National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products Residual Risk and Technology Review, 49434-49469 [2020-12725]

Download as PDF 49434 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0243; FRL–10009–65– OAR] RIN 2060–AO66 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products Residual Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) source category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, the EPA is taking final action addressing periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM); adding electronic reporting; adding repeat emissions testing; and making technical and editorial changes. These final amendments include no revisions to the numerical emission limits in the rule based on the RTR. While the amendments do not result in reductions of emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action results in improved monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule. DATES: This final rule is effective on August 13, 2020. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 13, 2020. The incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0243. 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 electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 31, 2020, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. There is a temporary suspension of mail delivery to the EPA, and no hand deliveries are currently accepted. For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, contact Ms. Katie Hanks, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143–03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 2159; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and email address: hanks.katie@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For 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, 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. Multiple acronyms and terms are used in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: AEGL acute exposure guideline level CAA Clean Air Act CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CEMS continuous emission monitoring systems CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMS continuous monitoring systems EAV equivalent annualized value EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERT Electronic Reporting Tool HAP hazardous air pollutants(s) HQ hazard quotient ICR Information Collection Request km kilometer MACT maximum achievable control technology NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PCWP Plywood and Composite Wood Products PDF portable document format PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PV present value RATA relative accuracy test audit RCO regenerative catalytic oxidizer REL recommended exposure limit RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RIN Regulatory Information Number RTC Response to Comments RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer RTR residual risk and technology review SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Background information. On September 6, 2019, the EPA proposed revisions to the PCWP NESHAP based on our RTR. See 84 FR 47074. In this action, the EPA is finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rulemaking and provide summaries of our responses in this preamble. A summary of all public comments on the proposal and the EPA’s specific responses to those comments is available in the Response to Comments (RTC) document, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments, Responses to Public Comments on September 6, 2019 Proposal, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2016–0243. A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket. Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is the PCWP source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? C. What changes did we propose for the PCWP source category in our September 6, 2019, proposal? III. What is included in this final rule? A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the PCWP source category? E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the PCWP source category? C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of SSM? D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the PCWP source category? A. Residual Risk Review for the PCWP Source Category B. Technology Review for the PCWP Source Category C. SSM Provisions D. Electronic Reporting E. Repeat Emissions Testing F. Biofilter Bed Temperature G. Thermocouple Calibration H. Non-HAP Coating Definition I. Technical and Editorial Changes J. Compliance Dates 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 Cost C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 49435 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) and 1 CFR part 51 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION NAICS 1 code NESHAP and source category National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products. 1 North 321999, 321211, 321212, 321219, 321213. American Industry Classification System. Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the 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/plywood-and-compositewood-products-manufacture-nationalemission. 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- VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 pollution/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 October 13, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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. II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49436 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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, the EPA 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 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) and the EPA may readopt the MACT standards as residual risk standards.1 For more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see 84 FR 47074 (September 6, 2019). B. What is the PCWP source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? The EPA originally promulgated the PCWP NESHAP on July 30, 2004. The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The PCWP industry consists of facilities engaged in the production of PCWP and/or kiln-dried lumber. Plywood and composite wood products are manufactured by bonding wood material (fibers, particles, strands, etc.) or agricultural fiber, generally with resin under heat and pressure, to form a structural panel or engineered wood product. PCWP manufacturing facilities also include facilities that manufacture dry veneer and lumber kilns located at any facility. PCWP include (but are not limited to) plywood, veneer, particleboard, oriented strand board (OSB), hardboard, fiberboard, medium density fiberboard, laminated strand lumber, laminated veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-dried lumber, and gluelaminated beams. As noted in the preamble to the proposed amendments, the PCWP source category covered by this MACT standard includes 230 major source facilities: 93 PCWP facilities, 121 lumber mills, and 16 facilities that produce both PCWP and lumber. The affected source under the PCWP NESHAP is the collection of dryers, refiners, blenders, formers, presses, board coolers, and other process units associated with the manufacturing of PCWP. The NESHAP contains several compliance options for process units subject to the standards: (1) Installation 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 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 and use of emissions control systems with an efficiency of at least 90 percent; (2) production-based limits that restrict HAP emissions per unit of product; and (3) emissions averaging that allows control of emissions from a group of sources collectively (at existing affected sources). These compliance options apply for the following process units: Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones (at new affected sources); green rotary dryers; hardboard ovens; press predryers (at new affected sources); pressurized refiners; primary tube dryers; secondary tube dryers; reconstituted wood product board coolers (at new affected sources); reconstituted wood product presses; softwood veneer dryer heated zones; rotary strand dryers; and conveyor strand dryers (zone one at existing affected sources, and zones one and two at new affected sources). In addition, the PCWP NESHAP includes work practice standards for dry rotary dryers, hardwood veneer dryers, softwood veneer dryers, veneer redryers, and group 1 miscellaneous coating operations (defined in 40 CFR 63.2292). C. What changes did we propose for the PCWP source category in our September 6, 2019, proposal? On September 6, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for the PCWP NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed rulemaking, we proposed revisions to the SSM provisions for the NESHAP in order to ensure that they are consistent with the decision of the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions in EPA’s 40 CFR part 63, subpart A— General Provisions, that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM: 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). We also proposed various other changes, including addition of electronic reporting requirements, addition of repeat emissions testing requirements, revisions to parameter monitoring requirements, and various technical and editorial changes. III. What is included in this final rule? This action finalizes the EPA’s determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the PCWP source category. This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including SSM provisions, electronic reporting, additional emissions testing requirements, and technical and editorial changes. E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the PCWP source category? C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of SSM? The EPA proposed no changes to the PCWP NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). We are finalizing our proposed determination that risks from the PCWP source category are acceptable, considering all of the health information and factors evaluated, and also considering risk estimation uncertainty. We are also finalizing our proposed determination that revisions to the current standards are not necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. As discussed further in section IV.A of this preamble, the EPA reviewed public comments and data revisions submitted during the public comment period but none of the information received affected our determinations. Therefore, we are not requiring additional controls in order to reduce risks and, thus, are not making any revisions to the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2). Instead, we are readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), while making other modifications under other authorities unrelated to risk. 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. The EPA has eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. The standards that apply during normal operation have been extended to apply at all times including SSM in most instances. However, in this final rule, the EPA has established work practice standards for specific types of startup and shutdown events as described in section IV.C of this preamble. The EPA has also revised Table 10 of this rule (the General Provisions applicability table) in several respects as is explained in more detail in section IV.C of this preamble. For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that sources develop SSM plans. We have also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are related to the SSM exemption as described in detail in the proposed rulemaking and summarized again in section IV.C of this preamble. B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the PCWP source category? We determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. In the proposal, the EPA noted a development in resin systems used to produce PCWP at some facilities but found that facilities generally have not altered their HAP emission control strategies to date as a result of resin changes and that it is not necessary, or supported based on available data, at this time, to amend the current standards. The EPA considered comments received during the public comment period regarding our technology review, however, these comments contained no new data or other information that affected our determinations. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Section IV.B of this preamble provides further details on our conclusion with respect to the technology review. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? Other changes to the NESHAP include: 1. Electronic reporting. As discussed at proposal, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the reporting requirements in the rule to require electronic reporting for notifications of compliance status, compliance test reports, and semiannual reports. Electronic reporting is discussed further in section IV.D of this preamble. 2. Repeat emissions testing. As discussed at proposal, the EPA is finalizing amendments to Table 7 to subpart DDDD of part 63 to require repeat testing every 5 years for process units controlled with control devices other than biofilters. The first of the 5year repeat tests will be required within 3 years of the effective date of the final PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 49437 amendments. Repeat emissions testing is discussed further in section IV.E of this preamble. 3. Revisions to parameter monitoring requirements. As discussed at proposal, the EPA is finalizing amendments to biofilter bed temperature provisions in 40 CFR 63.2262(m)(1) and the thermocouple calibration requirements in 40 CFR 63.2269. The biofilter bed temperature provisions are discussed further in section IV.F of this preamble and the thermocouple calibration requirements are discussed further in section IV.G of this preamble. 4. Revisions to the non-HAP coating definition. The EPA is finalizing amendments to the non-HAP coating definition in 40 CFR 63.2292 with changes from the proposed revision. The non-HAP coating definition is discussed further in section IV.H of this preamble. 5. Technical and editorial changes. The EPA is finalizing technical and editorial changes, as discussed further in section IV.I of this preamble. E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this action are effective on August 13, 2020. The compliance date of the rule amendments for existing affected sources and other affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 6, 2019, is August 13, 2021. Affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, are new sources. New sources must comply with all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, August 13, 2020, or upon startup, whichever is later. All existing affected sources will have to continue to meet the current requirements of the NESHAP until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. Section IV.D of this preamble discusses electronic reporting and a semiannual reporting template that facilities must use within 1 year after it is posted in the EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). In addition, the EPA is finalizing new requirements to conduct repeat performance testing every 5 years for facilities using an add-on control system other than a biofilter (see section IV.E of this preamble). The first of the repeat performance tests must be conducted within 3 years after August 13, 2020, or within 60 months following the previous performance test, whichever is later. E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49438 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0243. IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the PCWP source category? For each issue, this section provides a description of what was proposed and what is being finalized for the issue, the EPA’s rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. Comment summaries for all comments and the EPA’s specific responses can be found in the RTC document, available in A. Residual Risk Review for the PCWP Source Category 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the PCWP source category? Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a risk review and presented the results for the review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the September 6, 2019, proposed rulemaking for the PCWP source category (84 FR 47074). The results of the risk assessment are presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble and in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, and sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (84 FR 47074, September 6, 2019) available in the docket for this action. TABLE 2—INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR PLYWOOD AND COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS SOURCE CATEGORY 1 Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 3 Number of facilities 2 Population at increased risk of cancer ≥ 1-in-1 million Based on . . . Actual emissions level 233 ........................................ Based on . . . Allowable emissions level 30 30 Actual emissions level Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 4 Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 5 Based on . . . Based on . . . Allowable emissions level 204,000 Annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Actual emissions level 230,000 Allowable emissions level 0.03 Actual emissions level 0.03 0.8 Allowable emissions level 0.8 Based on actual emissions level 4 (REL) 0.2 (AEGL–1) 1 Based on actual and allowable emissions. 2 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 230 operating facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, plus three existing facilities that are currently closed but maintain active operating permits. 3 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 4 Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PCWP source category is the respiratory system. 5 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ) values. The acute HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the recommended exposure limit (REL). When an HQ exceeds 1, the EPA also shows the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. For the risk assessment conducted at proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from the PCWP source category. The results for the PCWP source category indicated that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The residual risk assessment for the PCWP category estimated cancer incidence rate at 0.03 cases per year (or one case every 33 years) based on both source category actual and allowable emissions. The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to actual and allowable emissions from the source category was 30-in-1 million. The assessment showed that approximately 204,000 people faced an increased cancer risk equal to or above 1-in-1 million from source category actual emissions from 170 facilities. The number of people exposed to a cancer risk greater than 10-in-1 million from source category actual emissions is 650 people. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures was less than 1 (0.8) for actual and allowable emissions from the source category. The results of the acute non-cancer refined analysis showed VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 maximum acute HQs of 4 for acrolein and 2 for formaldehyde emissions based on the acute reference exposure level. Maximum cancer risk due to ingestion exposures estimated using healthprotective risk screening assumptions are below 6-in-1 million for the Tier 2 fisher scenario and below 40-in-1 million for the Tier 2 rural gardener exposure scenario.2 Considering all the health risk information and factors and the uncertainties discussed in the preamble to the proposed amendments (84 FR 47074, September 6, 2019), the EPA proposed that the risks posed by emissions from the PCWP source category are acceptable after implementation of the existing MACT standards. As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), the EPA also conducted an analysis to determine if the current emission standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the risk assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, 2 As explained in the preamble for the proposed rulemaking, these multipathway risk estimates would be further reduced with Tier 3 screening. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment. The EPA did not identify methods for further reducing HAP emissions from the PCWP source category that would achieve meaningful risk reductions. Therefore, the EPA proposed that the current PCWP standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and revision of the promulgated standards is not required. The EPA also concluded that an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category is not expected and, therefore, proposed that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The results of the EPA’s residual risk analysis conducted according to CAA section 112(f)(2) were discussed in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking (84 FR 47074, September 6, 2019), in the risk report for the proposed rulemaking titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations and Technology Review Proposed Rule, Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0243–0179, and in the risk report for the final rule titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, in the docket for this action. The risk report for the final rule is unchanged from the risk report prepared for the proposed rulemaking. 2. How did the risk review change for the PCWP source category? The EPA has not changed any aspect of the risk assessment since the September 2019 proposal for the PCWP source category. 3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are our responses? The EPA received several 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). Generally, the commenters disagreeing with the risk review misunderstood the type of data used for the development of the risk review or suggested changes to the underlying risk assessment methodology. Some commenters noted the conservative nature of the underlying residual risk methodology. Commenters also submitted data revisions for 23 of the 233 modeled facilities. After reviewing the inventory revisions, the EPA concluded that 21 of the revisions would serve only to reduce modeled risk through reduced emissions or improved dispersion inputs. Further, the EPA concluded that neither of the two remaining inventory revisions would increase the maximum modeled risk for the PCWP source category or change our conclusions regarding risk acceptability or ample margin of safety. See the memorandum, Review of Plywood and Composite Wood Products Emissions Inventory Revisions, in the docket for this action for details on the inventory revisions submitted. After review of the comments and information submitted, we determined that no changes to the proposed residual risk assessment were necessary. The comments and our specific responses can be found in the RTC document, which is available in the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0243. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 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 MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand’’ (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). The EPA weighs all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer maximum individual risk (MIR), cancer incidence, the maximum cancer 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 rulemaking, the EPA determined that the risks from the PCWP source category are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, the EPA is not revising the PCWP NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD) to require additional controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and the EPA is readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2). B. Technology Review for the PCWP Source Category The EPA’s technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for process units subject to standards under the NESHAP that have occurred since 2004 when emission standards were promulgated for the PCWP source category. The following process units were included in our review: Green rotary dryers, hardboard ovens, pressurized refiners, primary tube dryers, reconstituted wood product presses, softwood veneer dryer heated zones, rotary strand dryers, secondary tube dryers, conveyor strand dryers, fiberboard mat dryers, press predryers, and reconstituted wood product board coolers. The technological basis for the promulgated PCWP NESHAP was use of incineration-based or biofilter add-on controls to reduce HAP emissions. Incineration-based controls include regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs), regenerative catalytic oxidizers (RCOs), and incineration of process exhaust in an onsite combustion unit (referred to as ‘‘process incineration’’). In addition, the PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 49439 PCWP NESHAP contains productionbased compliance options (PBCO) for process units with low emissions due to pollution prevention measures inherent in their process, an emissions averaging compliance option, and work practice requirements for selected process units. In the proposal, the EPA noted a development in resin systems used to produce PCWP at some facilities but found that facilities generally have not altered their HAP emission control strategies to date as a result of resin changes and that it is not necessary, or supported, based on available data, at this time, to amend the current standards. The EPA proposed that no revisions to the PCWP NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA received comments supporting and opposing our proposed determination from the technology review that no revisions to the standards are necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6). Several commenters agreed with the EPA’s decision not to revise the current standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Conversely, another commenter opposed our determination not to revise the standards and stated that the EPA failed to satisfy the CAA because it did not set emission standards for currently unrestricted HAP (such as emissions from the PCWP process units not currently subject to emissions limits) and regulating these emissions is ‘‘necessary’’ under the CAA. The commenter asserted that the EPA must review and follow the CAA and existing case law to ensure it sets a numerical limit for every regulated HAP in order to satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2), (3), and (6). The commenter further asserted that the EPA must update standards when a development is identified, such as the use of lower HAP resins. In response to the comments, the EPA maintains that our CAA section 112(d)(6) review of developments in the processes, practices, and controls applied to sources regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, was complete. The technology review was based on responses to an Information Collection Request (ICR) conducted under CAA section 114, requiring a mandatory response. In addition to ICR data provided by respondents, the EPA requested and reviewed other information from sources to determine if there have been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies by PCWP facilities, as described in section 3 of the RTC document. The technology review was documented in the memorandum, Technology Review for the Plywood and E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49440 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Composite Wood Products NESHAP, Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0243–0189. Section 3 of the RTC document contains full responses to the comments received. Regarding the comment that the technology review did not address the unregulated sources, the EPA acknowledged in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking that there are unregulated sources with no-control MACT determinations, and we stated our plans to address those units in a separate action subsequent to the RTR at 84 FR 47077–47078. See section 9 of the RTC document for further discussion of our position regarding our obligations under CAA section 112(d)(6) with respect to unregulated sources.3 Overall, the EPA’s review of the developments in technology for the process units subject to the PCWP NESHAP did not reveal any changes that require revisions to the emission standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). As discussed in the first paragraph in this section of the preamble, the PCWP rule was promulgated with multiple options for reducing HAP emissions to demonstrate compliance with the standard. The EPA found that facilities are using each type of control system or pollution prevention measure (such as lower-HAP resins) that was anticipated when the PCWP emissions standards were promulgated. The EPA did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for the regulated units beyond those accounted for in the originally promulgated PCWP NESHAP. Regarding lower-HAP resins, for the proposal, the EPA characterized changes in the type of resin systems used in the particleboard, MDF, and hardwood plywood segments of the PCWP industry due to the formaldehyde standards limiting emissions from these products 4 as a ‘‘development’’ within 3 On April 21, 2020, as the Agency was preparing the final rule for signature, a decision was issued in LEAN v. EPA, 955 F. 3d. 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) in which the Court held that the EPA has an obligation to set standards for unregulated pollutants as part of technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6). At the time of signature, the mandate in that case had not been issued and the EPA is continuing to evaluate the decision. 4 In 2008, the CARB finalized an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from hardwood plywood, MDF, and particleboard. Consistent with the CARB ATCM, in July 2010, Congress passed the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, as title VI of TSCA, [15 U.S.C. 2697], requiring the EPA to promulgate a national rule. The EPA finalized the TSCA rule, Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products, on December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89674), and finalized an implementation rule on February 7, 2018 (83 FR 5340). Compliance with the TSCA rule was required by December 2018. The CARB ATCM and VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 the context of CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA explained in the proposal that as facilities conduct repeat testing, they may find that the inlet concentration of formaldehyde and methanol from their pressing operations has dropped if they are now using a different, lower-HAP resin system to comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) standards. The decrease in inlet concentration may allow for future use of the PBCO without an add-on control device, providing an existing compliance option in addition to the current add-on control device compliance option. The EPA also explained that while the CARB and TSCA standards are a ‘‘development’’ within the context of CAA section 112(d)(6), these rules do not necessitate revision of the previously-promulgated PCWP emission standards because the promulgated PCWP emission standards already include the PBCO provisions for pollution prevention measures such as lower-HAP resins. The EPA disagrees that because resin changes made by some mills were noted as a development in the technology review that this necessitates revisions to the standards without regard to how the development is already addressed within the previously-promulgated emission standards, to how it relates to control technologies used in the industry, or other relevant factors. For the PCWP source category, the EPA did not identify information suggesting the resin system changes have significantly altered the type of process units or HAP pollution control technologies used in the PCWP industry to date or have led to processes or practices that have not been accounted for in the promulgated PCWP NESHAP compliance options. As explained further in Section 3 of the RTC document, at present, limited HAP emissions data are available to compare PCWP manufacturing process emissions before and after implementation of resin changes to meet the product formaldehyde standards. Facilities made a variety of different resin system changes (if needed for their specific products) in response to the CARB and TSCA rules, and, therefore, no single broadly-applicable approach feasible for all mills was identified. The different resin system changes facilities made, coupled with the limited available HAP emissions data, ongoing use of add-on control technologies following resin system changes, and availability of the rule to implement TSCA title VI emphasize the use of low emission resins, including ultra-lowemitting formaldehyde and no added formaldehyde resin systems. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 PBCO in the PCWP NESHAP do not support revising the PCWP NESHAP. Therefore, the EPA concluded it is not, at this time, necessary or supportable under this CAA section 112(d)(6) review to change the promulgated PCWP NESHAP as a result of resin changes facilities made to meet the CARB and TSCA rules. If additional emissions information on resin changes or other changes made by facilities becomes available and indicates updates need to be made to standards in future technology reviews, the EPA will evaluate that information at that time. In summary, the EPA proposed, and is finalizing the conclusion that no revisions to the PCWP NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). All amendments being made to the final NESHAP are for reasons other than to reflect developments under CAA section 112(d)(6). C. SSM Provisions Consistent with the 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA proposed eliminating the SSM exemption in this rule and instead proposed that the same standards that apply during normal operation also apply during SSM, except during specific periods of startup and shutdown as described in section IV.C.2 of this preamble. Additionally, the EPA proposed several revisions to Table 10 (the General Provisions applicability table), proposed eliminating the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan, and proposed eliminating and revising certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption, all of which are further described in section IV.C.4 of this preamble. 1. Elimination of the SSM Exemption As noted in section III.C of this preamble, 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. Consistent with the Sierra Club decision, the EPA proposed eliminating the SSM exemption in this rule from 40 CFR 63.2250 and to remove the incorporation of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1). (40 E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations CFR 63.6(h)(1) was not applicable to this NESHAP.) The EPA received comments supporting and opposing our proposal to eliminate the SSM exemption in the rule. Commenters opposed to eliminating the exemption stated that neither the CAA nor judicial precedent requires the EPA to delete the SSM provisions. According to these commenters, the best-performing facilities that are the basis for the MACT floor experience SSM events, and so it is appropriate for the EPA to recognize and account for those events, as it has in the existing PCWP MACT standards. One commenter noted that when the EPA promulgated the 2004 PCWP NESHAP, the EPA determined it was appropriate not to subject mills to the numerical emission limitations in those standards during SSM events, requiring instead that sources follow work practices to minimize emissions during such events, including developing and following an SSM plan. The commenter asserted that the EPA’s proposal to eliminate 40 CFR 63.2250(a), and thereby require sources to meet the same emission limitations during periods of SSM, except for very limited cases (safety related shutdowns and brief periods during startup and shutdown of pressurized refiners), represents an unauthorized change to existing MACT standards, specifically claiming that it is not the product of the technology review described in the CAA, it is not required by case law, and it is inconsistent with decades of the EPA practice and judicial interpretations of NESHAP and new source performance standards. Conversely, a commenter in favor of the EPA’s proposal to eliminate the SSM exemption argued that it is legally required and necessary in this rulemaking under CAA section 112(d), including CAA section 112(d)(6), for the EPA to remove the SSM exemptions for PCWP facilities as it has proposed to do because the CAA requires standards to apply continuously and the Court precedent (Sierra Club v. EPA) is a development since the prior standards were made. The EPA acknowledges comments in support of the removal of the 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, SSM exemption and we are promulgating our proposed SSM action. We disagree with comments suggesting that the legal precedent established in case law (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) should not apply to subpart DDDD. The Court decision held that emission limits under CAA section 112 must apply continuously and meet minimum stringency requirements, even VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 during periods of SSM. Consistent with the Court’s decision and for the reasons explained in the proposal preamble at 84 FR 47092–47096, we are finalizing our proposal to eliminate the SSM language in subpart DDDD. As explained in the proposal, our SSMrelated rule revisions are in response to the Court’s vacatur of the SSM exemptions in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these two provisions exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable MACT standards during periods of SSM. The Court’s vacatur rendered those provisions null and void prior to this rulemaking. Eliminating reference to these provisions and other related General Provisions referenced in subpart DDDD reflects the vacatur by the Court. We also eliminated the rule specific SSM provisions in subpart DDDD, as discussed further in section IV.C.4 of this preamble. The specific changes in the language can be found in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0243 in the document titled Redline Version of 40 CFR Part 63, subpart DDDD Showing Final Changes. However, we do not agree with the commenter who characterized the 2008 Court ruling as a ‘‘development’’ that compels elimination of the SSM exemption under CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA is not and need not rely on CAA section 112(d)(6) in order to eliminate the exemption but is choosing to take action at this time to make the NESHAP consistent with the 2009 ruling. As discussed in section IV.C.2 below, we proposed and are promulgating work practice standards for specific startup and shutdown events. Therefore, all current subpart DDDD facilities affected by SSM must be in compliance with a standard at all times (i.e., with either the normal operational standards or the work practices that apply during selected startup and shutdown periods) consistent with the Sierra Club v. EPA decision. Section IV.C.3 of this preamble provides further information on our position with respect to periods of malfunction. 2. Periods of Startup and Shutdown In finalizing the standards in this rule, the EPA considered and proposed alternative actions to the simple removal of SSM provisions in the rule. As an alternative approach consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA may designate different standards to apply during startup and shutdown. The EPA collected information with the PCWP ICR to use in determining whether PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 49441 applying the standards applicable under normal operations would be problematic for PCWP facilities during startup and shutdown. Facilities operating control systems generally operate the control systems while the process unit(s) controlled are started up and shut down. For example, RTOs and RCOs are warmed to their operating temperature set points using auxiliary fuel before the process unit(s) controlled startup, and the oxidizers continue to maintain their temperature until the process unit(s) controlled shutdown. Biofilters operate within a biofilter bed temperature range that will be more easily achieved during startup and shutdown with changes in biofilter bed temperature operating range discussed in section IV.F of this preamble. Based on the information collected, the EPA determined that PCWP facilities can meet standards applicable under normal operations at all times except during periods of safety-related shutdowns and pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns. To ensure that a CAA section 112 standard is met during all times, the EPA proposed alternate work practice standards for safety-related shutdowns and pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns. After considering comments on the proposed amendments, the EPA determined that an alternate work practice standard was also needed for direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup or shutdown of gas-fired burners. The following sections discuss the work practices the EPA is finalizing. Each work practice is designed to minimize emissions, in keeping with CAA requirements. All three work practices minimize the duration of time and circumstances under which they can be applied. Further, because all three work practices require the temporary suspension of material flow through the PCWP process, PCWP facilities are incentivized to minimize the use and duration of these work practices. Sections IV.C.2.a and b of this preamble discuss in more detail the work practice standards for safetyrelated shutdowns and pressurized refiner startup and shutdown, respectively, including comments received about the standards following proposal and the EPA’s final decision regarding their requirements. Section IV.C.2.c of this preamble discusses the details of the work practice standard for direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup or shutdown of gasfired burners. a. Safety-Related Shutdowns As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking (84 FR 47093, E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49442 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations September 6, 2019) and further elaborated in the RTC document, safetyrelated shutdowns differ from routine, planned shutdowns where facilities can continue routing process unit emissions to the control device until the process unit is shut down. Safety-related shutdowns have been accounted for in the process design and are not necessarily frequent but are predetermined remedial actions anticipated to occasionally occur to such a degree that they are also distinguished from malfunctions which are, by definition, infrequent and not reasonably preventable (40 CFR 63.2). Malfunctions are unpredictable and may require different types of remediation. For example, the PCWP process predictably shuts down when these events are triggered. Safety-related shutdowns must occur rapidly in the event of unsafe conditions such as a suspected fire in a process unit heating flammable wood material. When unsafe conditions are detected, facilities must act quickly to shut off fuel flow (or indirect process heat) to the system, cease addition of raw materials (e.g., wood furnish, resin) to the process units, purge wood material and gases from the process unit, and isolate equipment to prevent loss of property or life and protect workers from injury. Because it is unsafe to continue to route process gases to the control system, the control system will be bypassed as the process quickly shuts down, in many cases automatically, through a system of interlocks designed to prevent dangerous conditions from occurring. In order to clarify what constitutes a safety-related shutdown, the EPA proposed a new definition in 40 CFR 63.2292 defining a safety-related shutdown as an unscheduled shutdown of a process unit subject to a compliance option in Table 1B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, (or a process unit with HAP control under an emissions averaging plan developed according to 40 CFR 63.2240(c)) during which time emissions from the process unit cannot be safely routed to the control system in place to meet the compliance options or operating requirements in subpart DDDD without imminent danger to the process, control system, or system operator. The EPA also proposed a work practice standard for safety-related shutdowns requiring facilities to follow documented site-specific procedures such as use of automated controls or other measures developed to protect workers and equipment to ensure that the flow of raw materials (such as furnish or resin) and fuel or process heat (as applicable) ceases and that material VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 is removed from the process unit(s) as expeditiously as possible given the system design. These actions are taken by all (including the best-performing) facilities when safety-related shutdowns occur. Comments were received both supporting and opposing the proposed work practice for safety-related shutdowns. Commenters in support of the standards stated that CAA section 112(h) allows the EPA to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, in two circumstances: (1) When HAP ‘‘cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such a pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be inconsistent with any Federal, State, or local law,’’ and (2) when ‘‘the application of measurement methodology . . . is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.’’ Commenters stated that safety-related shutdowns of process units with add-on control equipment present both of those circumstances and provided operational details summarized in Section 4.3 of the RTC document. The commenter explained that the best practice for controlling HAP emissions during such safetyrelated shutdowns is to minimize the duration of the event by promptly ceasing the addition of raw materials and heat to the process and removing materials from process equipment as soon as possible (although in some instances it is safer to have the material remain in the process equipment to contain a problem such as a fire). A separate commenter opposed the EPA’s proposed safety-related shutdown work practice standards, arguing that the EPA has not explained how the criteria under CAA section 112(h) are met to provide the EPA the statutory authority to set work practices. The commenter stated that the work practice standards the EPA proposed are too lax because they are written by the facilities with no requirement for approval by the EPA. The commenter contended that the work practices will not achieve ‘‘maximum’’ emission reduction because they only instruct facilities to protect workers and process equipment, with no reference to reducing air emissions. The commenter urged the EPA to clarify how recordkeeping requirements would apply in the context of work practice standards. The full comments and our responses pertaining to safety-related shutdowns are included in the RTC document. According to CAA section 112(h)(1), MACT standards may take the form of design, equipment, work practice, or PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 operational standards ‘‘if it is not feasible in the judgement of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard.’’ The phrase ‘‘if it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard’’ is defined in CAA section 112(h)(2)(A) and (B) to mean any situation in which the Administrator determines that: (A) A HAP or pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be inconsistent with any federal, state or local law, or (B) the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. The EPA has determined that work practices are appropriate during safetyrelated shutdowns in the PCWP industry because facilities cannot capture and convey HAP emissions to a control device during these periods for safety reasons. The control device could serve as an ignition source if there is an upset in the oxygen concentration or buildup of other combustibles in the PCWP process or exhaust gas collection system (e.g., combustible gas, condensed pitch on ductwork if moisture-laden gases in the system are allowed to cool, or wood dust) due to various conditions (e.g., if PCWP process equipment or pneumatic conveying systems become plugged). If there are sparks or fire in the PCWP process unit, conveyance, or the control device, the equipment could be damaged if exhaust continues to be routed from the PCWP process unit to the control device. A PCWP dryer or control device may experience an overtemperature condition indicative of a fire and triggering rapid equipment isolation. Thus, conveying emissions from the PCWP process unit to the control device is not technically feasible during safety-related shutdowns. Further, application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Safety-related shutdowns are brief events that are incorporated into the process design for safety reasons but are not desirable operating conditions that constitute normal operations. Even if staged especially for an emissions measurement (which is economically impracticable due to lost production), the duration of safety-related shutdowns is necessarily brief (i.e., minutes), less than the 1 hour it takes to collect a single emissions measurement sample if the equipment is set up and measurement contractors are onsite ready to sample, let alone the 3 hours needed for a full emissions test. Because E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations a full emissions measurement sample cannot be obtained during a safetyrelated shutdown, application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological limitations in addition to being economically impracticable. Therefore, it is the EPA’s determination that PCWP-industry safety-related shutdowns meet the criteria in CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). Based on our authority to set work practices, the EPA is finalizing a definition of ‘‘safety-related shutdown’’ in 40 CFR 63.2292 and finalizing a work practice for these shutdown events. The work practice is designed to be consistent with actions commonly undertaken by facilities to protect plant personnel, production equipment, and control equipment from dangerous circumstances like fires and explosions. The final work practice requires facilities to follow documented sitespecific procedures such as use of automated controls or other measures developed to protect workers and equipment to ensure that the flow of raw materials (such as furnish or resin) and fuel or process heat (as applicable) ceases and that material is removed from the process unit(s) as expeditiously as possible given the system design to reduce air emissions. The phrase ‘‘to reduce air emissions’’ was added to the standard to address the concern expressed by one commenter that the work practice should direct facilities to consider air quality. The actions required by the safety-related shutdown work practice represent the maximum degree of emissions reduction achievable because they limit the amount of time, as well as the flow of raw materials and fuel into the process, and, therefore, emissions from the process undergoing safety-related shutdown. Rule language relating to the safety-related shutdown work practice was strengthened for the final rule in response to the commenter’s concern that the EPA is giving full discretion to the facilities to develop their safetyrelated shutdown work practices for their own equipment configurations without oversight by the EPA. To strengthen the standard, the EPA added an initial compliance requirement to Table 6 of the final rule to clarify that facilities must have a record of safetyrelated shutdown procedures available for inspection by the delegated authority upon request. In addition, a recordkeeping requirement was added to Table 8 of the final rule to ensure documentation is available to track when the work practice is used, consistent with the proposed VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 requirement under 40 CFR 63.2282(a)(2)(i). Finally, a reporting requirement was added to 40 CFR 63.2281(c)(4) to require facilities to report the number of instances and total amount of time during the reporting period when the safety-related shutdown work practice is used. If the safety-related shutdown work practice is used for more than 100 hours during a reporting period, the facility must report the date, time, and duration of each instance when the work practice was used. The EPA has concluded that these initial compliance and ongoing recordkeeping and reporting measures are sufficient to provide delegated authorities with information needed for oversight. In addition, to clarify requirements, 40 CFR 63.2250(f)(6) was added to the final rule to state that the otherwise applicable compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements (in rows 1 through 5 of Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD) do not apply when the startup/shutdown work practices apply (i.e., the work practices in rows 6 through 8 of Table 3 to subpart DDDD for safety-related shutdown, pressurized refiner startup and shutdown, and softwood veneer dryer gas-burner relights). Thus, compliance with the startup/shutdown work practices (in Table 3 to subpart DDDD, rows 6 through 8) does not constitute a failure to meet the otherwise applicable compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements because these requirements do not apply while the startup/shutdown work practices apply. Finally, 40 CFR 63.2271(b)(4) was added to clarify that instances when the startup/shutdown work practice requirements are used (as reported under 40 CFR 63.2281(c)(4)) are not considered to be deviations from (or violations of) the otherwise applicable compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements (in rows 1 through 5 of Table 3 to subpart DDDD) as long as facilities do not exceed the minimum amount of time necessary for these events. b. Pressurized Refiner Startups and Shutdowns Pressurized refiners use steam to heat and soften wood under pressure to grind it apart between rotating discs into fibers. Pressurized refiners discharge wood fiber and exhaust gases from refining directly into a primary tube dryer. Pressurized refiners cannot be vented through the dryer to the control system (i.e., the dryer control system) PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 49443 for a brief time after they are initially fed wood material during startup and as wood material clears the refiner during shutdown because they are not producing useable fiber suitable for drying or producing PCWP products (hardboard or MDF). During this time, instead of the pressurized refiner output being discharged into the dryer, exhaust is vented to the atmosphere (e.g., through an abort cyclone) and the wood is directed to a reclaim bin for storage and, commonly, recycling back into the refining process once it is running steadily. No resin is mixed with the offspecification material and the time periods are short (e.g., 15 minutes or less) before the pressurized refiner begins to discharge wood fiber and exhaust through the dryer and when the refiner is shutting down. The EPA proposed a work practice requirement in Table 3 of the rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD) to apply during pressurized refiner startup and shutdown that limits the amount of time (and, thus, emissions) when wood is being processed through the system while exhaust is not routed through the dryer to its control system. This practice is consistent with how the bestperforming facilities complete startup and shutdown of pressurized refiners. The proposed work practice stated that facilities must route exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to its control system no later than 15 minutes after furnish is fed from the pressurized refiner to the tube dryer when starting up, and no more than 15 minutes after furnish ceases to be fed to the pressurized refiner when shutting down. Comments were received both supporting and opposing the pressurized refiner startup and shutdown work practice standard. Commenters supporting the work practice stated that periods of startup and shutdown of pressurized refiners meet the CAA section 112(h) criteria for establishing a work practice standard, while commenters opposing the work practice argued that the EPA does not have statutory authority to apply work practice standards instead of numerical emissions limits to pressurized refiner startup and shutdown periods. Commenters in support of the EPA’s proposed work practice standard for startup and shutdown of pressurized refiners noted that the language of the standard in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD appears to have a typographical error. The commenters suggested rewording the standard in Table 3 so that it instructs facilities to route exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to the dryer control system no E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49444 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations later than 15 minutes after wood is fed to the pressurized refiner when starting up and to stop wood flow to the pressurized refiner no more than 15 minutes after wood fiber stops being fed to the dryer from the pressurized refiner. The commenter opposing the work practice standard also questioned the timing and recordkeeping requirements. The full comments and our responses pertaining to pressurized refiners are included in the RTC document. In response to these comments, the EPA concluded pressurized refiner startup and shutdown events meet the criteria in CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). Pressurized refiners are a particular class of sources where emissions are associated with wood processed through the refiner. Pressurized refiners cannot discharge unusable fiber through the tube dryer and its control system during startup and shutdown. Because venting through the pressurized refiner abort cyclone during startup and shutdown of pressurized refiners typically lasts 15 minutes or less, there are technological limitations to measuring emissions because HAP measurement methods require a 1-hour sampling time per test run, and a total of three test runs. The only way to obtain the required sample would be to operate in abort mode for each 1-hour sampling time. However, abort ‘‘bins’’ used to collect the off-spec wood furnish dumped from the system are not designed like material collection bins or silos for useable furnish at wood products facilities. Instead, the abort ‘‘bins’’ are often areas where off-spec fiber is dumped on the ground between concrete wind-breaks where it is removed with a front-end loader. Such areas do not have the capacity for dumping large amounts of fiber as would be needed to stage an event for 1 to 3 hours of testing, presenting another technological limitation. Staging abort dumping of 1 to 3 hours of fiber production also presents obvious economic limitations due to lost production for that time and loss or degradation of valuable fiber raw material. Finally, measuring emissions during pressurized refiner startup and shutdown is impractical because the PCWP NESHAP requires emissions measurement under representative operating conditions that are the conditions under which the process unit typically operates, excluding periods of startup and shutdown. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing a work practice for pressurized refiner startup and shutdown periods. The EPA agrees that the wording of the proposed work practice standard for pressurized refiners in Table 3 needed VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 clarification and has rewritten the standard for the final rule to instruct facilities to route exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to its dryer control system no later than 15 minutes after wood is fed to the pressurized refiner during startup, and to stop wood flow into the pressurized refiner no more than 15 minutes after wood fiber and exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner stop being routed to the dryer during shutdown. In addition, we strengthened the work practice for startup/shutdown of pressurized refiners in the final rule by clarifying when the startup/shutdown work practice applies in 40 CFR 63.2250(f)(6), adding an initial compliance requirement to Table 6 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, and adding a recordkeeping requirement to Table 8 of subpart DDDD to track when the work practice is used, consistent with the proposed requirement under 40 CFR 63.2282(a)(2)(i). Continuous compliance and reporting provisions were also added in 40 CFR 63.2271(b)(4) and 63.2281(c)(4), respectively, to provide clarity and aid in enforceability of the work practice requirement. c. Veneer Dryer Burner Relights An issue with veneer dryer burner relights stemming from removal of the SSM exemption was raised during the comment period for the proposed amendments. The EPA received a comment seeking clarification for directfired softwood veneer dryers undergoing relights of gas-fired burners. Specifically, the commenter noted that 40 CFR 63.2250(d) of the current PCWP rule defines shutoff of direct-fired burners resulting from partial or full production stoppages as shutdowns and the lighting or re-lighting of any one or all gas burners in direct-fired softwood veneer dryers as startups and not a malfunction. The commenter noted that the EPA proposed no changes to 40 CFR 63.2250(d) which was originally included in the PCWP rule to clarify that veneer dryer burner relights are not malfunctions due to their frequency. In the 2004 promulgated standard, these startup/shutdown events were required to be addressed under the SSM plan. The commenter explained that following the flame out of the burner, the dryer could contain non-combusted natural gas that must be purged prior to safely re-lighting the gas burners. Noncombusted natural gas cannot be exhausted to the control device due to safety concerns and must be vented along with whatever process emissions are in the dryer. The length of the purge varies based on system design, but only lasts a matter of minutes. Emissions are PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 routed to the control system as expeditiously as possible following the burner re-light. Therefore, the commenter stated a dryer gas burner relighting startup work practice is needed for the same reasons as a safety shutdown work practice. However, because 40 CFR 63.2250(d) deals with dryer re-lights by defining them as startups, and the proposed rulemaking no longer contains a general exemption for startups, the commenter stated that some provision is needed for veneer dryer gas burner lighting and re-lighting. In response to this comment, the EPA added a work practice to Table 3 of the final rule to clarify the requirements surrounding softwood veneer dryer gasfired burner relights to ensure a standard applies continuously once the SSM plan is no longer required. The work practice requires direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup or shutdown of gas-fired burners to cease feeding green veneer into the softwood veneer dryer and minimize the amount of time direct gas-fired softwood veneer dryers are vented to the atmosphere due to the conditions described in 40 CFR 63.2250(d). Related text was added to 40 CFR 63.2250(f) noting the work practice in Table 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, applies when the otherwise applicable compliance options and operating requirements in the rule cannot be met. An initial compliance requirement was added to Table 6 of subpart DDDD to have a record of the procedures for startup and shutdown of softwood veneer dryer gas-fired burners available for inspection upon request by the delegated authority. In addition, a recordkeeping requirement was added to Table 8 of subpart DDDD to track when the work practice is used, consistent with the proposed requirement under 40 CFR 63.2282(a)(2)(i). Continuous compliance and reporting provisions were also added in 40 CFR 63.2271(b)(4) and 63.2281(c)(4), respectively, to provide clarity and aid in enforceability of the work practice requirement. Conforming changes to refer to the veneer dryer burner relight work practice with the other startup/shutdown work practices were also made throughout the rule. Further clarification with respect to 40 CFR 63.2250(d) is needed as a result of our proposal to remove the SSM exemption (including the SSM plan). The EPA determined that a work practice is appropriate during directfired softwood veneer dryer startups/ shutdowns of gas-fired burners because the conditions of CAA section 112(h)(2)(A) and (B) are both present during veneer dryer burner relights. E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Facilities cannot capture and convey HAP emissions to a control device during these periods for safety reasons. The control device for the veneer dryer could serve as an ignition source if there is an upset in the oxygen concentration or increase in the natural gas concentration in the system. Thus, is it not technically feasible for HAP emissions to be conveyed to the control device during startups/shutdowns associated with softwood veneer dryer gas-burner relights. Further, application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Softwood veneer dryer burner relights are brief events that take less than the 1 hour it takes to collect a single emissions measurement sample if the equipment is set up and measurement contractors are onsite ready to sample, let alone the 3 hours needed for a full emissions test. Because a full emissions measurement sample cannot be obtained while softwood veneer dryers are undergoing gas-burner relights, application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological limitations. In addition, attempting to stage softwood veneer dryer burner relights for purposes of emissions measurement is economically impracticable because veneer is not being dried or moving through the veneer dryer when the burners are not lit, resulting in a production loss during testing. Therefore, the EPA concludes that direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup/shutdown of gasfired burners meet the criteria in CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). 3. Periods of Malfunction Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances’’). As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 49445 other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.’’). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because the EPA had information for that source category to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211–14 (December 1, 2015). In the proposed rulemaking for the PCWP, the EPA did not propose a work practice standard for malfunctions but instead stated that the EPA would consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. The EPA encouraged commenters to provide any such information. Numerous comments were received supporting and opposing the EPA’s decision not to set a standard for malfunctions. One commenter opposed to the EPA’s decision stated that there are several options the EPA could use E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49446 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations for setting emission standards under CAA section 112 that would apply during malfunction events. For example, the commenter stated that the EPA might be able to establish a numerical emission limitation that applies at all times but has an averaging time of sufficient duration that short, infrequent spikes in emissions due to malfunctions would not cause the source to exceed the emission limitation (while at the same time ensuring that the source does not operate in a way that causes frequent, lengthy excursions above the normal controlled emission rate). The EPA also could use the flexibility accorded by CAA section 302(k) (which defines ‘‘emission limitation’’ and ‘‘emission standard’’ to include ‘‘any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to ensure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under’’ the CAA) to address emissions during malfunction events through operational requirements rather than by applying the same limits on pollutant emissions that apply during normal operations. Similarly, the commenter stated the EPA has grounds to exercise its authority under CAA section 112(h) to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, because it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. The commenter noted that even if the EPA does not identify a set of specific work practices that all affected facilities can follow that represent best practices for minimizing emissions during malfunctions, the EPA might instead be able to address malfunctions through a set of criteria that allows facilities to develop and follow a site-specific plan for minimizing the extent and duration of excess emissions during malfunctions. The commenter suggested that the EPA might use several of these approaches in combination and stated that accommodating malfunctions need not result in either an exemption or an increased numerical emission limitation. The commenter urged the EPA to use its authority under CAA sections 112 and 302(k) to address malfunctions in a reasonable, CAA section 112-compliant manner. Conversely, another commenter supported the EPA’s proposed removal of unlawful SSM exemptions in all forms because the CAA requires standards to apply continuously, and the Court precedent is a development since the prior standards were issued. After considering all comments, the EPA is not finalizing a separate standard VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 for periods of malfunction. In the PCWP proposed rulemaking, we requested comment and information to support the development of a work practice standard during periods of malfunction, but we did not receive sufficient information, including additional quantitative emissions data, on which to base a standard for periods of malfunction. Absent sufficient information, it is not reasonable at this time to establish a work practice standard for malfunctions for this source category. 4. Revisions to Table 10 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63 The EPA proposed several specific revisions to Table 10 to subpart DDDD of part 63 (the General Provisions table) to establish standards in this rule that apply at all times. The EPA is finalizing the amendments as proposed, with the clarifications noted in the following sections. The specific revisions are described in the remainder of this section. a. General Duty (40 CFR 63.2250) The EPA is finalizing the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) and (2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5 which was added to specify requirements 1 year after the effective date of the final amendments. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. The EPA is instead adding a general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2250 that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is finalizing for 40 CFR 63.2250 does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). The EPA is also revising the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.2250. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 b. SSM Plan The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is finalizing removal of the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. c. Compliance With Standards The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in columns 4 and 5. The final revision in column 4 refers to 40 CFR 63.2250(a). The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from nonopacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed in section IV.C.1 of this preamble, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with the Court decision, the EPA is finalizing the revised standards in this rule to apply at all times. The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) through (9) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and changing the ‘‘NA’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed in section IV.C.1 of this preamble, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with the Court decision, the EPA is finalizing the revised standards in this rule to apply at all times. d. Performance Testing (40 CFR 63.2262) The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations EPA is finalizing instead the addition of a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.2262(a) and (b). The performance testing requirements the EPA is adding differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption. The finalized performance testing provisions remove reference to 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), reiterate the requirement that was already included in the PCWP rule to conduct emissions tests under representative operating conditions, and clarify that representative operating conditions excludes periods of startup and shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is finalizing added language that requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions are representative. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records ‘‘as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test’’ upon request but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The added regulatory text to this provision that the EPA is finalizing builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the information. The EPA is also finalizing the definition of ‘‘representative operating conditions’’ in 40 CFR 63.2292 to clarify that it excludes periods of startup and shutdown. Representative operating conditions include a range of operating conditions under which the process unit and control device typically operate and are not limited to conditions of optimal performance of the process unit and control device. e. Monitoring The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions’ SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is finalizing adding to the rule at 40 CFR 63.2282(f) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ‘‘The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under 40 CFR 63.8(d)(2).’’ f. Recordkeeping (40 CFR 63.2282) The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) through (iv) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. The EPA is finalizing instead the addition of recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 63.2282(a). When a source is subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and end to determine compliance with the appropriate standard. Thus, the EPA is finalizing adding language to 40 CFR 63.2282(a) requiring that sources subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the emission standard that applies at all other times must record the date, time, and duration of such periods. The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is finalizing the addition of such requirements to 40 CFR 63.2282(a). The final regulatory text the EPA is adding differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is finalizing this requirement to apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also finalizing adding to 40 CFR 63.2282(a) a requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 49447 affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the compliance option in 40 CFR 63.2240 the source failed to meet (including the compliance options in Table 1A or B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, or the emissions averaging compliance option), and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is finalizing the requirement that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. For each failure to meet an operating requirement in Table 2 to subpart DDDD or work practice requirement in Table 3 to subpart DDDD, facilities must maintain sufficient information to estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit. This information must be sufficient to provide a reliable emissions estimate if requested by the Administrator. The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2282(a). The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) to the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. The EPA is finalizing that 40 CFR E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49448 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source’s SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is finalizing eliminating this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units. g. Reporting (40 CFR 63.2281) The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting requirements for SSM events. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is finalizing adding reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.2281(d) and (e). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. The EPA is finalizing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable compliance option in 40 CFR 63.2240 at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual compliance report already required under this rule. The EPA is finalizing that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is finalizing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. A commenter on the proposed rulemaking stated that facilities may not have information to estimate emissions resulting from a deviation from an operating parameter limit (e.g., low oxidizer or biofilter temperature), and requested that emissions estimates only VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 be required to be recorded or reported for failure to meet an emission limit. As explained in the RTC document included in the docket, EPA agrees that precise measurement of PCWP process unit emissions during an operating requirement deviation under the PCWP NESHAP is challenging unless the failure occurs during a performance test. Therefore, 40 CFR 63.2281(e)(12) was updated for the final rule to require reporting of an emission estimate only for failures to meet the numerical emission compliance options in 40 CFR 63.2240, including the compliance options in Table 1A or 1B of subpart DDDD or the emissions averaging compliance option. As noted in section IV.C.4.f of this preamble, 40 CFR 63.2282(a) requires recordkeeping of sufficient information to provide an emissions estimate associated with failure to meet an operating or work practice requirement, if requested by the Administrator. The EPA will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The finalized amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 5. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for SSM events when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. The EPA will no longer require owners or operators to report when actions taken during an SSM event were not consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. Also, the EPA is removing and reserving 40 CFR 63.2281(e)(1) which required reporting of the date and time when each malfunction started and stopped. As discussed in section IV.C.4.f of this preamble, reporting is required for deviations from the applicable standard as opposed to every malfunction occurrence regardless of whether it results in a failure to meet the standard. Section 40 CFR 63.2281(e)(4) requires reporting of the date and time each deviation started and PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of SSM. D. Electronic Reporting The EPA proposed that owners or operators of PCWP facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports for continuous monitoring systems (CMS) measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants (i.e., total hydrocarbon monitors), selected notifications, and semiannual reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the CEDRI. The EPA proposed that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website 5 at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test would be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For the PCWP semiannual report, the EPA proposed that owners or operators use a spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the spreadsheet template for this report was included in the docket for the proposed rulemaking and the EPA specifically requested comment on its content, layout, and overall design.6 The EPA also proposed to require future initial notifications developed according to 40 CFR 63.2280(b) and notifications of compliance status developed according to 40 CFR 63.2280(d) to be uploaded in CEDRI in a user-specified (e.g., PDF) format. In addition, the EPA proposed two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be granted. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA proposed these potential extensions to protect owners or operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons 5 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 6 See 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD—Plywood and Composite Wood Products Semiannual Compliance Reporting Spreadsheet Template, Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0243–0176. E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations outside of their control. The situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2281(k). The situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2281(l). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The EPA received several comments regarding the proposed electronic reporting requirements, including favorable comments and comments suggesting revisions. The electronic reporting requirements are included in the final rule as proposed with clarification of specific questions raised by commenters. Specific comments pertaining to the draft spreadsheet template are detailed in the RTC document along with the EPA’s responses explaining how these comments were used to improve the template. A revised version of the semiannual electronic reporting spreadsheet template is available in the docket for the final rule. One commenter requested that the requirement to use a CEDRI form should not begin until after the form has been available in CEDRI for at least 1 year. The commenter also recommended that the transition to using the new reporting form apply to an entire reporting period, not come into effect in the middle of a reporting period and result in two different reports being prepared. In response to this comment, we revised the final rule to specify use of the semiannual reporting template for the first full reporting period after it has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year. Refer to section IV.J of this preamble for more discussion of the compliance timeline. The EPA proposed a conforming amendment in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, to require submittal of CMS performance evaluations according to the electronic reporting provisions for performance evaluations proposed in 40 CFR 63.2281(j). One commenter requested that the EPA clarify that CMS performance evaluations should be submitted only for continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) and not for VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 continuous parameter monitoring systems. In response to these requests for clarification, we revised Table 9 to subpart DDDD to refer to state the CMS performance evaluation to be reported is the performance evaluation required for CEMS under 40 CFR 63.2269(d)(2). As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, for the final rule, we also revised Table 10 of subpart DDDD to clarify that the CMS performance evaluation provisions in 40 CFR 63.8(e) and the RATA provisions in 40 CFR 63.8(f)(6) only apply for CEMS under subpart DDDD. E. Repeat Emissions Testing As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the emissions testing requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, and proposed to require facilities complying with the standards in Table 1B of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, using an add-on control system other than a biofilter to conduct repeat emissions performance testing every 5 years. Currently, facilities operating add-on controls are required to conduct an initial performance test by the date specified in 40 CFR 63.2261(a). In addition to the initial performance test, process units controlled by biofilters are already required by the PCWP NESHAP to conduct repeat performance testing every 2 years. Periodic performance tests for all types of control systems are already required by permitting authorities for many facilities. Further, the EPA believes that requiring repeat performance tests will help to ensure that control systems are properly maintained over time. As proposed in Table 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD (row 7), the first of the repeat performance tests would be required to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards or within 5 years (60 months) following the previous performance test, whichever is later, and thereafter within 60 months following the previous performance test. Section IV.J of this preamble provides more information on compliance dates. The EPA specifically requested comments on the proposed requirements for repeat performance testing. One commenter agreed with the proposed requirements and stated they are well supported and legally required as part of meeting the EPA’s statutory obligations. The EPA received other comments requesting clarification of the requirements surrounding repeat testing. One commenter requested clarification with regards to whether the repeat testing is to include press capture PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 49449 efficiency testing and requested due to cost, that repeat press capture efficiency testing only be required if an alteration has been made to the enclosure that would significantly affect its efficacy. In response to this comment, a footnote was added to Table 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, clarifying that capture efficiency demonstration is not required with repeat performance tests if the capture device is maintained and operated consistent with its design as well as its operation during the previous capture efficiency demonstration conducted according to Table 4 to subpart DDDD, row 9 as specified in 40 CFR 63.2267.7 Aside from this clarification, the proposed requirements for repeat emissions testing every 5 years for add-on controls other than biofilters are included in the final rule as proposed. Two commenters requested more flexibility for catalytic oxidizer catalyst checks required by the rule given the added repeat testing requirements. The commenters requested the frequency of catalyst checks be revised to ‘‘annual’’ or no more than every 15 months and requested the requirement for catalyst checks be eliminated during years when emissions tests are conducted. In response to these comments, the EPA revised Tables 2 and 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, to refer to ‘‘annual’’ catalyst checks and included a footnote stating that facilities may forego the annual catalyst activity check during the calendar year when a performance test conducted according to Table 4 to subpart DDDD. The final rule requires that, in each calendar year, either a performance test or a catalyst activity check must be conducted. One commenter requested clarification that the Notification of Compliance Status (NCS) is only required with the initial performance test, not with each repeat performance test. As explained further in the RTC document, a NCS is required with initial and repeat performance tests under 40 CFR 63.9. In response to this comment, the EPA deleted the word ‘‘initial’’ from 40 CFR 63.2280(d) and added a phrase mentioning the ‘‘repeat performance test as specified in Table 7 to this subpart’’ so it is clearer that a NCS is required when performing repeat testing according to the methods in Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The EPA also deleted the word ‘‘initial’’ and added a reference to Table 7 to subpart DDDD (which includes repeat testing in 7 The footnote added to Table 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, clarifying when capture efficiency testing is required was included for biofilters and other control devices undergoing repeat emissions testing. E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49450 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations rows 3 and 7) to 40 CFR 63.2280(d)(2) and clarified that the NCS only needs to have ‘‘a summary of’’ the performance test results submitted according to the electronic performance test reporting provisions in 40 CFR 63.2281(i). F. Biofilter Bed Temperature Facilities using a biofilter to comply with the PCWP NESHAP must monitor biofilter bed temperature and maintain the 24-hour block biofilter bed temperature within the range established during performance testing showing compliance with the emission limits. As originally promulgated, the upper and lower limits of the biofilter bed temperature were required to be established as the highest and lowest 15-minute average bed temperatures, respectively, during the three test runs. Facilities may conduct multiple performance tests to expand the biofilter bed operating temperature range. See 40 CFR 63.2262(m). The EPA learned that multiple facilities are having difficulty complying with the PCWP biofilter bed temperature monitoring requirements established according to the original rule. Biofilter bed temperature is affected by ambient temperature which cannot always be accurately predicted in advance of scheduling performance tests. In consideration of this issue, as discussed in the preamble for the proposed amendments (at 84 FR 47097), the EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 63.2262(m)(1) to add a 5-percent variability margin to the biofilter bed temperature upper and lower limits established during emissions testing. Commenters on the proposal stated that the proposed 5-percent variability margin is insufficient, particularly on the lower end of the biofilter bed temperature range and recommended instead that the EPA provide a wider margin allowance or extend the operating limit averaging period beyond the current 24-hour period. The commenters stated that, unlike other common air pollution control devices with operating parameters that can be controlled within a small percentage of set point and are not subject to ambient atmospheric conditions, biofilters are influenced by diurnal, day-to-day, and seasonal ambient temperature variations because they are typically located outside due to their size. They further stated that in practical terms, in order to set the widest bed temperature range, a facility must test on the coldest and the hottest day of the year, yet predicting those days is not possible and is further complicated by the fact that stack test teams and permitting agencies must be VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 given months of advance notice when scheduling a test. To address the commenters’ concern that a 5-percent variability margin is insufficient, the EPA increased the variability margin to 10 percent for the final rule with the stipulation that the variability margin not exceed 8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) on the upper end of the biofilter bed range. As noted in the memorandum, Review of Select Biofilter/Bioscrubber Data Submitted in Response to the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Information Collection Request, Docket Item No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2016–0243–0188, the biofilter bed temperature across all of the biofilters in the PCWP industry spans from 40 °F to 150 °F. On the low end of this range, 5 percent is 2 °F while 10 percent is 4 °F. On the high end of the range, 5 percent is 8 °F while 10 percent is 15 °F. The upper-end value of 15 °F added to 150 °F would allow the facility to operate at 165 °F, which the EPA considers excessive in the absence of data showing this temperature is not detrimental to the microbial population. Therefore, for the final rule, the EPA capped the variability margin for the high end of the biofilter bed temperature range at 8 °F (which coincides with the margin proposed). Thus, for the highend biofilter bed temperature, facilities may add up to 10 percent, not to exceed 8 °F. The EPA anticipates that facilities currently having difficulty maintaining the biofilter bed temperature limits may wish to adjust their temperature limits. As originally promulgated, 40 CFR 63.2262(m)(1) states that facilities may base their biofilter bed temperature range on values recorded during previous performance tests provided that the data used to establish the temperature ranges have been obtained using the required test methods; and that facilities using data from previous performance tests must certify that the biofilter and associated process unit(s) have not been modified since the test. This provision (if met) clarifies that facilities can adjust their previously established biofilter temperature range to include the 5-percent variability margin, if desired. G. Thermocouple Calibration At 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4), the PCWP NESHAP currently requires conducting an electronic calibration of the temperature monitoring device at least semiannually according to the procedures in the manufacturer’s owner’s manual. Stakeholders with facilities subject to the standard explained to the EPA that they are unaware of a thermocouple PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 manufacturer that provides procedures for conducting electronic calibration of thermocouples. According to stakeholders, facilities have been replacing thermocouples because they cannot electronically calibrate them. The stakeholders requested the EPA consider an alternative approach to the current requirement in 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4). To address this issue, the EPA proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4) to allow multiple alternative approaches to thermocouple validation. The EPA received comments supporting the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4) and we are promulgating these revisions as proposed with minor clarifications. In response to a comment that the word ‘‘calibration’’ be removed from 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(5), the EPA is amending this paragraph to replace ‘‘calibration and validation checks’’ with ‘‘validation checks’’ and to specify that validation checks be conducted using the procedures in 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4). One commenter requested the EPA to clarify that temperature sensor validations are not performance evaluations requiring formal notification and reporting under 40 CFR 63.8. For the final rule, the EPA has revised Table 10 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, to clarify that the CMS performance evaluation provisions in 40 CFR 63.8(e) and the RATA provisions in 40 CFR 63.8(f)(6) only apply for CEMS under subpart DDDD. H. Non-HAP Coating Definition The EPA proposed to replace the references to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens and 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) in the PCWP ‘‘non-HAP coating’’ definition with a reference to a new appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The proposed appendix listed the specific carcinogenic HAP that must be below 0.1 percent by mass for a PCWP coating to be considered a