1 and A-
 calculation of an emissions                         2 to 40 CFR part 60
 average under Sec.                                  (as appropriate).
 63.2240(c).
(3) each process unit         conduct gas           Method 3, 3A, or 3B
 subject to a compliance       molecular weight      in appendix A-2 to
 option in table 1A or 1B to   analysis.             40 CFR part 60 (as
 this subpart or used in                             appropriate).
 calculation of an emissions
 average under Sec.
 63.2240(c).
(4) each process unit         measure moisture      Method 4 in appendix
 subject to a compliance       content of the        A-3 to 40 CFR part
 option in table 1A or 1B to   stack gas.            60; OR Method 320
 this subpart or used in                             in appendix A to 40
 calculation of an emissions                         CFR part 63; OR
 average under Sec.                                  ASTM D6348-03 (IBR,
 63.2240(c).                                         see Sec.   63.14).
(5) each process unit         measure emissions of  Method 25A in
 subject to a compliance       total HAP as THC.     appendix A-7 to 40
 option in table 1B to this                          CFR part 60. You
 subpart for which you                               may measure
 choose to demonstrate                               emissions of
 compliance using a total                            methane using EPA
 HAP as THC compliance                               Method 18 in
 option.                                             appendix A-6 to 40
                                                     CFR part 60 and
                                                     subtract the
                                                     methane emissions
                                                     from the emissions
                                                     of total HAP as
                                                     THC.
(6) each process unit         measure emissions of  Method 320 in
 subject to a compliance       total HAP (as         appendix A to 40
 option in table 1A to this    defined in Sec.       CFR part 63; OR the
 subpart; OR for each          63.2292).             NCASI Method IM/CAN/
 process unit used in                                WP-99.02 (IBR, see
 calculation of an emissions                         Sec.   63.14); OR
 average under Sec.                                  the NCASI Method
 63.2240(c).                                         ISS/FP-A105.01
                                                     (IBR, see Sec.
                                                     63.14); OR ASTM
                                                     D6348-03 (IBR, see
                                                     Sec.   63.14)
                                                     provided that
                                                     percent R as
                                                     determined in Annex
                                                     A5 of ASTM D6348-03
                                                     is equal or greater
                                                     than 70 percent and
                                                     less than or equal
                                                     to 130 percent.

[[Page 47108]]

