National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Risk and Technology Review, 15960-15982 [2020-04661]

Download as PDF 15960 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations [FR Doc. 2020–05998 Filed 3–19–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301–00–D ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0447 and EPA–HQ– OAR–2016–0449; FRL–10006–04–OAR] RIN 2060–AT12 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) conducted for the Boat Manufacturing and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and amending provisions regarding electronic reporting of performance test and performance evaluation results and semiannual reports. These final amendments include removal of regulatory language that is inconsistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times, inclusion of language requiring electronic reporting of performance test and performance evaluation results and semiannual reports, and an amendment to the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP to clarify that mixers that route to a capture and control device system with at least 95percent efficiency overall are not required to have covers. The numeric emission limits of the standards for both source categories remain unchanged. DATES: This final rule is effective on March 20, 2020. ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0449 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through https:// www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, contact Dr. Tina Ndoh, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D234–04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 1516; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: ndoh.tina@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 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 Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–1395; and email address: cox.john@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: BMC bulk molding compound CAA Clean Air Act CDX Central Data Exchange CEMS continuous emission monitoring system CRA Congressional Review Act EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERT Electronic Reporting Tool HAP hazardous air pollutants(s) HQ hazard quotient ICR Information Collection Request PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 MACT maximum achievable control technology MIR maximum individual risk NAICS North American Industry Classification System NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RIN Regulatory Information Number RTR risk and technology review SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TOSHI target organ specific health index tpy tons per year UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Background information. On May 17, 2019 (84 FR 22642), the EPA proposed revisions to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP based on our RTR. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA’s responses to those comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Reviews for Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and Reinforced Plastic Composite NESHAP, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0447 for Boat Manufacturing and EPA–HQ–OAR– 2016–0449 for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production. A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket for each rule. Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What are the source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source categories? C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our May 17, 2019, proposal? III. What is included in these final rules? A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the source categories? B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the source categories? E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods SSM? D. What are the final rule amendments for electronic reporting for the source categories? E. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories? F. What are the electronic reporting requirements? G. What are the final rule amendments regarding covers for mixers that route to a control device system? IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories? A. Residual Risk Reviews B. Technology Reviews for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Categories C. SSM Provisions D. Electronic Reporting Provisions E. Work Practice Standards for ControlledSpray Training V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION NAICS 1 Code NESHAP and source category Boat Manufacturing ...................... Reinforced Plastic Composites Production ................................. 1 North System. American Industry 336612 326113 326121 326122 326130 326140 326191 327110 327991 332321 332420 333132 333415 333611 333924 334310 335311 335313 335932 336111 336211 336213 336214 336320 336413 336510 337110 337125 337127 337215 339920 339991 Classification Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/boat-manufacturing-nationalemission-standards-hazardous-air for PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 15961 the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/reinforced-plasticcomposites-production-nationalemission for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same website. Additional information is available on the RTR website at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/risk-and-technology-reviewnational-emissions-standardshazardous. This information includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites for the RTR source categories. C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by May 19, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 15962 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above. For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).1 For more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see the CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology memorandum (Docket ID Item No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2016–0447–0080). B. What are the source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source categories? 1. What is the Boat Manufacturing source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? The EPA promulgated the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP on August 22, 2001 (66 FR 44218). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV (40 CFR 63.5680). The boat manufacturing industry consists of facilities that manufacture fiberglass and aluminum boats. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 93 facilities. The following processes and operations are found at boat manufacturing facilities: Fiberglass boat manufacturing and assembly operations, fabric and carpet adhesive operations, 1 The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.’’). PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 and aluminum boat surface coating operations. See the proposal for this action for additional detail on the processes at boat manufacturing facilities (84 FR 22645, May 17, 2019). The Boat Manufacturing NESHAP regulates organic HAP from sources that manufacture aluminum recreational boats or any type of fiberglass boats. For the purposes of these standards, recreational boats are defined as a vessel which, by design and construction, is intended by the manufacturer to be operated primarily for pleasure, or to be leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter’s pleasure (rather than for commercial or military purposes). The Boat Manufacturing NESHAP applies to the following operations: All open molding operations including pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, production resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat; all closed molding resin operations; resin and gel coat mixing and operations; resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations; carpet and fabric adhesive operations; aluminum hull and deck coating operations, including solvent wipe-down operations; and paint spray gun cleaning operations on aluminum recreational boats. The NESHAP regulates HAP emissions by setting HAP content limits for the resins and gel coats used at each regulated open molding resin and gel coat operation. Regulated entities can comply with the HAP limits by averaging emissions, using compliant materials, or using addon controls. 2. What is the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? The EPA promulgated the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP on April 21, 2003 (68 FR 19375) and amended the standards on August 25, 2005 (70 FR 50118). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW (40 CFR 63.5780). The reinforced plastic composites production industry consists of facilities that manufacture reinforced and nonreinforced plastic composite products and the production of plastic molding compounds used in the production of plastic composites products. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 448 facilities. The Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP applies to the following operations: Open molding, closed molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination, continuous casting, polymer casting, pultrusion, sheet molding compound E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations manufacturing, bulk molding compound (BMC) manufacturing, mixing, cleaning of equipment used in reinforced plastic composites manufacture, HAPcontaining materials storage, and repair operations on manufactured parts (40 CFR 63.5790). Most existing major sources are required to incorporate pollution-prevention techniques in their production processes. These techniques include the following: Using raw materials containing low amounts of regulated HAP; non-atomized resin application; and covering open resin baths and tanks. C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our May 17, 2019, proposal? On May 17, 2019, the EPA published proposed rules in the Federal Register for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks due to emissions of air toxics from these source categories under the current standards are acceptable and that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and, therefore, no additional emission reductions are necessary. For the technology reviews, we did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies, and, therefore, we did not propose any changes to the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). We did, however, solicit comments on the feasibility and associated cost of revising the NESHAP to include a work practice standard that would require controlled-spray operator training. Additionally, the EPA proposed amendments to provisions addressing emissions during periods of SSM and to provisions regarding electronic reporting of performance test and performance evaluation results and semiannual reports, and proposed an amendment to the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP to clarify that mixers that route to a capture and control device system with at least 95-percent efficiency overall are not required to have covers. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES III. What is included in these final rules? This action finalizes the EPA’s determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories. This actions also finalizes VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 other changes to the NESHAP, including: • Amending provisions addressing emissions during periods of SSM; • Amending provisions regarding electronic reporting of performance test and performance evaluation results and semiannual reports; and • An amendment to the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP to clarify that mixers that route to a capture and control device system with at least 95-percent efficiency overall are not required to have covers. A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the source categories? This section introduces the final amendments to the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP being promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). Consistent with the proposed findings for these NESHAP, the EPA is finalizing our determination that the risks due to emissions of air toxics from these source categories under the current standards are acceptable and that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. The EPA proposed no changes to these two subparts based on the risk reviews conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment period that causes us to change that proposed determination. Therefore, we are not requiring additional controls under CAA section 112(f)(2) for either of the two subparts in this action, and we are not making any changes to the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2). In other words, we are readopting the standards for both subparts. B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the source categories? Consistent with the proposed findings for these NESHAP, we determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for either of these source categories. Therefore, we are not finalizing any revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods SSM? We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV) and the Plastic Composites Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW) to remove and revise PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 15963 the provisions related to 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 (h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. As detailed in section IV.D and IV.I of the proposal preamble for these NESHAP (84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17, 2019), Table 8 to subpart VVVV of part 63 and Table 15 to subpart WWWW of part 63 (General Provisions applicability tables) are being revised to require that the standards apply at all times. We also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made other harmonizing changes to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. We determined that facilities in both of these source categories can meet the applicable emission standards in the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Plastic Composites Production NESHAP at all times, including periods of startup and shutdown. Therefore, the EPA determined that no additional standards are needed to address emissions during these periods. The legal rationale and explanation of the changes to the SSM requirements are set forth in the proposed rules. See 84 FR 22660 through 22662 and 22668 through 222669, May 17, 2019. Further, the EPA is not implementing standards for malfunctions. As discussed in sections IV.D and IV.I of the May 17, 2019, proposal preamble, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. For these source categories, it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the standards, and no comments were submitted that would suggest otherwise. Refer to section IV.D and IV.I of the May 17, 2019, proposal preamble for further discussion of the EPA’s rationale for the decision not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source fails to E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 15964 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, given that administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. The EPA is finalizing a revision to the performance testing requirements at 40 CFR 63.5765 and 63.5912. The final performance testing provisions prohibit performance testing during SSM for demonstrating compliance as these conditions are not representative of normal operating conditions. The final rules also require that operators maintain records to document that operating conditions during performance tests represent normal conditions. is included in the dockets for this rulemaking (Docket ID Item Nos. EPA– HQ–OAR–2016–0447–0082 and EPA– HQ–OAR–2016–0449–0047). Electronic reporting requirements are discussed further in section IV.D and V.D of this preamble. E. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories? The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this action are effective on March 20, 2020. The EPA is finalizing rule revisions that require affected sources in the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before May 17, 2019, to comply with all the D. What are the final rule amendments amendments, including the electronic for electronic reporting for the source format for submitting performance test categories? and performance evaluation results and compliance reports, no later than 180 The EPA is finalizing electronic days after the effective date of the final reporting requirements that apply to rule. Affected sources that commence owners and operators of facilities construction or reconstruction after May subject to the Boat Manufacturing 17, 2019, must comply with all NESHAP and the Plastic Composites requirements of the subpart, including Production NESHAP. Owners and the amendments being finalized, no operations are required to submit later than the effective date of the final electronic copies of performance test rule or upon startup, whichever is later, reports and performance evaluation reports and semiannual reports through with the exception of the electronic the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), format for submitting compliance reports. Affected sources that commence using the Compliance and Emissions construction or reconstruction after May Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A 17, 2019, must comply with all description of the electronic data requirements for the electronic format submission process is provided in the for submitting compliance reports no memorandum, Electronic Reporting later than 180 days after the effective Requirements for New Source date of the final rule or upon startup, Performance Standards (NSPS) and whichever is later. The EPA’s rationale National Emission Standards for for these compliance deadlines appears Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in the proposal preamble (84 FR 22664 Rules, available in the dockets for both and 22670, May 17, 2019). All affected rules at Docket ID Item Nos. EPA–HQ– facilities for the Boat Manufacturing OAR–2016–0447–0082 and EPA–HQ– 2016–0449–0047. The final rule requires source category must continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part that performance test and performance evaluation report results collected using 63, subpart VVVV, and for the Plastic Composites Production source category test methods that are supported by the must continue to meet the current EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website 2 at the time requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, until the applicable of the test be submitted in the format compliance date of the amended rule. generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test results F. What are the electronic reporting be submitted in portable document requirements? format using the attachment module of The EPA is requiring owners and the ERT. For semiannual reports, the operators of boat manufacturing and final rule requires that owners and reinforced plastic composites operators use the appropriate production facilities to submit spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of electronic copies of certain required performance test reports, performance the proposed template for these reports evaluation reports, and periodic reports through the EPA’s CDX using the 2 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. CEDRI. The final rule requires that VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 performance test and performance evaluation test results be submitted using the ERT. For the periodic compliance reports, the final rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. The final version of the templates for these reports will be located on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/ electronic-reporting-air-emissions/ cedri). The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this 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. For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting, see the memorandum on e-reporting, available in Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2016–0447 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0449. G. What are the final rule amendments regarding covers for mixers that route to a control device system? In this action, we are finalizing an amendment to Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, to clarify that mixers that route emissions to a capture and control device system that is at least 95-percent efficient overall are not required to have covers. In the 2003 NESHAP rulemaking, we determined that MACT for existing sources was pollution prevention measures (for mixing and BMC manufacturing operations) and that MACT for new sources was 95-percent control. We also considered whether the new source MACT floor for mixing operations should be incorporation of the pollution prevention measures (in this case covering the mixers) combined with 95percent control. We determined that the best controlled facilities which route emissions to a 95-percent efficient control device do not also incorporate the best pollution prevention E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 15965 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations techniques. Therefore, we concluded that combining the pollution prevention requirements with the 95-percent control requirements would result in an overall control level that exceeds the levels at the best controlled facilities (66 FR 40332, August 2, 2001). However, the text in table 4 of the regulation did not directly address whether mixers that capture and control emissions by 95 percent overall need to have covers. We have added text in line 6 of table 4 to clarify that covers are not required for mixers that fully capture and route emissions to a control device with at least 95-percent efficiency. IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories? For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA’s rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA’s responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket. A. Residual Risk Review 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f)? review are presented briefly below in Table 2 of this preamble. Additional detail is provided in the residual risk technical support document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Boat Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the Boat Manufacturing Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0447). a. Boat Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, subpart VVVV) Source Category Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk review and presented the results of this review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in section IV.A of the proposed rule preamble (84 FR 22658, May 17, 2019). The results of this TABLE 2—INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE BOAT MANUFACTURING SOURCE CATEGORY Cancer MIR (in 1 million) Source Category .... jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Whole Facility ........ Based on actual emissions Based on allowable emissions 0.2 (nickel compounds, ethyl benzene, tetrachloroethene). 0.4 (naphthalene) ........... 0.3 (nickel compounds, ethyl benzene, tetrachloroethene). ......................................... The EPA proposed that the risks from the Boat Manufacturing source category were acceptable based on the health risk information and factors discussed in section IV.C of the proposal for this rulemaking (84 FR 22658, May 17, 2019). As explained in section II.A of the proposal 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 maximum individual risk (MIR) of approximately 1-in-10 thousand (84 FR 22644, May 17, 2019).’’ For the Boat Manufacturing source category, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed is 0.2-in-1 million based on actual emissions and is 0.3-in-1 million based on allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in1 million (or 1-in-10 thousand), which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘a MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be VerDate Sep<11>2014 Cancer incidence (cases per year) 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Max chronic noncancer hazard index (HI) (actuals and allowables) Population with risk of 10-in-1 million or greater 0.00001 0 0 HI < 1. 0.00004 0 0 HI = 1. 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 (54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989). The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.00001 cases per year for actual emissions and 0.00002 cases per year for allowable emissions). Based on our analysis, we did not identify potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects; all target organ specific health indexes (TOSHIs) were less than 1. The acute noncancer risks based on actual emissions are not greater than a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1 for styrene. Therefore, we find there is little potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts from actual emissions. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant potential for multipathway health effects or ecological effects. For all the reasons stated, the risk from the Boat Manufacturing source category were found to be acceptable. PO 00000 Population with risk of 1-in-1 million or greater Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated 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 in this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP, considering all of the health risks and other health information considered in the risk acceptability determination described above. In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the Boat Manufacturing source category are low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any risk reductions from further available control options would result in minimal health benefits. As noted in section IV.C of the proposal preamble, E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 15966 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations no additional control measures were identified for reducing HAP emissions from the Boat Manufacturing source category (84 FR 22660, May 17, 2019). Thus, we proposed that the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect health and we are not making any changes to the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2). b. Reinforced Plastic Composites Production (40 CFR Part 63, subpart WWWW) Source Category Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk review and presented the results of this review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in section IV.F of the proposed rule preamble (84 FR 22664, May 17, 2019). The results of this review are presented briefly below in Table 3 of this preamble. Additional detail is provided in the residual risk technical support document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the Boat Manufacturing Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0449). TABLE 3—INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE REINFORCED PLASTIC COMPOSITES PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY Cancer MIR (in 1 million) Source Category .... jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Whole Facility ........ Based on actual emissions Based on allowable emissions 4 (formaldehyde, ethyl benzene). 20 ................................... (cadmium,7-12dimethylbenz [a]anthracene, nickel, formaldehyde). 4 (formaldehyde, ethyl benzene). ......................................... The EPA proposed that the risks from the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category were acceptable based on the health risk information and factors discussed in section IV.G of the proposal for this rulemaking (84 FR 22666, May 17, 2019). As explained in section II.A of the proposal 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 (84 FR 22644, May 17, 2019).’’ For the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed is 4-in1 million based on actual emissions and is 4-in-1 million based on allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million (or 1-in-10 thousand), which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.001 cases per year for actual emissions and 0.001 cases per year for allowable emissions). We did not identify potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects; the TOSHIs were equal to 1. The results of the acute screening analysis estimate a maximum acute noncancer HQ of 3 based on the acute recommended exposure limit for styrene. The VerDate Sep<11>2014 Cancer incidence (cases per year) 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Max chronic noncancer hazard index (HI) (actuals and allowables) Population with risk of 10-in-1 million or greater 0.001 1,500 0 HI = 1. 0.001 4,500 800 HI = 1. maximum off-site concentration for this HAP was also compared to EPA’s Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL–1) and Emergency Response Planning Guideline (ERPG–1) levels and, in all cases, the HQ was less than 1, below the level at which mild, reversible effects would be anticipated. This information, in addition to the conservative (health protective) assumptions built into the screening assessment, leads us to conclude that adverse effects from acute exposure to emissions of this HAP from this category are not anticipated. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant potential for multipathway health effects or ecological effects. Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed above, we proposed that the risks from the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category are acceptable. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated 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 in this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP, considering all of the health risks and other health information considered in the risk acceptability determination described above. In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our PO 00000 Population with risk of 1-in-1 million or greater MACT rule review to determine whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category are low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any risk reductions from further available control options would result in minimal health benefits. As noted in section IV.H of the proposal preamble, no additional control measures were identified for reducing HAP emissions from sources in the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category (84 FR 22667, May 17, 2019). Thus, we proposed that the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect health and we are not making any changes to the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2). 2. How did the risk review change for these source categories? The EPA has not changed any aspect of the risk assessment for either of these two source categories as a result of public comments received on the May 2019 proposal. E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are our responses? The EPA received comments in support of and against the proposed residual risk review and our determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for either source category. Generally, the comments that did not support the proposed determinations that the risks are acceptable and that the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety also asserted that changes to the underlying risk assessment methodology were needed. For example, one commenter stated that the EPA should lower the acceptability benchmark and not assume that risks below 100-in-1 million are inherently acceptable, include emissions from outside of the source categories in question in the risk assessment, and assume that pollutants with noncancer health risks have no safe level of exposure. Generally, the comments that were supportive of the proposed determinations of the residual risk review agreed with our underlying risk assessment methodology and data inputs and asked for the rule to be finalized as soon as possible to provide regulatory certainty. After review of all the comments received, we decided not to make any changes to the residual risk review. The comments and our specific responses can be found in the document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule (84 FR 22642, May 17, 2019), available in the dockets for these actions (Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0447 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0449). jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the risk review? As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standardsetting 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 the MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).’’ We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation uncertainties. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determine that the risks from the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories are acceptable, and that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we are not revising either subpart to require additional controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and we are readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2). B. Technology Reviews for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Categories 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)? Based on our review, the EPA did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories, and, therefore, we did not propose any changes to the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Brief summaries of the EPA’s findings in conducting the technology review of Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories were included in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 22642, 22660, 22667, May 17, 2019), and detailed discussions of the EPA’s technology review and findings were included in the memorandum, Technology Review for Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Category, June 1, 2018, which can be found in the dockets for both source categories (Docket ID Nos. EPA–OAR– HQ–2016–0447 and EPA–HQ–OAR– 2016–0449). 2. How did the technology reviews change? The EPA is making no changes to the conclusions of the technology review and is finalizing the results of the technology reviews for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories as proposed. PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 15967 3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what are our responses? The EPA received one comment on the proposed technology review for the Boat Manufacturing source category. This commenter supported our proposed determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Boat Manufacturing source category. No comments were received on the technology review for the Reinforced Plastic Composites source category. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology review? As we received no adverse comments on our proposed technology reviews or the proposed determinations based on those reviews, we are finalizing the reviews as proposed and making no changes to the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The rationale for and results of our technology reviews are explained in the preamble to the proposed rules (84 FR 22660 and 22667, May 17, 2019). C. SSM Provisions 1. What did we propose for SSM? In the May 17, 2019, action, the EPA proposed amendments to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning the proposed amendments for the elimination of SSM exemption provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rules (84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17, 2019). 