nonHAP coating. One commenter stated that the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200(g)), revised in 2012, requires that a chemical manufacturer, distributor, or importer provide a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) (formerly MSDSs or Material Safety Data Sheets) for each hazardous chemical to downstream users, and that PCWP facilities rely on SDSs to identify whether coatings contain carcinogens. The commenter stated that if the EPA finalizes a separate list of HAP in appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, there will be no certainty as to whether non-HAP coatings are being used because of the E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations discrepancy in HAP listed on SDSs (per the HCS) and in appendix B to subpart DDDD. The commenter suggested the EPA should remove appendix B to subpart DDDD and instead reference the OSHA SDS requirements for classification of carcinogenicity at 29 CFR 1910.1200, appendix A, section A.6.4, which match the requirements in the now obsolete OSHA regulatory reference proposed for deletion from the PCWP non-HAP coating definition. The EPA agrees that referencing appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 in the PCWP rule’s non-HAP coating definition is a more streamlined approach for the PCWP NESHAP than use of the proposed appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The OSHA language the PCWP proposal sought to replace is in appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200, section A.6.4. For the final PCWP amendments, the EPA is defining non-HAP coating to mean a coating with HAP contents below 0.1 percent by mass for OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 and below 1.0 percent by mass for other HAP compounds. As a result of the new reference, the proposed appendix B is not being finalized. I. Technical and Editorial Changes The EPA is finalizing the following technical and editorial changes to the final rule as proposed: • The clarifying reference to ‘‘SSM plans’’ in 40 CFR 63.2252 was removed because SSM plans would no longer be applicable after the date specified in 40 CFR 63.2250(c); • the redundant reference in 40 CFR 63.2281(c)(6) for submittal of performance test results with the compliance report was eliminated because performance test results would be required to be electronically reported; • the EPA revised 40 CFR 63.2281(d)(2) and added language to 40 CFR 63.2281(e) introductory text and (e)(12) and (13) to make these paragraphs more consistent to facilitate electronic reporting; • a provision stating that the EPA retains authority to approve alternatives to electronic reporting was added to 40 CFR 63.2291(c)(5); • cross-references to the 40 CFR part 60 appendices containing test methods were updated in Table 4 of the rule; • cross-references were updated throughout the rule, as needed, to match the proposed changes; • cross-references to 40 CFR 63.14 were updated to remove outdated paragraph references; VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 • the equation number crossreferenced in the definition of ‘‘MSF’’ was corrected; and • the cross-reference in 40 CFR 63.2290 was updated to include all sections of the General Provisions. J. Compliance Dates The EPA proposed that existing affected sources and other affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 6, 2019, must comply with all of the amendments 6 months (180 days) after the effective date of the final rule.8 The EPA also proposed the addition of electronic reporting requirements that will require use of a semiannual reporting template once the template has been available on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/complianceand-emissions-data-reporting-interfacecedri) for 6 months. New requirements to conduct repeat performance testing every 5 years for facilities using an addon control system other than a biofilter (see section IV.E of this preamble) were also proposed. The first of the repeat performance tests would be required to be conducted within 3 years after the effective date of the revised standards, or within 5 years (60 months) following the previous performance test, whichever is later, and thereafter within 60 months following the previous performance test. The EPA specifically requested comment on whether the proposed compliance times provide enough time for owners or operators to comply with the proposed amendments, and if the proposed time window is not adequate, requested that commenters provide an explanation of specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. One commenter stated that the 180 days proposed by the EPA for existing facilities to comply with all of the proposed amendments is not enough time to complete all of the activities that must be done in order to effect a smooth transition to the new requirements, including: Developing a site-specific implementation plan; implementing new startup and shutdown procedures; reprogramming of electronic systems and automated alarms to account for the removal of SSM provisions and the addition of new startup and shutdown 8 The final action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), therefore, the effective date of the final rule is the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 49451 related work practices; reworking recordkeeping and reporting systems to match the layout of the new CEDRI form (e.g., breaking out reporting by individual equipment instead of by process group); developing and communicating guidance to ensure consistent implementation across a company’s facilities; preparing permit applications and acquiring revised air permits to reflect the elimination of SSM provisions and addition of new requirements; developing procedures for estimating excess emissions due to deviations; and developing and providing training for facility staff on the revised requirements. The commenter further stated that applying for and receiving a permit revision to reflect the revised requirements alone will likely take more than 180 days and expressed concern that if additional time is not provided and if current permit language conflicts with the final RTR rule, facilities will have to determine how to comply with both the old requirements and the new requirements. The commenter also noted that working with information technology support staff to re-program a facility’s electronic systems to align with the new requirements is an effort that takes more than 180 days to plan and implement. After considering the public comments, the EPA recognizes that 180 days is not practicable for completion of the steps needed to implement the PCWP rule changes given the complexity of operations in the PCWP source category. The PCWP industry involves manufacturing of several different products, using a variety of process unit and control system combinations that differ from facility to facility. As documented in the technology review, the PCWP processes and controls at many mills are highly interconnected (e.g., where multiple different types of process units are routed to the same control device; process units of one type are routed through process units of a different type to emissions control; or where the furnace that provides process heat is also part of the air pollution control system for some processes). The interconnectivity of processes and fireprevention systems needed for processing wood requires a high degree of automation and interconnection in the programmable logic controllers and data acquisition systems (DAS) tailored to each PCWP plant site. Some companies have one PCWP facility while others have more than 10 facilities manufacturing different PCWP products using a variety of equipment E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49452 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations configurations. The EPA understands that companies with numerous PCWP facilities need time for corporate coordination of IT programming resources across multiple uniquely configured plant sites, while companies with fewer facilities have more-limited environmental staff that are sometimes shared across two or three PCWP facilities to oversee reprogramming. The EPA has concluded that 1 year following the effective date of the final amendments is the most expeditious compliance period practicable for existing PCWP affected sources to make the DAS adjustments needed to demonstrate compliance with the revised requirements during startup and shutdown periods and to transition to electronic reporting. All existing affected facilities will have to continue to meet the current requirements of the NESHAP until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 (the publication date of the proposed rulemaking) must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the final amendments, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon initial startup, whichever is later. Regarding the compliance timeline for semiannual reporting, the EPA received comments requesting that the new requirements come into effect at the beginning of a semiannual reporting period, and not in the middle of a reporting period to avoid two different reports being prepared. The EPA recognizes that there can be a transitional compliance period because of the way the effective date of the final PCWP rule is set as the date of publication of the final Federal Register document. During this transitional period for existing sources, the previously promulgated rule requirements must be met until the compliance date (e.g., compliance with the SSM plan), and then the newly promulgated requirements must be met thereafter. The EPA anticipates that this transitional semiannual reporting period will occur before the PCWP semiannual electronic reporting spreadsheet is required to be used. To ensure this, we have revised the final rule to specify use of the semiannual reporting template for the first full reporting period after it has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year. Regarding the compliance timeline for repeat emissions testing, the compliance dates are included in the final rule as proposed. No comments were received regarding the compliance dates for repeat emissions testing. As proposed, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 the first of the repeat performance tests must be conducted within 3 years after August 13, 2020, or within 60 months following the previous performance test, whichever is later. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? As noted in the preamble to the proposed amendments, the EPA identified 230 facilities that are operating and subject to the PCWP NESHAP. This includes 109 facilities manufacturing one or more PCWP products (e.g., plywood, veneer, particleboard, OSB, hardboard, fiberboard, MDF, engineered wood products) and 121 facilities that produce kiln-dried lumber. Sixteen facilities produce PCWP products and kiln-dried lumber. Information on operational facilities is included in the Technology Review for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP, available as Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0243–0189. In addition, the EPA is aware of 13 greenfield facilities (four PCWP and nine kiln-dried lumber mills) that recently commenced construction as major sources of HAP emissions. The EPA is projecting that two new OSB mills will be constructed as major sources within the next 5 years, and that existing facilities will add or replace process units during this same time frame. More details on our projections of new sources are available in Projections of the Number of New and Reconstructed Sources for the Subpart DDDD Technology Review, available as Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0243–0182. B. What are the air quality impacts? The nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the 230 facilities in the PCWP source category are estimated to be 7,600 tpy. Emissions of the six compounds defined as ‘‘total HAP’’ in the PCWP NESHAP (acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde) make up 96 percent of the nationwide emissions. The amendments include removal of the SSM exemption and addition of repeat emissions testing for controls other than biofilters (which already require repeat tests). Although the EPA is unable to quantify the emission reduction associated with these changes, we expect that emissions will be reduced by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during periods of SSM and that the repeat emissions testing requirements will encourage operation of add-on controls to achieve PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 optimum performance. The EPA is not finalizing other revisions to the emission limits that would impact emissions, so there are no quantifiable air quality impacts resulting from the final amendments. C. What are the cost impacts? No capital costs are estimated to be incurred to comply with the final amendments. The costs associated with the final amendments are related to recordkeeping and reporting labor costs and repeat performance testing. Because repeat performance testing is required every 5 years, costs are estimated and summarized over a 5-year period. The nationwide cost of the final amendments is estimated to include a one-time cost of $1.3 million for facilities to review the revised rule and make record systems adjustments and a cost of $3.5 million every 5 years for repeat emissions testing. These costs are in 2018 dollars. Another metric for presenting the onetime costs is as a present value (PV), which is a technique that converts a stream of costs over time into a one-time estimate for the present year or other year. The EPA estimates that the PV of costs for these final amendments is $5.6 million at a discount rate of 7 percent and $6.9 million at a discount rate of 3 percent. In addition, the EPA presents these costs as an equivalent annualized value (EAV) in order to provide an estimate of annual costs consistent with the PV. The EAV for these final amendments is estimated to be $0.9 million at a discount rate of 7 percent and $1.0 million at a discount rate of 3 percent. The PV and EAV cost estimates are in 2016 dollars, in part, to conform to Executive Order 13771 requirements. These estimates have not changed since the proposal. For further information on the costs associated with the amendments, see the memorandum, Cost, Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for Subpart DDDD, Docket Item No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2016–0243–0184, and the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Products Risk and Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP, Docket Item No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2016–0243–0185. D. What are the economic impacts? The EPA estimated that none of the ultimate parent owners affected by the proposed amendments would incur annualized costs of 1.0 percent or greater of their revenues, and that estimate has not changed since proposal. Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies and the E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations industries impacted by this action, and there will not be substantial impacts in the markets for affected products. For more information on the economic impact analysis conducted for the proposal, see the memorandum titled Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Risk and Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP, Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0243–0185. E. What are the benefits? The EPA is not finalizing changes to emissions limits, except to the extent necessary to make them applicable during SSM periods and to establish work practice requirements for certain startup and shutdown periods. The EPA estimates the final amendments (i.e., changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring) are not economically significant. Because these amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emissions reductions were estimated, the EPA did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions. F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from each source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities. The results of the PCWP source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 200,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in1 million and zero people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in four of the 11 demographic groups (African American, Native American, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 below poverty level, and over 25 without a high school diploma) are greater than their respective nationwide percentages. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in the technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category, Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0243– 0181. 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 the Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, available in the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– 0243. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Cost 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 final rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1984.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The information PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 49453 requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions standards. The information collection activities also include paperwork requirements associated with initial and repeat performance testing and parameter monitoring. The final amendments to the rule eliminate the paperwork requirements associated with the SSM plan and recordkeeping of SSM events and require electronic submittal of performance test results and semiannual compliance reports. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, that produce plywood, composite wood products, or kiln-dried lumber. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD). Estimated number of respondents: 244 facilities (including existing and new facilities projected to begin reporting during the ICR period). Frequency of response: The frequency varies depending on the type of response (e.g., initial notification, semiannual compliance report). Total estimated burden: 39,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: $6,930,000 (per year), includes $2,365,000 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49454 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. Of the 69 ultimate parent entities that are subject to the rule, 28 are small according to the Small Business Administration’s small business size standards and standards regarding other entities (e.g., federally recognized tribes). None of the affected 28 small entities have annualized costs of 1 percent or greater of sales. The EPA has, therefore, concluded that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action. 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. While this action creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not exceed $100 million or more. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments own facilities that are impacted by the proposed changes to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are discussed in sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk report titled VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 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. This action involves technical standards. The EPA is finalizing the use of the standards currently listed in Table 4 of the rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD). The EPA is amending 40 CFR 63.14 to incorporate by reference EPA Method 0011 for measurement of formaldehyde. Method 0011 is applicable to the determination of destruction and removal efficiency of analytes including formaldehyde and other compounds. Pollutants withdrawn isokinetically from the emission source and are collected in aqueous acidic 2,4dinitrophenylhydrazine. Formaldehyde present in the emission stream reacts to form a derivative that extracted, solventexchanged, concentrated, and then analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography. The SW–846 Method 0011 (Revision 0, December 1996) is available in ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods,’’ EPA Publication No. SW–846. This method was included in the PCWP rule when it was promulgated in 2004 and is reasonably available from the EPA at https:// www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846compendium. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule or any amendments. The following standards, referenced in the regulatory text, are already approved for incorporation by reference at their respective locations: NCASI Method CI/WP–98.01; NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–99.02; NCASI Method ISS/FP–A105.01; ASTM D6348–03. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.6 of the preamble to the proposed amendments (84 FR 47074, September 6, 2019) and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category, Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0243– 0181. 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 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Andrew 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. Subpart A—General Provisions 2. Section 63.14 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (n)(8) through (28) as (n)(9) through (29) and adding new paragraph (n)(8) to read as follows: ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. * * * * * (n) * * * (8) SW–846–0011, Sampling for Selected Aldehyde and Ketone Emissions from Stationary Sources, Revision 0, December 1996, in EPA Publication No. SW–846, Test Methods E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for table 4 to subpart DDDD. * * * * * Subpart DDDD—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products 3. Section 63.2233 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and (b) to read as follows: ■ § 63.2233 When do I have to comply with this subpart? (a) * * * (1) If the initial startup of your affected source is before September 28, 2004, then you must comply with the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new and reconstructed sources in this subpart no later than September 28, 2004, except as otherwise specified in §§ 63.2250, 63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6), and 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to this subpart. (2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after September 28, 2004, then you must comply with the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new and reconstructed sources in this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source, except as otherwise specified in §§ 63.2250, 63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6), and 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to this subpart. (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements for existing sources no later than October 1, 2007, except as otherwise specified in §§ 63.2240(c)(2)(vi)(A), 63.2250, 63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6) and (c)(4), and 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to this subpart. * * * * * ■ 4. Section 63.2240 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(A) to read as follows: § 63.2240 What are the compliance options and operating requirements and how must I meet them? * * * * * (c) * * * (2) * * * (vi) * * * (A) Before August 13, 2021, emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction as described in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP). On and after August 13, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 2021, emissions during safety-related shutdowns, pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns, or startup and shutdown of direct-fired softwood veneer dryer gas-fired burners. * * * * * ■ 5. Section 63.2250 is amended by: ■ a. Adding two sentences to the end of paragraph (a); ■ b. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c); and ■ c. Adding paragraphs (e) through (g). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.2250 What are the general requirements? (a) * * * For any affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph (a) does not apply on and after August 13, 2020 or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is later. For all other affected sources, this paragraph (a) does not apply on and after August 13, 2021. (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). For any affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph (b) does not apply on and after August 13, 2020 or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is later. For all other affected sources, this paragraph (b) does not apply on and after August 13, 2021. (c) You must develop a written SSMP according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). For any affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph (c) does not apply on and after August 13, 2020 or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is later. For all other affected sources, this paragraph (c) does not apply on and after August 13, 2021. * * * * * (e) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 10 to this subpart. (f) Upon August 13, 2020 or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and after August 13, 2021 for all other affected sources, you must be in compliance with the compliance options, operating requirements, and the work practice requirements in this subpart when the process unit(s) subject to the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements are operating, except as PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 49455 specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Prior to process unit initial startup. (2) During safety-related shutdowns conducted according to the work practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart. (3) During pressurized refiner startup and shutdown according to the work practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart. (4) During startup and shutdown of direct-fired softwood veneer dryer gasfired burners according to the work practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart. (5) You must minimize the length of time when compliance options and operating requirements in this subpart are not met due to the conditions in paragraphs (f)(2) and (4) of this section. (6) The applicable standard during each of the operating conditions specified in paragraphs (f)(2) through (4) of this section are the work practice requirements in Table 3 to this subpart for safety-related shutdowns (row 6), pressurized refiner startup and shutdown (row 7), and direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup or shutdown of gas-fired burners (row 8). The otherwise applicable compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements (in rows 1 through 5 of Table 3 to this subpart) do not apply during the operating conditions specified in paragraphs (f)(2) through (4) of this section. (g) For affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and for all other affected sources on and after August 13, 2021, you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels required by this subpart. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. ■ 6. Section 63.2252 is revised to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49456 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations § 63.2252 What are the requirements for process units that have no control or work practice requirements? For process units not subject to the compliance options or work practice requirements specified in § 63.2240 (including, but not limited to, lumber kilns), you are not required to comply with the compliance options, work practice requirements, performance testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping or reporting requirements of this subpart, or any other requirements in subpart A of this part, except for the initial notification requirements in § 63.9(b). ■ 7. Section 63.2262 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (m)(1), and (n)(1) to read as follows: § 63.2262 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating requirements? (a) Testing procedures. You must conduct each performance test according to the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (o) of this section and according to the methods specified in Table 4 to this subpart. (b) Periods when performance tests must be conducted. You must conduct each performance test based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on representative operating conditions as defined in § 63.2292) of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must describe representative operating conditions in your performance test report for the process and control systems and explain why they are representative. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions are representative. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. * * * * * (m) * * * (1) During the performance test, you must continuously monitor the biofilter bed temperature during each of the required 1-hour test runs. To monitor biofilter bed temperature, you may use multiple thermocouples in representative locations throughout the biofilter bed and calculate the average biofilter bed temperature across these thermocouples prior to reducing the temperature data to 15-minute averages for purposes of establishing biofilter bed VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 temperature limits. The biofilter bed temperature range must be established as the temperature values 10 percent below the minimum and 10 percent (not to exceed 8° F) above the maximum 15minute biofilter bed temperatures monitored during the three test runs. You may base your biofilter bed temperature range on values recorded during previous performance tests provided that the data used to establish the temperature ranges have been obtained using the test methods required in this subpart. If you use data from previous performance tests, you must certify that the biofilter and associated process unit(s) have not been modified subsequent to the date of the performance tests. Replacement of the biofilter media with the same type of material is not considered a modification of the biofilter for purposes of this section. * * * * * (n) * * * (1) During the performance test, you must identify and document the process unit controlling parameter(s) that affect total HAP emissions during the threerun performance test. The controlling parameters you identify must coincide with the representative operating conditions you describe according to paragraph (b) of this section. For each parameter, you must specify appropriate monitoring methods, monitoring frequencies, and for continuously monitored parameters, averaging times not to exceed 24 hours. The operating limit for each controlling parameter must then be established as the minimum, maximum, range, or average (as appropriate depending on the parameter) recorded during the performance test. Multiple three-run performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of parameter values under different operating conditions. * * * * * ■ 8. Section 63.2269 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) to read as follows: § 63.2269 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? * * * * * (b) * * * (4) Validate the temperature sensor’s reading at least semiannually using the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of this section: (i) Compare measured readings to a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulate a typical operating temperature using a NIST traceable temperature PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 simulation device. When the temperature measurement device method is used, the sensor of the NIST traceable calibrated device must be placed as close as practicable to the process sensor, and both devices must be subjected to the same environmental conditions. The accuracy of the temperature measured must be 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by the NIST traceable device or 5 °F, whichever is greater. (ii) Follow applicable procedures in the thermocouple manufacturer owner’s manual. (iii) Request thermocouple manufacturer to certify or re-certify electromotive force (electrical properties) of the thermocouple. (iv) Replace thermocouple with a new certified thermocouple in lieu of validation. (v) Permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as practicable to the process temperature sensor. The sensors must yield a reading within 30 °F of each other for thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers; within 5 °F of each other for biofilters; and within 20 °F of each other for dry rotary dryers. (5) Conduct validation checks using the procedures in paragraph (b)(4) of this section any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor. * * * * * ■ 9. Section 63.2270 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.2270 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? * * * * * (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities or data recorded during periods of safetyrelated shutdown, pressurized refiner startup or shutdown, startup and shutdown of direct-fired softwood veneer dryer gas-fired burners, or control device downtime covered in any approved routine control device maintenance exemption in data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control system. * * * * * ■ 10. Section 63.2271 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 11. Section 63.2280 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d) introductory text, and (d)(2) to read as follows: be submitted following the procedure specified in § 63.2281(h), (k), and (l). * * * * * (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design evaluation, or other compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6 to this subpart, or a repeat performance test as specified in Table 7 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as specified in § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). After August 13, 2020 for affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and after August 13, 2021 for all other affected sources, submit all subsequent Notifications of Compliance Status following the procedure specified in § 63.2281(h), (k), and (l). * * * * * (2) For each compliance demonstration required in Tables 5, 6, and 7 to this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including a summary of the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test. * * * * * ■ 12. Section 63.2281 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; ■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(6); ■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(4); ■ d. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(6); ■ e. Revising paragraph (d)(2); ■ f. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text; ■ g. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1); ■ h. Revising paragraph (e)(2); ■ i. Adding paragraphs (e)(12) and (13); and ■ j. Adding paragraphs (h) through (l). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.2280 What notifications must I submit and when? § 63.2281 when? * * b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2); and ■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(4). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ § 63.2271 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements? * * * * * (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each compliance option, operating requirement, and work practice requirement in Tables 7 and 8 to this subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and periods of control device maintenance specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. These instances are deviations from the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.2281. * * * * * (4) Instances of safety-related shutdown, pressurized refiner startup and shutdown, and startup and shutdown of direct-fired softwood veneer dryer gas-fired burners subject to the work practice requirements in Table 3 to this subpart (rows 6 through 8) must be reported as required in § 63.2281(c)(4). Instances when the work practice requirements in Table 3 to this subpart (rows 6 through 8) are used are not considered to be deviations from (or violations of) the otherwise applicable compliance options, operating requirements and work practice requirements (in rows 1 through 5 of Table 3 to this subpart) as long as you do not exceed the minimum amount of time necessary for these events. ■ * * * * (b) You must submit an Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after September 28, 2004, or after initial startup, whichever is later, as specified in § 63.9(b)(2). Initial Notifications required to be submitted after August 13, 2020 for affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and after August 13, 2021 for all other affected sources submitting initial notifications required in § 63.9(b) must VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 What reports must I submit and * * * * (b) Unless the EPA Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10(a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 9 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section. * * * * * (6) After August 13, 2020 for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and after August 13, 2021 for all PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 49457 other affected sources, submit all subsequent reports following the procedure specified in paragraphs (h), (k) and (l) of this section. (c) * * * (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information specified in § 63.10(d)(5)(i) before August 13, 2021 for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction before September 6, 2019. After August 13, 2020 for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and after August 13, 2021 for all other affected sources, the compliance report must include the number of instances and total amount of time during the reporting period in which each of the startup/shutdown work practice requirements in Table 3 to this subpart (rows 6 through 8) is used in place of the otherwise applicable compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements (in Table 3 to this subpart rows 1 through 5). If a startup/shutdown work practice in Table 3 to this subpart (rows 6 through 8) is used for more than a total of 100 hours during the semiannual reporting period, you must report the date, time and duration of each instance when that startup/ shutdown work practice was used. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) Information on the date, time, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. (e) For each deviation from a compliance option, operating requirement, or work practice requirement occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the compliance options, operating requirements, or work practice requirements in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) and (e)(1) through (13) of this section. * * * * * * * * (2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. * * * * * (12) For any failure to meet a compliance option in § 63.2240, including the compliance options in Table 1A or 1B to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option, provide an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49458 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations the method used to estimate the emissions. (13) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. * * * * * (h) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph (h), you must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as confidential business information (CBI). Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be CBI. For semiannual compliance reports required in this section and Table 9 (row 1) to this subpart, 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 once the reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year. The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in § 63.13. You must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI in the first full reporting period after the report template for this subpart has been available in CEDRI for 1 year. Initial Notifications developed according to § 63.2280(b) and Notifications of Compliance Status developed according to § 63.2280(d) may be uploaded in a user-specified format such as portable document format (PDF). The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if persons wish to assert a CBI claim, submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 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. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment and requires EPA to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test. The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential Business Information (CBI). The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you claim some of the information submitted under this paragraph (i) is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 this paragraph (i). All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment and requires EPA to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. (j) 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 (j)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential Business Information (CBI). The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you claim some of the information submitted under this paragraph (j) is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 this paragraph (j). All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment and requires EPA to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. (k) If you are required to electronically submit a report or notification through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX by this subpart, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the electronic submittal reporting requirement in this section. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due. (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned. (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying: (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the electronic submittal requirement in this subpart at the time of the notification, the date you submitted the report. (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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. (l) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX by this subpart, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the electronic submittal requirement in this section. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (l)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (3) You must provide to the Administrator: (i) A written description of the force majeure event; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the electronic submittal requirement in this subpart at the time of the notification, the date you submitted the report. (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. ■ 13. Section 63.2282 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(2) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 § 63.2282 49459 What records must I keep? (a) * * * (2) Before August 13, 2021, the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction before September 6, 2019. After August 13, 2021] for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and after August 13, 2021 for all other affected sources, the records related to startup and shutdown, failures to meet the standard, and actions taken to minimize emissions, specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Record the date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown period, including the periods when the affected source was subject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown. (ii) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, record the number of failures; for each failure, record the date, time, cause and duration of each failure. (iii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, and the following information: (A) For any failure to meet a compliance option in § 63.2240, including the compliance options in Table 1A or 1B to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option, record 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. (B) For each failure to meet an operating requirement in Table 2 to this subpart or work practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart, maintain sufficient information to estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit. This information must be sufficient to provide a reliable emissions estimate if requested by the Administrator. (iv) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.2250(g), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan, with the program of corrective action included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2). * * * * * (f) You must keep the written CMS quality control procedures required by § 63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49460 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this subpart, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2). ■ 14. Section 63.2283 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 63.2283 In what form and how long must I keep my records? * * * * * (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. ■ 15. Section 63.2290 is revised to read as follows: § 63.2290 What parts of the general provisions apply to me? Table 10 to this subpart shows which parts of the general provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. 16. Section 63.2291 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows: ■ § 63.2291 Who implements and enforces this subpart? * * * * * (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section. * * * * * (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. ■ 17. Section 63.2292 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the definitions of ‘‘MSF,’’ ‘‘Non-HAP coating,’’ and ‘‘Representative operating conditions’’; ■ b. Adding the definition of ‘‘Safetyrelated shutdown’’ in alphabetical order; and ■ c. Removing the definition of ‘‘Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.’’ The revisions and addition read as follows: § 63.2292 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * MSF means thousand square feet (92.9 square meters). Square footage of panels is usually measured on a thickness basis, such as 3⁄8-inch, to define the total volume of panels. Equation 3 of § 63.2262(j) shows how to convert from one thickness basis to another. * * * * * Non-HAP coating means a coating with HAP contents below 0.1 percent by mass for Occupational Safety and Health Administration-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200, and below 1.0 percent by mass for other HAP compounds. * * * * * Representative operating conditions means operation of a process unit during performance testing under the conditions that the process unit will typically be operating in the future, including use of a representative range of materials (e.g., wood material of a typical species mix and moisture content or typical resin formulation) and representative operating temperature range. Representative operating conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. * * * * * Safety-related shutdown means an unscheduled shutdown of a process unit subject to a compliance option in Table 1B to this subpart (or a process unit with HAP control under an emissions averaging plan developed according to § 63.2240(c)) during which time emissions from the process unit cannot be safely routed to the control system in place to meet the compliance options or operating requirements in this subpart without imminent danger to the process, control system, or system operator. * * * * * ■ 18. Table 2 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS If you operate a(n) . . . You must . . . Or you must . . . (1) Thermal oxidizer ................................. Maintain the 3-hour block average firebox temperature above the minimum temperature established during the performance test. (2) Catalytic oxidizer ................................ Maintain the 3-hour block average catalytic oxidizer temperature above the minimum temperature established during the performance test; AND check the activity level of a representative sample of the catalyst annually except as specified in footnote ‘‘2’’ to this table. Maintain the 24-hour block biofilter bed temperature within the range established according to § 63.2262(m). Petition the EPA Administrator for site-specific operating parameter(s) to be established during the performance test and maintain the average operating parameter(s) within the range(s) established during the performance test. Maintain the 3-hour block average THC concentration 1 in the thermal oxidizer exhaust below the maximum concentration established during the performance test. Maintain the 3-hour block average THC concentration 1 in the catalytic oxidizer exhaust below the maximum concentration established during the performance test. Maintain the 24-hour block average THC concentration 1 in the biofilter exhaust below the maximum concentration established during the performance test. Maintain the 3-hour block average THC concentration 1 in the control device exhaust below the maximum concentration established during the performance test. PO 00000 13AUR2 (3) Biofilter ................................................ (4) Control device other than a thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, or biofilter. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 49461 TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS—Continued If you operate a(n) . . . You must . . . Or you must . . . (5) Process unit that meets a compliance option in Table 1A to this subpart, or a process unit that generates debits in an emissions average without the use of a control device. Maintain on a daily basis the process unit controlling operating parameter(s) within the ranges established during the performance test according to § 63.2262(n). Maintain the 3-hour block average THC concentration 1 in the process unit exhaust below the maximum concentration established during the performance test. 1 You 2 You may choose to subtract methane from THC measurements. may forego the annual catalyst activity check during the calendar year when a performance test is conducted according to Table 4 to this subpart. 19. Table 3 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 3 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS For the following process units at existing or new affected sources . . . You must . . . (1) Dry rotary dryers ........................................... Process furnish with a 24-hour block average inlet moisture content of less than or equal to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis); AND operate with a 24-hour block average inlet dryer temperature of less than or equal to 600 °F. Process less than 30 volume percent softwood species on an annual basis. Minimize fugitive emissions from the dryer doors through (proper maintenance procedures) and the green end of the dryers (through proper balancing of the heated zone exhausts). Process veneer that has been previously dried, such that the 24-hour block average inlet moisture content of the veneer is less than or equal to 25 percent (by weight, dry basis). Use non-HAP coatings as defined in § 63.2292. Follow documented site-specific procedures such as use of automated controls or other measures that you have developed to protect workers and equipment to ensure that the flow of raw materials (such as furnish or resin) and fuel or process heat (as applicable) ceases and that material is removed from the process unit(s) as expeditiously as possible given the system design to reduce air emissions. Route exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to its dryer control system no later than 15 minutes after wood is fed to the pressurized refiner during startup. Stop wood flow into the pressurized refiner no more than 15 minutes after wood fiber and exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner stop being routed to the dryer during shutdown. Cease feeding green veneer into the softwood veneer dryer and minimize the amount of time direct gas-fired softwood veneer dryers are vented to the atmosphere due to the conditions described in § 63.2250(d). (2) Hardwood veneer dryers ............................... (3) Softwood veneer dryers ................................ (4) Veneer redryers ............................................ (5) Group 1 miscellaneous coating operations .. (6) Process units and control systems undergoing safety-related shutdown on and after August 13, 2021 except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table. (7) Pressurized refiners undergoing startup or shutdown on and after August 13, 2021 except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table. (8) Direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup or shutdown of gas-fired burners on and after August 13, 2021 except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table. 1 New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with this requirement beginning on August 13, 2020 or upon initial startup, whichever is later. 20. Table 4 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 4 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS For . . . You must . . . Using . . . (1) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1A or 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). (2) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1A or 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). (3) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1A or 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). (4) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1A or 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). (5) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1B to this subpart for which you choose to demonstrate compliance using a total HAP as THC compliance option. select sampling port’s location and the number of traverse ports. determine velocity and volumetric flow rate. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 (as appropriate). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 conduct gas molecular weight analysis. measure moisture content of the stack gas. measure emissions of total HAP as THC. Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Method 2 in addition to Method 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in appendices A–1 and A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 (as appropriate). Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 (as appropriate). Method 4 in appendix A–3 to 40 CFR part 60; OR Method 320 in appendix A to this part; OR ASTM D6348–03 (IBR, see § 63.14). Method 25A in appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60. You may measure emissions of methane using EPA Method 18 in appendix A–6 to 40 CFR part 60 and subtract the methane emissions from the emissions of total HAP as THC. E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49462 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 4 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued For . . . You must . . . Using . . . (6) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1A to this subpart; OR for each process unit used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). measure emissions of total HAP (as defined in § 63.2292). (7) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1B to this subpart for which you choose to demonstrate compliance using a methanol compliance option. measure emissions of methanol. (8) each process unit subject to a compliance option in table 1B to this subpart for which you choose to demonstrate compliance using a formaldehyde compliance option. measure emissions of formaldehyde. (9) each reconstituted wood product press at a new or existing affected source or reconstituted wood product board cooler at a new affected source subject to a compliance option in table 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). meet the design specifications included in the definition of wood products enclosure in § 63.2292; or determine the percent capture efficiency of the enclosure directing emissions to an add-on control device. (10) each reconstituted wood product press at a new or existing affected source or reconstituted wood product board cooler at a new affected source subject to a compliance option in table 1A to this subpart. determine the percent capture efficiency. (11) each process unit subject to a compliance option in tables 1A and 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). establish the site-specific operating requirements (including the parameter limits or THC concentration limits) in table 2 to this subpart. Method 320 in appendix A to this part; OR the NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–99.02 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method ISS/FP–A105.01 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR ASTM D6348–03 (IBR, see § 63.14) provided that percent R as determined in Annex A5 of ASTM D6348–03 is equal or greater than 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. Method 308 in appendix A to this part; OR Method 320 in appendix A to this part; OR the NCASI Method CI/ WP–98.01 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–99.02 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method ISS/FP–A105.01 (IBR, see § 63.14). Method 316 in appendix A to this part; OR Method 320 in appendix A to this part; OR Method 0011 in ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods’’ (EPA Publication No. SW–846) for formaldehyde (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method CI/WP–98.01 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–99.02 (IBR, see § 63.14); OR the NCASI Method ISS/FP–A105.01 (IBR, see § 63.14). Methods 204 and 204A through 204F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, to determine capture efficiency (except for wood products enclosures as defined in § 63.2292). Enclosures that meet the definition of wood products enclosure or that meet Method 204 requirements for a permanent total enclosure (PTE) are assumed to have a capture efficiency of 100 percent. Enclosures that do not meet either the PTE requirements or design criteria for a wood products enclosure must determine the capture efficiency by constructing a TTE according to the requirements of Method 204 and applying Methods 204A through 204F (as appropriate). As an alternative to Methods 204 and 204A through 204F, you may use the tracer gas method contained in appendix A to this subpart. a TTE and Methods 204 and 204A through 204F (as appropriate) of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M. As an alternative to installing a TTE and using Methods 204 and 204A through 204F, you may use the tracer gas method contained in appendix A to this subpart. Enclosures that meet the design criteria (1) through (4) in the definition of wood products enclosure, or that meet Method 204 requirements for a PTE (except for the criteria specified in section 6.2 of Method 204) are assumed to have a capture efficiency of 100 percent. Measured emissions divided by the capture efficiency provides the emission rate. data from the parameter monitoring system or THC CEMS and the applicable performance test method(s). 21. Table 6 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 6 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATIONS FOR WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS For each . . . For the following work practice requirements . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . (1) Dry rotary dryer ........................... Process furnish with an inlet moisture content less than or equal to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis) AND operate with an inlet dryer temperature of less than or equal to 600 °F. You meet the work practice requirement AND you submit a signed statement with the Notification of Compliance Status that the dryer meets the criteria of a ‘‘dry rotary dryer’’ AND you have a record of the inlet moisture content and inlet dryer temperature (as required in § 63.2263). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 49463 TABLE 6 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATIONS FOR WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS—Continued For each . . . For the following work practice requirements . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . (2) Hardwood veneer dryer .............. Process less than 30 volume percent softwood species. (3) Softwood veneer dryer ................ Minimize fugitive emissions from the dryer doors and the green end. (4) Veneer redryers .......................... Process veneer with an inlet moisture content of less than or equal to 25 percent (by weight, dry basis). (5) Group 1 miscellaneous coating operations. Use non-HAP coatings as defined in § 63.2292 ....... (6) Process units and control systems undergoing safety-related shutdown on and after August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table. (7) Pressurized refiners undergoing startup or shutdown on and after August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table. Follow documented site-specific procedures to ensure the flow of raw materials and fuel or process heat ceases and that material is removed from the process unit(s) as expeditiously as possible given the system design to reduce air emissions. Route exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to its dryer control system no later than 15 minutes after wood is fed to the pressurized refiner during startup. Stop wood flow into the pressurized refiner no more than 15 minutes after wood fiber and exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner stop being routed to the dryer during shutdown. Cease feeding green veneer into the softwood veneer dryer and minimize the amount of time direct gas-fired softwood veneer dryers are vented to the atmosphere due to the conditions described in § 63.2250(d). You meet the work practice requirement AND you submit a signed statement with the Notification of Compliance Status that the dryer meets the criteria of a ‘‘hardwood veneer dryer’’ AND you have a record of the percentage of softwoods processed in the dryer (as required in § 63.2264). You meet the work practice requirement AND you submit with the Notification of Compliance Status a copy of your plan for minimizing fugitive emissions from the veneer dryer heated zones (as required in § 63.2265). You meet the work practice requirement AND you submit a signed statement with the Notification of Compliance Status that the dryer operates only as a redryer AND you have a record of the veneer inlet moisture content of the veneer processed in the redryer (as required in § 63.2266). You meet the work practice requirement AND you submit a signed statement with the Notification of Compliance Status that you are using non-HAP coatings AND you have a record showing that you are using non-HAP coatings. You meet the work practice requirement AND you have a record of safety-related shutdown procedures available for inspection by the delegated authority upon request. (8) Direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup or shutdown of gas-fired burners on and after August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table. You meet the work practice requirement AND you have a record of pressurized refiner startup and shutdown procedures available for inspection by the delegated authority upon request. You meet the work practice requirement AND you have a record of the procedures for startup and shutdown of softwood veneer dryer gas-fired burners available for inspection by the delegated authority upon request. 1 New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with this requirement beginning on August 13, 2020 or upon initial startup, whichever is later. 22. Table 7 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 7 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS For . . . For the following compliance options and operating requirements . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . (1) Each process unit listed in Table 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). Compliance options in Table 1B to this subpart the emissions averaging compliance option § 63.2240(c) and the operating requirements Table 2 to this subpart based on monitoring operating parameters. Collecting and recording the operating parameter monitoring system data listed in Table 2 to this subpart for the process unit according to §§ 63.2269(a) through (b) and 63.2270; AND reducing the operating parameter monitoring system data to the specified averages in units of the applicable requirement according to calculations in § 63.2270; AND maintaining the average operating parameter at or above the minimum, at or below the maximum, or within the range (whichever applies) established according to § 63.2262. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 or in in of E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49464 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 7 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS—Continued For . . . For the following compliance options and operating requirements . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . (2) Each process unit listed in Tables 1A and 1B to this subpart or used in calculation of an emissions average under § 63.2240(c). Compliance options in Tables 1A and 1B to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option in § 63.2240(c) and the operating requirements in Table 2 to this subpart based on THC CEMS data. (3) Each process unit using a biofilter. Compliance options in Tables 1B to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option in § 63.2240(c). (4) Each process unit using a catalytic oxidizer. Compliance options in Table 1B to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option in § 63.2240(c). (5) Each process unit listed in Table 1A to this subpart, or each process unit without a control device used in calculation of an emissions averaging debit under § 63.2240(c). (6) Each Process unit listed in Table 1B to this subpart using a wet control device as the sole means of reducing HAP emissions. (7) Each process unit listed in Table 1B to this subpart using a control device other than a biofilter. Compliance options in Table 1A to this subpart the emissions averaging compliance option § 63.2240(c) and the operating requirements Table 2 to this subpart based on monitoring process unit controlling operating parameters. Collecting and recording the THC monitoring data listed in Table 2 to this subpart for the process unit according to § 63.2269(d); AND reducing the CEMS data to 3-hour block averages according to calculations in § 63.2269(d); AND maintaining the 3-hour block average THC concentration in the exhaust gases less than or equal to the THC concentration established according to § 63.2262. Conducting a repeat performance test using the applicable method(s) specified in Table 4 to this subpart 1 within 2 years following the previous performance test and within 180 days after each replacement of any portion of the biofilter bed media with a different type of media or each replacement of more than 50 percent (by volume) of the biofilter bed media with the same type of media. Checking the activity level of a representative sample of the catalyst at least annually 2 and taking any necessary corrective action to ensure that the catalyst is performing within its design range. Collecting and recording on a daily basis process unit controlling operating parameter data; AND maintaining the operating parameter at or above the minimum, at or below the maximum, or within the range (whichever applies) established according to § 63.2262. Implementing your plan to address how organic HAP captured in the wastewater from the wet control device is contained or destroyed to minimize re-release to the atmosphere. Conducting a repeat performance test using the applicable method(s) specified in Table 4 to this subpart 1 by August 13, 2023 or within 60 months following the previous performance test, whichever is later, and thereafter within 60 months following the previous performance test. or in in of Compliance options in Table 1B to this subpart or the emissions averaging compliance option in § 63.2240(c). Compliance options in Tables 1B to this subpart ..... 1 When conducting a repeat performance test, the capture efficiency demonstration required in Table 4 to this subpart, row 9 is not required to be repeated with the repeat emissions test if the capture device is maintained and operated consistent with its design as well as its operation during the previous capture efficiency demonstration conducted according to Table 4 to this subpart, row 9 as specified in § 63.2267. 2 You may forego the annual catalyst activity check during the calendar year when a performance test is conducted according to Table 4 to this subpart. 23. Table 8 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 8 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS For . . . For the following work practice requirements . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . (1) Dry rotary dryer ........................... Process furnish with an inlet moisture content less than or equal to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis) AND operate with an inlet dryer temperature of less than or equal to 600 °F. (2) Hardwood veneer dryer .............. Process less than 30 volume percent softwood species. (3) Softwood veneer dryer ................ Minimize fugitive emissions from the dryer doors and the green end. Maintaining the 24-hour block average inlet furnish moisture content at less than or equal to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis) AND maintaining the 24-hour block average inlet dryer temperature at less than or equal to 600 °F; AND keeping records of the inlet temperature of furnish moisture content and inlet dryer temperature. Maintaining the volume percent softwood species processed below 30 percent AND keeping records of the volume percent softwood species processed. Following (and documenting that you are following) your plan for minimizing fugitive emissions. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 49465 TABLE 8 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS— Continued For . . . For the following work practice requirements . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . (4) Veneer redryers .......................... Process veneer with an inlet moisture content of less than or equal to 25 percent (by weight, dry basis). (5) Group 1 miscellaneous coating operations. Use non-HAP coatings as defined in § 63.2292 ....... (6) Process units and control systems undergoing safety-related shutdown on and after August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table. (7) Pressurized refiners undergoing startup or shutdown on and after August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table. Follow documented site-specific procedures to ensure the flow of raw materials and fuel or process heat ceases and that material is removed from the process unit(s) as expeditiously as possible given the system design to reduce air emissions. Route exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to its dryer control system no later than 15 minutes after wood is fed to the pressurized refiner during startup. Stop wood flow into the pressurized refiner no more than 15 minutes after wood fiber and exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner stop being routed to the dryer during shutdown.. Cease feeding green veneer into the softwood veneer dryer and minimize the amount of time direct gas-fired softwood veneer dryers are vented to the atmosphere due to the conditions described in § 63.2250(d). Maintaining the 24-hour block average inlet moisture content of the veneer processed at or below of less than or 25 percent AND keeping records of the inlet moisture content of the veneer processed. Continuing to use non-HAP coatings AND keeping records showing that you are using non-HAP coatings. Keeping records showing that you are following the work practice requirements during safety-related shutdowns. (8) Direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup or shutdown of gas-fired burners on and after August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table. Keeping records showing that you are following the work practice requirements during pressurized refiner startup and shutdown events. Keeping records showing that you are following the work practice requirements while undergoing startup or shutdown of softwood veneer dryer direct gas-fired burners. 1 New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with this requirement beginning on August 13, 2020 or upon initial startup, whichever is later. 24. Table 9 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 9 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS You must submit a(n) . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . (1) Compliance report ....................... The information in § 63.2281(c) through (g) ............. (2) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your SSMP before August 13, 2021.1 (3) Performance test report .............. (4) CMS performance evaluation, as required for CEMS under § 63.2269(d)(2). (i) Actions taken for the event .................................. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.2281(b). By fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the plan. By letter within 7 working days after the end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting authority. (ii) The information in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ...................... The information required in § 63.7(g) ....................... The information required in § 63.7(g) ....................... According to the requirements of § 63.2281(i). According to the requirements of § 63.2281(j). 1 The requirement for the SSM report in row 2 of this table does not apply for new or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019. 25. Table 10 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO THIS SUBPART Applies to this subpart before August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table Citation Subject Brief description § 63.1 .............................. Applicability ...................... § 63.2 .............................. § 63.3 .............................. Definitions ........................ Units and Abbreviations .. Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications. Definitions for standards in this part ......................... Units and abbreviations for standards in this part .... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Applies to this subpart on and after August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes. E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49466 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO THIS SUBPART—Continued Applies to this subpart before August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table Applies to this subpart on and after August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table Citation Subject Brief description § 63.4 .............................. Prohibited Activities and Circumvention. Preconstruction Review and Notification Requirements. Applicability ...................... Prohibited activities; compliance date; circumvention, fragmentation. Preconstruction review requirements of section 112(i)(1). Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. GP apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become major. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for section 112(f). Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards immediately upon becoming major, regardless of whether required to comply when they were an area source. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date; for section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (e.g., 3 years). Yes .................................. Yes. You must operate and maintain affected source in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. You must correct malfunctions as soon as practicable after their occurrence. Operation and maintenance requirements are enforceable independent of emissions limitations or other requirements in relevant standards. Yes .................................. Yes .................................. No, see § 63.2250 for general duty requirement. No. Yes .................................. Yes. Requirement for SSM and SSMP; content of SSMP Yes .................................. No. You must comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM. Compliance based on performance test, operation and maintenance plans, records, inspection. No. See § 63.2250(a) ...... No. Yes .................................. Yes. Procedures for getting an alternative standard ......... You must comply with opacity and visible emission standards at all times except during SSM. Requirements for opacity and visible emission standards. Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. Yes .................................. NA .................................... Yes. No. NA .................................... NA. Yes .................................. Yes. Compliance extension and Administrator’s authority President may exempt source category from requirement to comply with rule. Dates for conducting initial performance testing and other compliance demonstrations; must conduct 180 days after first subject to rule. Administrator may require a performance test under CAA section 114 at any time. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test .... Yes .................................. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. If have to reschedule performance test, must notify Administrator as soon as practicable. Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 60 days before the test or on date Administrator agrees with; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA procedures for testing. Requirements for testing facilities ............................. Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions; cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. Must conduct according to rule and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes .................................. Yes. No, see § 63.2262(a)–(b). Yes .................................. Yes. § 63.5 .............................. § 63.6(a) .......................... § 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ............... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. § 63.6(b)(5) ..................... Notification ....................... § 63.6(b)(6) ..................... § 63.6(b)(7) ..................... [Reserved]. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources that Become Major. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ............... § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ............... § 63.6(c)(5) ..................... § 63.6(d) .......................... § 63.6(e)(1)(i) .................. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................ § 63.6(e)(2) ..................... § 63.6(e)(3) ..................... § 63.6(f)(1) ...................... § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ................ § 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ............... § 63.6(h)(1) ..................... § 63.6(h)(2)–(9) ............... § 63.6(i)(1)–(14) .............. § 63.6(i)(15) .................... § 63.6(i)(16) .................... § 63.6(j) ........................... [Reserved]. Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources that Become Major. [Reserved]. General Duty to Minimize Emissions. Requirement to Correct Malfunctions ASAP. Operation and Maintenance Requirements. [Reserved]. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). SSM Exemption ............... Methods for Determining Compliance/Finding of Compliance. Alternative Standard ........ SSM Exemption ............... Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards. Compliance Extension ..... § 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ............... [Reserved]. Compliance Extension ..... Presidential Compliance Exemption. Performance Test Dates § 63.7(a)(3) ..................... Section 114 Authority ...... § 63.7(b)(1) ..................... Notification of Performance Test. Notification of Rescheduling. Quality Assurance/Test Plan. § 63.7(b)(2) ..................... § 63.7(c) .......................... § 63.7(d) .......................... § 63.7(e)(1) ..................... Testing Facilities .............. Performance Testing ....... § 63.7(e)(2) ..................... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 49467 TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO THIS SUBPART—Continued Applies to this subpart before August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table Applies to this subpart on and after August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table Citation Subject Brief description § 63.7(e)(3) ..................... Test Run Duration ........... Yes .................................. Yes. § 63.7(f) ........................... Alternative Test Method .. Yes .................................. Yes. § 63.7(g) .......................... Performance Test Data Analysis. Yes .................................. Yes. § 63.7(h) .......................... Waiver of Tests ............... Yes .................................. Yes. § 63.8(a)(1) ..................... Applicability of Monitoring Requirements. Performance Specifications. [Reserved]. Monitoring with Flares ..... Monitoring ........................ Must have three test runs for at least the time specified in the relevant standard; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; specifies conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Must include raw data in performance test report; must submit performance test data 60 days after end of test with the notification of compliance status; keep data for 5 years. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test. Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard .. Yes .................................. Yes. Performance specifications in appendix B of part 60 of this chapter apply. Yes .................................. Yes. Requirements for flares in § 63.11 apply .................. Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems; must install on each effluent before it is combined and before it is released to the atmosphere unless Administrator approves otherwise; if more than one monitoring system on an emission point, must report all monitoring system results, unless one monitoring system is a backup. Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with and good air pollution control practices. Must maintain and operate CMS in accordance with § 63.6(e)(1). Must maintain spare parts for routine CMS repairs .. Must develop and implement SSMP for CMS .......... NA .................................... Yes .................................. NA. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. No. Yes .................................. Yes .................................. Yes. No. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. NA .................................... NA. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes. Refer to § 63.2269(a)–(c) for CPMS quality control procedures to be included in the quality control program. Yes .................................. Yes. Refer to § 63.2269(a)–(c) for CPMS quality control procedures to be included in the quality control program. No, see § 63.2282(f). Yes, for CEMS ................. Yes, for CEMS. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes, for CEMS ................. Yes, for CEMS. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes. § 63.8(a)(2) ..................... § 63.8(a)(3) ..................... § 63.8(a)(4) ..................... § 63.8(b)(1) ..................... § 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ............... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. § 63.8(c)(1) ..................... Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Operation and Maintenance of CMS. Spare Parts for CMS ....... Requirements to Develop SSMP for CMS. Monitoring System Installation. § 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................. § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ............... § 63.8(c)(4) ..................... CMS Requirements ......... § 63.8(c)(5) ..................... § 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ............... Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) Minimum Procedures. CMS Requirements ......... § 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ............... CMS Quality Control ........ § 63.8(d)(3) ..................... Written Procedures for CMS. § 63.8(e) .......................... § 63.8(g) .......................... CMS Performance Evaluation. Alternative Monitoring Method. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Data Reduction ................ § 63.9(a) .......................... § 63.9(b)(1)–(2) ............... Notification Requirements Initial Notifications ............ § 63.9(b)(3) ..................... [Reserved]. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ................ § 63.8(f)(6) ...................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 Must install to get representative emission of parameter measurements; must verify operational status before or at performance test. CMS must be operating except during breakdown, out-of-control, repair, maintenance, and high-level calibration drifts; COMS must have a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analysis for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6-minute period; CEMS must have a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. COMS minimum procedures ..................................... Zero and high-level calibration check requirements; out-of-control periods. Requirements for CMS quality control, including calibration, etc.. Must keep quality control plan on record for 5 years. Keep old versions for 5 years after revisions. May incorporate as part of SSMP to avoid duplication.. Notification, performance evaluation test plan, reports. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy tests for CEMS. COMS 6-minute averages calculated over at least 36 evenly spaced data points; CEMS 1 hour averages computed over at least 4 equally spaced data points; data that can’t be used in average; rounding of data. Applicability and State delegation ............................. Submit notification 120 days after effective date; contents of notification. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 49468 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO THIS SUBPART—Continued Applies to this subpart before August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table Applies to this subpart on and after August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table Citation Subject Brief description § 63.9(b)(4)–(5) ............... Initial Notifications ............ Yes .................................. Yes. § 63.9(c) .......................... Request for Compliance Extension. Yes .................................. Yes. § 63.9(d) .......................... Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. Notification of Performance Test. Notification of Visible Emissions/Opacity Test. Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Submit notification 120 days after effective date; notification of intent to construct/reconstruct; notification of commencement of construct/reconstruct; notification of startup; contents of each. Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed best available control technology/lowest achievable emission rate. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Notify EPA Administrator 60 days prior .................... Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Notify EPA Administrator 30 days prior .................... No .................................... No. Notification of performance evaluation; notification using COMS data; notification that exceeded criterion for relative accuracy. Contents; due 60 days after end of performance test or other compliance demonstration, except for opacity/VE, which are due 30 days after; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority. Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Must submit within 15 days after the change ........... Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Applies to all, unless compliance extension; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority; procedures for owners of more than one source. General Requirements; keep all records readily available; keep for 5 years. Records of occurrence and duration of each startup or shutdown that causes source to exceed emission limitation. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. No, see § 63.2282(a). Records of occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation or air pollution control and monitoring equipment. Yes .................................. Records of maintenance performed on air pollution control and monitoring equipment. Records of actions taken during SSM to minimize emissions. Yes .................................. No, see § 63.2282(a) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. Yes. Yes .................................. No. Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control ................... Yes .................................. Yes. Measurements to demonstrate compliance with compliance options and operating requirements; performance test, performance evaluation, and visible emission observation results; measurements to determine conditions of performance tests and performance evaluations. Records when under waiver ...................................... Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test. All documentation supporting initial notification and notification of compliance status. Applicability determinations ....................................... Additional records for CMS ....................................... Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes. Records of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances for CMS. Use SSMP to satisfy recordkeeping requirements for identification of malfunction, correction action taken, and nature of repairs to CMS. Requirement to report ............................................... No .................................... No. Yes .................................. No. Yes .................................. Yes. When to submit to Federal or State authority ........... Yes .................................. Yes. What to report and when ........................................... NA .................................... NA. § 63.9(e) .......................... § 63.9(f) ........................... § 63.9(g) .......................... § 63.9(h)(1)–(6) ............... Notification of Compliance Status. § 63.9(i) ........................... § 63.10(a) ........................ Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Change in Previous Information. Recordkeeping/Reporting § 63.10(b)(1) ................... Recordkeeping/Reporting § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ................ Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet a Standard. § 63.9(j) ........................... § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............... § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............. Maintenance Records ...... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ........ Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSM. CMS Records .................. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x)– (xi). § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(ix) ...... Records ........................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ............. § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ............. Records ........................... Records ........................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ............ Records ........................... § 63.10(b)(3) ................... § 63.10(c)(1)–(6), (9)– (14). § 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ............. Records ........................... Records ........................... Records ........................... § 63.10(c)(15) ................. Use of SSMP ................... § 63.10(d)(1) ................... General Reporting Requirements. Report of Performance Test Results. Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. § 63.10(d)(2) ................... § 63.10(d)(3) ................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 49469 TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO THIS SUBPART—Continued Applies to this subpart before August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table Citation Subject Brief description § 63.10(d)(4) ................... Progress Reports ............. § 63.10(d)(5)(i) ................ Periodic SSM Reports ..... Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Contents and submission of periodic SSM reports ... § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ............... § 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ............. Immediate SSM Reports Additional CMS Reports .. § 63.10(e)(3) ................... § 63.10(e)(4) ................... § 63.10(f) ......................... Reports ............................ Reporting COMS Data .... Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting. Control Device and Work Practice Requirements. State Authority and Delegations. Addresses ........................ § 63.11 ............................ § 63.12 ............................ § 63.13 ............................ § 63.14 ............................ § 63.15 ............................ § 63.16 ............................ Incorporations by Reference. Availability of Information and Confidentiality. Performance Track Provisions. Applies to this subpart on and after August 13, 2021, except as noted in footnote ‘‘1’’ to this table Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Contents and submission of immediate SSM reports Must report results for each CEM on a unit; written copy of performance evaluation; 3 copies of COMS performance evaluation. Excess emission reports ........................................... Must submit COMS data with performance test data Procedures for EPA Administrator to waive .............. Yes .................................. Yes .................................. No, see § 63.2281(d)–(e) for malfunction reporting requirements. No. Yes. No .................................... NA .................................... Yes .................................. No. NA. Yes. Requirements for flares and alternative work practice for equipment leaks. State authority to enforce standards ......................... NA .................................... NA. Yes .................................. Yes. Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are sent. Test methods incorporated by reference .................. Yes .................................. Yes. Yes .................................. Yes. Public and confidential information ........................... Yes .................................. Yes. Requirements for Performance Track member facilities. Yes .................................. Yes. 1 New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with the requirements in column 5 of this table beginning on August 13, 2020 or upon initial startup, whichever is later. [FR Doc. 2020–12725 Filed 8–12–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:59 Aug 12, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13AUR2.SGM 13AUR2