 
(7) each process unit         measure emissions of  Method 308 in
 subject to a compliance       methanol.             appendix A to 40
 option in table 1B to this                          CFR part 63; OR
 subpart for which you                               Method 320 in
 choose to demonstrate                               appendix A to 40
 compliance using a methanol                         CFR part 63; OR the
 compliance option.                                  NCASI Method CI/WP-
                                                     98.01 (IBR, see
                                                     Sec.   63.14); OR
                                                     the NCASI Method IM/
                                                     CAN/WP-99.02 (IBR,
                                                     see Sec.   63.14);
                                                     OR the NCASI Method
                                                     ISS/FP-A105.01
                                                     (IBR, see Sec.
                                                     63.14).
(8) each process unit         measure emissions of  Method 316 in
 subject to a compliance       formaldehyde.         appendix A to 40
 option in table 1B to this                          CFR part 63; OR
 subpart for which you                               Method 320 in
 choose to demonstrate                               appendix A to 40
 compliance using a                                  CFR part 63; OR
 formaldehyde compliance                             Method 0011 in
 option.                                             ``Test Methods for
                                                     Evaluating Solid
                                                     Waste, Physical/
                                                     Chemical Methods''
                                                     (EPA Publication
                                                     No. SW-846) for
                                                     formaldehyde (IBR,
                                                     see Sec.   63.14);
                                                     OR the NCASI Method
                                                     CI/WP-98.01 (IBR,
                                                     see Sec.   63.14);
                                                     OR the NCASI Method
                                                     IM/CAN/WP-99.02
                                                     (IBR, see Sec.
                                                     63.14); OR the
                                                     NCASI Method ISS/FP-
                                                     A105.01 (IBR, see
                                                     Sec.   63.14).
(9) each reconstituted wood   meet the design       Methods 204 and 204A
 product press at a new or     specifications        through 204F of 40
 existing affected source or   included in the       CFR part 51,
 reconstituted wood product    definition of wood    appendix M, to
 board cooler at a new         products enclosure    determine capture
 affected source subject to    in Sec.   63.2292;    efficiency (except
 a compliance option in        or determine the      for wood products
 table 1B to this subpart or   percent capture       enclosures as
 used in calculation of an     efficiency of the     defined in Sec.
 emissions average under       enclosure directing   63.2292).
 Sec.   63.2240(c).            emissions to an add-  Enclosures that
                               on control device.    meet the definition
                                                     of wood products
                                                     enclosure or that
                                                     meet Method 204
                                                     requirements for a
                                                     permanent total
                                                     enclosure (PTE) are
                                                     assumed to have a
                                                     capture efficiency
                                                     of 100 percent.
                                                     Enclosures that do
                                                     not meet either the
                                                     PTE requirements or
                                                     design criteria for
                                                     a wood products
                                                     enclosure must
                                                     determine the
                                                     capture efficiency
                                                     by constructing a
                                                     TTE according to
                                                     the requirements of
                                                     Method 204 and
                                                     applying Methods
                                                     204A through 204F
                                                     (as appropriate).
                                                     As an alternative
                                                     to Methods 204 and
                                                     204A through 204F,
                                                     you may use the
                                                     tracer gas method
                                                     contained in
                                                     appendix A to this
                                                     subpart.
(10) each reconstituted wood  determine the         a TTE and Methods
 product press at a new or     percent capture       204 and 204A
 existing affected source or   efficiency.           through 204F (as
 reconstituted wood product                          appropriate) of 40
 board cooler at a new                               CFR part 51,
 affected source subject to                          appendix M. As an
 a compliance option in                              alternative to
 table 1A to this subpart.                           installing a TTE
                                                     and using Methods
                                                     204 and 204A
                                                     through 204F, you
                                                     may use the tracer
                                                     gas method
                                                     contained in
                                                     appendix A to this
                                                     subpart. Enclosures
                                                     that meet the
                                                     design criteria (1)
                                                     through (4) in the
                                                     definition of wood
                                                     products enclosure,
                                                     or that meet Method
                                                     204 requirements
                                                     for a PTE (except
                                                     for the criteria
                                                     specified in
                                                     section 6.2 of
                                                     Method 204) are
                                                     assumed to have a
                                                     capture efficiency
                                                     of 100 percent.
                                                     Measured emissions
                                                     divided by the
                                                     capture efficiency
                                                     provides the
                                                     emission rate.
(11) each process unit        establish the site-   data from the
 subject to a compliance       specific operating    parameter
 option in tables 1A and 1B    requirements          monitoring system
 to this subpart or used in    (including the        or THC CEMS and the
 calculation of an emissions   parameter limits or   applicable
 average under Sec.            THC concentration     performance test
 63.2240(c).                   limits) in Table 2    method(s).
                               to this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
20. Table 7 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 47109]]