2. What changed since proposal? The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no changes (84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17, 2019). 3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions and what are our responses? We received several comments in support of the proposed SSM amendments for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites source categories. One commenter also stated that the proposed amendments will have no impact on the Boat Manufacturing industry. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions? For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and after evaluation of the comments on the proposed amendments to the SSM provisions for E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 15968 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP, we are finalizing the proposed revisions related to SSM that are inconsistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning the proposed amendments to the SSM provisions is in the preamble for each of the proposed rules (84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17, 2019). D. Electronic Reporting Provisions 1. What did we propose? In the May 17, 2019, action, we proposed that owners and operators of facilities subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP submit electronic copies of performance test and performance evaluation results and semiannual reports through the EPA’s CDX, using the CEDRI Interface. A description of the electronic 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), August 8, 2018, in the dockets for Boat Manufacturing (Docket ID No. EPA– OAR–HQ–2016–0447) and Reinforced Plastic Composites (Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2016–0449). The proposed rule requirement would replace the current rule requirement to submit these notifications and reports to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. The proposed rule requirement would not affect submittals required by state air agencies. The proposed compliance schedule language in 40 CFR 63.5765(c) and 63.5912(c) for submission of semiannual compliance reports gives facilities 181 days after the final rule is published to begin electronic reporting or 1 year after the 40 CFR part 63, subparts VVVV and WWWW, semiannual compliance report template for both source categories is available in CEDRI, whichever is later. 2. What changed since proposal? jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 3. What key comments did we receive on the electronic reporting provisions and what are our responses? The EPA received several comments that were generally supportive of the proposed electronic reporting requirements. One commenter stated that the proposed electronic reporting 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 E. Work Practice Standards for Controlled-Spray Training 1. What did we propose for a controlledspray operator training program? The EPA requested comment on the potential costs and benefits of revising the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP to include a controlled-spray training program for operations where styrene-containing resins and gel coats are sprayed onto an open mold. We specifically asked for feedback on whether this practice is widely used in industry, whether significant HAP reductions can be achieved industry-wide and whether HAP reductions could be applicable to all open mold production operations. A more detailed description of the potential revisions and amendatory rule text were provided in the dockets for both rulemakings (Docket ID Item Nos. EPA–OAR–HQ–2016–0447–0079 and EPA–OAR–HQ–2016–0049–0044). 2. What changed since proposal? For reasons described below, the EPA has decided not to add provisions requiring a controlled-spray operator training program for styrene-containing resins and gel coats sprayed onto an open mold. The EPA is finalizing the electronic reporting provisions as proposed with no changes (84 FR 22662 and 22669, May 17, 2019). VerDate Sep<11>2014 requirements will reduce ‘‘regulatory burden imposed on this sector by helping to minimize waste of resources and streamline operations.’’ 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the electronic reporting provisions? For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and after evaluation of the comments on the proposed amendments, the EPA is requiring owners and operators of facilities subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP to submit electronic copies of performance test and performance evaluation results and semiannual reports through the EPA’s CDX, using CEDRI. The rationale for the proposed amendments to the electronic reporting provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 22662 and 22669, May 17, 2019). This rationale also supports our determination to finalize these requirements as proposed. 3. What key comments did we receive on the work practice standards and what are our responses? Comment: The EPA received mixed comments on the inclusion of a work practice standard for controlled-spray operator training. Some commenters PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 argued that EPA was obligated to include a training program, while other commenters objected to the inclusion of such a program. One commenter argued that EPA must adopt controlled spray training as a technological development based on the statutory requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6). A commenter also argued that the program must be included in the final rule as a measure for reducing emissions and therefore reducing health risk to satisfy the ‘ample margin of safety’ requirements under CAA section 112(f)(2). Other commenters objected to the inclusion of the controlled spray-training program, arguing that it would achieve no additional environmental benefit and would impose unwarranted regulatory burden. Some commenters also asserted that requirements to weigh overspray of resins and gel coats does not provide any additional environmental benefit and is overly burdensome. Response: The EPA has decided not to add a work practice for controlled spray operator training to either the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. The EPA acknowledges that a controlled-spray training could be considered a potential development in practices. Even if the agency were to conclude it is a development, however, no changes to these NESHAP would be warranted. We do not have enough information at this time to conclude that a controlled-spray program implemented for boat manufacturing and reinforced plastic composites production facilities would result in environmental benefits and we cannot quantify the burden on affected facilities. The EPA did not receive any additional information regarding potential environmental benefits or costs associated with such a program for these source categories during the comment period. For these reasons, the EPA has concluded, based on the available information, that even if the spray operator training program were found to be a development, changes to the standards would not be required under CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA analyzes whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. The EPA is not able, based on the information currently available to it, to conclude that the controlled-spray operator training program would be cost effective for either source category or that it would have any environmental benefit. As such, the EPA has concluded, based E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations on the available information on the cost and feasibility of the program and considering all of the health risks and other health information considered in the risk acceptability determination, that the program is not needed to provide an ample margin of safety. 4. What is the rationale for our final decision with regard to the work practice standards? The EPA could not determine that requiring a work practice standard for controlled-spray operator training in the NESHAP for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories would provide an environmental benefit, and, therefore, could not determine if such programs would be cost effective. The EPA did not receive any information regarding the potential costs of revising the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP to include controlled-spray training as a work practice standard during the comment period for both regulatory actions. Given this uncertainty for program costs and benefits, we have also determined that the controlled-spray operator training program is not needed to provide an ample margin of safety. For these reasons, the EPA has decided not to add work practice standards for controlled-spray operator training to either the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES A. What are the affected facilities? The EPA estimates that there are 93 boat manufacturing facilities that are subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP affected by the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, and 448 reinforced plastic composites production facilities subject to the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP, affected by the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. The basis of our estimates of affected facilities are provided in the memorandum, Emissions Data for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production, which is available in the respective dockets for this action. We are not currently aware of any planned or potential new or VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 reconstructed manufacturing facilities in either of the source categories. B. What are the air quality impacts? All major sources in the two source categories would be required to comply with the relevant emission standards at all times without the SSM exemption. We were unable to quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption. However, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods. C. What are the cost impacts? The one-time cost associated with reviewing the revised rules and becoming familiar with the electronic reporting requirements is estimated to be $446,448 (2016$); the one-time cost is composed of $75,629 for the Boat Manufacturing source category (93 facilities), and $370,819 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category (448 facilities). The total cost per facility in the Boat Manufacturing source category is estimated to be $399 per facility to review the final rule requirements and $414 per facility to become familiar with the electronic reporting requirements. The total cost per facility in the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category is estimated to be $414 per facility to review the final rule requirements and $414 per facility to become familiar with the electronic reporting requirements. All other costs associated with notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping are assumed to be unchanged because the facilities in each source category are currently required to comply with notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, and will continue to be required to comply with those requirements. The number of personnel-hours required to develop the materials in support of reports required by the NESHAP remain unchanged. D. What are the economic impacts? The cost per facility for all of the facilities in both source categories to review the proposed rule requirements and to become familiar with the electronic reporting requirements are less than 1 percent of annual sales revenues. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. In addition, the EPA prepared a small business screening assessment to determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small entities, as PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 15969 defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. As result of our small business screening, we have identified 73 out of the 93 facilities in the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP as small entities, while 309 out of the 448 facilities in the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP are small entities. For both industries, the costs associated with becoming familiar with the proposed rule requirements and to become familiar with the electronic reporting requirements are less than 1 percent of their annual sales revenues. Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities from these proposed amendments. E. What are the benefits? The EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP or the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions were estimated, we did not estimate any health benefits from reducing emissions. F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? The EPA performed a demographic analysis for each source category, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups, of the population close to the facilities (within 50 kilometers (km) and within 5 km). In our analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and noncancer hazards from the Boat Manufacturing source category and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near operations identified as having the highest risks. Results of the demographic analysis performed for the Boat Manufacturing source category indicate that, for seven of the 11 demographic groups, Hispanic or Latino, minority, people living below the poverty level, linguistically isolated people, adults without a high school diploma, adults 65 years of age or older, and African Americans that reside within 5 km of facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from boat manufacturing facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 15970 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations noncancer TOSHI greater than 1, and that risks are acceptable for all populations. The results of the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category demographic analysis indicate that populations residing within 50 km of facilities in the source category for three of the 11 demographic groups; minority populations, people living below the poverty level, ages 0 to 17, and adults without a high school diploma is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. However, emissions from the source category expose approximately 1,600 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million, but no cancer risk greater than 4-in-1 million (Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0449–0228). When examining the demographics for those exposed to cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million from reinforced plastic composites production facilities, we find that four of the 10 demographic groups; African American, ages 0 to 17, over 25 without a high school diploma, and people below the poverty level are exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1in-1 million. For chronic noncancer risks, no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. A review of all risks from this source category is considered acceptable for all populations. G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 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 IIIA. and IV.A and B of the proposal for this rule (84 FR 22684 through 22660, May 17, 2019) and are further documented in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Boat Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, and the Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2016–0447–0035 and Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0449–0014). VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) documents that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1966.09 for the Boat Manufacturing source category and 1976.09 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category. You can find a copy of these ICR documents in the dockets for these rules, and they are briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. A brief summary of the information collection requirements for Boat Manufacturing and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production categories is provided in sections VI.C.1 and VI.C.2 of this preamble. 1. Boat Manufacturing We are finalizing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, in the form of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; including reporting requirements for deviations in the semiannual report; and including the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards changed since the original ICR was finalized. Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of boat manufacturing facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV). Estimated number of respondents: 93 facilities. Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending on the burden item. Responses include onetime review of rule amendments, reports PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 of periodic performance tests, and semiannual compliance reports. Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for responding facilities to comply with all the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 7,914 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost for responding facilities to comply with all the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be $816,500 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. 2. Reinforced Plastic Composites Production We are finalizing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, in the form of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; including reporting requirements for deviations in the semiannual report; and including the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards changed since the original ICR was finalized. Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of reinforced plastic composites production facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW). Estimated number of respondents: 448 facilities. Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending on the burden item. Responses include onetime review of rule amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual compliance reports. Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 38,125 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be $3,933,400 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated capital and O&M costs. E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action include small businesses engaged in either the Boat Manufacturing or Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories. The Agency has determined that 73 boat manufacturing facilities and 309 reinforced plastic composites production facilities are small entities, and that these small entities may experience an impact of less than 1 percent of annual sales. Additional discussion of the cost impacts can be found in section V.D of this preamble. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in the Boat Manufacturing or Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories and would not be affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections III.A and IV.A and B of the proposal for this rule (84 FR 22684 through 22660, May 17, 2019). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA has determined that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.A, IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of the proposal preamble (84 FR 22658 through 22667, May 17, 2019). For both source categories, the risks were found to be acceptable for all populations, including minority pollutions, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous people. L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: February 25, 2020. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows: PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 15971 Subpart VVVV—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing § 63.5764 [Amended] 2. Section 63.5764 is amended by removing paragraph (e). ■ 3. Section 63.5765 is added to read as follows: ■ § 63.5765 How do I submit my reports? (a) 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 (a)(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 the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (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 paragraph (a)(1) of this section 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 E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 15972 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (b) Within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation as defined in § 63.2, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(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. If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section 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 (a)(1) of this section. (c) For sources that commence construction or reconstruction before or on May 17, 2019, you must submit to the Administrator semiannual compliance reports of the information required in § 63.5764(c) and (d) beginning on September 16, 2020. For sources that commence construction or reconstruction after May 17, 2019, you must submit to the Administrator VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 semiannual compliance reports of the information required in § 63.5764(c) and (d) beginning on March 20, 2020, or upon startup, whichever is later. (d) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph (d), beginning on September 16, 2020, you must submit all subsequent reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. 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 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 or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 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 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 (d). (e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (e)(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. PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (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. (f) 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 majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(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 outages). (2) 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. (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; E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations (iii) A description of 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. ■ 4. Section 63.5767 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: (e) 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. ■ 6. Section 63.5779 is amended by: ■ a. Removing the definition for ‘‘Deviation’’; and ■ b. Adding definitions for ‘‘Deviation after’’, ‘‘Deviation before’’, ‘‘Shutdown’’, and ‘‘Startup’’ in alphabetical order. The additions read as follows: § 63.5767 § 63.5779 subpart? What records must I keep? * * * * * (d) If your facility has an add-on control device, you must keep the records of any failures to meet the applicable standards, including the date, time, and duration of the failure; a list of the affected add-on control device and actions taken to minimize emissions, 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; control device performance tests; and continuous monitoring system performance evaluations. ■ 5. Section 63.5770 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 63.5770 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? * * * * * * * * * * Deviation after September 16, 2020, means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. Deviation before September 17, 2020 means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: Citation Requirement Applies to subpart VVVV § 63.1(a) .............................. § 63.1(b) .............................. § 63.1(c)(1) .......................... § 63.1(c)(2) .......................... General Applicability .......................................... Initial Applicability Determination ....................... Applicability After Standard Established ............ ............................................................................ Yes Yes Yes Yes ................. § 63.1(c)(3) .......................... § 63.1(c)(4)–(5) ................... § 63.1(d) .............................. § 63.1(e) .............................. § 63.2 .................................. § 63.3 .................................. § 63.4(a) .............................. § 63.4(b)–(c) ........................ § 63.5(a) .............................. § 63.5(b) .............................. ............................................................................ ............................................................................ ............................................................................ Applicability of Permit Program ......................... Definitions .......................................................... Units and Abbreviations ..................................... Prohibited Activities ........................................... Circumvention/Severability ................................ Construction/Reconstruction .............................. Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed, and Reconstructed Sources. ............................................................................ Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction .......... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on prior State Review. Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements—Applicability. No .................. Yes No .................. Yes Yes ................. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes § 63.5(c) .............................. § 63.5(d) .............................. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES What definitions apply to this § 63.5(e) .............................. § 63.5(f) ............................... § 63.6(a) .............................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:25 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 No .................. Yes (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or (3) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. * * * * * Shutdown after September 16, 2020, means the cessation of operation of the add-on control devices. * * * * * Startup after September 17, 2020, means the setting in operation of the add-on control devices. * * * * * 7. Table 8 to subpart VVVV of part 63 is revised to read as follows: ■ Table 8 to Subpart VVVV of Part 63— Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) to Subpart VVVV As specified in § 63.5773, you must comply with the applicable requirements of the General Provisions according to the following table: Explanation Area sources are not regulated by subpart VVVV. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. Additional definitions are found in § 63.5779. [Reserved]. Yes Yes Yes Sfmt 4700 15973 E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 15974 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Citation Requirement Applies to subpart VVVV Explanation § 63.6(b) .............................. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. Yes ................. § 63.6(c) .............................. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources ............ Yes ................. § 63.6(d) .............................. § 63.6(e)(1)–(2) ................... ............................................................................ Operation and Maintenance Requirements ....... No .................. No .................. § 63.6(e)(3) ......................... Startup, Shut Down, and Malfunction Plans ..... No .................. § 63.695 specifies compliance dates, including the compliance date for new area sources that become major sources after the effective date of the rule. § 63.5695 specifies compliance dates, including the compliance date for existing area sources that become major sources after the effective date of the rule. [Reserved]. Operating requirements for open molding operations with add-on controls are specified in § 63.5725. Only sources with add-on controls must complete startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans. § 63.6(f) ............................... Yes § 63.7(a)(1) ......................... § 63.7(a)(2) ......................... § 63.7(a)(3) ......................... § 63.7(b)–(h) ....................... § 63.8(a)(1)–(2) ................... Compliance with Nonopacity Emission Standards. Use of an Alternative Nonopacity Emission Standard. Compliance with Opacity/Visible Emissions Standards. Extension of Compliance with Emission Standards. Exemption from Compliance with Emission Standards. Performance Test Requirements ....................... Dates for performance tests .............................. Performance testing at other times ................... Other performance testing requirements ........... Monitoring Requirements—Applicability ............ § 63.8(a)(3) ......................... § 63.8(a)(4) ......................... ............................................................................ ............................................................................ No .................. No .................. § 63.8(b)(1) ......................... § 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ................... Conduct of Monitoring ....................................... Multiple Effluents and Multiple CMS ................. Yes Yes ................. § 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) ......... CMS Operation and Maintenance ..................... No .................. § 63.8(c)(1)–(4) ................... CMS Operation and Maintenance ..................... Yes ................. § 63.8(c)(5) .......................... No .................. § 63.8(d) .............................. Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMS). CMS Calibration Checks and Out-of-Control Periods. Quality Control Program .................................... § 63.8(d)(3) ......................... Quality Control Program .................................... No .................. § 63.8(e) .............................. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) .................... § 63.8(f)(6) .......................... CMS Performance Evaluation ........................... Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method .......... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test ............... Yes Yes Yes ................. § 63.8(g) § 63.9(a) § 63.9(b) § 63.9(c) § 63.9(d) Data Reduction .................................................. Notification Requirements—Applicability ........... Initial Notifications .............................................. Request for Compliance Extension ................... Notification That a New Source Is Subject to Special Compliance Requirements. Notification of Performance Test ....................... Notification of Visible Emissions/Opacity Test .. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ................. § 63.9(g)(2) ......................... Additional CMS Notifications—Date of CMS Performance Evaluation. Use of COMS Data ............................................ § 63.9(g)(3) ......................... § 63.9(h) .............................. § 63.9(i) ............................... § 63.9(j) ............................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Testing ........... Notification of Compliance Status ..................... Adjustment of Deadlines .................................... Change in Previous Information ........................ Yes ................. Yes Yes Yes § 63.6(g) .............................. § 63.6(h) .............................. § 63.6(i) ............................... § 63.6(j) ............................... § 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ................... .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. § 63.9(e) .............................. § 63.9(f) ............................... jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES § 63.9(g)(1) ......................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:25 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Yes No .................. Subpart VVVV does not specify opacity or visible emission standards. Yes Yes Yes No .................. Yes Yes Yes ................. § 63.5716 specifies performance test dates. All of § 63.8 applies only to sources with addon controls. Additional monitoring requirements for sources with add-on controls are found in § 63.5725. [Reserved]. Subpart VVVV does not refer directly or indirectly to § 63.11. Applies to sources that use a CMS on the control device stack. References to startup, shutdown, malfunction are not applicable. Except those provisions in § 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) as noted above. Subpart VVVV does not have opacity or visible emission standards. Yes Yes ................. Yes ................. No .................. No .................. Sfmt 4700 Except those provisions of § 63.8(d)(3) regarding a startup, shutdown, malfunction plan as noted below No requirement for a startup, shutdown, malfunction plan. Applies only to sources that use continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). Applies only to sources with add-on controls. Subpart VVVV does not have opacity or visible emission standards. Applies only to sources with add-on controls. Subpart VVVV does not require the use of COMS. Applies only to sources with CEMS. E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Citation Requirement Applies to subpart VVVV § 63.10(a) ............................ § 63.10(b)(1) ....................... Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability ............ General Recordkeeping Requirements ............. Yes Yes ................. § 63.10(b)(2)(i), (iii), (vi)– (xiv). § 63.10(b)(2)(ii), (iv), (v) ...... General Recordkeeping Requirements ............. Yes No § 63.10(d)(1) ....................... Recordkeeping Relevant to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Periods. Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Determinations. Additional Recordkeeping for Sources with CMS. Additional Recordkeeping for Sources with CMS. General Reporting Requirements ...................... § 63.10(d)(2) ....................... Performance Test Results ................................. Yes ................. § 63.10(d)(3) ....................... Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations ....... No .................. § 63.10(d)(4) ....................... Yes § 63.10(e)(3) ....................... § 63.10(e)(4) ....................... Progress Reports for Sources with Compliance Extensions. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports .... Additional CMS Reports—General .................... Reporting Results of CMS Performance Evaluations. Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports COMS Data Reports .......................................... § 63.10(f) ............................. § 63.11 ................................ Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ...................... Control Device Requirements—Applicability ..... Yes No .................. § 63.12 ................................ State Authority and Delegations ........................ Yes ................. § 63.13 ................................ § 63.14 ................................ § 63.15 ................................ Addresses .......................................................... Incorporation by Reference ............................... Availability of Information/Confidentiality ........... Yes Yes Yes § 63.10(b)(3) ....................... § 63.10(c)(1)–(14) ............... § 63.10(c)(15) ...................... § 63.10(d)(5) ....................... § 63.10(e)(1) ....................... § 63.10(e)(2) ....................... Subpart WWWW—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production ■ ■ ■ 8. Section 63.5835 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (b); and b. Removing paragraph (d). The revision reads as follows: jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES * * * * (b) You must be in compliance with all organic HAP emissions limits in this subpart that you meet using add-on controls at all times. * * * * * ■ 9. Section 63.5900 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (c); and ■ b. Removing paragraphs (d) and (e). The revision reads as follows: § 63.5900 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the standards? * * * * (c) You must meet the organic HAP emissions limits and work practice standards that apply to you at all times. ■ 10. Section 63.5910 is amended by: 18:25 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 No .................. Yes ................. No requirement for a startup, shutdown, malfunction plan. § 63.5764 specifies additional reporting requirements. § 63.5764 specifies additional requirements for reporting performance test results. Subpart VVVV does not specify opacity or visible emission standards. Applies only to sources with add-on controls. Subpart VVVV does not specify opacity or visible emission standards. * * * * (d) For each deviation from an organic HAP emissions limitation or operating limit and for each deviation from the requirements for work practice standards that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the organic HAP emissions limitations or work practice standards in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section and in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. * * * * * (e) For each deviation from an organic HAP emissions limitation (i.e., emissions limit and operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the organic HAP emissions limitation in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through Fmt 4700 § 63.5686 specifies applicability determinations for non-major sources. Applies only to sources with add-on controls. Yes ................. No .................. What reports must I submit and Frm 00067 §§ 63.567 and 63.5770 specify additional recordkeeping requirements. Applies only to sources with add-on controls. Applies only to sources with add-on controls. Applies only to sources with add-on controls. a. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(4); and ■ b. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text and (e) and (h). The revisions read as follows: PO 00000 Explanation No .................. Yes ................. Yes ................. * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 Yes ................. ■ § 63.5910 when? § 63.5835 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? * Yes ................. 15975 Sfmt 4700 Facilities subject to subpart VVVV do not use flares as control devices. § 63.5776 lists those sections of subpart A that are not delegated. (3) of this section and in paragraphs (e)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped. (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out of control, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped. (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. * * * * * (h) Submit compliance reports based on the requirements in §§ 63.5910 and 63.5912 and table 14 to this subpart, and not based on the requirements in § 63.999. * * * * * E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 15976 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 11. Section 63.5912 is added to read as follows: ■ jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES § 63.5912 How do I submit my reports? (a) 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 (a)(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 the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (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 paragraph (a)(1) of this section 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 (a)(1) of this section. (b) Within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation as defined in § 63.2, you must submit the results of the performance VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(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 paragraph (a)(1) of this section 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 (a)(1) of this section. (c) For sources that commence construction or reconstruction before or on May 17, 2019, you must submit to the Administrator semiannual compliance reports of the information required in § 63.5910(c),(d), (e), (f), and (i) beginning on September 16, 2020. For sources that commence construction or reconstruction after May 17, 2019, you must submit to the Administrator semiannual compliance reports of the information required in § 63.5910(c), (d), (e), (f), and (i) beginning on March 20, 2020, or upon startup, whichever is later. (d) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 specified in this paragraph (d), beginning on September 17, 2020, you must submit all subsequent reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. 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 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 or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 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 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 (d). (e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (e)(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 five 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; E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES (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. (f) 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 majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(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 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) A description of 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. § 63.5915 [Amended] 12. Section 63.5915 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2). ■ 13. Section 63.5920 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ § 63.5920 In what form and how long must I keep my records? * * * * * (e) 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. ■ 14. Section 63.5935 is amended by adding the definitions for ‘‘Deviation after’’, ‘‘Deviation before’’, ‘‘Shutdown’’, and ‘‘Startup’’ in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 63.5935 subpart? * * What definitions apply to this * * * 15977 Deviation after September 16, 2020, means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. Deviation before September 17, 2020, means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or (3) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. * * * * * Shutdown after September 16, 2020, means the cessation of operation of the add-on control devices. * * * * * Startup after September 17, 2020, means the setting in operation of the add-on control devices. * * * * * ■ 15. Table 4 of subpart WWWW of part 63 is revised to read as follows: Table 4 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63— Work Practice Standards As specified in § 63.5805, you must meet the work practice standards in the following table that apply to you: For . . . You must . . . 1. A new or existing closed molding operation using compression/injection molding. Uncover, unwrap or expose only one charge per mold cycle per compression/injection molding machine. For machines with multiple molds, one charge means sufficient material to fill all molds for one cycle. For machines with robotic loaders, no more than one charge may be exposed prior to the loader. For machines fed by hoppers, sufficient material may be uncovered to fill the hopper. Hoppers must be closed when not adding materials. Materials may be uncovered to feed to slitting machines. Materials must be recovered after slitting. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 15978 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations For . . . You must . . . 2. A new or existing cleaning operation ................................................... Not use cleaning solvents that contain HAP, except that styrene may be used as a cleaner in closed systems, and organic HAP containing cleaners may be used to clean cured resin from application equipment. Application equipment includes any equipment that directly contacts resin. Keep containers that store HAP-containing materials closed or covered except during the addition or removal of materials. Bulk HAP-containing materials storage tanks may be vented as necessary for safety. Close or cover the resin delivery system to the doctor box on each SMC manufacturing machine. The doctor box itself may be open. Use a nylon containing film to enclose SMC. Use mixer covers with no visible gaps present in the mixer covers, except that gaps of up to 1 inch are permissible around mixer shafts and any required instrumentation. Mixers where the emissions are fully captured and routed to a 95 percent efficient control device are exempt from this requirement. Close any mixer vents when actual mixing is occurring, except that venting is allowed during addition of materials, or as necessary prior to adding materials or opening the cover for safety. Vents routed to a 95 percent efficient control device are exempt from this requirement. Keep the mixer covers closed while actual mixing is occurring except when adding materials or changing covers to the mixing vessels. i. Not allow vents from the building ventilation system, or local or portable fans to blow directly on or across the wet-out area(s), ii. Not permit point suction of ambient air in the wet-out area(s) unless that air is directed to a control device, iii. Use devices such as deflectors, baffles, and curtains when practical to reduce air flow velocity across the wet-out area(s), iv. Direct any compressed air exhausts away from resin and wet-out area(s), v. Convey resin collected from drip-off pans or other devices to reservoirs, tanks, or sumps via covered troughs, pipes, or other covered conveyance that shields the resin from the ambient air, vi. Cover all reservoirs, tanks, sumps, or HAP-containing materials storage vessels except when they are being charged or filled, and vii. Cover or shield from ambient air resin delivery systems to the wetout area(s) from reservoirs, tanks, or sumps where practical. 3. A new or existing materials HAP-containing materials storage operation. 4. An existing or new SMC manufacturing operation .............................. 5. An existing or new SMC manufacturing operation .............................. 6. All mixing or BMC manufacturing operations1 ..................................... 7. All mixing or BMC manufacturing operations1 ..................................... 8. All mixing or BMC manufacturing operations1 ..................................... 9. A new or existing pultrusion operation manufacturing parts that meet the following criteria: 1,000 or more reinforcements or the glass equivalent of 1,000 ends of 113 yield roving or more; and have a cross sectional area of 60 square inches or more that is not subject to the 95-percent organic HAP emission reduction requirement. 1 Containers of 5 gallons or less may be open when active mixing is taking place, or during periods when they are in process (i.e., they are actively being used to apply resin). For polymer casting mixing operations, containers with a surface area of 500 square inches or less may be open while active mixing is taking place. 16. Table 14 of subpart WWWW of part 63 is revised to read as follows: jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ■ Table 14 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63—Requirements for Reports As required in § 63.5910(a), (b), (g), and (h), you must submit reports on the schedule shown in the following table: You must submit a(n) The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 1. Compliance report ....................... a. A statement that there were no deviations during that reporting period if there were no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit) that apply to you and there were no deviations from the requirements for work practice standards in Table 4 to this subpart that apply to you. If there were no periods during which the CMS, including CEMS, and operating parameter monitoring systems, was out of control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the report must also contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out of control during the reporting period. b. The information in § 63.5910(d) if you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard) during the reporting period. If there were periods during which the CMS, including CEMS, and operating parameter monitoring systems, was out of control, as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the report must contain the information in § 63.5910(e). Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.5910(b). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.5910(b). 20MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 17. Table 15 of subpart WWWW of part 63 is revised to read as follows: ■ The general provisions reference . . . jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Table 15 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart WWWW of Part 63 As specified in § 63.5925, the parts of the General Provisions which apply to you are shown in the following table: And applies to subpart WWWW of part 63 . . . That addresses . . . § 63.1(a)(1) ......................... General applicability of the general provisions Yes ................. § 63.1(a)(2) through (4) ...... § 63.1(a)(5) ......................... § 63.1(a)(6) ......................... § 63.1(a)(7) through (9) ...... § 63.1(a)(10) through (14) .. § 63.1(b)(1) ......................... General applicability of the general provisions Reserved ............................................................ General applicability of the general provisions Reserved ............................................................ General applicability of the general provisions Initial applicability determination ........................ Yes No Yes No Yes Yes ................. § 63.1(b)(2) ......................... § 63.1(b)(3) ......................... § 63.1(c)(1) .......................... Reserved ............................................................ Record of the applicability determination .......... Applicability of this part after a relevant standard has been set under this part. No Yes Yes ................. § 63.1(c)(2) .......................... Title V operating permit requirement ................. Yes ................. § 63.1(c)(3) and (4) ............. § 63.1(c)(5) .......................... No Yes § 63.2 .................................. Reserved ............................................................ Notification requirements for an area source that increases HAP emissions to major source levels. Reserved ............................................................ Applicability of permit program before a relevant standard has been set under this part. Definitions .......................................................... § 63.3 .................................. Units and abbreviations ..................................... Yes ................. § 63.4 .................................. Prohibited activities and circumvention ............. Yes ................. § 63.5(a)(1) and (2) ............. Applicability of construction and reconstruction Yes ................. § 63.5(b)(1) ......................... Yes ................. § 63.5(b)(2) ......................... § 63.5(b)(3) ......................... Relevant standards for new sources upon construction. Reserved ............................................................ New construction/reconstruction ........................ § 63.5(b)(4) ......................... Construction/reconstruction notification ............. Yes ................. § 63.5(b)(5) ......................... § 63.5(b)(6) ......................... Reserved ............................................................ Equipment addition or process change ............. No Yes ................. § 63.5(c) .............................. § 63.5(d)(1) ......................... Reserved ............................................................ General application for approval of construction or reconstruction. Application for approval of construction ............ Application for approval of reconstruction ......... Additional information ........................................ Approval of construction or reconstruction ........ Approval of construction or reconstruction based on prior State preconstruction review. Applicability of compliance with standards and maintenance requirements. No Yes ................. § 63.1(d) .............................. § 63.1(e) .............................. § 63.5(d)(2) ......................... § 63.5(d)(3) ......................... § 63.5(d)(4) ......................... § 63.5(e)(1) through (5) ...... § 63.5(f)(1) and (2) .............. § 63.6(a)(1) ......................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 15979 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4700 Subject to the following additional information . . . Additional terms defined in subpart WWWW of part 63, when overlap between subparts A and WWWW of this part, subpart WWWW of part 63 takes precedence. Subpart WWWW of part 63 clarifies the applicability in §§ 63.5780 and 63.5785. Subpart WWWW of part 63 clarifies the applicability of each paragraph of subpart A to sources subject to subpart WWWW of part 63. All major affected sources are required to obtain a title V operating permit. Area sources are not subject to subpart WWWW of part 63. No Yes Yes ................. No Yes ................. Subpart WWWW of part 63 defines terms in § 63.5935. When overlap between subparts A and WWWW of part 63 occurs, you must comply with the subpart WWWW of part 63 definitions, which take precedence over the subpart A definitions. Other units and abbreviations used in subpart WWWW of part 63 are defined in subpart WWWW of part 63. § 63.4(a)(3) through (5) is reserved and does not apply. Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of part 63. Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of part 63. Existing under Existing under facilities do not become reconstructed subpart WWWW of part 63. facilities do not become reconstructed subpart WWWW of part 63. Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of part 63. Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of part 63. Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 15980 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations That addresses . . . § 63.6(a)(2) ......................... Applicability of area sources that increase HAP emissions to become major sources. Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. Reserved ............................................................ Compliance dates for new operations or equipment that cause an area source to become a major source. Compliance dates for existing sources ............. Yes Reserved ............................................................ Compliance dates for existing area sources that become major. Reserved ............................................................ Operation and maintenance requirements ........ No Yes ................. SSM plan and recordkeeping ............................ Compliance except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Methods for determining compliance ................ Alternative standard ........................................... Opacity and visible emission Standards ........... No No .................. Yes No Yes Yes Yes § 63.7(a)(2) ......................... Compliance extensions ...................................... Reserved ............................................................ Compliance extensions ...................................... Presidential compliance exemption ................... Applicability of performance testing requirements. Performance test dates ..................................... § 63.7(a)(3) ......................... § 63.7(b)(1) ......................... § 63.7(b)(2) ......................... § 63.7(c) .............................. CAA Section 114 authority ................................ Notification of performance test ......................... Notification rescheduled performance test ........ Quality assurance program, including test plan Yes Yes Yes Yes ................. § 63.7(d) .............................. § 63.7(e) .............................. Performance testing facilities ............................. Conditions for conducting performance tests .... Yes Yes ................. § 63.7(f) ............................... § 63.7(g) .............................. Use of alternative test method .......................... Performance test data analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting. Waiver of performance tests ............................. Applicability of monitoring requirements ............ Reserved ............................................................ Monitoring requirements when using flares ...... Conduct of monitoring exceptions ..................... Multiple effluents and multiple monitoring systems. Compliance with CMS operation and maintenance requirements. Yes Yes § 63.8(c)(2) and (3) ............. Monitoring system installation ........................... Yes ................. § 63.8(c)(4) .......................... CMS requirements ............................................. Yes ................. § 63.8(c)(5) .......................... Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) minimum procedures. CMS calibration and periods CMS is out of control. No .................. § 63.6(b)(1) through (5) ...... § 63.6(b)(6) ......................... § 63.6(b)(7) ......................... § 63.6(c)(1) and (2) ............. § 63.6(c)(3) and (4) ............. § 63.6(c)(5) .......................... § 63.6(d) .............................. § 63.6(e)(1) ......................... § 63.6(e)(3) ......................... § 63.6(f)(1) .......................... § 63.6(f)(2) and (3) .............. § 63.6(g)(1) through (3) ...... § 63.6(h) .............................. § 63.6(i)(1) through (14) ...... § 63.6(i)(15) ......................... § 63.6(i)(16) ......................... § 63.6(j) ............................... § 63.7(a)(1) ......................... § 63.7(h) .............................. § 63.8(a)(1) and (2) ............. § 63.8(a)(3) ......................... § 63.8(a)(4) ......................... § 63.8(b)(1) ......................... § 63.8(b)(2) and (3) ............. § 63.8(c)(1) .......................... jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES And applies to subpart WWWW of part 63 . . . The general provisions reference . . . § 63.8(c)(6) through (8) ....... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4700 Yes ................. No Yes ................. Yes ................. No Yes ................. Yes Yes No .................. No .................. Subject to the following additional information . . . Subpart WWWW of part 63 clarifies compliance dates in § 63.5800. New operations at an existing facility are not subject to new source standards. Subpart WWWW of part 63 clarifies compliance dates in § 63.5800. Subpart WWWW of part 63 clarifies compliance dates in § 63.5800. Except portions of § 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii) specific to conditions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction. Subpart WWWW of part 63 requires compliance at all times. Subpart WWWW of part 63 does not contain opacity or visible emission standards. Subpart WWWW of part 63 initial compliance requirements are in § 63.5840. Except that the test plan must be submitted with the notification of the performance test. Performance test requirements are contained in § 63.5850. Additional requirements for conducting performance tests for continuous lamination/casting are included in § 63.5870. Conditions specific to operations during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction in § 63.7(e)(1) do not apply. Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes ................. Yes ................. Sfmt 4700 This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. Except references to SSM plans in § 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii). This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. Subpart WWWW of part 63 does not contain opacity standards. This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations That addresses . . . § 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ................... CMS quality control program, including test plan and all previous versions. Yes ................. § 63.8(d)(3) ......................... Yes ................. § 63.8(e)(1) ......................... CMS quality control program, including test plan and all previous versions. Performance evaluation of CMS ....................... § 63.8(e)(2) ......................... Notification of performance evaluation .............. Yes ................. § 63.8(e)(3) and (4) ............. CMS requirements/alternatives ......................... Yes ................. § 63.8(e)(5)(i) ...................... Reporting performance evaluation results ......... Yes ................. § 63.8(e)(5)(ii) ..................... Results of COMS performance evaluation ........ No .................. § 63.8(f)(1) through (3) ....... § 63.8(f)(4) .......................... Use of an alternative monitoring method .......... Request to use an alternative monitoring method. Approval of request to use an alternative monitoring method. Request for alternative to relative accuracy test and associated records. Yes Yes Data reduction ................................................... Notification requirements and general information. Initial notification applicability ............................ Notification for affected source with initial startup before effective date of standard. Reserved ............................................................ Notification for a new or reconstructed major affected source with initial startup after effective date for which an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is required. Reserved ............................................................ Notification for a new or reconstructed major affected source with initial startup after effective date for which an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is required. Notification that you are subject to this subpart for new or reconstructed affected source with initial startup after effective date and for which an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is not required. Request for compliance extension .................... Notification of special compliance requirements for new source. Notification of performance test ......................... Notification of opacity and visible emissions observations. Additional notification requirements for sources using CMS. Yes Yes Notification of compliance with opacity emission standard. Notification that criterion to continue use of alternative to relative accuracy testing has been exceeded. Notification of compliance status ....................... Reserved ............................................................ Notification of compliance status ....................... Adjustment of submittal deadlines ..................... Change in information provided ........................ Applicability of recordkeeping and reporting ..... Records retention .............................................. No .................. § 63.8(f)(5) .......................... § 63.8(f)(6) .......................... § 63.8(g)(1) through (5) ...... § 63.9(a)(1) through (4) ...... § 63.9(b)(1) ......................... § 63.9(b)(2) ......................... § 63.9(b)(3) ......................... § 63.9(b)(4)(i) ...................... § 63.9(b)(4)(ii) through (iv) .. § 63.9(b)(4)(v) ..................... § 63.9(b)(5) ......................... § 63.9(c) .............................. § 63.9(d) .............................. § 63.9(e) .............................. § 63.9(f) ............................... § 63.9(g)(1) ......................... § 63.9(g)(2) ......................... § 63.9(g)(3) ......................... jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES And applies to subpart WWWW of part 63 . . . The general provisions reference . . . § 63.9(h)(1) through (3) ...... § 63.9(h)(4) ......................... § 63.9(h)(5) and (6) ............. § 63.9(i) ............................... § 63.9(j) ............................... § 63.10(a) ............................ § 63.10(b)(1) ....................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4700 Yes ................. 15981 Subject to the following additional information . . . This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. Except references to SSM plans in § 63.8(d)(3). This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. Subpart WWWW of part 63 does not contain opacity standards. Yes Yes ................. This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. Yes Yes No Yes No Yes ................. Yes ................. Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of part 63. Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of part 63. Yes Yes Yes No .................. Yes ................. Yes ................. Subpart WWWW of part 63 does not contain opacity or visible emission standards. This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. Subpart WWWW of part 63 does not contain opacity emission standards. This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1 15982 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Rules and Regulations The general provisions reference . . . § 63.10(b)(2)(i) through (v) No § 63.10(b)(3) ....................... § 63.10(c)(1) ........................ Records related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. CMS records, data on performance tests, CMS performance evaluations, measurements necessary to determine conditions of performance tests, and performance evaluations. Record of waiver of recordkeeping and reporting. Record for alternative to the relative accuracy test. Records supporting initial notification and notification of compliance status. Records for applicability determinations ............ CMS records ...................................................... § 63.10(c)(2) through (4) ..... § 63.10(c)(5) through (8) ..... Reserved ............................................................ CMS records ...................................................... No Yes ................. § 63.10(c)(9) ........................ § 63.10(c)(10) through (14) Reserved ............................................................ CMS records ...................................................... No Yes ................. § 63.10(c)(15) ...................... § 63.10(d)(1) ....................... § 63.10(d)(2) ....................... § 63.10(d)(3) ....................... No Yes Yes No .................. § 63.10(d)(5) ....................... § 63.10(e)(1) through (3) .... CMS records ...................................................... General reporting requirements ......................... Report of performance test results .................... Reporting results of opacity or visible emission observations. Progress reports as part of extension of compliance. Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports ...... Additional reporting requirements for CMS ....... § 63.10(e)(4) ....................... Reporting COMS data ....................................... No .................. § 63.10(f) ............................. § 63.11 ................................ Waiver for recordkeeping or reporting ............... Control device requirements .............................. Yes Yes ................. § 63.12 ................................ § 63.13 ................................ State authority and delegations ......................... Addresses of state air pollution control agencies and EPA Regional offices. Incorporations by reference ............................... Availability of information and confidentiality ..... Yes Yes § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi) § 63.10(b)(2)(xii) .................. § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ................. § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ................. § 63.10(d)(4) ....................... § 63.14 ................................ § 63.15 ................................ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket Nos. 18–143, 10–90, 14–58; DA 20–133; FRS 16538] The Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund, Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications Federal Communications Commission. AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Mar 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ................. No Yes ................. The PR–USVI Stage 2 Competition applications will not be due earlier than 30 days following the announcement of the application form’s approval from the Office of Management and Budget. The Bureau will release a public notice announcing the application deadline. DATES: Frm 00074 Fmt 4700 This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. Subpart WWWW of part 63 does not contain opacity or visible emission standards. This section applies if you have an add-on control device and elect to use a CEM to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. Subpart WWWW of part 63 does not contain opacity standards. Only applies if you elect to use a flare as a control device. Yes Yes SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureau) establishes procedures for the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund Stage 2 Competition (PR–USVI Stage 2 Competition, Stage 2 Competition, or the Competition). PO 00000 This section applies if you elect to use a CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. Yes Final action; requirements and procedures. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Subject to the following additional information . . . Yes ACTION: [FR Doc. 2020–04661 Filed 3–19–20; 8:45 am] jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES And applies to subpart WWWW of part 63 . . . That addresses . . . Sfmt 4700 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: (202) 418–0484. This is a summary of the Bureau’s Public Notice in WC Docket Nos. 18–143, 10–90, 14– 58; DA 20–133, released on February 5, 2020. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554 or at the following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/uniendopuerto-rico-fund-and-connect-usvifund-procedures-pn. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\20MRR1.SGM 20MRR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15960-15982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04661]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449; FRL-10006-04-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT12