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 157 (Thursday, August 13, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49434-49469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12725]



[[Page 49433]]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 157

August 13, 2020

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 157 / Thursday, August 13, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 49434]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243; FRL-10009-65-OAR]
RIN 2060-AO66


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) 
source category regulated under national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, the EPA is taking final 
action addressing periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM); 
adding electronic reporting; adding repeat emissions testing; and 
making technical and editorial changes. These final amendments include 
no revisions to the numerical emission limits in the rule based on the 
RTR. While the amendments do not result in reductions of emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action results in improved 
monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 13, 2020. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 13, 
2020. The incorporation by reference of certain other publications 
listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register 
as of February 16, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0243. 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 electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an abundance of caution for members of 
the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room was 
closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020, to reduce the risk of 
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide 
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. There is a 
temporary suspension of mail delivery to the EPA, and no hand 
deliveries are currently accepted. For further information and updates 
on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us 
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Ms. Katie Hanks, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-2159; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email 
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0881; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For 
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, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 
(202) 564-1395; and email address: [email protected].

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

AEGL acute exposure guideline level
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS continuous monitoring systems
EAV equivalent annualized value
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCWP Plywood and Composite Wood Products
PDF portable document format
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV present value
RATA relative accuracy test audit
RCO regenerative catalytic oxidizer
REL recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTC Response to Comments
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Background information. On September 6, 2019, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the PCWP NESHAP based on our RTR. See 84 FR 47074. In this 
action, the EPA is finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We 
summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received 
regarding the proposed rulemaking and provide summaries of our 
responses in this preamble. A summary of all public comments on the 
proposal and the EPA's specific responses to those comments is 
available in the Response to Comments (RTC) document, National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood 
Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD) Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, Final Amendments, Responses to Public Comments on September 6, 
2019 Proposal, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243. A ``track changes'' 
version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in 
this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the PCWP source category and how does the NESHAP 
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the PCWP source category in 
our September 6, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the PCWP source category?