   Table 7 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With the
              Compliance Options and Operating Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following   You must demonstrate
                               compliance options        continuous
          For . . .               and operating      compliance by . . .
                               requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Each process unit listed  Compliance options    Collecting and
 in Table 1B to this subpart   in Table 1B to this   recording the
 or used in calculation of     subpart or the        operating parameter
 an emissions average under    emissions averaging   monitoring system
 Sec.   63.2240(c).            compliance option     data listed in
                               in Sec.               Table 2 to this
                               63.2240(c) and the    subpart for the
                               operating             process unit
                               requirements in       according to Sec.
                               Table 2 to this       63.2269(a) through
                               subpart based on      (b) and Sec.
                               monitoring of         63.2270; AND
                               operating             reducing the
                               parameters.           operating parameter
                                                     monitoring system
                                                     data to the
                                                     specified averages
                                                     in units of the
                                                     applicable
                                                     requirement
                                                     according to
                                                     calculations in
                                                     Sec.   63.2270; AND
                                                     maintaining the
                                                     average operating
                                                     parameter at or
                                                     above the minimum,
                                                     at or below the
                                                     maximum, or within
                                                     the range
                                                     (whichever applies)
                                                     established
                                                     according to Sec.
                                                     63.2262.
(2) Each process unit listed  Compliance options    Collecting and
 in Tables 1A and 1B to this   in Tables 1A and 1B   recording the THC
 subpart or used in            to this subpart or    monitoring data
 calculation of an emissions   the emissions         listed in Table 2
 average under Sec.            averaging             to this subpart for
 63.2240(c).                   compliance option     the process unit
                               in Sec.               according to Sec.
                               63.2240(c) and the    63.2269(d); AND
                               operating             reducing the CEMS
                               requirements in       data to 3-hour
                               Table 2 of this       block averages
                               subpart based on      according to
                               THC CEMS data.        calculations in
                                                     Sec.   63.2269(d);
                                                     AND maintaining the
                                                     3-hour block
                                                     average THC
                                                     concentration in
                                                     the exhaust gases
                                                     less than or equal
                                                     to the THC
                                                     concentration
                                                     established
                                                     according to Sec.
                                                     63.2262.
(3) Each process unit using   Compliance options    Conducting a repeat
 a biofilter.                  in Tables 1B to       performance test
                               this subpart or the   using the
                               emissions averaging   applicable
                               compliance option     method(s) specified
                               in Sec.               in Table 4 to this
                               63.2240(c).           subpart within 2
                                                     years following the
                                                     previous
                                                     performance test
                                                     and within 180 days
                                                     after each
                                                     replacement of any
                                                     portion of the
                                                     biofilter bed media
                                                     with a different
                                                     type of media or
                                                     each replacement of
                                                     more than 50
                                                     percent (by volume)
                                                     of the biofilter
                                                     bed media with the
                                                     same type of media.
(4) Each process unit using   Compliance options    Checking the
 a catalytic oxidizer.         in Table 1B to this   activity level of a
                               subpart or the        representative
                               emissions averaging   sample of the
                               compliance option     catalyst at least
                               in Sec.               every 12 months and
                               63.2240(c).           taking any
                                                     necessary
                                                     corrective action
                                                     to ensure that the
                                                     catalyst is
                                                     performing within
                                                     its design range.
(5) Each process unit listed  Compliance options    Collecting and
 in Table 1A to this           in Table 1A to this   recording on a
 subpart, or each process      subpart or the        daily basis process
 unit without a control        emissions averaging   unit controlling
 device used in calculation    compliance option     operating parameter
 of an emissions averaging     in Sec.               data; AND
 debit under Sec.              63.2240(c) and the    maintaining the
 63.2240(c).                   operating             operating parameter
                               requirements in       at or above the
                               Table 2 to this       minimum, at or
                               subpart based on      below the maximum,
                               monitoring of         or within the range
                               process unit          (whichever applies)
                               controlling           established
                               operating             according to Sec.
                               parameters.           63.2262.
(6) Each Process unit listed  Compliance options    Implementing your
 in Table 1B to this subpart   in Table 1B to this   plan to address how
 using a wet control device    subpart or the        organic HAP
 as the sole means of          emissions averaging   captured in the
 reducing HAP emissions.       compliance option     wastewater from the
                               in Sec.               wet control device
                               63.2240(c).           is contained or
                                                     destroyed to
                                                     minimize re-release
                                                     to the atmosphere.
(7) Each process unit listed  Compliance options    Conducting a repeat
 in Table 1B to this subpart   in Tables 1B to       performance test
 using a control device        this subpart.         using the
 other than a biofilter.                             applicable
                                                     method(s) specified
                                                     in Table 4 to this
                                                     subpart by [DATE 3
                                                     YEARS AFTER DATE OF
                                                     PUBLICATION OF
                                                     FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                     FEDERAL REGISTER]
                                                     or within 60 months
                                                     following the
                                                     previous
                                                     performance test,
                                                     whichever is later,
                                                     and thereafter
                                                     within 60 months
                                                     following the
                                                     previous
                                                     performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
21. Table 9 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 47110]]