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Boat 
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Risk and 
Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology reviews 
(RTR) conducted for the Boat Manufacturing and the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production source categories regulated under national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, 
we are taking final action addressing emissions during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and amending provisions 
regarding electronic reporting of performance test and performance 
evaluation results and semiannual reports. These final amendments 
include removal of regulatory language that is inconsistent with the 
requirement that the standards apply at all times, inclusion of 
language requiring electronic reporting of performance test and 
performance evaluation results and semiannual reports, and an amendment 
to the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP to clarify that 
mixers that route to a capture and control device system with at least 
95-percent efficiency overall are not required to have covers. The 
numeric emission limits of the standards for both source categories 
remain unchanged.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. 
All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 
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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Dr. Tina Ndoh, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D234-04), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-1516; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 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: hirtz.james @epa.gov. 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 Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

BMC bulk molding compound
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CRA Congressional Review Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ specific health index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Background information. On May 17, 2019 (84 FR 22642), the EPA 
proposed revisions to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production NESHAP based on our RTR. In this action, 
we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize 
some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the 
proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of 
all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to 
those comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses for the Risk and Technology Reviews for Boat Manufacturing 
NESHAP and Reinforced Plastic Composite NESHAP, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0447 for Boat Manufacturing and EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for 
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production. A ``track changes'' version 
of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action 
is available in the docket for each rule.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the source categories and how does the NESHAP 
regulate HAP emissions from the source categories?
    C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our 
May 17, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in these final rules?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the source categories?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the source categories?

[[Page 15961]]

    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods SSM?
    D. What are the final rule amendments for electronic reporting 
for the source categories?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Boat 
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source 
categories?
    F. What are the electronic reporting requirements?
    G. What are the final rule amendments regarding covers for 
mixers that route to a control device system?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production 
source categories?
    A. Residual Risk Reviews
    B. Technology Reviews for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production Source Categories
    C. SSM Provisions
    D. Electronic Reporting Provisions
    E. Work Practice Standards for Controlled-Spray Training
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NAICS \1\
                  NESHAP and source category                      Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boat Manufacturing...........................................     336612
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production.....................     326113
                                                                  326121
                                                                  326122
                                                                  326130
                                                                  326140
                                                                  326191
                                                                  327110
                                                                  327991
                                                                  332321
                                                                  332420
                                                                  333132
                                                                  333415
                                                                  333611
                                                                  333924
                                                                  334310
                                                                  335311
                                                                  335313
                                                                  335932
                                                                  336111
                                                                  336211
                                                                  336213
                                                                  336214
                                                                  336320
                                                                  336413
                                                                  336510
                                                                  337110
                                                                  337125
                                                                  337127
                                                                  337215
                                                                  339920
                                                                  339991
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/boat-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air for the 
Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/reinforced-plastic-composites-production-national-emission for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same 
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information 
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites 
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) by May 19, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

[[Page 15962]]

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then 
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly 
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards 
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT 
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the 
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, 
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from 
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination 
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see the CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: 
Statutory Authority and Methodology memorandum (Docket ID Item No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0447-0080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA 
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based 
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is 
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk 
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP 
emissions from the source categories?

1. What is the Boat Manufacturing source category and how does the 
current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP on August 22, 
2001 (66 FR 44218). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart VVVV (40 CFR 63.5680). The boat manufacturing industry consists 
of facilities that manufacture fiberglass and aluminum boats. The 
source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 93 
facilities.
    The following processes and operations are found at boat 
manufacturing facilities: Fiberglass boat manufacturing and assembly 
operations, fabric and carpet adhesive operations, and aluminum boat 
surface coating operations. See the proposal for this action for 
additional detail on the processes at boat manufacturing facilities (84 
FR 22645, May 17, 2019). The Boat Manufacturing NESHAP regulates 
organic HAP from sources that manufacture aluminum recreational boats 
or any type of fiberglass boats. For the purposes of these standards, 
recreational boats are defined as a vessel which, by design and 
construction, is intended by the manufacturer to be operated primarily 
for pleasure, or to be leased, rented, or chartered to another for the 
latter's pleasure (rather than for commercial or military purposes). 
The Boat Manufacturing NESHAP applies to the following operations: All 
open molding operations including pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, 
production resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat; all closed 
molding resin operations; resin and gel coat mixing and operations; 
resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations; carpet 
and fabric adhesive operations; aluminum hull and deck coating 
operations, including solvent wipe-down operations; and paint spray gun 
cleaning operations on aluminum recreational boats. The NESHAP 
regulates HAP emissions by setting HAP content limits for the resins 
and gel coats used at each regulated open molding resin and gel coat 
operation. Regulated entities can comply with the HAP limits by 
averaging emissions, using compliant materials, or using add-on 
controls.
2. What is the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category 
and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production 
NESHAP on April 21, 2003 (68 FR 19375) and amended the standards on 
August 25, 2005 (70 FR 50118). The standards are codified at 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart WWWW (40 CFR 63.5780). The reinforced plastic 
composites production industry consists of facilities that manufacture 
reinforced and non-reinforced plastic composite products and the 
production of plastic molding compounds used in the production of 
plastic composites products. The source category covered by this MACT 
standard currently includes 448 facilities.
    The Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP applies to the 
following operations: Open molding, closed molding, centrifugal 
casting, continuous lamination, continuous casting, polymer casting, 
pultrusion, sheet molding compound

[[Page 15963]]

manufacturing, bulk molding compound (BMC) manufacturing, mixing, 
cleaning of equipment used in reinforced plastic composites 
manufacture, HAP-containing materials storage, and repair operations on 
manufactured parts (40 CFR 63.5790). Most existing major sources are 
required to incorporate pollution-prevention techniques in their 
production processes. These techniques include the following: Using raw 
materials containing low amounts of regulated HAP; non-atomized resin 
application; and covering open resin baths and tanks.