[[Page 49435]]

    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the PCWP source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the PCWP source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the PCWP Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the PCWP Source Category
    C. SSM Provisions
    D. Electronic Reporting
    E. Repeat Emissions Testing
    F. Biofilter Bed Temperature
    G. Thermocouple Calibration
    H. Non-HAP Coating Definition
    I. Technical and Editorial Changes
    J. Compliance Dates
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 Cost
    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) and 
1 CFR part 51
    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       NESHAP and source category                 NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Emission Standards for          321999, 321211, 321212, 321219,
 Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and    321213.
 Composite Wood Products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the 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/plywood-and-composite-wood-products-manufacture-national-emission. 
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 October 13, 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.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, 
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For 
major sources,

[[Page 49436]]

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, the EPA 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) and the EPA may readopt the MACT standards as 
residual risk standards.\1\ For more information on the statutory 
authority for this rule, see 84 FR 47074 (September 6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. What is the PCWP source category and how does the NESHAP regulate 
HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA originally promulgated the PCWP NESHAP on July 30, 2004. 
The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The PCWP 
industry consists of facilities engaged in the production of PCWP and/
or kiln-dried lumber. Plywood and composite wood products are 
manufactured by bonding wood material (fibers, particles, strands, 
etc.) or agricultural fiber, generally with resin under heat and 
pressure, to form a structural panel or engineered wood product. PCWP 
manufacturing facilities also include facilities that manufacture dry 
veneer and lumber kilns located at any facility. PCWP include (but are 
not limited to) plywood, veneer, particleboard, oriented strand board 
(OSB), hardboard, fiberboard, medium density fiberboard, laminated 
strand lumber, laminated veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-dried 
lumber, and glue-laminated beams. As noted in the preamble to the 
proposed amendments, the PCWP source category covered by this MACT 
standard includes 230 major source facilities: 93 PCWP facilities, 121 
lumber mills, and 16 facilities that produce both PCWP and lumber.
    The affected source under the PCWP NESHAP is the collection of 
dryers, refiners, blenders, formers, presses, board coolers, and other 
process units associated with the manufacturing of PCWP. The NESHAP 
contains several compliance options for process units subject to the 
standards: (1) Installation and use of emissions control systems with 
an efficiency of at least 90 percent; (2) production-based limits that 
restrict HAP emissions per unit of product; and (3) emissions averaging 
that allows control of emissions from a group of sources collectively 
(at existing affected sources). These compliance options apply for the 
following process units: Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones (at new 
affected sources); green rotary dryers; hardboard ovens; press 
predryers (at new affected sources); pressurized refiners; primary tube 
dryers; secondary tube dryers; reconstituted wood product board coolers 
(at new affected sources); reconstituted wood product presses; softwood 
veneer dryer heated zones; rotary strand dryers; and conveyor strand 
dryers (zone one at existing affected sources, and zones one and two at 
new affected sources). In addition, the PCWP NESHAP includes work 
practice standards for dry rotary dryers, hardwood veneer dryers, 
softwood veneer dryers, veneer redryers, and group 1 miscellaneous 
coating operations (defined in 40 CFR 63.2292).

C. What changes did we propose for the PCWP source category in our 
September 6, 2019, proposal?

    On September 6, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rulemaking in 
the Federal Register for the PCWP NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, 
that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed 
rulemaking, we proposed revisions to the SSM provisions for the NESHAP 
in order to ensure that they are consistent with the decision of the 
Court in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which 
vacated two provisions in EPA's 40 CFR part 63, subpart A--General 
Provisions, that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with 
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during 
periods of SSM: 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). We also proposed various 
other changes, including addition of electronic reporting requirements, 
addition of repeat emissions testing requirements, revisions to 
parameter monitoring requirements, and various technical and editorial 
changes.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the PCWP source category. This action 
also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including SSM provisions, 
electronic reporting, additional emissions testing requirements, and 
technical and editorial changes.

[[Page 49437]]

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

    The EPA proposed no changes to the PCWP NESHAP based on the risk 
review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). We are finalizing our 
proposed determination that risks from the PCWP source category are 
acceptable, considering all of the health information and factors 
evaluated, and also considering risk estimation uncertainty. We are 
also finalizing our proposed determination that revisions to the 
current standards are not necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable 
level, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, 
or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. As discussed further in 
section IV.A of this preamble, the EPA reviewed public comments and 
data revisions submitted during the public comment period but none of 
the information received affected our determinations. Therefore, we are 
not requiring additional controls in order to reduce risks and, thus, 
are not making any revisions to the existing standards under CAA 
section 112(f)(2). Instead, we are readopting the existing standards 
under CAA section 112(f)(2), while making other modifications under 
other authorities unrelated to risk.

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

    We determined that there are no developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standards for this source category. In the proposal, the EPA noted a 
development in resin systems used to produce PCWP at some facilities 
but found that facilities generally have not altered their HAP emission 
control strategies to date as a result of resin changes and that it is 
not necessary, or supported based on available data, at this time, to 
amend the current standards. The EPA considered comments received 
during the public comment period regarding our technology review, 
however, these comments contained no new data or other information that 
affected our determinations. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions 
to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Section IV.B of this 
preamble provides further details on our conclusion with respect to the 
technology review.

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of 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.
    The EPA has eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent 
with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule 
that apply at all times. The standards that apply during normal 
operation have been extended to apply at all times including SSM in 
most instances. However, in this final rule, the EPA has established 
work practice standards for specific types of startup and shutdown 
events as described in section IV.C of this preamble. The EPA has also 
revised Table 10 of this rule (the General Provisions applicability 
table) in several respects as is explained in more detail in section 
IV.C of this preamble. For example, we have eliminated the 
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that sources 
develop SSM plans. We have also eliminated or revised certain 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are related to the SSM 
exemption as described in detail in the proposed rulemaking and 
summarized again in section IV.C of this preamble.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    Other changes to the NESHAP include:
    1. Electronic reporting. As discussed at proposal, the EPA is 
finalizing amendments to the reporting requirements in the rule to 
require electronic reporting for notifications of compliance status, 
compliance test reports, and semiannual reports. Electronic reporting 
is discussed further in section IV.D of this preamble.
    2. Repeat emissions testing. As discussed at proposal, the EPA is 
finalizing amendments to Table 7 to subpart DDDD of part 63 to require 
repeat testing every 5 years for process units controlled with control 
devices other than biofilters. The first of the 5-year repeat tests 
will be required within 3 years of the effective date of the final 
amendments. Repeat emissions testing is discussed further in section 
IV.E of this preamble.
    3. Revisions to parameter monitoring requirements. As discussed at 
proposal, the EPA is finalizing amendments to biofilter bed temperature 
provisions in 40 CFR 63.2262(m)(1) and the thermocouple calibration 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.2269. The biofilter bed temperature 
provisions are discussed further in section IV.F of this preamble and 
the thermocouple calibration requirements are discussed further in 
section IV.G of this preamble.
    4. Revisions to the non-HAP coating definition. The EPA is 
finalizing amendments to the non-HAP coating definition in 40 CFR 
63.2292 with changes from the proposed revision. The non-HAP coating 
definition is discussed further in section IV.H of this preamble.
    5. Technical and editorial changes. The EPA is finalizing technical 
and editorial changes, as discussed further in section IV.I of this 
preamble.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on August 13, 2020. The compliance date of the 
rule amendments for existing affected sources and other affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before 
September 6, 2019, is August 13, 2021. Affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, are new 
sources. New sources must comply with all of the standards immediately 
upon the effective date of the standard, August 13, 2020, or upon 
startup, whichever is later. All existing affected sources will have to 
continue to meet the current requirements of the NESHAP until the 
applicable compliance date of the amended rule.
    Section IV.D of this preamble discusses electronic reporting and a 
semiannual reporting template that facilities must use within 1 year 
after it is posted in the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI). In addition, the EPA is finalizing new requirements 
to conduct repeat performance testing every 5 years for facilities 
using an add-on control system other than a biofilter (see section IV.E 
of this preamble). The first of the repeat performance tests must be 
conducted within 3 years after August 13, 2020, or within 60 months 
following the previous performance test, whichever is later.

[[Page 49438]]

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the PCWP source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what was 
proposed and what is being finalized for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. Comment summaries for all comments and the EPA's 
specific responses can be found in the RTC document, available in 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243.

A. Residual Risk Review for the PCWP Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the PCWP 
source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a risk review and 
presented the results for the review, along with our proposed decisions 
regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the 
September 6, 2019, proposed rulemaking for the PCWP source category (84 
FR 47074). The results of the risk assessment are presented briefly in 
Table 2 of this preamble and in the risk report titled Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category 
in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, and 
sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (84 FR 47074, September 6, 
2019) available in the docket for this action.

                         Table 2--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Maximum individual      Population at increased   Annual cancer incidence       Maximum chronic           Maximum
                                    cancer risk (in 1     risk of cancer >= 1-in-1      (cases per year)         noncancer TOSHI \4\    screening  acute
                                      million) \3\                 million         ---------------------------------------------------- noncancer HQ \5\
                               ----------------------------------------------------      Based on . . .            Based on . . .      -----------------
   Number of facilities \2\          Based on . . .            Based on . . .      ----------------------------------------------------
                               ----------------------------------------------------
                                   Actual     Allowable      Actual     Allowable      Actual     Allowable      Actual     Allowable    Based on actual
                                 emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions level
                                   level        level        level        level        level        level        level        level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
233...........................           30           30      204,000      230,000         0.03         0.03          0.8          0.8  4 (REL) 0.2
                                                                                                                                         (AEGL-1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 230 operating facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, plus three
  existing facilities that are currently closed but maintain active operating permits.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\4\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PCWP source category is the respiratory system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ)
  values. The acute HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the recommended exposure limit (REL). When an
  HQ exceeds 1, the EPA also shows the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the risk assessment conducted at proposal, the EPA estimated 
risks based on actual and allowable emissions from the PCWP source 
category. The results for the PCWP source category indicated that both 
the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most 
exposed are below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 
million. The residual risk assessment for the PCWP category estimated 
cancer incidence rate at 0.03 cases per year (or one case every 33 
years) based on both source category actual and allowable emissions. 
The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to 
actual and allowable emissions from the source category was 30-in-1 
million. The assessment showed that approximately 204,000 people faced 
an increased cancer risk equal to or above 1-in-1 million from source 
category actual emissions from 170 facilities. The number of people 
exposed to a cancer risk greater than 10-in-1 million from source 
category actual emissions is 650 people. The maximum chronic noncancer 
TOSHI due to inhalation exposures was less than 1 (0.8) for actual and 
allowable emissions from the source category. The results of the acute 
non-cancer refined analysis showed maximum acute HQs of 4 for acrolein 
and 2 for formaldehyde emissions based on the acute reference exposure 
level. Maximum cancer risk due to ingestion exposures estimated using 
health-protective risk screening assumptions are below 6-in-1 million 
for the Tier 2 fisher scenario and below 40-in-1 million for the Tier 2 
rural gardener exposure scenario.\2\ Considering all the health risk 
information and factors and the uncertainties discussed in the preamble 
to the proposed amendments (84 FR 47074, September 6, 2019), the EPA 
proposed that the risks posed by emissions from the PCWP source 
category are acceptable after implementation of the existing MACT 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As explained in the preamble for the proposed rulemaking, 
these multipathway risk estimates would be further reduced with Tier 
3 screening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), the EPA also conducted an 
analysis to determine if the current emission standards provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin 
of safety analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in 
the risk assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available 
control technologies and other measures (including the controls, 
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be 
applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or 
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk 
assessment. The EPA did not identify methods for further reducing HAP 
emissions from the PCWP source category that would achieve meaningful 
risk reductions. Therefore, the EPA proposed that the current PCWP 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health 
and revision of the promulgated standards is not required. The EPA also 
concluded that an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP 
emissions from this source category is not expected and, therefore, 
proposed that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to 
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other 
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The results of the 
EPA's residual risk analysis conducted according to CAA section 
112(f)(2) were discussed in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking (84 
FR 47074, September 6, 2019), in the risk report for the proposed 
rulemaking titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and 
Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk

[[Page 49439]]

and Technology Review Proposed Rule, Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
0243-0179, and in the risk report for the final rule titled Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source 
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, 
in the docket for this action. The risk report for the final rule is 
unchanged from the risk report prepared for the proposed rulemaking.
2. How did the risk review change for the PCWP source category?
    The EPA has not changed any aspect of the risk assessment since the 
September 2019 proposal for the PCWP source category.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    The EPA received several 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). Generally, the commenters 
disagreeing with the risk review misunderstood the type of data used 
for the development of the risk review or suggested changes to the 
underlying risk assessment methodology. Some commenters noted the 
conservative nature of the underlying residual risk methodology. 
Commenters also submitted data revisions for 23 of the 233 modeled 
facilities. After reviewing the inventory revisions, the EPA concluded 
that 21 of the revisions would serve only to reduce modeled risk 
through reduced emissions or improved dispersion inputs. Further, the 
EPA concluded that neither of the two remaining inventory revisions 
would increase the maximum modeled risk for the PCWP source category or 
change our conclusions regarding risk acceptability or ample margin of 
safety. See the memorandum, Review of Plywood and Composite Wood 
Products Emissions Inventory Revisions, in the docket for this action 
for details on the inventory revisions submitted. After review of the 
comments and information submitted, we determined that no changes to 
the proposed residual risk assessment were necessary. The comments and 
our specific responses can be found in the RTC document, which is 
available in the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
0243.
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 MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand'' 
(see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). The EPA weighs all health risk 
factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer 
maximum individual risk (MIR), cancer incidence, the maximum cancer 
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 rulemaking, the EPA determined that the risks from the PCWP 
source category are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards 
are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. 
Therefore, the EPA is not revising the PCWP NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart DDDD) to require additional controls pursuant to CAA section 
112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and the EPA is readopting 
the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the PCWP Source Category

    The EPA's technology review focused on identifying developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies for process units 
subject to standards under the NESHAP that have occurred since 2004 
when emission standards were promulgated for the PCWP source category. 
The following process units were included in our review: Green rotary 
dryers, hardboard ovens, pressurized refiners, primary tube dryers, 
reconstituted wood product presses, softwood veneer dryer heated zones, 
rotary strand dryers, secondary tube dryers, conveyor strand dryers, 
fiberboard mat dryers, press predryers, and reconstituted wood product 
board coolers. The technological basis for the promulgated PCWP NESHAP 
was use of incineration-based or biofilter add-on controls to reduce 
HAP emissions. Incineration-based controls include regenerative thermal 
oxidizers (RTOs), regenerative catalytic oxidizers (RCOs), and 
incineration of process exhaust in an onsite combustion unit (referred 
to as ``process incineration''). In addition, the PCWP NESHAP contains 
production-based compliance options (PBCO) for process units with low 
emissions due to pollution prevention measures inherent in their 
process, an emissions averaging compliance option, and work practice 
requirements for selected process units. In the proposal, the EPA noted 
a development in resin systems used to produce PCWP at some facilities 
but found that facilities generally have not altered their HAP emission 
control strategies to date as a result of resin changes and that it is 
not necessary, or supported, based on available data, at this time, to 
amend the current standards. The EPA proposed that no revisions to the 
PCWP NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
    The EPA received comments supporting and opposing our proposed 
determination from the technology review that no revisions to the 
standards are necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6). Several commenters 
agreed with the EPA's decision not to revise the current standards 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Conversely, another commenter 
opposed our determination not to revise the standards and stated that 
the EPA failed to satisfy the CAA because it did not set emission 
standards for currently unrestricted HAP (such as emissions from the 
PCWP process units not currently subject to emissions limits) and 
regulating these emissions is ``necessary'' under the CAA. The 
commenter asserted that the EPA must review and follow the CAA and 
existing case law to ensure it sets a numerical limit for every 
regulated HAP in order to satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2), (3), and (6). 
The commenter further asserted that the EPA must update standards when 
a development is identified, such as the use of lower HAP resins.
    In response to the comments, the EPA maintains that our CAA section 
112(d)(6) review of developments in the processes, practices, and 
controls applied to sources regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDD, was complete. The technology review was based on responses to an 
Information Collection Request (ICR) conducted under CAA section 114, 
requiring a mandatory response. In addition to ICR data provided by 
respondents, the EPA requested and reviewed other information from 
sources to determine if there have been developments in practices, 
processes, or control technologies by PCWP facilities, as described in 
section 3 of the RTC document. The technology review was documented in 
the memorandum, Technology Review for the Plywood and

[[Page 49440]]

Composite Wood Products NESHAP, Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243-
0189.
    Section 3 of the RTC document contains full responses to the 
comments received. Regarding the comment that the technology review did 
not address the unregulated sources, the EPA acknowledged in the 
preamble to the proposed rulemaking that there are unregulated sources 
with no-control MACT determinations, and we stated our plans to address 
those units in a separate action subsequent to the RTR at 84 FR 47077-
47078. See section 9 of the RTC document for further discussion of our 
position regarding our obligations under CAA section 112(d)(6) with 
respect to unregulated sources.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On April 21, 2020, as the Agency was preparing the final 
rule for signature, a decision was issued in LEAN v. EPA, 955 F. 3d. 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) in which the Court held that the EPA has an 
obligation to set standards for unregulated pollutants as part of 
technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6). At the time of 
signature, the mandate in that case had not been issued and the EPA 
is continuing to evaluate the decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the EPA's review of the developments in technology for the 
process units subject to the PCWP NESHAP did not reveal any changes 
that require revisions to the emission standards under CAA section 
112(d)(6). As discussed in the first paragraph in this section of the 
preamble, the PCWP rule was promulgated with multiple options for 
reducing HAP emissions to demonstrate compliance with the standard. The 
EPA found that facilities are using each type of control system or 
pollution prevention measure (such as lower-HAP resins) that was 
anticipated when the PCWP emissions standards were promulgated. The EPA 
did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies for the regulated units beyond those accounted for in the 
originally promulgated PCWP NESHAP.
    Regarding lower-HAP resins, for the proposal, the EPA characterized 
changes in the type of resin systems used in the particleboard, MDF, 
and hardwood plywood segments of the PCWP industry due to the 
formaldehyde standards limiting emissions from these products \4\ as a 
``development'' within the context of CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA 
explained in the proposal that as facilities conduct repeat testing, 
they may find that the inlet concentration of formaldehyde and methanol 
from their pressing operations has dropped if they are now using a 
different, lower-HAP resin system to comply with the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 
standards. The decrease in inlet concentration may allow for future use 
of the PBCO without an add-on control device, providing an existing 
compliance option in addition to the current add-on control device 
compliance option. The EPA also explained that while the CARB and TSCA 
standards are a ``development'' within the context of CAA section 
112(d)(6), these rules do not necessitate revision of the previously-
promulgated PCWP emission standards because the promulgated PCWP 
emission standards already include the PBCO provisions for pollution 
prevention measures such as lower-HAP resins. The EPA disagrees that 
because resin changes made by some mills were noted as a development in 
the technology review that this necessitates revisions to the standards 
without regard to how the development is already addressed within the 
previously-promulgated emission standards, to how it relates to control 
technologies used in the industry, or other relevant factors. For the 
PCWP source category, the EPA did not identify information suggesting 
the resin system changes have significantly altered the type of process 
units or HAP pollution control technologies used in the PCWP industry 
to date or have led to processes or practices that have not been 
accounted for in the promulgated PCWP NESHAP compliance options. As 
explained further in Section 3 of the RTC document, at present, limited 
HAP emissions data are available to compare PCWP manufacturing process 
emissions before and after implementation of resin changes to meet the 
product formaldehyde standards. Facilities made a variety of different 
resin system changes (if needed for their specific products) in 
response to the CARB and TSCA rules, and, therefore, no single broadly-
applicable approach feasible for all mills was identified. The 
different resin system changes facilities made, coupled with the 
limited available HAP emissions data, ongoing use of add-on control 
technologies following resin system changes, and availability of PBCO 
in the PCWP NESHAP do not support revising the PCWP NESHAP. Therefore, 
the EPA concluded it is not, at this time, necessary or supportable 
under this CAA section 112(d)(6) review to change the promulgated PCWP 
NESHAP as a result of resin changes facilities made to meet the CARB 
and TSCA rules. If additional emissions information on resin changes or 
other changes made by facilities becomes available and indicates 
updates need to be made to standards in future technology reviews, the 
EPA will evaluate that information at that time. In summary, the EPA 
proposed, and is finalizing the conclusion that no revisions to the 
PCWP NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). All 
amendments being made to the final NESHAP are for reasons other than to 
reflect developments under CAA section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In 2008, the CARB finalized an Airborne Toxic Control 
Measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from hardwood 
plywood, MDF, and particleboard. Consistent with the CARB ATCM, in 
July 2010, Congress passed the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 
Wood Products Act, as title VI of TSCA, [15 U.S.C. 2697], requiring 
the EPA to promulgate a national rule. The EPA finalized the TSCA 
rule, Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products, 
on December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89674), and finalized an implementation 
rule on February 7, 2018 (83 FR 5340). Compliance with the TSCA rule 
was required by December 2018. The CARB ATCM and the rule to 
implement TSCA title VI emphasize the use of low emission resins, 
including ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde and no added formaldehyde 
resin systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. SSM Provisions

    Consistent with the 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA 
proposed eliminating the SSM exemption in this rule and instead 
proposed that the same standards that apply during normal operation 
also apply during SSM, except during specific periods of startup and 
shutdown as described in section IV.C.2 of this preamble. Additionally, 
the EPA proposed several revisions to Table 10 (the General Provisions 
applicability table), proposed eliminating the incorporation of the 
General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan, 
and proposed eliminating and revising certain recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption, all of which are 
further described in section IV.C.4 of this preamble.
1. Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    As noted in section III.C of this preamble, 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. Consistent with the Sierra Club decision, 
the EPA proposed eliminating the SSM exemption in this rule from 40 CFR 
63.2250 and to remove the incorporation of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1). (40

[[Page 49441]]

CFR 63.6(h)(1) was not applicable to this NESHAP.)
    The EPA received comments supporting and opposing our proposal to 
eliminate the SSM exemption in the rule. Commenters opposed to 
eliminating the exemption stated that neither the CAA nor judicial 
precedent requires the EPA to delete the SSM provisions. According to 
these commenters, the best-performing facilities that are the basis for 
the MACT floor experience SSM events, and so it is appropriate for the 
EPA to recognize and account for those events, as it has in the 
existing PCWP MACT standards. One commenter noted that when the EPA 
promulgated the 2004 PCWP NESHAP, the EPA determined it was appropriate 
not to subject mills to the numerical emission limitations in those 
standards during SSM events, requiring instead that sources follow work 
practices to minimize emissions during such events, including 
developing and following an SSM plan. The commenter asserted that the 
EPA's proposal to eliminate 40 CFR 63.2250(a), and thereby require 
sources to meet the same emission limitations during periods of SSM, 
except for very limited cases (safety related shutdowns and brief 
periods during startup and shutdown of pressurized refiners), 
represents an unauthorized change to existing MACT standards, 
specifically claiming that it is not the product of the technology 
review described in the CAA, it is not required by case law, and it is 
inconsistent with decades of the EPA practice and judicial 
interpretations of NESHAP and new source performance standards. 
Conversely, a commenter in favor of the EPA's proposal to eliminate the 
SSM exemption argued that it is legally required and necessary in this 
rulemaking under CAA section 112(d), including CAA section 112(d)(6), 
for the EPA to remove the SSM exemptions for PCWP facilities as it has 
proposed to do because the CAA requires standards to apply continuously 
and the Court precedent (Sierra Club v. EPA) is a development since the 
prior standards were made.
    The EPA acknowledges comments in support of the removal of the 40 
CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, SSM exemption and we are promulgating our 
proposed SSM action. We disagree with comments suggesting that the 
legal precedent established in case law (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) should not apply to subpart DDDD. The Court 
decision held that emission limits under CAA section 112 must apply 
continuously and meet minimum stringency requirements, even during 
periods of SSM. Consistent with the Court's decision and for the 
reasons explained in the proposal preamble at 84 FR 47092-47096, we are 
finalizing our proposal to eliminate the SSM language in subpart DDDD. 
As explained in the proposal, our SSM-related rule revisions are in 
response to the Court's vacatur of the SSM exemptions in 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) 
regulations for specific source categories, these two provisions 
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise 
applicable MACT standards during periods of SSM. The Court's vacatur 
rendered those provisions null and void prior to this rulemaking. 
Eliminating reference to these provisions and other related General 
Provisions referenced in subpart DDDD reflects the vacatur by the 
Court. We also eliminated the rule specific SSM provisions in subpart 
DDDD, as discussed further in section IV.C.4 of this preamble. The 
specific changes in the language can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0243 in the document titled Redline Version of 40 CFR Part 63, 
subpart DDDD Showing Final Changes. However, we do not agree with the 
commenter who characterized the 2008 Court ruling as a ``development'' 
that compels elimination of the SSM exemption under CAA section 
112(d)(6). The EPA is not and need not rely on CAA section 112(d)(6) in 
order to eliminate the exemption but is choosing to take action at this 
time to make the NESHAP consistent with the 2009 ruling. As discussed 
in section IV.C.2 below, we proposed and are promulgating work practice 
standards for specific startup and shutdown events. Therefore, all 
current subpart DDDD facilities affected by SSM must be in compliance 
with a standard at all times (i.e., with either the normal operational 
standards or the work practices that apply during selected startup and 
shutdown periods) consistent with the Sierra Club v. EPA decision. 
Section IV.C.3 of this preamble provides further information on our 
position with respect to periods of malfunction.
2. Periods of Startup and Shutdown
    In finalizing the standards in this rule, the EPA considered and 
proposed alternative actions to the simple removal of SSM provisions in 
the rule. As an alternative approach consistent with Sierra Club v. 
EPA, the EPA may designate different standards to apply during startup 
and shutdown. The EPA collected information with the PCWP ICR to use in 
determining whether applying the standards applicable under normal 
operations would be problematic for PCWP facilities during startup and 
shutdown. Facilities operating control systems generally operate the 
control systems while the process unit(s) controlled are started up and 
shut down. For example, RTOs and RCOs are warmed to their operating 
temperature set points using auxiliary fuel before the process unit(s) 
controlled startup, and the oxidizers continue to maintain their 
temperature until the process unit(s) controlled shutdown. Biofilters 
operate within a biofilter bed temperature range that will be more 
easily achieved during startup and shutdown with changes in biofilter 
bed temperature operating range discussed in section IV.F of this 
preamble. Based on the information collected, the EPA determined that 
PCWP facilities can meet standards applicable under normal operations 
at all times except during periods of safety-related shutdowns and 
pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns. To ensure that a CAA 
section 112 standard is met during all times, the EPA proposed 
alternate work practice standards for safety-related shutdowns and 
pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns. After considering comments 
on the proposed amendments, the EPA determined that an alternate work 
practice standard was also needed for direct-fired softwood veneer 
dryers undergoing startup or shutdown of gas-fired burners.
    The following sections discuss the work practices the EPA is 
finalizing. Each work practice is designed to minimize emissions, in 
keeping with CAA requirements. All three work practices minimize the 
duration of time and circumstances under which they can be applied. 
Further, because all three work practices require the temporary 
suspension of material flow through the PCWP process, PCWP facilities 
are incentivized to minimize the use and duration of these work 
practices. Sections IV.C.2.a and b of this preamble discuss in more 
detail the work practice standards for safety-related shutdowns and 
pressurized refiner startup and shutdown, respectively, including 
comments received about the standards following proposal and the EPA's 
final decision regarding their requirements. Section IV.C.2.c of this 
preamble discusses the details of the work practice standard for 
direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup or shutdown of 
gas-fired burners.
a. Safety-Related Shutdowns
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking (84 FR 
47093,