      Table 9 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
 You must submit a(n) . . .       contain . . .         report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Compliance report.......  The information in    Semiannually
                               Sec.   63.2281(c)     according to the
                               through (g).          requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.2281(b).
(2) immediate startup,        (i) Actions taken     By fax or telephone
 shutdown, and malfunction     for the event.        within 2 working
 report if you had a                                 days after starting
 startup, shutdown, or                               actions
 malfunction during the                              inconsistent with
 reporting period that is                            the plan.
 not consistent with your
 SSMP before [DATE 181 DAYS
 AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION
 OF FINAL RULE IN THE
 Federal Register]a.
                              (ii) The information  By letter within 7
                               in Sec.               working days after
                               63.10(d)(5)(ii).      the end of the
                                                     event unless you
                                                     have made
                                                     alternative
                                                     arrangements with
                                                     the permitting
                                                     authority.
(3) Performance test report.  The information       According to the
                               required in Sec.      requirements of
                               63.7(g).              Sec.   63.2281(i).
(4) CMS performance           The information       According to the
 evaluation.                   required in Sec.      requirements of
                               63.7(g).              Sec.   63.2281(j).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The requirement for the SSM report in row 2 of this table does not
  apply for new or reconstructed affected sources that commenced
  construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019.

0
22. Table 10 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

                                Table 10 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart DDDD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Applies to subpart DDDD before  Applies to subpart DDDD on and
                                                                                           [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF     after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                           PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN    DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
              Citation                       Subject              Brief description        THE Federal Register] except    RULE IN THE Federal Register]
                                                                                           as noted in footnote ``a'' to    except as noted in footnote
                                                                                                    this table                  ``a'' to this table
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1........................  Applicability.........  Initial applicability        Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              determination;
                                                              applicability after
                                                              standard established;
                                                              permit requirements;
                                                              extensions, notifications.
Sec.   63.2........................  Definitions...........  Definitions for part 63      Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              standards.
Sec.   63.3........................  Units and               Units and abbreviations for  Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Abbreviations.          part 63 standards.
Sec.   63.4........................  Prohibited Activities   Prohibited activities;       Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      and Circumvention.      compliance date;
                                                              circumvention,
                                                              fragmentation.
Sec.   63.5........................  Preconstruction Review  Preconstruction review       Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      and Notification        requirements of section
                                      Requirements.           112(i)(1).
Sec.   63.6(a).....................  Applicability.........  GP apply unless compliance   Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              extension; GP apply to
                                                              area sources that become
                                                              major.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)..............  Compliance Dates for    Standards apply at           Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      New and Reconstructed   effective date; 3 years
                                      Sources.                after effective date; upon
                                                              startup; 10 years after
                                                              construction or
                                                              reconstruction commences
                                                              for section 112(f).
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)..................  Notification..........  Must notify if commenced     Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              construction or
                                                              reconstruction after
                                                              proposal.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)..................  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)..................  Compliance Dates for    Area sources that become     Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      New and Reconstructed   major must comply with
                                      Area Sources that       major source standards
                                      Become Major.           immediately upon becoming
                                                              major, regardless of
                                                              whether required to comply
                                                              when they were an area
                                                              source.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)..............  Compliance Dates for    Comply according to date in  Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Existing Sources.       subpart, which must be no
                                                              later than 3 years after
                                                              effective date; for
                                                              section 112(f) standards,
                                                              comply within 90 days of
                                                              effective date unless
                                                              compliance extension.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)..............  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)..................  Compliance Dates for    Area sources that become     Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Existing Area Sources   major must comply with
                                      that Become Major.      major source standards by
                                                              date indicated in subpart
                                                              or by equivalent time
                                                              period (e.g., 3 years).
Sec.   63.6(d).....................  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)...............  General Duty to         You must operate and         Yes...........................  No, see Sec.   63.2250 for
                                      Minimize Emissions..    maintain affected source                                     general duty requirement.
                                                              in a manner consistent
                                                              with safety and good air
                                                              pollution control
                                                              practices for minimizing
                                                              emissions.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)..............  Requirement to Correct  You must correct             Yes...........................  No.
                                      Malfunctions ASAP.      malfunctions as soon as
                                                              practicable after their
                                                              occurrence.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii).............  Operation and           Operation and maintenance    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Maintenance             requirements are
                                      Requirements.           enforceable independent of
                                                              emissions limitations or
                                                              other requirements in
                                                              relevant standards.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)..................  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)..................  Startup, Shutdown, and  Requirement for SSM and      Yes...........................  No.
                                      Malfunction Plan        SSMP; content of SSMP.
                                      (SSMP).
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)..................  SSM Exemption.........  You must comply with         Yes...........................  No.
                                                              emission standards at all
                                                              times except during SSM.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)..............  Methods for             Compliance based on          Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Determining             performance test,
                                      Compliance/Finding of   operation and maintenance
                                      Compliance.             plans, records, inspection.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)..............  Alternative Standard..  Procedures for getting an    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              alternative standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)..................  SSM Exemption.........  You must comply with         NA............................  No.
                                                              opacity and visible
                                                              emission standards at all
                                                              times except during SSM.
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)-(9)..............  Opacity/Visible         Requirements for opacity     NA............................  NA.
                                      Emission (VE)           and visible emission
                                      Standards.              standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14).............  Compliance Extension..  Procedures and criteria for  Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              Administrator to grant
                                                              compliance extension.
Sec.   63.6(i)(15).................  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.6(i)(16).................  Compliance Extension..  Compliance extension and     Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              Administrator's authority.
Sec.   63.6(j).....................  Presidential            President may exempt source  Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Compliance Exemption.   category from requirement
                                                              to comply with rule.