C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our May 17, 
2019, proposal?

    On May 17, 2019, the EPA published proposed rules in the Federal 
Register for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
VVVV, and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP, 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart WWWW, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. 
In the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks due to emissions of 
air toxics from these source categories under the current standards are 
acceptable and that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health, and, therefore, no additional emission 
reductions are necessary. For the technology reviews, we did not 
identify any developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies, and, therefore, we did not propose any changes to the 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). We did, however, solicit 
comments on the feasibility and associated cost of revising the NESHAP 
to include a work practice standard that would require controlled-spray 
operator training.
    Additionally, the EPA proposed amendments to provisions addressing 
emissions during periods of SSM and to provisions regarding electronic 
reporting of performance test and performance evaluation results and 
semiannual reports, and proposed an amendment to the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production NESHAP to clarify that mixers that route to a 
capture and control device system with at least 95-percent efficiency 
overall are not required to have covers.

III. What is included in these final rules?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production source categories. This actions also 
finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including:
     Amending provisions addressing emissions during periods of 
SSM;
     Amending provisions regarding electronic reporting of 
performance test and performance evaluation results and semiannual 
reports; and
     An amendment to the Reinforced Plastic Composites 
Production NESHAP to clarify that mixers that route to a capture and 
control device system with at least 95-percent efficiency overall are 
not required to have covers.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
source categories?

    This section introduces the final amendments to the Boat 
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP being 
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). Consistent with the 
proposed findings for these NESHAP, the EPA is finalizing our 
determination that the risks due to emissions of air toxics from these 
source categories under the current standards are acceptable and that 
the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health. The EPA proposed no changes to these two subparts based on the 
risk reviews conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA received 
no new data or other information during the public comment period that 
causes us to change that proposed determination. Therefore, we are not 
requiring additional controls under CAA section 112(f)(2) for either of 
the two subparts in this action, and we are not making any changes to 
the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2). In other words, we 
are readopting the standards for both subparts.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the source categories?

    Consistent with the proposed findings for these NESHAP, we 
determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for 
either of these source categories. Therefore, we are not finalizing any 
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods SSM?

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Boat Manufacturing 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV) and the Plastic Composites 
Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW) to remove and revise 
the provisions related to 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 (h)(1), holding 
that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or 
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption 
violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards 
apply continuously. As detailed in section IV.D and IV.I of the 
proposal preamble for these NESHAP (84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17, 
2019), Table 8 to subpart VVVV of part 63 and Table 15 to subpart WWWW 
of part 63 (General Provisions applicability tables) are being revised 
to require that the standards apply at all times. We also eliminated or 
revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made other harmonizing changes 
to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language 
in the absence of the SSM exemption. We determined that facilities in 
both of these source categories can meet the applicable emission 
standards in the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Plastic Composites 
Production NESHAP at all times, including periods of startup and 
shutdown. Therefore, the EPA determined that no additional standards 
are needed to address emissions during these periods. The legal 
rationale and explanation of the changes to the SSM requirements are 
set forth in the proposed rules. See 84 FR 22660 through 22662 and 
22668 through 222669, May 17, 2019.
    Further, the EPA is not implementing standards for malfunctions. As 
discussed in sections IV.D and IV.I of the May 17, 2019, proposal 
preamble, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions 
that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into 
development of CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the 
discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. For these 
source categories, it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a 
violation of the standards, and no comments were submitted that would 
suggest otherwise. Refer to section IV.D and IV.I of the May 17, 2019, 
proposal preamble for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the 
decision not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion 
of the actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source 
fails to

[[Page 15964]]

comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of 
a malfunction event, given that administrative and judicial procedures 
for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that 
violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can 
accommodate those situations.
    The EPA is finalizing a revision to the performance testing 
requirements at 40 CFR 63.5765 and 63.5912. The final performance 
testing provisions prohibit performance testing during SSM for 
demonstrating compliance as these conditions are not representative of 
normal operating conditions. The final rules also require that 
operators maintain records to document that operating conditions during 
performance tests represent normal conditions.

D. What are the final rule amendments for electronic reporting for the 
source categories?

    The EPA is finalizing electronic reporting requirements that apply 
to owners and operators of facilities subject to the Boat Manufacturing 
NESHAP and the Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. Owners and 
operations are required to submit electronic copies of performance test 
reports and performance evaluation reports 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 the dockets for both rules at Docket ID 
Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447-0082 and EPA-HQ-2016-0449-0047. The 
final rule requires that performance test and performance evaluation 
report results collected using test methods that are supported by the 
EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \2\ 
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 using the attachment module of the ERT. For 
semiannual reports, the final rule requires that owners and operators 
use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to 
CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for these reports is 
included in the dockets for this rulemaking (Docket ID Item Nos. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0447-0082 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449-0047). Electronic 
reporting requirements are discussed further in section IV.D and V.D of 
this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Boat 
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source 
categories?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on March 20, 2020.
    The EPA is finalizing rule revisions that require affected sources 
in the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production 
source categories that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before May 17, 2019, to comply with all the amendments, including the 
electronic format for submitting performance test and performance 
evaluation results and compliance reports, no later than 180 days after 
the effective date of the final rule. Affected sources that commence 
construction or reconstruction after May 17, 2019, must comply with all 
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being finalized, 
no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, 
whichever is later, with the exception of the electronic format for 
submitting compliance reports. Affected sources that commence 
construction or reconstruction after May 17, 2019, must comply with all 
requirements for the electronic format for submitting compliance 
reports no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final 
rule or upon startup, whichever is later. The EPA's rationale for these 
compliance deadlines appears in the proposal preamble (84 FR 22664 and 
22670, May 17, 2019). All affected facilities for the Boat 
Manufacturing source category must continue to meet the current 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, and for the Plastic 
Composites Production source category must continue to meet the current 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, until the applicable 
compliance date of the amended rule.

F. What are the electronic reporting requirements?

    The EPA is requiring owners and operators of boat manufacturing and 
reinforced plastic composites production facilities to submit 
electronic copies of certain required performance test reports, 
performance evaluation reports, and periodic reports through the EPA's 
CDX using the CEDRI. The final rule requires that performance test and 
performance evaluation test results be submitted using the ERT. For the 
periodic compliance reports, the final rule requires that owners and 
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI. The final version of the templates for these 
reports will be located on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri).
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this 
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. For a more 
thorough discussion of electronic reporting, see the memorandum on e-
reporting, available in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 and 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449.

G. What are the final rule amendments regarding covers for mixers that 
route to a control device system?

    In this action, we are finalizing an amendment to Table 4 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart WWWW, to clarify that mixers that route emissions to a 
capture and control device system that is at least 95-percent efficient 
overall are not required to have covers. In the 2003 NESHAP rulemaking, 
we determined that MACT for existing sources was pollution prevention 
measures (for mixing and BMC manufacturing operations) and that MACT 
for new sources was 95-percent control. We also considered whether the 
new source MACT floor for mixing operations should be incorporation of 
the pollution prevention measures (in this case covering the mixers) 
combined with 95-percent control. We determined that the best 
controlled facilities which route emissions to a 95-percent efficient 
control device do not also incorporate the best pollution prevention

[[Page 15965]]

techniques. Therefore, we concluded that combining the pollution 
prevention requirements with the 95-percent control requirements would 
result in an overall control level that exceeds the levels at the best 
controlled facilities (66 FR 40332, August 2, 2001). However, the text 
in table 4 of the regulation did not directly address whether mixers 
that capture and control emissions by 95 percent overall need to have 
covers. We have added text in line 6 of table 4 to clarify that covers 
are not required for mixers that fully capture and route emissions to a 
control device with at least 95-percent efficiency.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production 
source categories?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f)?
a. Boat Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, subpart VVVV) Source Category
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk 
review and presented the results of this review, along with our 
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of 
safety, in section IV.A of the proposed rule preamble (84 FR 22658, May 
17, 2019). The results of this review are presented briefly below in 
Table 2 of this preamble. Additional detail is provided in the residual 
risk technical support document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Boat Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the Boat 
Manufacturing Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447).

                                 Table 2--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for the Boat Manufacturing Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Cancer MIR (in 1 million)                                              Population
                                -----------------------------------------------     Cancer        Population     with risk of     Max chronic noncancer
                                                                                   incidence    with risk of 1-     10-in-1         hazard index (HI)
                                     Based on actual       Based on allowable     (cases per     in-1 million     million or    (actuals and allowables)
                                        emissions              emissions             year)        or greater        greater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................  0.2 (nickel compounds,  0.3 (nickel                   0.00001               0               0  HI < 1.
                                  ethyl benzene,          compounds, ethyl
                                  tetrachloroethene).     benzene,
                                                          tetrachloroethene).
Whole Facility.................  0.4 (naphthalene).....  .....................         0.00004               0               0  HI = 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed that the risks from the Boat Manufacturing source 
category were acceptable based on the health risk information and 
factors discussed in section IV.C of the proposal for this rulemaking 
(84 FR 22658, May 17, 2019). As explained in section II.A of the 
proposal 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 maximum individual risk (MIR) of approximately 1-
in-10 thousand (84 FR 22644, May 17, 2019).''
    For the Boat Manufacturing source category, the risk analysis 
indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed is 0.2-
in-1 million based on actual emissions and is 0.3-in-1 million based on 
allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 
million (or 1-in-10 thousand), which is the presumptive upper limit of 
acceptable risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that ``a 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 (54 FR 38057, September 14, 
1989). The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.00001 
cases per year for actual emissions and 0.00002 cases per year for 
allowable emissions). Based on our analysis, we did not identify 
potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects; all target 
organ specific health indexes (TOSHIs) were less than 1. The acute 
noncancer risks based on actual emissions are not greater than a hazard 
quotient (HQ) of 1 for styrene. Therefore, we find there is little 
potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts from actual 
emissions. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant 
potential for multipathway health effects or ecological effects. For 
all the reasons stated, the risk from the Boat Manufacturing source 
category were found to be acceptable.
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated 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 in this source category to 
further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP, 
considering all of the health risks and other health information 
considered in the risk acceptability determination described above. In 
this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk 
assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine 
whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that 
would reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the Boat Manufacturing 
source category are low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, 
and, therefore, any risk reductions from further available control 
options would result in minimal health benefits. As noted in section 
IV.C of the proposal preamble,

[[Page 15966]]

no additional control measures were identified for reducing HAP 
emissions from the Boat Manufacturing source category (84 FR 22660, May 
17, 2019). Thus, we proposed that the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect health and we are not 
making any changes to the existing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2).
b. Reinforced Plastic Composites Production (40 CFR Part 63, subpart 
WWWW) Source Category
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk 
review and presented the results of this review, along with our 
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of 
safety, in section IV.F of the proposed rule preamble (84 FR 22664, May 
17, 2019). The results of this review are presented briefly below in 
Table 3 of this preamble. Additional detail is provided in the residual 
risk technical support document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Category in Support of 
the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available 
in the Boat Manufacturing Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449).

                      Table 3--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Cancer MIR (in 1 million)                                              Population
                                -----------------------------------------------     Cancer        Population     with risk of     Max chronic noncancer
                                                                                   incidence    with risk of 1-     10-in-1         hazard index (HI)
                                     Based on actual       Based on allowable     (cases per     in-1 million     million or    (actuals and allowables)
                                        emissions              emissions             year)        or greater        greater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................  4 (formaldehyde, ethyl  4 (formaldehyde,                0.001           1,500               0  HI = 1.
                                  benzene).               ethyl benzene).
Whole Facility.................  20....................  .....................           0.001           4,500             800  HI = 1.
                                 (cadmium,7-12-
                                  dimethylbenz
                                  [a]anthracene,
                                  nickel, formaldehyde).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed that the risks from the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production source category were acceptable based on the 
health risk information and factors discussed in section IV.G of the 
proposal for this rulemaking (84 FR 22666, May 17, 2019). As explained 
in section II.A of the proposal 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 (84 FR 22644, May 17, 2019).''
    For the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category, 
the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual 
most exposed is 4-in-1 million based on actual emissions and is 4-in-1 
million based on allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less 
than 100-in-1 million (or 1-in-10 thousand), which is the presumptive 
upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low 
cancer incidence (0.001 cases per year for actual emissions and 0.001 
cases per year for allowable emissions). We did not identify potential 
for adverse chronic noncancer health effects; the TOSHIs were equal to 
1. The results of the acute screening analysis estimate a maximum acute 
noncancer HQ of 3 based on the acute recommended exposure limit for 
styrene. The maximum off-site concentration for this HAP was also 
compared to EPA's Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL-1) and 
Emergency Response Planning Guideline (ERPG-1) levels and, in all 
cases, the HQ was less than 1, below the level at which mild, 
reversible effects would be anticipated. This information, in addition 
to the conservative (health protective) assumptions built into the 
screening assessment, leads us to conclude that adverse effects from 
acute exposure to emissions of this HAP from this category are not 
anticipated. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant 
potential for multipathway health effects or ecological effects. 
Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed 
above, we proposed that the risks from the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production source category are acceptable.
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated 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 in this source category to 
further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP, 
considering all of the health risks and other health information 
considered in the risk acceptability determination described above. In 
this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk 
assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine 
whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that 
would reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production source category are low for both cancer and 
noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any risk reductions from 
further available control options would result in minimal health 
benefits. As noted in section IV.H of the proposal preamble, no 
additional control measures were identified for reducing HAP emissions 
from sources in the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source 
category (84 FR 22667, May 17, 2019). Thus, we proposed that the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect health and we are not making any changes to 
the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).
2. How did the risk review change for these source categories?
    The EPA has not changed any aspect of the risk assessment for 
either of these two source categories as a result of public comments 
received on the May 2019 proposal.

[[Page 15967]]

3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    The EPA received comments in support of and against the proposed 
residual risk review and our determination that no revisions were 
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for either source category. 
Generally, the comments that did not support the proposed 
determinations that the risks are acceptable and that the existing 
standards provide an ample margin of safety also asserted that changes 
to the underlying risk assessment methodology were needed. For example, 
one commenter stated that the EPA should lower the acceptability 
benchmark and not assume that risks below 100-in-1 million are 
inherently acceptable, include emissions from outside of the source 
categories in question in the risk assessment, and assume that 
pollutants with noncancer health risks have no safe level of exposure. 
Generally, the comments that were supportive of the proposed 
determinations of the residual risk review agreed with our underlying 
risk assessment methodology and data inputs and asked for the rule to 
be finalized as soon as possible to provide regulatory certainty. After 
review of all the comments received, we decided not to make any changes 
to the residual risk review. The comments and our specific responses 
can be found in the document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses 
on Proposed Rule (84 FR 22642, May 17, 2019), available in the dockets 
for these actions (Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0449).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, 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 the MIR of approximately 1-in-10 
thousand (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).'' We weigh all health 
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the 
cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI, the 
maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the 
distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, 
and the risk estimation uncertainties.
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations 
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse 
environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the 
proposed rule, we determine that the risks from the Boat Manufacturing 
and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories are 
acceptable, and that the current standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental 
effect. Therefore, we are not revising either subpart to require 
additional controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the 
residual risk review, and we are readopting the existing standards 
under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Reviews for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production Source Categories

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)?
    Based on our review, the EPA did not identify any developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies for the Boat 
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source 
categories, and, therefore, we did not propose any changes to the 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Brief summaries of the EPA's 
findings in conducting the technology review of Boat Manufacturing and 
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories were 
included in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 22642, 22660, 
22667, May 17, 2019), and detailed discussions of the EPA's technology 
review and findings were included in the memorandum, Technology Review 
for Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production 
Source Category, June 1, 2018, which can be found in the dockets for 
both source categories (Docket ID Nos. EPA-OAR-HQ-2016-0447 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0449).
2. How did the technology reviews change?
    The EPA is making no changes to the conclusions of the technology 
review and is finalizing the results of the technology reviews for the 
Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source 
categories as proposed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    The EPA received one comment on the proposed technology review for 
the Boat Manufacturing source category. This commenter supported our 
proposed determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA 
section 112(d)(6) for the Boat Manufacturing source category. No 
comments were received on the technology review for the Reinforced 
Plastic Composites source category.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    As we received no adverse comments on our proposed technology 
reviews or the proposed determinations based on those reviews, we are 
finalizing the reviews as proposed and making no changes to the 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The rationale for and 
results of our technology reviews are explained in the preamble to the 
proposed rules (84 FR 22660 and 22667, May 17, 2019).