[[Page 49442]]

September 6, 2019) and further elaborated in the RTC document, safety-
related shutdowns differ from routine, planned shutdowns where 
facilities can continue routing process unit emissions to the control 
device until the process unit is shut down. Safety-related shutdowns 
have been accounted for in the process design and are not necessarily 
frequent but are pre-determined remedial actions anticipated to 
occasionally occur to such a degree that they are also distinguished 
from malfunctions which are, by definition, infrequent and not 
reasonably preventable (40 CFR 63.2). Malfunctions are unpredictable 
and may require different types of remediation. For example, the PCWP 
process predictably shuts down when these events are triggered. Safety-
related shutdowns must occur rapidly in the event of unsafe conditions 
such as a suspected fire in a process unit heating flammable wood 
material. When unsafe conditions are detected, facilities must act 
quickly to shut off fuel flow (or indirect process heat) to the system, 
cease addition of raw materials (e.g., wood furnish, resin) to the 
process units, purge wood material and gases from the process unit, and 
isolate equipment to prevent loss of property or life and protect 
workers from injury. Because it is unsafe to continue to route process 
gases to the control system, the control system will be bypassed as the 
process quickly shuts down, in many cases automatically, through a 
system of interlocks designed to prevent dangerous conditions from 
occurring.
    In order to clarify what constitutes a safety-related shutdown, the 
EPA proposed a new definition in 40 CFR 63.2292 defining a safety-
related shutdown as an unscheduled shutdown of a process unit subject 
to a compliance option in Table 1B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, (or 
a process unit with HAP control under an emissions averaging plan 
developed according to 40 CFR 63.2240(c)) during which time emissions 
from the process unit cannot be safely routed to the control system in 
place to meet the compliance options or operating requirements in 
subpart DDDD without imminent danger to the process, control system, or 
system operator. The EPA also proposed a work practice standard for 
safety-related shutdowns requiring facilities to follow documented 
site-specific procedures such as use of automated controls or other 
measures developed to protect workers and equipment to ensure that the 
flow of raw materials (such as furnish or resin) and fuel or process 
heat (as applicable) ceases and that material is removed from the 
process unit(s) as expeditiously as possible given the system design. 
These actions are taken by all (including the best-performing) 
facilities when safety-related shutdowns occur.
    Comments were received both supporting and opposing the proposed 
work practice for safety-related shutdowns. Commenters in support of 
the standards stated that CAA section 112(h) allows the EPA to 
promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, 
or combination thereof, in two circumstances: (1) When HAP ``cannot be 
emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or 
capture such a pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use of, such 
a conveyance would be inconsistent with any Federal, State, or local 
law,'' and (2) when ``the application of measurement methodology . . . 
is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.'' 
Commenters stated that safety-related shutdowns of process units with 
add-on control equipment present both of those circumstances and 
provided operational details summarized in Section 4.3 of the RTC 
document. The commenter explained that the best practice for 
controlling HAP emissions during such safety-related shutdowns is to 
minimize the duration of the event by promptly ceasing the addition of 
raw materials and heat to the process and removing materials from 
process equipment as soon as possible (although in some instances it is 
safer to have the material remain in the process equipment to contain a 
problem such as a fire).
    A separate commenter opposed the EPA's proposed safety-related 
shutdown work practice standards, arguing that the EPA has not 
explained how the criteria under CAA section 112(h) are met to provide 
the EPA the statutory authority to set work practices. The commenter 
stated that the work practice standards the EPA proposed are too lax 
because they are written by the facilities with no requirement for 
approval by the EPA. The commenter contended that the work practices 
will not achieve ``maximum'' emission reduction because they only 
instruct facilities to protect workers and process equipment, with no 
reference to reducing air emissions. The commenter urged the EPA to 
clarify how recordkeeping requirements would apply in the context of 
work practice standards. The full comments and our responses pertaining 
to safety-related shutdowns are included in the RTC document. According 
to CAA section 112(h)(1), MACT standards may take the form of design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards ``if it is not 
feasible in the judgement of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce 
an emission standard.'' The phrase ``if it is not feasible to prescribe 
or enforce an emission standard'' is defined in CAA section 
112(h)(2)(A) and (B) to mean any situation in which the Administrator 
determines that: (A) A HAP or pollutants cannot be emitted through a 
conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant, 
or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be 
inconsistent with any federal, state or local law, or (B) the 
application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources 
is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.
    The EPA has determined that work practices are appropriate during 
safety-related shutdowns in the PCWP industry because facilities cannot 
capture and convey HAP emissions to a control device during these 
periods for safety reasons. The control device could serve as an 
ignition source if there is an upset in the oxygen concentration or 
buildup of other combustibles in the PCWP process or exhaust gas 
collection system (e.g., combustible gas, condensed pitch on ductwork 
if moisture-laden gases in the system are allowed to cool, or wood 
dust) due to various conditions (e.g., if PCWP process equipment or 
pneumatic conveying systems become plugged). If there are sparks or 
fire in the PCWP process unit, conveyance, or the control device, the 
equipment could be damaged if exhaust continues to be routed from the 
PCWP process unit to the control device. A PCWP dryer or control device 
may experience an over-temperature condition indicative of a fire and 
triggering rapid equipment isolation. Thus, conveying emissions from 
the PCWP process unit to the control device is not technically feasible 
during safety-related shutdowns.
    Further, application of measurement methodology is not practicable 
due to technological and economic limitations. Safety-related shutdowns 
are brief events that are incorporated into the process design for 
safety reasons but are not desirable operating conditions that 
constitute normal operations. Even if staged especially for an 
emissions measurement (which is economically impracticable due to lost 
production), the duration of safety-related shutdowns is necessarily 
brief (i.e., minutes), less than the 1 hour it takes to collect a 
single emissions measurement sample if the equipment is set up and 
measurement contractors are onsite ready to sample, let alone the 3 
hours needed for a full emissions test. Because

[[Page 49443]]

a full emissions measurement sample cannot be obtained during a safety-
related shutdown, application of measurement methodology is not 
practicable due to technological limitations in addition to being 
economically impracticable. Therefore, it is the EPA's determination 
that PCWP-industry safety-related shutdowns meet the criteria in CAA 
section 112(h)(2)(B).
    Based on our authority to set work practices, the EPA is finalizing 
a definition of ``safety-related shutdown'' in 40 CFR 63.2292 and 
finalizing a work practice for these shutdown events. The work practice 
is designed to be consistent with actions commonly undertaken by 
facilities to protect plant personnel, production equipment, and 
control equipment from dangerous circumstances like fires and 
explosions. The final work practice requires facilities to follow 
documented site-specific procedures such as use of automated controls 
or other measures developed to protect workers and equipment to ensure 
that the flow of raw materials (such as furnish or resin) and fuel or 
process heat (as applicable) ceases and that material is removed from 
the process unit(s) as expeditiously as possible given the system 
design to reduce air emissions. The phrase ``to reduce air emissions'' 
was added to the standard to address the concern expressed by one 
commenter that the work practice should direct facilities to consider 
air quality. The actions required by the safety-related shutdown work 
practice represent the maximum degree of emissions reduction achievable 
because they limit the amount of time, as well as the flow of raw 
materials and fuel into the process, and, therefore, emissions from the 
process undergoing safety-related shutdown. Rule language relating to 
the safety-related shutdown work practice was strengthened for the 
final rule in response to the commenter's concern that the EPA is 
giving full discretion to the facilities to develop their safety-
related shutdown work practices for their own equipment configurations 
without oversight by the EPA. To strengthen the standard, the EPA added 
an initial compliance requirement to Table 6 of the final rule to 
clarify that facilities must have a record of safety-related shutdown 
procedures available for inspection by the delegated authority upon 
request. In addition, a recordkeeping requirement was added to Table 8 
of the final rule to ensure documentation is available to track when 
the work practice is used, consistent with the proposed requirement 
under 40 CFR 63.2282(a)(2)(i). Finally, a reporting requirement was 
added to 40 CFR 63.2281(c)(4) to require facilities to report the 
number of instances and total amount of time during the reporting 
period when the safety-related shutdown work practice is used. If the 
safety-related shutdown work practice is used for more than 100 hours 
during a reporting period, the facility must report the date, time, and 
duration of each instance when the work practice was used. The EPA has 
concluded that these initial compliance and ongoing recordkeeping and 
reporting measures are sufficient to provide delegated authorities with 
information needed for oversight.
    In addition, to clarify requirements, 40 CFR 63.2250(f)(6) was 
added to the final rule to state that the otherwise applicable 
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice 
requirements (in rows 1 through 5 of Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDD) do not apply when the startup/shutdown work practices apply 
(i.e., the work practices in rows 6 through 8 of Table 3 to subpart 
DDDD for safety-related shutdown, pressurized refiner startup and 
shutdown, and softwood veneer dryer gas-burner relights). Thus, 
compliance with the startup/shutdown work practices (in Table 3 to 
subpart DDDD, rows 6 through 8) does not constitute a failure to meet 
the otherwise applicable compliance options, operating requirements, 
and work practice requirements because these requirements do not apply 
while the startup/shutdown work practices apply. Finally, 40 CFR 
63.2271(b)(4) was added to clarify that instances when the startup/
shutdown work practice requirements are used (as reported under 40 CFR 
63.2281(c)(4)) are not considered to be deviations from (or violations 
of) the otherwise applicable compliance options, operating 
requirements, and work practice requirements (in rows 1 through 5 of 
Table 3 to subpart DDDD) as long as facilities do not exceed the 
minimum amount of time necessary for these events.
b. Pressurized Refiner Startups and Shutdowns
    Pressurized refiners use steam to heat and soften wood under 
pressure to grind it apart between rotating discs into fibers. 
Pressurized refiners discharge wood fiber and exhaust gases from 
refining directly into a primary tube dryer. Pressurized refiners 
cannot be vented through the dryer to the control system (i.e., the 
dryer control system) for a brief time after they are initially fed 
wood material during startup and as wood material clears the refiner 
during shutdown because they are not producing useable fiber suitable 
for drying or producing PCWP products (hardboard or MDF). During this 
time, instead of the pressurized refiner output being discharged into 
the dryer, exhaust is vented to the atmosphere (e.g., through an abort 
cyclone) and the wood is directed to a reclaim bin for storage and, 
commonly, recycling back into the refining process once it is running 
steadily. No resin is mixed with the off-specification material and the 
time periods are short (e.g., 15 minutes or less) before the 
pressurized refiner begins to discharge wood fiber and exhaust through 
the dryer and when the refiner is shutting down.
    The EPA proposed a work practice requirement in Table 3 of the rule 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD) to apply during pressurized refiner 
startup and shutdown that limits the amount of time (and, thus, 
emissions) when wood is being processed through the system while 
exhaust is not routed through the dryer to its control system. This 
practice is consistent with how the best-performing facilities complete 
startup and shutdown of pressurized refiners. The proposed work 
practice stated that facilities must route exhaust gases from the 
pressurized refiner to its control system no later than 15 minutes 
after furnish is fed from the pressurized refiner to the tube dryer 
when starting up, and no more than 15 minutes after furnish ceases to 
be fed to the pressurized refiner when shutting down.
    Comments were received both supporting and opposing the pressurized 
refiner startup and shutdown work practice standard. Commenters 
supporting the work practice stated that periods of startup and 
shutdown of pressurized refiners meet the CAA section 112(h) criteria 
for establishing a work practice standard, while commenters opposing 
the work practice argued that the EPA does not have statutory authority 
to apply work practice standards instead of numerical emissions limits 
to pressurized refiner startup and shutdown periods.
    Commenters in support of the EPA's proposed work practice standard 
for startup and shutdown of pressurized refiners noted that the 
language of the standard in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD 
appears to have a typographical error. The commenters suggested 
rewording the standard in Table 3 so that it instructs facilities to 
route exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to the dryer control 
system no

[[Page 49444]]

later than 15 minutes after wood is fed to the pressurized refiner when 
starting up and to stop wood flow to the pressurized refiner no more 
than 15 minutes after wood fiber stops being fed to the dryer from the 
pressurized refiner. The commenter opposing the work practice standard 
also questioned the timing and recordkeeping requirements. The full 
comments and our responses pertaining to pressurized refiners are 
included in the RTC document.
    In response to these comments, the EPA concluded pressurized 
refiner startup and shutdown events meet the criteria in CAA section 
112(h)(2)(B). Pressurized refiners are a particular class of sources 
where emissions are associated with wood processed through the refiner. 
Pressurized refiners cannot discharge unusable fiber through the tube 
dryer and its control system during startup and shutdown. Because 
venting through the pressurized refiner abort cyclone during startup 
and shutdown of pressurized refiners typically lasts 15 minutes or 
less, there are technological limitations to measuring emissions 
because HAP measurement methods require a 1-hour sampling time per test 
run, and a total of three test runs. The only way to obtain the 
required sample would be to operate in abort mode for each 1-hour 
sampling time. However, abort ``bins'' used to collect the off-spec 
wood furnish dumped from the system are not designed like material 
collection bins or silos for useable furnish at wood products 
facilities. Instead, the abort ``bins'' are often areas where off-spec 
fiber is dumped on the ground between concrete wind-breaks where it is 
removed with a front-end loader. Such areas do not have the capacity 
for dumping large amounts of fiber as would be needed to stage an event 
for 1 to 3 hours of testing, presenting another technological 
limitation. Staging abort dumping of 1 to 3 hours of fiber production 
also presents obvious economic limitations due to lost production for 
that time and loss or degradation of valuable fiber raw material. 
Finally, measuring emissions during pressurized refiner startup and 
shutdown is impractical because the PCWP NESHAP requires emissions 
measurement under representative operating conditions that are the 
conditions under which the process unit typically operates, excluding 
periods of startup and shutdown. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing a 
work practice for pressurized refiner startup and shutdown periods.
    The EPA agrees that the wording of the proposed work practice 
standard for pressurized refiners in Table 3 needed clarification and 
has rewritten the standard for the final rule to instruct facilities to 
route exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to its dryer control 
system no later than 15 minutes after wood is fed to the pressurized 
refiner during startup, and to stop wood flow into the pressurized 
refiner no more than 15 minutes after wood fiber and exhaust gases from 
the pressurized refiner stop being routed to the dryer during shutdown. 
In addition, we strengthened the work practice for startup/shutdown of 
pressurized refiners in the final rule by clarifying when the startup/
shutdown work practice applies in 40 CFR 63.2250(f)(6), adding an 
initial compliance requirement to Table 6 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDD, and adding a recordkeeping requirement to Table 8 of subpart DDDD 
to track when the work practice is used, consistent with the proposed 
requirement under 40 CFR 63.2282(a)(2)(i). Continuous compliance and 
reporting provisions were also added in 40 CFR 63.2271(b)(4) and 
63.2281(c)(4), respectively, to provide clarity and aid in 
enforceability of the work practice requirement.
c. Veneer Dryer Burner Relights
    An issue with veneer dryer burner relights stemming from removal of 
the SSM exemption was raised during the comment period for the proposed 
amendments. The EPA received a comment seeking clarification for 
direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing relights of gas-fired 
burners. Specifically, the commenter noted that 40 CFR 63.2250(d) of 
the current PCWP rule defines shutoff of direct-fired burners resulting 
from partial or full production stoppages as shutdowns and the lighting 
or re-lighting of any one or all gas burners in direct-fired softwood 
veneer dryers as startups and not a malfunction. The commenter noted 
that the EPA proposed no changes to 40 CFR 63.2250(d) which was 
originally included in the PCWP rule to clarify that veneer dryer 
burner relights are not malfunctions due to their frequency. In the 
2004 promulgated standard, these startup/shutdown events were required 
to be addressed under the SSM plan. The commenter explained that 
following the flame out of the burner, the dryer could contain non-
combusted natural gas that must be purged prior to safely re-lighting 
the gas burners. Non-combusted natural gas cannot be exhausted to the 
control device due to safety concerns and must be vented along with 
whatever process emissions are in the dryer. The length of the purge 
varies based on system design, but only lasts a matter of minutes. 
Emissions are routed to the control system as expeditiously as possible 
following the burner re-light. Therefore, the commenter stated a dryer 
gas burner re-lighting startup work practice is needed for the same 
reasons as a safety shutdown work practice. However, because 40 CFR 
63.2250(d) deals with dryer re-lights by defining them as startups, and 
the proposed rulemaking no longer contains a general exemption for 
startups, the commenter stated that some provision is needed for veneer 
dryer gas burner lighting and re-lighting.
    In response to this comment, the EPA added a work practice to Table 
3 of the final rule to clarify the requirements surrounding softwood 
veneer dryer gas-fired burner relights to ensure a standard applies 
continuously once the SSM plan is no longer required. The work practice 
requires direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup or 
shutdown of gas-fired burners to cease feeding green veneer into the 
softwood veneer dryer and minimize the amount of time direct gas-fired 
softwood veneer dryers are vented to the atmosphere due to the 
conditions described in 40 CFR 63.2250(d). Related text was added to 40 
CFR 63.2250(f) noting the work practice in Table 3 of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart DDDD, applies when the otherwise applicable compliance options 
and operating requirements in the rule cannot be met. An initial 
compliance requirement was added to Table 6 of subpart DDDD to have a 
record of the procedures for startup and shutdown of softwood veneer 
dryer gas-fired burners available for inspection upon request by the 
delegated authority. In addition, a recordkeeping requirement was added 
to Table 8 of subpart DDDD to track when the work practice is used, 
consistent with the proposed requirement under 40 CFR 63.2282(a)(2)(i). 
Continuous compliance and reporting provisions were also added in 40 
CFR 63.2271(b)(4) and 63.2281(c)(4), respectively, to provide clarity 
and aid in enforceability of the work practice requirement. Conforming 
changes to refer to the veneer dryer burner relight work practice with 
the other startup/shutdown work practices were also made throughout the 
rule.
    Further clarification with respect to 40 CFR 63.2250(d) is needed 
as a result of our proposal to remove the SSM exemption (including the 
SSM plan). The EPA determined that a work practice is appropriate 
during direct-fired softwood veneer dryer startups/shutdowns of gas-
fired burners because the conditions of CAA section 112(h)(2)(A) and 
(B) are both present during veneer dryer burner relights.