[[Page 47111]]

 
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)..............  Performance Test Dates  Dates for conducting         Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              initial performance
                                                              testing and other
                                                              compliance demonstrations;
                                                              must conduct 180 days
                                                              after first subject to
                                                              rule.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)..................  Section 114 Authority.  Administrator may require a  Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              performance test under CAA
                                                              section 114 at any time.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)..................  Notification of         Must notify Administrator    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Performance Test.       60 days before the test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)..................  Notification of         If have to reschedule        Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Rescheduling.           performance test, must
                                                              notify Administrator as
                                                              soon as practicable.
Sec.   63.7(c).....................  Quality Assurance/Test  Requirement to submit site-  Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Plan.                   specific test plan 60 days
                                                              before the test or on date
                                                              Administrator agrees with;
                                                              test plan approval
                                                              procedures; performance
                                                              audit requirements;
                                                              internal and external QA
                                                              procedures for testing.
Sec.   63.7(d).....................  Testing Facilities....  Requirements for testing     Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)..................  Performance Testing...  Performance tests must be    Yes...........................  No, see Sec.   63.2262(a)-(b).
                                                              conducted under
                                                              representative conditions;
                                                              cannot conduct performance
                                                              tests during SSM; not a
                                                              violation to exceed
                                                              standard during SSM.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)..................  Conditions for          Must conduct according to    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Conducting              rule and EPA test methods
                                      Performance Tests.      unless Administrator
                                                              approves alternative.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3)..................  Test Run Duration.....  Must have three test runs    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              for at least the time
                                                              specified in the relevant
                                                              standard; compliance is
                                                              based on arithmetic mean
                                                              of three runs; specifies
                                                              conditions when data from
                                                              an additional test run can
                                                              be used.
Sec.   63.7(f).....................  Alternative Test        Procedures by which          Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Method.                 Administrator can grant
                                                              approval to use an
                                                              alternative test method.
Sec.   63.7(g).....................  Performance Test Data   Must include raw data in     Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Analysis.               performance test report;
                                                              must submit performance
                                                              test data 60 days after
                                                              end of test with the
                                                              notification of compliance
                                                              status; keep data for 5
                                                              years.
Sec.   63.7(h).....................  Waiver of Tests.......  Procedures for               Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              Administrator to waive
                                                              performance test.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)..................  Applicability of        Subject to all monitoring    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Monitoring              requirements in standard.
                                      Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)..................  Performance             Performance specifications   Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Specifications.         in appendix B of part 60
                                                              apply.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..................  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..................  Monitoring with Flares  Requirements for flares in   NA............................  NA.
                                                              Sec.   63.11 apply.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)..................  Monitoring............  Must conduct monitoring      Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              according to standard
                                                              unless Administrator
                                                              approves alternative.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)..............  Multiple Effluents and  Specific requirements for    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Multiple Monitoring     installing monitoring
                                      Systems.                systems; must install on
                                                              each effluent before it is
                                                              combined and before it is
                                                              released to the atmosphere
                                                              unless Administrator
                                                              approves otherwise; if
                                                              more than one monitoring
                                                              system on an emission
                                                              point, must report all
                                                              monitoring system results,
                                                              unless one monitoring
                                                              system is a backup.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)..................  Monitoring System       Maintain monitoring system   Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Operation and           in a manner consistent
                                      Maintenance.            with and good air
                                                              pollution control
                                                              practices.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)...............  Operation and           Must maintain and operate    Yes...........................  No.
                                      Maintenance of CMS.     CMS in accordance with
                                                              Sec.   63.6(e)(1).