C. SSM Provisions

1. What did we propose for SSM?
    In the May 17, 2019, action, the EPA proposed amendments to the 
Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced Plastic Composites 
Production NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that 
are not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all 
times. More information concerning the proposed amendments for the 
elimination of SSM exemption provisions is in the preamble to the 
proposed rules (84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17, 2019).
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no 
changes (84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17, 2019).
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions and what are 
our responses?
    We received several comments in support of the proposed SSM 
amendments for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites 
source categories. One commenter also stated that the proposed 
amendments will have no impact on the Boat Manufacturing industry.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and after evaluation 
of the comments on the proposed amendments to the SSM provisions for

[[Page 15968]]

the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced Plastic Composites 
Production NESHAP, we are finalizing the proposed revisions related to 
SSM that are inconsistent with the requirement that the standards apply 
at all times. More information concerning the proposed amendments to 
the SSM provisions is in the preamble for each of the proposed rules 
(84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17, 2019).

D. Electronic Reporting Provisions

1. What did we propose?
    In the May 17, 2019, action, we proposed that owners and operators 
of facilities subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP submit electronic copies of 
performance test and performance evaluation results and semiannual 
reports through the EPA's CDX, using the CEDRI Interface. A description 
of the electronic 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), August 8, 2018, in the dockets for Boat Manufacturing (Docket 
ID No. EPA-OAR-HQ-2016-0447) and Reinforced Plastic Composites (Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449). The proposed rule requirement would 
replace the current rule requirement to submit these notifications and 
reports to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40 
CFR 63.13. The proposed rule requirement would not affect submittals 
required by state air agencies. The proposed compliance schedule 
language in 40 CFR 63.5765(c) and 63.5912(c) for submission of 
semiannual compliance reports gives facilities 181 days after the final 
rule is published to begin electronic reporting or 1 year after the 40 
CFR part 63, subparts VVVV and WWWW, semiannual compliance report 
template for both source categories is available in CEDRI, whichever is 
later.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is finalizing the electronic reporting provisions as 
proposed with no changes (84 FR 22662 and 22669, May 17, 2019).
3. What key comments did we receive on the electronic reporting 
provisions and what are our responses?
    The EPA received several comments that were generally supportive of 
the proposed electronic reporting requirements. One commenter stated 
that the proposed electronic reporting requirements will reduce 
``regulatory burden imposed on this sector by helping to minimize waste 
of resources and streamline operations.''
    4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the electronic 
reporting provisions?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and after evaluation 
of the comments on the proposed amendments, the EPA is requiring owners 
and operators of facilities subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP 
and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP to submit 
electronic copies of performance test and performance evaluation 
results and semiannual reports through the EPA's CDX, using CEDRI. The 
rationale for the proposed amendments to the electronic reporting 
provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 22662 and 
22669, May 17, 2019). This rationale also supports our determination to 
finalize these requirements as proposed.

E. Work Practice Standards for Controlled-Spray Training

1. What did we propose for a controlled-spray operator training 
program?
    The EPA requested comment on the potential costs and benefits of 
revising the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production NESHAP to include a controlled-spray training 
program for operations where styrene-containing resins and gel coats 
are sprayed onto an open mold. We specifically asked for feedback on 
whether this practice is widely used in industry, whether significant 
HAP reductions can be achieved industry-wide and whether HAP reductions 
could be applicable to all open mold production operations. A more 
detailed description of the potential revisions and amendatory rule 
text were provided in the dockets for both rulemakings (Docket ID Item 
Nos. EPA-OAR-HQ-2016-0447-0079 and EPA-OAR-HQ-2016-0049-0044).
2. What changed since proposal?
    For reasons described below, the EPA has decided not to add 
provisions requiring a controlled-spray operator training program for 
styrene-containing resins and gel coats sprayed onto an open mold.
3. What key comments did we receive on the work practice standards and 
what are our responses?
    Comment: The EPA received mixed comments on the inclusion of a work 
practice standard for controlled-spray operator training. Some 
commenters argued that EPA was obligated to include a training program, 
while other commenters objected to the inclusion of such a program. One 
commenter argued that EPA must adopt controlled spray training as a 
technological development based on the statutory requirements of CAA 
section 112(d)(6). A commenter also argued that the program must be 
included in the final rule as a measure for reducing emissions and 
therefore reducing health risk to satisfy the `ample margin of safety' 
requirements under CAA section 112(f)(2). Other commenters objected to 
the inclusion of the controlled spray-training program, arguing that it 
would achieve no additional environmental benefit and would impose 
unwarranted regulatory burden. Some commenters also asserted that 
requirements to weigh overspray of resins and gel coats does not 
provide any additional environmental benefit and is overly burdensome.
    Response: The EPA has decided not to add a work practice for 
controlled spray operator training to either the Boat Manufacturing 
NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. The 
EPA acknowledges that a controlled-spray training could be considered a 
potential development in practices. Even if the agency were to conclude 
it is a development, however, no changes to these NESHAP would be 
warranted. We do not have enough information at this time to conclude 
that a controlled-spray program implemented for boat manufacturing and 
reinforced plastic composites production facilities would result in 
environmental benefits and we cannot quantify the burden on affected 
facilities. The EPA did not receive any additional information 
regarding potential environmental benefits or costs associated with 
such a program for these source categories during the comment period. 
For these reasons, the EPA has concluded, based on the available 
information, that even if the spray operator training program were 
found to be a development, changes to the standards would not be 
required under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA analyzes whether 
there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that would 
reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. The EPA is not able, based 
on the information currently available to it, to conclude that the 
controlled-spray operator training program would be cost effective for 
either source category or that it would have any environmental benefit. 
As such, the EPA has concluded, based

[[Page 15969]]

on the available information on the cost and feasibility of the program 
and considering all of the health risks and other health information 
considered in the risk acceptability determination, that the program is 
not needed to provide an ample margin of safety.
4. What is the rationale for our final decision with regard to the work 
practice standards?
    The EPA could not determine that requiring a work practice standard 
for controlled-spray operator training in the NESHAP for the Boat 
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source 
categories would provide an environmental benefit, and, therefore, 
could not determine if such programs would be cost effective. The EPA 
did not receive any information regarding the potential costs of 
revising the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production NESHAP to include controlled-spray training as a 
work practice standard during the comment period for both regulatory 
actions. Given this uncertainty for program costs and benefits, we have 
also determined that the controlled-spray operator training program is 
not needed to provide an ample margin of safety.
    For these reasons, the EPA has decided not to add work practice 
standards for controlled-spray operator training to either the Boat 
Manufacturing NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic Composites 
Production NESHAP.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The EPA estimates that there are 93 boat manufacturing facilities 
that are subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP affected by the 
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, and 448 reinforced 
plastic composites production facilities subject to the Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production NESHAP, affected by the proposed 
amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. The basis of our estimates 
of affected facilities are provided in the memorandum, Emissions Data 
for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Boat Manufacturing and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production, which is 
available in the respective dockets for this action. We are not 
currently aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed 
manufacturing facilities in either of the source categories.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    All major sources in the two source categories would be required to 
comply with the relevant emission standards at all times without the 
SSM exemption. We were unable to quantify the specific emissions 
reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption. However, 
eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by 
requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM 
periods.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The one-time cost associated with reviewing the revised rules and 
becoming familiar with the electronic reporting requirements is 
estimated to be $446,448 (2016$); the one-time cost is composed of 
$75,629 for the Boat Manufacturing source category (93 facilities), and 
$370,819 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source 
category (448 facilities). The total cost per facility in the Boat 
Manufacturing source category is estimated to be $399 per facility to 
review the final rule requirements and $414 per facility to become 
familiar with the electronic reporting requirements. The total cost per 
facility in the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source 
category is estimated to be $414 per facility to review the final rule 
requirements and $414 per facility to become familiar with the 
electronic reporting requirements. All other costs associated with 
notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping are assumed to be unchanged 
because the facilities in each source category are currently required 
to comply with notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, 
and will continue to be required to comply with those requirements. The 
number of personnel-hours required to develop the materials in support 
of reports required by the NESHAP remain unchanged.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The cost per facility for all of the facilities in both source 
categories to review the proposed rule requirements and to become 
familiar with the electronic reporting requirements are less than 1 
percent of annual sales revenues. These costs are not expected to 
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are 
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
    In addition, the EPA prepared a small business screening assessment 
to determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small 
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. As 
result of our small business screening, we have identified 73 out of 
the 93 facilities in the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP as small entities, 
while 309 out of the 448 facilities in the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production NESHAP are small entities. For both industries, 
the costs associated with becoming familiar with the proposed rule 
requirements and to become familiar with the electronic reporting 
requirements are less than 1 percent of their annual sales revenues. 
Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial 
number of small entities from these proposed amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result 
of the proposed amendments to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP or the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. Because these proposed 
amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by 
Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions were 
estimated, we did not estimate any health benefits from reducing 
emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    The EPA performed a demographic analysis for each source category, 
which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups, of 
the population close to the facilities (within 50 kilometers (km) and 
within 5 km). In our analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-
related cancer risks and noncancer hazards from the Boat Manufacturing 
source category and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source 
category across different social, demographic, and economic groups 
within the populations living near operations identified as having the 
highest risks.
    Results of the demographic analysis performed for the Boat 
Manufacturing source category indicate that, for seven of the 11 
demographic groups, Hispanic or Latino, minority, people living below 
the poverty level, linguistically isolated people, adults without a 
high school diploma, adults 65 years of age or older, and African 
Americans that reside within 5 km of facilities in the source category 
is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same 
demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to 
emissions from boat manufacturing facilities, we find that no one is 
exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic

[[Page 15970]]

noncancer TOSHI greater than 1, and that risks are acceptable for all 
populations.
    The results of the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source 
category demographic analysis indicate that populations residing within 
50 km of facilities in the source category for three of the 11 
demographic groups; minority populations, people living below the 
poverty level, ages 0 to 17, and adults without a high school diploma 
is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same 
demographic groups. However, emissions from the source category expose 
approximately 1,600 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million, 
but no cancer risk greater than 4-in-1 million (Docket ID Item No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0449-0228). When examining the demographics for those 
exposed to cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million from reinforced 
plastic composites production facilities, we find that four of the 10 
demographic groups; African American, ages 0 to 17, over 25 without a 
high school diploma, and people below the poverty level are exposed to 
a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million. For chronic noncancer risks, 
no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. A review 
of all risks from this source category is considered acceptable for all 
populations.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    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 
IIIA. and IV.A and B of the proposal for this rule (84 FR 22684 through 
22660, May 17, 2019) and are further documented in the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Boat Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 
2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, and the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Reinforced Plastic Composites 
Production Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology 
Review Proposed Rule (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447-0035 and 
Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449-0014).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

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

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection 
Request (ICR) documents that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 1966.09 for the Boat Manufacturing source category and 1976.09 
for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category. You 
can find a copy of these ICR documents in the dockets for these rules, 
and they are briefly summarized here. The information collection 
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. A brief 
summary of the information collection requirements for Boat 
Manufacturing and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production 
categories is provided in sections VI.C.1 and VI.C.2 of this preamble.
1. Boat Manufacturing
    We are finalizing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, in the form 
of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; including 
reporting requirements for deviations in the semiannual report; and 
including the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In 
addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards changed 
since the original ICR was finalized.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of boat 
manufacturing facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart VVVV).
    Estimated number of respondents: 93 facilities.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule 
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual 
compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for responding facilities to comply with all the requirements in 
the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 
7,914 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost 
for responding facilities to comply with all the requirements in the 
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 
$816,500 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated capital and 
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
2. Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
    We are finalizing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, in the form 
of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; including 
reporting requirements for deviations in the semiannual report; and 
including the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In 
addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards changed 
since the original ICR was finalized.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of reinforced 
plastic composites production facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart WWWW.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart WWWW).
    Estimated number of respondents: 448 facilities.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule 
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual 
compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements 
in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to 
be 38,125 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost 
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the 
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 
$3,933,400 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated capital and O&M 
costs.

[[Page 15971]]

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. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action include small 
businesses engaged in either the Boat Manufacturing or Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production source categories. The Agency has 
determined that 73 boat manufacturing facilities and 309 reinforced 
plastic composites production facilities are small entities, and that 
these small entities may experience an impact of less than 1 percent of 
annual sales. Additional discussion of the cost impacts can be found in 
section V.D of this preamble.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in 
the Boat Manufacturing or Reinforced Plastic Composites Production 
source categories and would not be affected by this action. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III.A and IV.A and B of the proposal for this rule (84 FR 
22684 through 22660, May 17, 2019).

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA has determined that this action does not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or 
indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in 
sections IV.A, IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of the proposal preamble (84 FR 
22658 through 22667, May 17, 2019). For both source categories, the 
risks were found to be acceptable for all populations, including 
minority pollutions, low-income populations, and/or indigenous people.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 25, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is 
amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VVVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing


Sec.  63.5764  [Amended]

0
2. Section 63.5764 is amended by removing paragraph (e).

0
3. Section 63.5765 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5765  How do I submit my reports?

    (a) 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 
(a)(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 the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (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 paragraph (a)(1) of this section 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

[[Page 15972]]

the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (b) 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 (b)(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. If you claim some of the 
information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section 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 (a)(1) of this section.
    (c) For sources that commence construction or reconstruction before 
or on May 17, 2019, you must submit to the Administrator semiannual 
compliance reports of the information required in Sec.  63.5764(c) and 
(d) beginning on September 16, 2020. For sources that commence 
construction or reconstruction after May 17, 2019, you must submit to 
the Administrator semiannual compliance reports of the information 
required in Sec.  63.5764(c) and (d) beginning on March 20, 2020, or 
upon startup, whichever is later.
    (d) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure 
specified in this paragraph (d), beginning on September 16, 2020, you 
must submit all subsequent reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be 
accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). 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. 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 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 or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema 
listed 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 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 (d).
    (e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (e)(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.
    (f) 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 majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (f)(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 outages).
    (2) 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.
    (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;

[[Page 15973]]

    (iii) A description of 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
4. Section 63.5767 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.5767  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (d) If your facility has an add-on control device, you must keep 
the records of any failures to meet the applicable standards, including 
the date, time, and duration of the failure; a list of the affected 
add-on control device and actions taken to minimize emissions, 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; control device performance tests; and continuous monitoring 
system performance evaluations.

0
5. Section 63.5770 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.5770  In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

* * * * *
    (e) 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
6. Section 63.5779 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the definition for ``Deviation''; and
0
 b. Adding definitions for ``Deviation after'', ``Deviation before'', 
``Shutdown'', and ``Startup'' in alphabetical order.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.5779  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation after September 16, 2020, means any instance in which an 
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 
such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit.
    Deviation before September 17, 2020 means any instance in which an 
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 
such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work 
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart.
* * * * *
    Shutdown after September 16, 2020, means the cessation of operation 
of the add-on control devices.
* * * * *
    Startup after September 17, 2020, means the setting in operation of 
the add-on control devices.
* * * * *

0
7. Table 8 to subpart VVVV of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 8 to Subpart VVVV of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart A) to Subpart VVVV

    As specified in Sec.  63.5773, you must comply with the applicable 
requirements of the General Provisions according to the following 
table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Citation                       Requirement       Applies to  subpart VVVV       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)..........................  General Applicability  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.1(b)..........................  Initial Applicability  Yes                       .....................
                                           Determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1).......................  Applicability After    Yes                       .....................
                                           Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2).......................  .....................  Yes.....................  Area sources are not
                                                                                            regulated by subpart
                                                                                            VVVV.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3).......................  .....................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(c)(4)-(5)...................  .....................  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.1(d)..........................  .....................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(e)..........................  Applicability of       Yes                       .....................
                                           Permit Program.
Sec.   63.2.............................  Definitions..........  Yes.....................  Additional
                                                                                            definitions are
                                                                                            found in Sec.
                                                                                            63.5779.
Sec.   63.3.............................  Units and              Yes                       .....................
                                           Abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4(a)..........................  Prohibited Activities  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)......................  Circumvention/         Yes                       .....................
                                           Severability.
Sec.   63.5(a)..........................  Construction/          Yes                       .....................
                                           Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)..........................  Requirements for       Yes                       .....................
                                           Existing, Newly
                                           Constructed, and
                                           Reconstructed
                                           Sources.
Sec.   63.5(c)..........................  .....................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.5(d)..........................  Application for        Yes                       .....................
                                           Approval of
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e)..........................  Approval of            Yes                       .....................
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)..........................  Approval of            Yes                       .....................
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction Based
                                           on prior State
                                           Review.
Sec.   63.6(a)..........................  Compliance with        Yes                       .....................
                                           Standards and
                                           Maintenance
                                           Requirements--Applic
                                           ability.

[[Page 15974]]

 
Sec.   63.6(b)..........................  Compliance Dates for   Yes.....................  Sec.   63.695
                                           New and                                          specifies compliance
                                           Reconstructed                                    dates, including the
                                           Sources.                                         compliance date for
                                                                                            new area sources
                                                                                            that become major
                                                                                            sources after the
                                                                                            effective date of
                                                                                            the rule.
Sec.   63.6(c)..........................  Compliance Dates for   Yes.....................  Sec.   63.5695
                                           Existing Sources.                                specifies compliance
                                                                                            dates, including the
                                                                                            compliance date for
                                                                                            existing area
                                                                                            sources that become
                                                                                            major sources after
                                                                                            the effective date
                                                                                            of the rule.
Sec.   63.6(d)..........................  .....................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2)...................  Operation and          No......................  Operating
                                           Maintenance                                      requirements for
                                           Requirements.                                    open molding
                                                                                            operations with add-
                                                                                            on controls are
                                                                                            specified in Sec.
                                                                                            63.5725.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).......................  Startup, Shut Down,    No......................  Only sources with add-
                                           and Malfunction                                  on controls must
                                           Plans.                                           complete startup,
                                                                                            shutdown, and
                                                                                            malfunction plans.
Sec.   63.6(f)..........................  Compliance with        Yes                       .....................
                                           Nonopacity Emission
                                           Standards.
Sec.   63.6(g)..........................  Use of an Alternative  Yes                       .....................
                                           Nonopacity Emission
                                           Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)..........................  Compliance with        No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                           Opacity/Visible                                  specify opacity or
                                           Emissions Standards.                             visible emission
                                                                                            standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)..........................  Extension of           Yes                       .....................
                                           Compliance with
                                           Emission Standards.
Sec.   63.6(j)..........................  Exemption from         Yes                       .....................
                                           Compliance with
                                           Emission Standards.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1).......................  Performance Test       Yes                       .....................
                                           Requirements.
Sec.   63.7(a)(2).......................  Dates for performance  No......................  Sec.   63.5716
                                           tests.                                           specifies
                                                                                            performance test
                                                                                            dates.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).......................  Performance testing    Yes                       .....................
                                           at other times.
Sec.   63.7(b)-(h)......................  Other performance      Yes                       .....................
                                           testing requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)...................  Monitoring             Yes.....................  All of Sec.   63.8
                                           Requirements--Applic                             applies only to
                                           ability.                                         sources with add-on
                                                                                            controls. Additional
                                                                                            monitoring
                                                                                            requirements for
                                                                                            sources with add-on
                                                                                            controls are found
                                                                                            in Sec.   63.5725.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).......................  .....................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).......................  .....................  No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                                                                            refer directly or
                                                                                            indirectly to Sec.
                                                                                            63.11.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).......................  Conduct of Monitoring  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)...................  Multiple Effluents     Yes.....................  Applies to sources
                                           and Multiple CMS.                                that use a CMS on
                                                                                            the control device
                                                                                            stack.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii)..........  CMS Operation and      No......................  References to
                                           Maintenance.                                     startup, shutdown,
                                                                                            malfunction are not
                                                                                            applicable.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)-(4)...................  CMS Operation and      Yes.....................  Except those
                                           Maintenance.                                     provisions in Sec.
                                                                                            63.8(c)(1)(i) and
                                                                                            (iii) as noted
                                                                                            above.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).......................  Continuous Opacity     No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                           Monitoring Systems                               have opacity or
                                           (COMS).                                          visible emission
                                                                                            standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)...................  CMS Calibration        Yes                       .....................
                                           Checks and Out-of-
                                           Control Periods.
Sec.   63.8(d)..........................  Quality Control        Yes.....................  Except those
                                           Program.                                         provisions of Sec.
                                                                                            63.8(d)(3) regarding
                                                                                            a startup, shutdown,
                                                                                            malfunction plan as
                                                                                            noted below
Sec.   63.8(d)(3).......................  Quality Control        No......................  No requirement for a
                                           Program.                                         startup, shutdown,
                                                                                            malfunction plan.
Sec.   63.8(e)..........................  CMS Performance        Yes                       .....................
                                           Evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)...................  Use of an Alternative  Yes                       .....................
                                           Monitoring Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).......................  Alternative to         Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Relative Accuracy                                sources that use
                                           Test.                                            continuous emission
                                                                                            monitoring systems
                                                                                            (CEMS).
Sec.   63.8(g)..........................  Data Reduction.......  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.9(a)..........................  Notification           Yes                       .....................
                                           Requirements--Applic
                                           ability.
Sec.   63.9(b)..........................  Initial Notifications  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.9(c)..........................  Request for            Yes                       .....................
                                           Compliance Extension.
Sec.   63.9(d)..........................  Notification That a    Yes                       .....................
                                           New Source Is
                                           Subject to Special
                                           Compliance
                                           Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(e)..........................  Notification of        Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Performance Test.                                sources with add-on
                                                                                            controls.
Sec.   63.9(f)..........................  Notification of        No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                           Visible Emissions/                               have opacity or
                                           Opacity Test.                                    visible emission
                                                                                            standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1).......................  Additional CMS         Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Notifications--Date                              sources with add-on
                                           of CMS Performance                               controls.
                                           Evaluation.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2).......................  Use of COMS Data.....  No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                                                                            require the use of
                                                                                            COMS.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3).......................  Alternative to         Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Relative Accuracy                                sources with CEMS.
                                           Testing.
Sec.   63.9(h)..........................  Notification of        Yes                       .....................
                                           Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.9(i)..........................  Adjustment of          Yes                       .....................
                                           Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)..........................  Change in Previous     Yes                       .....................
                                           Information.

[[Page 15975]]

 
Sec.   63.10(a).........................  Recordkeeping/         Yes                       .....................
                                           Reporting--Applicabi
                                           lity.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)......................  General Recordkeeping  Yes.....................  Sec.  Sec.   63.567
                                           Requirements.                                    and 63.5770 specify
                                                                                            additional
                                                                                            recordkeeping
                                                                                            requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i), (iii), (vi)-(xiv)  General Recordkeeping  Yes                       .....................
                                           Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii), (iv), (v).......  Recordkeeping          No                        .....................
                                           Relevant to Startup,
                                           Shutdown, and
                                           Malfunction Periods.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)......................  Recordkeeping          Yes.....................  Sec.   63.5686
                                           Requirements for                                 specifies
                                           Applicability                                    applicability
                                           Determinations.                                  determinations for
                                                                                            non-major sources.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(14).................  Additional             Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Recordkeeping for                                sources with add-on
                                           Sources with CMS.                                controls.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15).....................  Additional             No......................  No requirement for a
                                           Recordkeeping for                                startup, shutdown,
                                           Sources with CMS.                                malfunction plan.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)......................  General Reporting      Yes.....................  Sec.   63.5764
                                           Requirements.                                    specifies additional
                                                                                            reporting
                                                                                            requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)......................  Performance Test       Yes.....................  Sec.   63.5764
                                           Results.                                         specifies additional
                                                                                            requirements for
                                                                                            reporting
                                                                                            performance test
                                                                                            results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)......................  Opacity or Visible     No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                           Emissions                                        specify opacity or
                                           Observations.                                    visible emission
                                                                                            standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)......................  Progress Reports for   Yes                       .....................
                                           Sources with
                                           Compliance
                                           Extensions.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)......................  Startup, Shutdown,     No......................  Applies only to
                                           and Malfunction                                  sources with add-on
                                           Reports.                                         controls.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)......................  Additional CMS         Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Reports--General.                                sources with add-on
                                                                                            controls.
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)......................  Reporting Results of   Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           CMS Performance                                  sources with add-on
                                           Evaluations.                                     controls.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)......................  Excess Emissions/CMS   Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Performance Reports.                             sources with add-on
                                                                                            controls.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)......................  COMS Data Reports....  No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                                                                            specify opacity or
                                                                                            visible emission
                                                                                            standards.
Sec.   63.10(f).........................  Recordkeeping/         Yes                       .....................
                                           Reporting Waiver.
Sec.   63.11............................  Control Device         No......................  Facilities subject to
                                           Requirements--Applic                             subpart VVVV do not
                                           ability.                                         use flares as
                                                                                            control devices.
Sec.   63.12............................  State Authority and    Yes.....................  Sec.   63.5776 lists
                                           Delegations.                                     those sections of
                                                                                            subpart A that are
                                                                                            not delegated.
Sec.   63.13............................  Addresses............  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.14............................  Incorporation by       Yes                       .....................
                                           Reference.
Sec.   63.15............................  Availability of        Yes                       .....................
                                           Information/
                                           Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart WWWW--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production

0
8. Section 63.5835 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
b. Removing paragraph (d).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  63.5835  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) You must be in compliance with all organic HAP emissions limits 
in this subpart that you meet using add-on controls at all times.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.5900 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
b. Removing paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  63.5900  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
standards?

* * * * *
    (c) You must meet the organic HAP emissions limits and work 
practice standards that apply to you at all times.

0
10. Section 63.5910 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(4); and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text and (e) and (h).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.5910  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (d) For each deviation from an organic HAP emissions limitation or 
operating limit and for each deviation from the requirements for work 
practice standards that occurs at an affected source where you are not 
using a CMS to comply with the organic HAP emissions limitations or 
work practice standards in this subpart, the compliance report must 
contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section and in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) For each deviation from an organic HAP emissions limitation 
(i.e., emissions limit and operating limit) occurring at an affected 
source where you are using a CMS to comply with the organic HAP 
emissions limitation in this subpart, you must include the information 
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section and in paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out of control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems, 
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (h) Submit compliance reports based on the requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  63.5910 and 63.5912 and table 14 to this subpart, and not 
based on the requirements in Sec.  63.999.
* * * * *

[[Page 15976]]


0
11. Section 63.5912 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5912  How do I submit my reports?

    (a) 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 
(a)(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 the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (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 paragraph (a)(1) of this section 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 (a)(1) of this section.
    (b) 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 (b)(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 paragraph (a)(1) of this section 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 (a)(1) of this section.
    (c) For sources that commence construction or reconstruction before 
or on May 17, 2019, you must submit to the Administrator semiannual 
compliance reports of the information required in Sec.  63.5910(c),(d), 
(e), (f), and (i) beginning on September 16, 2020. For sources that 
commence construction or reconstruction after May 17, 2019, you must 
submit to the Administrator semiannual compliance reports of the 
information required in Sec.  63.5910(c), (d), (e), (f), and (i) 
beginning on March 20, 2020, or upon startup, whichever is later.
    (d) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure 
specified in this paragraph (d), beginning on September 17, 2020, you 
must submit all subsequent reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be 
accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). 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. 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 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 or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema 
listed 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 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 (d).
    (e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (e)(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 five 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;

[[Page 15977]]

    (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.
    (f) 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 majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (f)(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 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) A description of 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.


Sec.  63.5915  [Amended]

0
12. Section 63.5915 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a)(2).

0
13. Section 63.5920 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.5920  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

* * * * *
    (e) 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
14. Section 63.5935 is amended by adding the definitions for 
``Deviation after'', ``Deviation before'', ``Shutdown'', and 
``Startup'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5935  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation after September 16, 2020, means any instance in which an 
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 
such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit.
    Deviation before September 17, 2020, means any instance in which an 
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 
such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work 
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart.
* * * * *
    Shutdown after September 16, 2020, means the cessation of operation 
of the add-on control devices.
* * * * *
    Startup after September 17, 2020, means the setting in operation of 
the add-on control devices.
* * * * *

0
15. Table 4 of subpart WWWW of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 4 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Work Practice Standards

    As specified in Sec.  63.5805, you must meet the work practice 
standards in the following table that apply to you:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A new or existing closed molding      Uncover, unwrap or expose only
 operation using compression/injection    one charge per mold cycle per
 molding.                                 compression/injection molding
                                          machine. For machines with
                                          multiple molds, one charge
                                          means sufficient material to
                                          fill all molds for one cycle.
                                          For machines with robotic
                                          loaders, no more than one
                                          charge may be exposed prior to
                                          the loader. For machines fed
                                          by hoppers, sufficient
                                          material may be uncovered to
                                          fill the hopper. Hoppers must
                                          be closed when not adding
                                          materials. Materials may be
                                          uncovered to feed to slitting
                                          machines. Materials must be
                                          recovered after slitting.

[[Page 15978]]

 
2. A new or existing cleaning operation  Not use cleaning solvents that
                                          contain HAP, except that
                                          styrene may be used as a
                                          cleaner in closed systems, and
                                          organic HAP containing
                                          cleaners may be used to clean
                                          cured resin from application
                                          equipment. Application
                                          equipment includes any
                                          equipment that directly
                                          contacts resin.
3. A new or existing materials HAP-      Keep containers that store HAP-
 containing materials storage operation.  containing materials closed or
                                          covered except during the
                                          addition or removal of
                                          materials. Bulk HAP-containing
                                          materials storage tanks may be
                                          vented as necessary for
                                          safety.
4. An existing or new SMC manufacturing  Close or cover the resin
 operation.                               delivery system to the doctor
                                          box on each SMC manufacturing
                                          machine. The doctor box itself
                                          may be open.
5. An existing or new SMC manufacturing  Use a nylon containing film to
 operation.                               enclose SMC.
6. All mixing or BMC manufacturing       Use mixer covers with no
 operations\1\.                           visible gaps present in the
                                          mixer covers, except that gaps
                                          of up to 1 inch are
                                          permissible around mixer
                                          shafts and any required
                                          instrumentation. Mixers where
                                          the emissions are fully
                                          captured and routed to a 95
                                          percent efficient control
                                          device are exempt from this
                                          requirement.
7. All mixing or BMC manufacturing       Close any mixer vents when
 operations\1\.                           actual mixing is occurring,
                                          except that venting is allowed
                                          during addition of materials,
                                          or as necessary prior to
                                          adding materials or opening
                                          the cover for safety. Vents
                                          routed to a 95 percent
                                          efficient control device are
                                          exempt from this requirement.
8. All mixing or BMC manufacturing       Keep the mixer covers closed
 operations\1\.                           while actual mixing is
                                          occurring except when adding
                                          materials or changing covers
                                          to the mixing vessels.
9. A new or existing pultrusion          i. Not allow vents from the
 operation manufacturing parts that       building ventilation system,
 meet the following criteria: 1,000 or    or local or portable fans to
 more reinforcements or the glass         blow directly on or across the
 equivalent of 1,000 ends of 113 yield    wet-out area(s),
 roving or more; and have a cross        ii. Not permit point suction of
 sectional area of 60 square inches or    ambient air in the wet-out
 more that is not subject to the 95-      area(s) unless that air is
 percent organic HAP emission reduction   directed to a control device,
 requirement.                            iii. Use devices such as
                                          deflectors, baffles, and
                                          curtains when practical to
                                          reduce air flow velocity
                                          across the wet-out area(s),
                                         iv. Direct any compressed air
                                          exhausts away from resin and
                                          wet-out area(s),
                                         v. Convey resin collected from
                                          drip-off pans or other devices
                                          to reservoirs, tanks, or sumps
                                          via covered troughs, pipes, or
                                          other covered conveyance that
                                          shields the resin from the
                                          ambient air,
                                         vi. Cover all reservoirs,
                                          tanks, sumps, or HAP-
                                          containing materials storage
                                          vessels except when they are
                                          being charged or filled, and
                                         vii. Cover or shield from
                                          ambient air resin delivery
                                          systems to the wet-out area(s)
                                          from reservoirs, tanks, or
                                          sumps where practical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Containers of 5 gallons or less may be open when active mixing is
  taking place, or during periods when they are in process (i.e., they
  are actively being used to apply resin). For polymer casting mixing
  operations, containers with a surface area of 500 square inches or
  less may be open while active mixing is taking place.