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)..............  Spare Parts for CMS...  Must maintain spare parts    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              for routine CMS repairs.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).............  Requirements to         Must develop and implement   Yes...........................  No.
                                      Develop SSMP for CMS.   SSMP for CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)..............  Monitoring System       Must install to get          Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Installation.           representative emission of
                                                              parameter measurements;
                                                              must verify operational
                                                              status before or at
                                                              performance test.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)..................  Continuous Monitoring   CMS must be operating        Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      System (CMS)            except during breakdown,
                                      Requirements.           out-of-control, repair,
                                                              maintenance, and high-
                                                              level calibration drifts;
                                                              COMS must have a minimum
                                                              of one cycle of sampling
                                                              and analysis for each
                                                              successive 10-second
                                                              period and one cycle of
                                                              data recording for each
                                                              successive 6-minute
                                                              period; CEMS must have a
                                                              minimum of one cycle of
                                                              operation for each
                                                              successive 15-minute
                                                              period.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)..................  Continuous Opacity      COMS minimum procedures....  NA............................  NA.
                                      Monitoring System
                                      (COMS) Minimum
                                      Procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)..............  CMS Requirements......  Zero and high-level          Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              calibration check
                                                              requirements; out-of-
                                                              control periods.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)..............  CMS Quality Control...  Requirements for CMS         Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              quality control, including
                                                              calibration, etc..
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)..................  Written Procedures for  Must keep quality control    Yes...........................  No, see Sec.   63.2282(f).
                                      CMS.                    plan on record for 5
                                                              years. Keep old versions
                                                              for 5 years after
                                                              revisions. May incorporate
                                                              as part of SSMP to avoid
                                                              duplication..
Sec.   63.8(e).....................  CMS Performance         Notification, performance    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Evaluation.             evaluation test plan,
                                                              reports.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)..............  Alternative Monitoring  Procedures for               Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Method.                 Administrator to approve
                                                              alternative monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..................  Alternative to          Procedures for               Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Relative Accuracy       Administrator to approve
                                      Test.                   alternative relative
                                                              accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(g).....................  Data Reduction........  COMS 6-minute averages       Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              calculated over at least
                                                              36 evenly spaced data
                                                              points; CEMS 1 hour
                                                              averages computed over at
                                                              least 4 equally spaced
                                                              data points; data that
                                                              can't be used in average;
                                                              rounding of data.
Sec.   63.9(a).....................  Notification            Applicability and State      Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Requirements.           delegation.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(2)..............  Initial Notifications.  Submit notification 120      Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              days after effective date;
                                                              contents of notification.
Sec.   63.9(b)(3)..................  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)-(5)..............  Initial Notifications.  Submit notification 120      Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              days after effective date;
                                                              notification of intent to
                                                              construct/reconstruct;
                                                              notification of
                                                              commencement of construct/
                                                              reconstruct; notification
                                                              of startup; contents of
                                                              each.
Sec.   63.9(c).....................  Request for Compliance  Can request if cannot        Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Extension.              comply by date or if
                                                              installed best available
                                                              control technology/lowest
                                                              achievable emission rate.
Sec.   63.9(d).....................  Notification of         For sources that commence    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Special Compliance      construction between
                                      Requirements for New    proposal and promulgation
                                      Source.                 and want to comply 3 years
                                                              after effective date.
Sec.   63.9(e).....................  Notification of         Notify EPA Administrator 60  Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Performance Test.       days prior.
Sec.   63.9(f).....................  Notification of         Notify EPA Administrator 30  No............................  No.
                                      Visible Emissions/      days prior.
                                      Opacity Test.
Sec.   63.9(g).....................  Additional              Notification of performance  Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Notifications When      evaluation; notification
                                      Using CMS.              using COMS data;
                                                              notification that exceeded
                                                              criterion for relative
                                                              accuracy.