0
16. Table 14 of subpart WWWW of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 14 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Requirements for Reports

    As required in Sec.  63.5910(a), (b), (g), and (h), you must submit 
reports on the schedule shown in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    The report must      You must submit
     You must submit a(n)            contain . . .      the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report..........  a. A statement that     Semiannually
                                 there were no           according to
                                 deviations during       the
                                 that reporting period   requirements in
                                 if there were no        Sec.
                                 deviations from any     63.5910(b).
                                 emission limitations
                                 (emission limit,
                                 operating limit,
                                 opacity limit, and
                                 visible emission
                                 limit) that apply to
                                 you and there were no
                                 deviations from the
                                 requirements for work
                                 practice standards in
                                 Table 4 to this
                                 subpart that apply to
                                 you. If there were no
                                 periods during which
                                 the CMS, including
                                 CEMS, and operating
                                 parameter monitoring
                                 systems, was out of
                                 control as specified
                                 in Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                                 the report must also
                                 contain a statement
                                 that there were no
                                 periods during which
                                 the CMS was out of
                                 control during the
                                 reporting period.
                                b. The information in   Semiannually
                                 Sec.   63.5910(d) if    according to
                                 you have a deviation    the
                                 from any emission       requirements in
                                 limitation (emission    Sec.
                                 limit, operating        63.5910(b).
                                 limit, or work
                                 practice standard)
                                 during the reporting
                                 period. If there were
                                 periods during which
                                 the CMS, including
                                 CEMS, and operating
                                 parameter monitoring
                                 systems, was out of
                                 control, as specified
                                 in Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                                 the report must
                                 contain the
                                 information in Sec.
                                 63.5910(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 15979]]


0
17. Table 15 of subpart WWWW of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 15 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart WWWW of Part 63

    As specified in Sec.  63.5925, the parts of the General Provisions 
which apply to you are shown in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Subject to the
 The general provisions  reference . . .   That addresses . . .   And applies to subpart    following additional
                                                                   WWWW of part 63 . . .     information . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1).......................  General applicability  Yes.....................  Additional terms
                                           of the general                                   defined in subpart
                                           provisions.                                      WWWW of part 63,
                                                                                            when overlap between
                                                                                            subparts A and WWWW
                                                                                            of this part,
                                                                                            subpart WWWW of part
                                                                                            63 takes precedence.
Sec.   63.1(a)(2) through (4)...........  General applicability  Yes                       .....................
                                           of the general
                                           provisions.
Sec.   63.1(a)(5).......................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(6).......................  General applicability  Yes                       .....................
                                           of the general
                                           provisions.
Sec.   63.1(a)(7) through (9)...........  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(10) through (14).........  General applicability  Yes                       .....................
                                           of the general
                                           provisions.
Sec.   63.1(b)(1).......................  Initial applicability  Yes.....................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           determination.                                   63 clarifies the
                                                                                            applicability in
                                                                                            Sec.  Sec.   63.5780
                                                                                            and 63.5785.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2).......................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.1(b)(3).......................  Record of the          Yes                       .....................
                                           applicability
                                           determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1).......................  Applicability of this  Yes.....................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           part after a                                     63 clarifies the
                                           relevant standard                                applicability of
                                           has been set under                               each paragraph of
                                           this part.                                       subpart A to sources
                                                                                            subject to subpart
                                                                                            WWWW of part 63.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2).......................  Title V operating      Yes.....................  All major affected
                                           permit requirement.                              sources are required
                                                                                            to obtain a title V
                                                                                            operating permit.
                                                                                            Area sources are not
                                                                                            subject to subpart
                                                                                            WWWW of part 63.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3) and (4)...............  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.1(c)(5).......................  Notification           Yes                       .....................
                                           requirements for an
                                           area source that
                                           increases HAP
                                           emissions to major
                                           source levels.
Sec.   63.1(d)..........................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.1(e)..........................  Applicability of       Yes                       .....................
                                           permit program
                                           before a relevant
                                           standard has been
                                           set under this part.
Sec.   63.2.............................  Definitions..........  Yes.....................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                                                                            63 defines terms in
                                                                                            Sec.   63.5935. When
                                                                                            overlap between
                                                                                            subparts A and WWWW
                                                                                            of part 63 occurs,
                                                                                            you must comply with
                                                                                            the subpart WWWW of
                                                                                            part 63 definitions,
                                                                                            which take
                                                                                            precedence over the
                                                                                            subpart A
                                                                                            definitions.
Sec.   63.3.............................  Units and              Yes.....................  Other units and
                                           abbreviations.                                   abbreviations used
                                                                                            in subpart WWWW of
                                                                                            part 63 are defined
                                                                                            in subpart WWWW of
                                                                                            part 63.
Sec.   63.4.............................  Prohibited activities  Yes.....................  Sec.   63.4(a)(3)
                                           and circumvention.                               through (5) is
                                                                                            reserved and does
                                                                                            not apply.
Sec.   63.5(a)(1) and (2)...............  Applicability of       Yes.....................  Existing facilities
                                           construction and                                 do not become
                                           reconstruction.                                  reconstructed under
                                                                                            subpart WWWW of part
                                                                                            63.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1).......................  Relevant standards     Yes.....................  Existing facilities
                                           for new sources upon                             do not become
                                           construction.                                    reconstructed under
                                                                                            subpart WWWW of part
                                                                                            63.
Sec.   63.5(b)(2).......................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.5(b)(3).......................  New construction/      Yes.....................  Existing facilities
                                           reconstruction.                                  do not become
                                                                                            reconstructed under
                                                                                            subpart WWWW of part
                                                                                            63.
Sec.   63.5(b)(4).......................  Construction/          Yes.....................  Existing facilities
                                           reconstruction                                   do not become
                                           notification.                                    reconstructed under
                                                                                            subpart WWWW of part
                                                                                            63.
Sec.   63.5(b)(5).......................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.5(b)(6).......................  Equipment addition or  Yes.....................  Existing facilities
                                           process change.                                  do not become
                                                                                            reconstructed under
                                                                                            subpart WWWW of part
                                                                                            63.
Sec.   63.5(c)..........................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.5(d)(1).......................  General application    Yes.....................  Existing facilities
                                           for approval of                                  do not become
                                           construction or                                  reconstructed under
                                           reconstruction.                                  subpart WWWW of part
                                                                                            63.
Sec.   63.5(d)(2).......................  Application for        Yes                       .....................
                                           approval of
                                           construction.
Sec.   63.5(d)(3).......................  Application for        No                        .....................
                                           approval of
                                           reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(d)(4).......................  Additional             Yes                       .....................
                                           information.
Sec.   63.5(e)(1) through (5)...........  Approval of            Yes                       .....................
                                           construction or
                                           reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)(1) and (2)...............  Approval of            Yes                       .....................
                                           construction or
                                           reconstruction based
                                           on prior State
                                           preconstruction
                                           review.
Sec.   63.6(a)(1).......................  Applicability of       Yes                       .....................
                                           compliance with
                                           standards and
                                           maintenance
                                           requirements.

[[Page 15980]]

 
Sec.   63.6(a)(2).......................  Applicability of area  Yes                       .....................
                                           sources that
                                           increase HAP
                                           emissions to become
                                           major sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1) through (5)...........  Compliance dates for   Yes.....................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           new and                                          63 clarifies
                                           reconstructed                                    compliance dates in
                                           sources.                                         Sec.   63.5800.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6).......................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7).......................  Compliance dates for   Yes.....................  New operations at an
                                           new operations or                                existing facility
                                           equipment that cause                             are not subject to
                                           an area source to                                new source
                                           become a major                                   standards.
                                           source.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1) and (2)...............  Compliance dates for   Yes.....................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           existing sources.                                63 clarifies
                                                                                            compliance dates in
                                                                                            Sec.   63.5800.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3) and (4)...............  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).......................  Compliance dates for   Yes.....................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           existing area                                    63 clarifies
                                           sources that become                              compliance dates in
                                           major.                                           Sec.   63.5800.
Sec.   63.6(d)..........................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1).......................  Operation and          Yes.....................  Except portions of
                                           maintenance                                      Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)
                                           requirements.                                    and (ii) specific to
                                                                                            conditions during
                                                                                            startup, shutdown,
                                                                                            or malfunction.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).......................  SSM plan and           No                        .....................
                                           recordkeeping.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).......................  Compliance except      No......................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           during periods of                                63 requires
                                           startup, shutdown,                               compliance at all
                                           and malfunction.                                 times.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2) and (3)...............  Methods for            Yes                       .....................
                                           determining
                                           compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1) through (3)...........  Alternative standard.  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.6(h)..........................  Opacity and visible    No......................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           emission Standards.                              63 does not contain
                                                                                            opacity or visible
                                                                                            emission standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1) through (14)..........  Compliance extensions  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.6(i)(15)......................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.6(i)(16)......................  Compliance extensions  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.6(j)..........................  Presidential           Yes                       .....................
                                           compliance exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1).......................  Applicability of       Yes                       .....................
                                           performance testing
                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.7(a)(2).......................  Performance test       No......................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           dates.                                           63 initial
                                                                                            compliance
                                                                                            requirements are in
                                                                                            Sec.   63.5840.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).......................  CAA Section 114        Yes                       .....................
                                           authority.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1).......................  Notification of        Yes                       .....................
                                           performance test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2).......................  Notification           Yes                       .....................
                                           rescheduled
                                           performance test.
Sec.   63.7(c)..........................  Quality assurance      Yes.....................  Except that the test
                                           program, including                               plan must be
                                           test plan.                                       submitted with the
                                                                                            notification of the
                                                                                            performance test.
Sec.   63.7(d)..........................  Performance testing    Yes                       .....................
                                           facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)..........................  Conditions for         Yes.....................  Performance test
                                           conducting                                       requirements are
                                           performance tests.                               contained in Sec.
                                                                                            63.5850. Additional
                                                                                            requirements for
                                                                                            conducting
                                                                                            performance tests
                                                                                            for continuous
                                                                                            lamination/casting
                                                                                            are included in Sec.
                                                                                              63.5870.
                                                                                           Conditions specific
                                                                                            to operations during
                                                                                            periods of startup,
                                                                                            shutdown, and
                                                                                            malfunction in Sec.
                                                                                             63.7(e)(1) do not
                                                                                            apply.
Sec.   63.7(f)..........................  Use of alternative     Yes                       .....................
                                           test method.
Sec.   63.7(g)..........................  Performance test data  Yes                       .....................
                                           analysis,
                                           recordkeeping, and
                                           reporting.
Sec.   63.7(h)..........................  Waiver of performance  Yes                       .....................
                                           tests.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1) and (2)...............  Applicability of       Yes                       .....................
                                           monitoring
                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).......................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).......................  Monitoring             Yes                       .....................
                                           requirements when
                                           using flares.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).......................  Conduct of monitoring  Yes                       .....................
                                           exceptions.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2) and (3)...............  Multiple effluents     Yes                       .....................
                                           and multiple
                                           monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1).......................  Compliance with CMS    Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           operation and                                    if you elect to use
                                           maintenance                                      a CMS to demonstrate
                                           requirements.                                    continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
                                                                                           Except references to
                                                                                            SSM plans in Sec.
                                                                                            63.8(c)(1)(i) and
                                                                                            (iii).
Sec.   63.8(c)(2) and (3)...............  Monitoring system      Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           installation.                                    if you elect to use
                                                                                            a CMS to demonstrate
                                                                                            continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).......................  CMS requirements.....  Yes.....................  This section applies
                                                                                            if you elect to use
                                                                                            a CMS to demonstrate
                                                                                            continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).......................  Continuous Opacity     No......................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           Monitoring System                                63 does not contain
                                           (COMS) minimum                                   opacity standards.
                                           procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6) through (8)...........  CMS calibration and    Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           periods CMS is out                               if you elect to use
                                           of control.                                      a CMS to demonstrate
                                                                                            continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.

[[Page 15981]]

 
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)...................  CMS quality control    Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           program, including                               if you elect to use
                                           test plan and all                                a CMS to demonstrate
                                           previous versions.                               continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3).......................  CMS quality control    Yes.....................  Except references to
                                           program, including                               SSM plans in Sec.
                                           test plan and all                                63.8(d)(3).
                                           previous versions.
Sec.   63.8(e)(1).......................  Performance            Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           evaluation of CMS.                               if you elect to use
                                                                                            a CMS to demonstrate
                                                                                            continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.8(e)(2).......................  Notification of        Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           performance                                      if you elect to use
                                           evaluation.                                      a CMS to demonstrate
                                                                                            continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.8(e)(3) and (4)...............  CMS requirements/      Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           alternatives.                                    if you elect to use
                                                                                            a CMS to demonstrate
                                                                                            continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.8(e)(5)(i)....................  Reporting performance  Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           evaluation results.                              if you elect to use
                                                                                            a CMS to demonstrate
                                                                                            continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.8(e)(5)(ii)...................  Results of COMS        No......................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           performance                                      63 does not contain
                                           evaluation.                                      opacity standards.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1) through (3)...........  Use of an alternative  Yes                       .....................
                                           monitoring method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(4).......................  Request to use an      Yes                       .....................
                                           alternative
                                           monitoring method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(5).......................  Approval of request    Yes                       .....................
                                           to use an
                                           alternative
                                           monitoring method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).......................  Request for            Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           alternative to                                   if you elect to use
                                           relative accuracy                                a CMS to demonstrate
                                           test and associated                              continuous
                                           records.                                         compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1) through (5)...........  Data reduction.......  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.9(a)(1) through (4)...........  Notification           Yes                       .....................
                                           requirements and
                                           general information.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1).......................  Initial notification   Yes                       .....................
                                           applicability.
Sec.   63.9(b)(2).......................  Notification for       Yes                       .....................
                                           affected source with
                                           initial startup
                                           before effective
                                           date of standard.
Sec.   63.9(b)(3).......................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)(i)....................  Notification for a     Yes                       .....................
                                           new or reconstructed
                                           major affected
                                           source with initial
                                           startup after
                                           effective date for
                                           which an application
                                           for approval of
                                           construction or
                                           reconstruction is
                                           required.
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)(ii) through (iv)......  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)(v)....................  Notification for a     Yes.....................  Existing facilities
                                           new or reconstructed                             do not become
                                           major affected                                   reconstructed under
                                           source with initial                              subpart WWWW of part
                                           startup after                                    63.
                                           effective date for
                                           which an application
                                           for approval of
                                           construction or
                                           reconstruction is
                                           required.
Sec.   63.9(b)(5).......................  Notification that you  Yes.....................  Existing facilities
                                           are subject to this                              do not become
                                           subpart for new or                               reconstructed under
                                           reconstructed                                    subpart WWWW of part
                                           affected source with                             63.
                                           initial startup
                                           after effective date
                                           and for which an
                                           application for
                                           approval of
                                           construction or
                                           reconstruction is
                                           not required.
Sec.   63.9(c)..........................  Request for            Yes                       .....................
                                           compliance extension.
Sec.   63.9(d)..........................  Notification of        Yes                       .....................
                                           special compliance
                                           requirements for new
                                           source.
Sec.   63.9(e)..........................  Notification of        Yes                       .....................
                                           performance test.
Sec.   63.9(f)..........................  Notification of        No......................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           opacity and visible                              63 does not contain
                                           emissions                                        opacity or visible
                                           observations.                                    emission standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1).......................  Additional             Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           notification                                     if you elect to use
                                           requirements for                                 a CMS to demonstrate
                                           sources using CMS.                               continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2).......................  Notification of        No......................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           compliance with                                  63 does not contain
                                           opacity emission                                 opacity emission
                                           standard.                                        standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3).......................  Notification that      Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           criterion to                                     if you elect to use
                                           continue use of                                  a CMS to demonstrate
                                           alternative to                                   continuous
                                           relative accuracy                                compliance with an
                                           testing has been                                 emission limit.
                                           exceeded.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1) through (3)...........  Notification of        Yes                       .....................
                                           compliance status.
Sec.   63.9(h)(4).......................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.9(h)(5) and (6)...............  Notification of        Yes                       .....................
                                           compliance status.
Sec.   63.9(i)..........................  Adjustment of          Yes                       .....................
                                           submittal deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)..........................  Change in information  Yes                       .....................
                                           provided.
Sec.   63.10(a).........................  Applicability of       Yes                       .....................
                                           recordkeeping and
                                           reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)......................  Records retention....  Yes                       .....................

[[Page 15982]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i) through (v).......  Records related to     No                        .....................
                                           startup, shutdown,
                                           and malfunction.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).....  CMS records, data on   Yes                       .....................
                                           performance tests,
                                           CMS performance
                                           evaluations,
                                           measurements
                                           necessary to
                                           determine conditions
                                           of performance
                                           tests, and
                                           performance
                                           evaluations.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii).................  Record of waiver of    Yes                       .....................
                                           recordkeeping and
                                           reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)................  Record for             Yes                       .....................
                                           alternative to the
                                           relative accuracy
                                           test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv).................  Records supporting     Yes                       .....................
                                           initial notification
                                           and notification of
                                           compliance status.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)......................  Records for            Yes                       .....................
                                           applicability
                                           determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)......................  CMS records..........  Yes.....................  This section applies
                                                                                            if you elect to use
                                                                                            a CMS to demonstrate
                                                                                            continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.10(c)(2) through (4)..........  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.10(c)(5) through (8)..........  CMS records..........  Yes.....................  This section applies
                                                                                            if you elect to use
                                                                                            a CMS to demonstrate
                                                                                            continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.10(c)(9)......................  Reserved.............  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.10(c)(10) through (14)........  CMS records..........  Yes.....................  This section applies
                                                                                            if you elect to use
                                                                                            a CMS to demonstrate
                                                                                            continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15).....................  CMS records..........  No                        .....................
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)......................  General reporting      Yes                       .....................
                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)......................  Report of performance  Yes                       .....................
                                           test results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)......................  Reporting results of   No......................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                           opacity or visible                               63 does not contain
                                           emission                                         opacity or visible
                                           observations.                                    emission standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)......................  Progress reports as    Yes                       .....................
                                           part of extension of
                                           compliance.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)......................  Startup, shutdown,     No                        .....................
                                           and malfunction
                                           reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1) through (3)..........  Additional reporting   Yes.....................  This section applies
                                           requirements for CMS.                            if you have an add-
                                                                                            on control device
                                                                                            and elect to use a
                                                                                            CEM to demonstrate
                                                                                            continuous
                                                                                            compliance with an
                                                                                            emission limit.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)......................  Reporting COMS data..  No......................  Subpart WWWW of part
                                                                                            63 does not contain
                                                                                            opacity standards.
Sec.   63.10(f).........................  Waiver for             Yes                       .....................
                                           recordkeeping or
                                           reporting.
Sec.   63.11............................  Control device         Yes.....................  Only applies if you
                                           requirements.                                    elect to use a flare
                                                                                            as a control device.
Sec.   63.12............................  State authority and    Yes                       .....................
                                           delegations.
Sec.   63.13............................  Addresses of state     Yes                       .....................
                                           air pollution
                                           control agencies and
                                           EPA Regional offices.
Sec.   63.14............................  Incorporations by      Yes                       .....................
                                           reference.
Sec.   63.15............................  Availability of        Yes                       .....................
                                           information and
                                           confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-04661 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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