[[Page 47112]]

 
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(6)..............  Notification of         Contents; due 60 days after  Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Compliance Status.      end of performance test or
                                                              other compliance
                                                              demonstration, except for
                                                              opacity/VE, which are due
                                                              30 days after; when to
                                                              submit to Federal vs.
                                                              State authority.
Sec.   63.9(i).....................  Adjustment of           Procedures for               Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Submittal Deadlines.    Administrator to approve
                                                              change in when
                                                              notifications must be
                                                              submitted.
Sec.   63.9(j).....................  Change in Previous      Must submit within 15 days   Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Information.            after the change.
Sec.   63.10(a)....................  Recordkeeping/          Applies to all, unless       Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Reporting.              compliance extension; when
                                                              to submit to Federal vs.
                                                              State authority;
                                                              procedures for owners of
                                                              more than one source.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).................  Recordkeeping/          General Requirements; keep   Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Reporting.              all records readily
                                                              available; keep for 5
                                                              years.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)..............  Recordkeeping of        Records of occurrence and    Yes...........................  No, see Sec.   63.2282(a).
                                      Occurrence and          duration of each startup
                                      Duration of Startups    or shutdown that causes
                                      and Shutdowns.          source to exceed emission
                                                              limitation.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii).............  Recordkeeping of        Records of occurrence and    Yes...........................  No, see Sec.   63.2282(a) for
                                      Failures to Meet a      duration of each                                             recordkeeping of (1) date,
                                      Standard.               malfunction of operation                                     time and duration; (2)
                                                              or air pollution control                                     listing of affected source or
                                                              and monitoring equipment.                                    equipment, and an estimate of
                                                                                                                           the quantity of each
                                                                                                                           regulated pollutant emitted
                                                                                                                           over the standard; and (3)
                                                                                                                           actions to minimize emissions
                                                                                                                           and correct the failure.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)............  Maintenance Records...  Records of maintenance       Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              performed on air pollution
                                                              control and monitoring
                                                              equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).........  Actions Taken to        Records of actions taken     Yes...........................  No.
                                      Minimize Emissions      during SSM to minimize
                                      During SSM.             emissions.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x)-(xi)  CMS Records...........  Malfunctions, inoperative,   Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              out-of-control.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix).......  Records...............  Measurements to demonstrate  Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              compliance with compliance
                                                              options and operating
                                                              requirements; performance
                                                              test, performance
                                                              evaluation, and visible
                                                              emission observation
                                                              results; measurements to
                                                              determine conditions of
                                                              performance tests and
                                                              performance evaluations.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)............  Records...............  Records when under waiver..  Yes...........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)...........  Records...............  Records when using           Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              alternative to relative
                                                              accuracy test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)............  Records...............  All documentation            Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              supporting initial
                                                              notification and
                                                              notification of compliance
                                                              status.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3).................  Records...............  Applicability                Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(14)...  Records...............  Additional records for CMS.  Yes...........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8).............  Records...............  Records of excess emissions  No............................  No.
                                                              and parameter monitoring
                                                              exceedances for CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)................  Use of SSMP...........  Use SSMP to satisfy          Yes...........................  No.
                                                              recordkeeping requirements
                                                              for identification of
                                                              malfunction, correction
                                                              action taken, and nature
                                                              of repairs to CMS.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1).................  General Reporting       Requirement to report......  Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2).................  Report of Performance   When to submit to Federal    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Test Results.           or State authority.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).................  Reporting Opacity or    What to report and when....  NA............................  NA.
                                      VE Observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4).................  Progress Reports......  Must submit progress         Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              reports on schedule if
                                                              under compliance extension.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)..............  Periodic SSM Reports..  Contents and submission of   Yes...........................  No, see Sec.   63.2281(d)-(e)
                                                              periodic SSM reports.                                        for malfunction reporting
                                                                                                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii).............  Immediate SSM Reports.  Contents and submission of   Yes...........................  No.
                                                              immediate SSM reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2).............  Additional CMS Reports  Must report results for      Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              each CEM on a unit;
                                                              written copy of
                                                              performance evaluation; 3
                                                              copies of COMS performance
                                                              evaluation.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3).................  Reports...............  Excess emission reports....  No............................  No.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4).................  Reporting COMS Data...  Must submit COMS data with   NA............................  NA.
                                                              performance test data.
Sec.   63.10(f)....................  Waiver for              Procedures for EPA           Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Recordkeeping/          Administrator to waive.
                                      Reporting.
Sec.   63.11.......................  Control Device and      Requirements for flares and  NA............................  NA.
                                      Work Practice           alternative work practice
                                      Requirements.           for equipment leaks.
Sec.   63.12.......................  State Authority and     State authority to enforce   Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Delegations.            standards.
Sec.   63.13.......................  Addresses.............  Addresses where reports,     Yes...........................  Yes.
                                                              notifications, and
                                                              requests are sent.
Sec.   63.14.......................  Incorporations by       Test methods incorporated    Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Reference.              by reference.
Sec.   63.15.......................  Availability of         Public and confidential      Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Information and         information.
                                      Confidentiality.
Sec.   63.16.......................  Performance Track       Requirements for             Yes...........................  Yes.
                                      Provisions.             Performance Track member
                                                              facilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with the requirements in
  column 5 of this table beginning on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or upon initial startup, whichever is later.

0
23. Subpart DDDD is amended by adding Appendix B to read as follows:

[[Page 47113]]



 Appendix B to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
That Must Be Counted Relative to the Plywood and Composite Wood Products
``Non-HAP Coating'' Definition if Present at 0.1 Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Chemical name                           CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.............................           79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane.................................           79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine.................................           57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane...........................           96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.................................          122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene.........................................          106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene...................................          542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane...........................................          123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.................................           88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)......................        25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene....................................          121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine...................................           95-80-7
2-Nitropropane........................................           79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine................................           91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine...............................          119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine................................          119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)...................          101-14-4
Acetaldehyde..........................................           75-07-0
Acrylamide............................................           79-06-1
Acrylonitrile.........................................          107-13-1
Allyl chloride........................................          107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH)...................          319-84-6
Aniline...............................................           62-53-3
Benzene...............................................           71-43-2
Benzidine.............................................           92-87-5
Benzotrichloride......................................           98-07-7
Benzyl chloride.......................................          100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)....................          319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate............................          117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether................................          542-88-1
Bromoform.............................................           75-25-2
Captan................................................          133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride..................................           56-23-5
Chlordane.............................................           57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate.......................................          510-15-6
Chloroform............................................           67-66-3
Chloroprene...........................................          126-99-8
Cresols (mixed).......................................         1319-77-3
DDE...................................................         3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether...................................          111-44-4
Dichlorvos............................................           62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin.......................................          106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate........................................          140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide....................................          106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride...................................          107-06-2
Ethylene oxide........................................           75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea.....................................           96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)............           75-34-3
Formaldehyde..........................................           50-00-0
Heptachlor............................................           76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene.....................................          118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene...................................           87-68-3
Hexachloroethane......................................           67-72-1
Hydrazine.............................................          302-01-2
Isophorone............................................           78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)..........           58-89-9
m-Cresol..............................................          108-39-4
Methylene chloride....................................           75-09-2
Naphthalene...........................................           91-20-3
Nitrobenzene..........................................           98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine..................................           62-75-9
o-Cresol..............................................           95-48-7
o-Toluidine...........................................           95-53-4
Parathion.............................................           56-38-2
p-Cresol..............................................          106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene.....................................          106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene...............................           82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol.....................................           87-86-5
Propoxur..............................................          114-26-1
Propylene dichloride..................................           78-87-5

[[Page 47114]]

 
Propylene oxide.......................................           75-56-9
Quinoline.............................................           91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene.....................................          127-18-4
Toxaphene.............................................         8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene.....................................           79-01-6
Trifluralin...........................................         1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide.........................................          593-60-2
Vinyl chloride........................................           75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride...................................           75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-18827 Filed 9-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.