[[Page 49445]]

Facilities cannot capture and convey HAP emissions to a control device 
during these periods for safety reasons. The control device for the 
veneer dryer could serve as an ignition source if there is an upset in 
the oxygen concentration or increase in the natural gas concentration 
in the system. Thus, is it not technically feasible for HAP emissions 
to be conveyed to the control device during startups/shutdowns 
associated with softwood veneer dryer gas-burner relights. Further, 
application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to 
technological and economic limitations. Softwood veneer dryer burner 
relights are brief events that take less than the 1 hour it takes to 
collect a single emissions measurement sample if the equipment is set 
up and measurement contractors are onsite ready to sample, let alone 
the 3 hours needed for a full emissions test. Because a full emissions 
measurement sample cannot be obtained while softwood veneer dryers are 
undergoing gas-burner relights, application of measurement methodology 
is not practicable due to technological limitations. In addition, 
attempting to stage softwood veneer dryer burner relights for purposes 
of emissions measurement is economically impracticable because veneer 
is not being dried or moving through the veneer dryer when the burners 
are not lit, resulting in a production loss during testing. Therefore, 
the EPA concludes that direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing 
startup/shutdown of gas-fired burners meet the criteria in CAA section 
112(h)(2)(B).
3. Periods of Malfunction
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) 
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading 
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions 
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level 
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing 
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in 
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the 
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' 
by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the 
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing 
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' 
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. 
Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions 
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider 
malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat 
a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in 
performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A 
malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or 
usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider 
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for 
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the 
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to 
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely 
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of 
circumstances''). As such, the performance of units that are 
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See e.g., Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has 
wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to 
solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed 
on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to 
`invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.'''). See also, 
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the 
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any 
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain 
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable 
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator 
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be 
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In 
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly 
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal 
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for 
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a 
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source 
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control 
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction 
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the 
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual 
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example 
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that 
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels 
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is 
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The 
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and 
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a 
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in 
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events 
because the EPA had information for that source category to determine 
that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to 
the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). In the 
proposed rulemaking for the PCWP, the EPA did not propose a work 
practice standard for malfunctions but instead stated that the EPA 
would consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a 
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has 
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources 
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. The EPA encouraged 
commenters to provide any such information.
    Numerous comments were received supporting and opposing the EPA's 
decision not to set a standard for malfunctions. One commenter opposed 
to the EPA's decision stated that there are several options the EPA 
could use

[[Page 49446]]

for setting emission standards under CAA section 112 that would apply 
during malfunction events. For example, the commenter stated that the 
EPA might be able to establish a numerical emission limitation that 
applies at all times but has an averaging time of sufficient duration 
that short, infrequent spikes in emissions due to malfunctions would 
not cause the source to exceed the emission limitation (while at the 
same time ensuring that the source does not operate in a way that 
causes frequent, lengthy excursions above the normal controlled 
emission rate). The EPA also could use the flexibility accorded by CAA 
section 302(k) (which defines ``emission limitation'' and ``emission 
standard'' to include ``any requirement relating to the operation or 
maintenance of a source to ensure continuous emission reduction, and 
any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard 
promulgated under'' the CAA) to address emissions during malfunction 
events through operational requirements rather than by applying the 
same limits on pollutant emissions that apply during normal operations. 
Similarly, the commenter stated the EPA has grounds to exercise its 
authority under CAA section 112(h) to promulgate a design, equipment, 
work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, because 
it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. The 
commenter noted that even if the EPA does not identify a set of 
specific work practices that all affected facilities can follow that 
represent best practices for minimizing emissions during malfunctions, 
the EPA might instead be able to address malfunctions through a set of 
criteria that allows facilities to develop and follow a site-specific 
plan for minimizing the extent and duration of excess emissions during 
malfunctions. The commenter suggested that the EPA might use several of 
these approaches in combination and stated that accommodating 
malfunctions need not result in either an exemption or an increased 
numerical emission limitation. The commenter urged the EPA to use its 
authority under CAA sections 112 and 302(k) to address malfunctions in 
a reasonable, CAA section 112-compliant manner.
    Conversely, another commenter supported the EPA's proposed removal 
of unlawful SSM exemptions in all forms because the CAA requires 
standards to apply continuously, and the Court precedent is a 
development since the prior standards were issued.
    After considering all comments, the EPA is not finalizing a 
separate standard for periods of malfunction. In the PCWP proposed 
rulemaking, we requested comment and information to support the 
development of a work practice standard during periods of malfunction, 
but we did not receive sufficient information, including additional 
quantitative emissions data, on which to base a standard for periods of 
malfunction. Absent sufficient information, it is not reasonable at 
this time to establish a work practice standard for malfunctions for 
this source category.
4. Revisions to Table 10 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63
    The EPA proposed several specific revisions to Table 10 to subpart 
DDDD of part 63 (the General Provisions table) to establish standards 
in this rule that apply at all times. The EPA is finalizing the 
amendments as proposed, with the clarifications noted in the following 
sections. The specific revisions are described in the remainder of this 
section.
a. General Duty (40 CFR 63.2250)
    The EPA is finalizing the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry 
for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) and (2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in 
column 5 which was added to specify requirements 1 year after the 
effective date of the final amendments. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes 
the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that 
section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the 
elimination of the SSM exemption. The EPA is instead adding a general 
duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2250 that reflects the general duty 
to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods 
covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during 
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no 
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, 
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the 
language the EPA is finalizing for 40 CFR 63.2250 does not include that 
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    The EPA is also revising the General Provisions table (Table 10) by 
adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ``no'' in 
column 5. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not 
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant 
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.2250.
b. SSM Plan
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in column 5. Generally, the paragraphs 
under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require development of an SSM plan and specify 
SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. 
As noted, the EPA is finalizing removal of the SSM exemptions. 
Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard 
during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events 
will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve 
compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer 
necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no'' in columns 4 and 5. The final revision in column 4 
refers to 40 CFR 63.2250(a). The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 
exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As 
discussed in section IV.C.1 of this preamble, the Court in Sierra Club 
v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that 
the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply 
continuously. Consistent with the Court decision, the EPA is finalizing 
the revised standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) through (9) by redesignating it 
as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and changing the ``NA'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in 
column 5. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources 
from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed in section 
IV.C.1 of this preamble, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the 
exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires 
that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with 
the Court decision, the EPA is finalizing the revised standards in this 
rule to apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing (40 CFR 63.2262)
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no'' in column 5. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes 
performance testing requirements. The

[[Page 49447]]

EPA is finalizing instead the addition of a performance testing 
requirement at 40 CFR 63.2262(a) and (b). The performance testing 
requirements the EPA is adding differ from the General Provisions 
performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text 
does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the 
SSM exemption. The finalized performance testing provisions remove 
reference to 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), reiterate the requirement that was 
already included in the PCWP rule to conduct emissions tests under 
representative operating conditions, and clarify that representative 
operating conditions excludes periods of startup and shutdown. As in 40 
CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should 
not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during 
malfunctions are not representative of normal operating conditions. The 
EPA is finalizing added language that requires the owner or operator to 
record the process information that is necessary to document operating 
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to 
support that such conditions are representative. Section 63.7(e) 
requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator 
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the 
performance test'' upon request but does not specifically require the 
information to be recorded. The added regulatory text to this provision 
that the EPA is finalizing builds on that requirement and makes 
explicit the requirement to record the information.
    The EPA is also finalizing the definition of ``representative 
operating conditions'' in 40 CFR 63.2292 to clarify that it excludes 
periods of startup and shutdown. Representative operating conditions 
include a range of operating conditions under which the process unit 
and control device typically operate and are not limited to conditions 
of optimal performance of the process unit and control device.
e. Monitoring
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in column 5. The cross-references to 
the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are 
not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that 
require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and 
that set out the requirements of a quality control program for 
monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a 
``no'' in column 5. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to 
the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer 
applicable. The EPA is finalizing adding to the rule at 40 CFR 
63.2282(f) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the 
final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The program 
of corrective action should be included in the plan required under 40 
CFR 63.8(d)(2).''
f. Recordkeeping (40 CFR 63.2282)
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) through (iv) by 
redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no'' in column 5. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. The EPA is 
finalizing instead the addition of recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 
63.2282(a). When a source is subject to a different standard during 
startup and shutdown, it will be important to know when such startup 
and shutdown periods begin and end to determine compliance with the 
appropriate standard. Thus, the EPA is finalizing adding language to 40 
CFR 63.2282(a) requiring that sources subject to an emission standard 
during startup or shutdown that differs from the emission standard that 
applies at all other times must record the date, time, and duration of 
such periods.
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including 
a ``no'' in column 5. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is finalizing 
the addition of such requirements to 40 CFR 63.2282(a). The final 
regulatory text the EPA is adding differs from the General Provisions 
it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation 
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment. The EPA is finalizing this requirement to apply to any 
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source 
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the 
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also finalizing adding to 40 CFR 63.2282(a) 
a requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the 
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, 
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over 
the compliance option in 40 CFR 63.2240 the source failed to meet 
(including the compliance options in Table 1A or B to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart DDDD, or the emissions averaging compliance option), and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of 
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment 
based on known process parameters. The EPA is finalizing the 
requirement that sources keep records of this information to ensure 
that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the 
severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that 
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions 
when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. For each 
failure to meet an operating requirement in Table 2 to subpart DDDD or 
work practice requirement in Table 3 to subpart DDDD, facilities must 
maintain sufficient information to estimate the quantity of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit. This information 
must be sufficient to provide a reliable emissions estimate if 
requested by the Administrator.
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including 
a ``no'' in column 5. When applicable, the provision requires sources 
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were 
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The 
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is 
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2282(a).
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) by adding 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) to the entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in column 5. When applicable, 
the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM 
events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. 
The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no 
longer be required.
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a 
``no'' in column 5. The EPA is finalizing that 40 CFR

[[Page 49448]]

63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an 
owner or operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept 
to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 
40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 
through (12). The EPA is finalizing eliminating this requirement 
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. Reporting (40 CFR 63.2281)
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in 
column 5. Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting requirements 
for SSM events. To replace the General Provisions reporting 
requirement, the EPA is finalizing adding reporting requirements to 40 
CFR 63.2281(d) and (e). The replacement language differs from the 
General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM 
reports as a stand-alone report. The EPA is finalizing language that 
requires sources that fail to meet an applicable compliance option in 
40 CFR 63.2240 at any time to report the information concerning such 
events in the semiannual compliance report already required under this 
rule. The EPA is finalizing that the report must contain the number, 
date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown 
cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an 
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any 
emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss 
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, 
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is 
finalizing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate 
information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the 
severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide 
data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize 
emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    A commenter on the proposed rulemaking stated that facilities may 
not have information to estimate emissions resulting from a deviation 
from an operating parameter limit (e.g., low oxidizer or biofilter 
temperature), and requested that emissions estimates only be required 
to be recorded or reported for failure to meet an emission limit. As 
explained in the RTC document included in the docket, EPA agrees that 
precise measurement of PCWP process unit emissions during an operating 
requirement deviation under the PCWP NESHAP is challenging unless the 
failure occurs during a performance test. Therefore, 40 CFR 
63.2281(e)(12) was updated for the final rule to require reporting of 
an emission estimate only for failures to meet the numerical emission 
compliance options in 40 CFR 63.2240, including the compliance options 
in Table 1A or 1B of subpart DDDD or the emissions averaging compliance 
option. As noted in section IV.C.4.f of this preamble, 40 CFR 
63.2282(a) requires recordkeeping of sufficient information to provide 
an emissions estimate associated with failure to meet an operating or 
work practice requirement, if requested by the Administrator.
    The EPA will no longer require owners or operators to determine 
whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an 
SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The finalized 
amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required 
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These 
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be 
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and 
submittal requirements.
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including 
a ``no'' in column 5. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate 
report for SSM events when a source failed to meet an applicable 
standard but did not follow the SSM plan. The EPA will no longer 
require owners or operators to report when actions taken during an SSM 
event were not consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no 
longer be required.
    Also, the EPA is removing and reserving 40 CFR 63.2281(e)(1) which 
required reporting of the date and time when each malfunction started 
and stopped. As discussed in section IV.C.4.f of this preamble, 
reporting is required for deviations from the applicable standard as 
opposed to every malfunction occurrence regardless of whether it 
results in a failure to meet the standard. Section 40 CFR 63.2281(e)(4) 
requires reporting of the date and time each deviation started and 
stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of SSM.

D. Electronic Reporting

    The EPA proposed that owners or operators of PCWP facilities submit 
electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance 
evaluation reports for continuous monitoring systems (CMS) measuring 
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants (i.e., total hydrocarbon 
monitors), selected notifications, and semiannual reports through the 
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the CEDRI. The EPA proposed 
that performance test results collected using test methods that are 
supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the 
ERT website \5\ at the time of the test be submitted in the format 
generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test 
results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the 
attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results 
of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the 
time of the test would be submitted in the format generated through the 
use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in 
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the PCWP semiannual report, the EPA proposed that owners or 
operators use a spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A 
draft version of the spreadsheet template for this report was included 
in the docket for the proposed rulemaking and the EPA specifically 
requested comment on its content, layout, and overall design.\6\ The 
EPA also proposed to require future initial notifications developed 
according to 40 CFR 63.2280(b) and notifications of compliance status 
developed according to 40 CFR 63.2280(d) to be uploaded in CEDRI in a 
user-specified (e.g., PDF) format. In addition, the EPA proposed two 
broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be 
granted. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of 
needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the 
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA 
proposed these potential extensions to protect owners or operators from 
noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report 
by the reporting deadline for reasons

[[Page 49449]]

outside of their control. The situation where an extension may be 
warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which precludes an 
owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required 
reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2281(k). The situation where an 
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or 
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 
63.2281(l). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or 
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of 
the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD--Plywood and Composite Wood 
Products Semiannual Compliance Reporting Spreadsheet Template, 
Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243-0176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received several comments regarding the proposed electronic 
reporting requirements, including favorable comments and comments 
suggesting revisions. The electronic reporting requirements are 
included in the final rule as proposed with clarification of specific 
questions raised by commenters. Specific comments pertaining to the 
draft spreadsheet template are detailed in the RTC document along with 
the EPA's responses explaining how these comments were used to improve 
the template. A revised version of the semiannual electronic reporting 
spreadsheet template is available in the docket for the final rule.
    One commenter requested that the requirement to use a CEDRI form 
should not begin until after the form has been available in CEDRI for 
at least 1 year. The commenter also recommended that the transition to 
using the new reporting form apply to an entire reporting period, not 
come into effect in the middle of a reporting period and result in two 
different reports being prepared. In response to this comment, we 
revised the final rule to specify use of the semiannual reporting 
template for the first full reporting period after it has been 
available on the CEDRI website for 1 year. Refer to section IV.J of 
this preamble for more discussion of the compliance timeline. The EPA 
proposed a conforming amendment in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDD, to require submittal of CMS performance evaluations according to 
the electronic reporting provisions for performance evaluations 
proposed in 40 CFR 63.2281(j). One commenter requested that the EPA 
clarify that CMS performance evaluations should be submitted only for 
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) and not for continuous 
parameter monitoring systems. In response to these requests for 
clarification, we revised Table 9 to subpart DDDD to refer to state the 
CMS performance evaluation to be reported is the performance evaluation 
required for CEMS under 40 CFR 63.2269(d)(2). As discussed in section 
IV.G of this preamble, for the final rule, we also revised Table 10 of 
subpart DDDD to clarify that the CMS performance evaluation provisions 
in 40 CFR 63.8(e) and the RATA provisions in 40 CFR 63.8(f)(6) only 
apply for CEMS under subpart DDDD.

E. Repeat Emissions Testing

    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with federal air 
emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the emissions testing 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, and proposed to require 
facilities complying with the standards in Table 1B of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart DDDD, using an add-on control system other than a biofilter to 
conduct repeat emissions performance testing every 5 years. Currently, 
facilities operating add-on controls are required to conduct an initial 
performance test by the date specified in 40 CFR 63.2261(a). In 
addition to the initial performance test, process units controlled by 
biofilters are already required by the PCWP NESHAP to conduct repeat 
performance testing every 2 years. Periodic performance tests for all 
types of control systems are already required by permitting authorities 
for many facilities. Further, the EPA believes that requiring repeat 
performance tests will help to ensure that control systems are properly 
maintained over time. As proposed in Table 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDD (row 7), the first of the repeat performance tests would be 
required to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date of the 
revised standards or within 5 years (60 months) following the previous 
performance test, whichever is later, and thereafter within 60 months 
following the previous performance test. Section IV.J of this preamble 
provides more information on compliance dates.
    The EPA specifically requested comments on the proposed 
requirements for repeat performance testing. One commenter agreed with 
the proposed requirements and stated they are well supported and 
legally required as part of meeting the EPA's statutory obligations. 
The EPA received other comments requesting clarification of the 
requirements surrounding repeat testing. One commenter requested 
clarification with regards to whether the repeat testing is to include 
press capture efficiency testing and requested due to cost, that repeat 
press capture efficiency testing only be required if an alteration has 
been made to the enclosure that would significantly affect its 
efficacy. In response to this comment, a footnote was added to Table 7 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, clarifying that capture efficiency 
demonstration is not required with repeat performance tests if the 
capture device is maintained and operated consistent with its design as 
well as its operation during the previous capture efficiency 
demonstration conducted according to Table 4 to subpart DDDD, row 9 as 
specified in 40 CFR 63.2267.\7\ Aside from this clarification, the 
proposed requirements for repeat emissions testing every 5 years for 
add-on controls other than biofilters are included in the final rule as 
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The footnote added to Table 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDD, clarifying when capture efficiency testing is required was 
included for biofilters and other control devices undergoing repeat 
emissions testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters requested more flexibility for catalytic oxidizer 
catalyst checks required by the rule given the added repeat testing 
requirements. The commenters requested the frequency of catalyst checks 
be revised to ``annual'' or no more than every 15 months and requested 
the requirement for catalyst checks be eliminated during years when 
emissions tests are conducted. In response to these comments, the EPA 
revised Tables 2 and 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, to refer to 
``annual'' catalyst checks and included a footnote stating that 
facilities may forego the annual catalyst activity check during the 
calendar year when a performance test conducted according to Table 4 to 
subpart DDDD. The final rule requires that, in each calendar year, 
either a performance test or a catalyst activity check must be 
conducted.
    One commenter requested clarification that the Notification of 
Compliance Status (NCS) is only required with the initial performance 
test, not with each repeat performance test. As explained further in 
the RTC document, a NCS is required with initial and repeat performance 
tests under 40 CFR 63.9. In response to this comment, the EPA deleted 
the word ``initial'' from 40 CFR 63.2280(d) and added a phrase 
mentioning the ``repeat performance test as specified in Table 7 to 
this subpart'' so it is clearer that a NCS is required when performing 
repeat testing according to the methods in Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart DDDD. The EPA also deleted the word ``initial'' and added a 
reference to Table 7 to subpart DDDD (which includes repeat testing in

[[Page 49450]]

rows 3 and 7) to 40 CFR 63.2280(d)(2) and clarified that the NCS only 
needs to have ``a summary of'' the performance test results submitted 
according to the electronic performance test reporting provisions in 40 
CFR 63.2281(i).

F. Biofilter Bed Temperature

    Facilities using a biofilter to comply with the PCWP NESHAP must 
monitor biofilter bed temperature and maintain the 24-hour block 
biofilter bed temperature within the range established during 
performance testing showing compliance with the emission limits. As 
originally promulgated, the upper and lower limits of the biofilter bed 
temperature were required to be established as the highest and lowest 
15-minute average bed temperatures, respectively, during the three test 
runs. Facilities may conduct multiple performance tests to expand the 
biofilter bed operating temperature range. See 40 CFR 63.2262(m).
    The EPA learned that multiple facilities are having difficulty 
complying with the PCWP biofilter bed temperature monitoring 
requirements established according to the original rule. Biofilter bed 
temperature is affected by ambient temperature which cannot always be 
accurately predicted in advance of scheduling performance tests. In 
consideration of this issue, as discussed in the preamble for the 
proposed amendments (at 84 FR 47097), the EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 
63.2262(m)(1) to add a 5-percent variability margin to the biofilter 
bed temperature upper and lower limits established during emissions 
testing.
    Commenters on the proposal stated that the proposed 5-percent 
variability margin is insufficient, particularly on the lower end of 
the biofilter bed temperature range and recommended instead that the 
EPA provide a wider margin allowance or extend the operating limit 
averaging period beyond the current 24-hour period. The commenters 
stated that, unlike other common air pollution control devices with 
operating parameters that can be controlled within a small percentage 
of set point and are not subject to ambient atmospheric conditions, 
biofilters are influenced by diurnal, day-to-day, and seasonal ambient 
temperature variations because they are typically located outside due 
to their size. They further stated that in practical terms, in order to 
set the widest bed temperature range, a facility must test on the 
coldest and the hottest day of the year, yet predicting those days is 
not possible and is further complicated by the fact that stack test 
teams and permitting agencies must be given months of advance notice 
when scheduling a test.
    To address the commenters' concern that a 5-percent variability 
margin is insufficient, the EPA increased the variability margin to 10 
percent for the final rule with the stipulation that the variability 
margin not exceed 8 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) on the upper end of the 
biofilter bed range. As noted in the memorandum, Review of Select 
Biofilter/Bioscrubber Data Submitted in Response to the Plywood and 
Composite Wood Products Information Collection Request, Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243-0188, the biofilter bed temperature across all of 
the biofilters in the PCWP industry spans from 40 [deg]F to 150 [deg]F. 
On the low end of this range, 5 percent is 2 [deg]F while 10 percent is 
4 [deg]F. On the high end of the range, 5 percent is 8 [deg]F while 10 
percent is 15 [deg]F. The upper-end value of 15 [deg]F added to 150 
[deg]F would allow the facility to operate at 165 [deg]F, which the EPA 
considers excessive in the absence of data showing this temperature is 
not detrimental to the microbial population. Therefore, for the final 
rule, the EPA capped the variability margin for the high end of the 
biofilter bed temperature range at 8 [deg]F (which coincides with the 
margin proposed). Thus, for the high-end biofilter bed temperature, 
facilities may add up to 10 percent, not to exceed 8 [deg]F.
    The EPA anticipates that facilities currently having difficulty 
maintaining the biofilter bed temperature limits may wish to adjust 
their temperature limits. As originally promulgated, 40 CFR 
63.2262(m)(1) states that facilities may base their biofilter bed 
temperature range on values recorded during previous performance tests 
provided that the data used to establish the temperature ranges have 
been obtained using the required test methods; and that facilities 
using data from previous performance tests must certify that the 
biofilter and associated process unit(s) have not been modified since 
the test. This provision (if met) clarifies that facilities can adjust 
their previously established biofilter temperature range to include the 
5-percent variability margin, if desired.

G. Thermocouple Calibration

    At 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4), the PCWP NESHAP currently requires 
conducting an electronic calibration of the temperature monitoring 
device at least semiannually according to the procedures in the 
manufacturer's owner's manual. Stakeholders with facilities subject to 
the standard explained to the EPA that they are unaware of a 
thermocouple manufacturer that provides procedures for conducting 
electronic calibration of thermocouples. According to stakeholders, 
facilities have been replacing thermocouples because they cannot 
electronically calibrate them. The stakeholders requested the EPA 
consider an alternative approach to the current requirement in 40 CFR 
63.2269(b)(4). To address this issue, the EPA proposed revisions to 40 
CFR 63.2269(b)(4) to allow multiple alternative approaches to 
thermocouple validation.
    The EPA received comments supporting the proposed revisions to 40 
CFR 63.2269(b)(4) and we are promulgating these revisions as proposed 
with minor clarifications. In response to a comment that the word 
``calibration'' be removed from 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(5), the EPA is 
amending this paragraph to replace ``calibration and validation 
checks'' with ``validation checks'' and to specify that validation 
checks be conducted using the procedures in 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4). One 
commenter requested the EPA to clarify that temperature sensor 
validations are not performance evaluations requiring formal 
notification and reporting under 40 CFR 63.8. For the final rule, the 
EPA has revised Table 10 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, to clarify 
that the CMS performance evaluation provisions in 40 CFR 63.8(e) and 
the RATA provisions in 40 CFR 63.8(f)(6) only apply for CEMS under 
subpart DDDD.

H. Non-HAP Coating Definition

    The EPA proposed to replace the references to Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens and 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) in the PCWP ``non-HAP coating'' definition with a 
reference to a new appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The 
proposed appendix listed the specific carcinogenic HAP that must be 
below 0.1 percent by mass for a PCWP coating to be considered a non-HAP 
coating.
    One commenter stated that the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) 
(29 CFR 1910.1200(g)), revised in 2012, requires that a chemical 
manufacturer, distributor, or importer provide a Safety Data Sheet 
(SDS) (formerly MSDSs or Material Safety Data Sheets) for each 
hazardous chemical to downstream users, and that PCWP facilities rely 
on SDSs to identify whether coatings contain carcinogens. The commenter 
stated that if the EPA finalizes a separate list of HAP in appendix B 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, there will be no certainty as to 
whether non-HAP coatings are being used because of the

[[Page 49451]]

discrepancy in HAP listed on SDSs (per the HCS) and in appendix B to 
subpart DDDD. The commenter suggested the EPA should remove appendix B 
to subpart DDDD and instead reference the OSHA SDS requirements for 
classification of carcinogenicity at 29 CFR 1910.1200, appendix A, 
section A.6.4, which match the requirements in the now obsolete OSHA 
regulatory reference proposed for deletion from the PCWP non-HAP 
coating definition.
    The EPA agrees that referencing appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 in 
the PCWP rule's non-HAP coating definition is a more streamlined 
approach for the PCWP NESHAP than use of the proposed appendix B to 40 
CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The OSHA language the PCWP proposal sought 
to replace is in appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200, section A.6.4. For the 
final PCWP amendments, the EPA is defining non-HAP coating to mean a 
coating with HAP contents below 0.1 percent by mass for OSHA-defined 
carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR 
1910.1200 and below 1.0 percent by mass for other HAP compounds. As a 
result of the new reference, the proposed appendix B is not being 
finalized.

I. Technical and Editorial Changes

    The EPA is finalizing the following technical and editorial changes 
to the final rule as proposed:
     The clarifying reference to ``SSM plans'' in 40 CFR 
63.2252 was removed because SSM plans would no longer be applicable 
after the date specified in 40 CFR 63.2250(c);
     the redundant reference in 40 CFR 63.2281(c)(6) for 
submittal of performance test results with the compliance report was 
eliminated because performance test results would be required to be 
electronically reported;
     the EPA revised 40 CFR 63.2281(d)(2) and added language to 
40 CFR 63.2281(e) introductory text and (e)(12) and (13) to make these 
paragraphs more consistent to facilitate electronic reporting;
     a provision stating that the EPA retains authority to 
approve alternatives to electronic reporting was added to 40 CFR 
63.2291(c)(5);
     cross-references to the 40 CFR part 60 appendices 
containing test methods were updated in Table 4 of the rule;
     cross-references were updated throughout the rule, as 
needed, to match the proposed changes;
     cross-references to 40 CFR 63.14 were updated to remove 
outdated paragraph references;
     the equation number cross-referenced in the definition of 
``MSF'' was corrected; and
     the cross-reference in 40 CFR 63.2290 was updated to 
include all sections of the General Provisions.

J. Compliance Dates

    The EPA proposed that existing affected sources and other affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before 
September 6, 2019, must comply with all of the amendments 6 months (180 
days) after the effective date of the final rule.\8\ The EPA also 
proposed the addition of electronic reporting requirements that will 
require use of a semiannual reporting template once the template has 
been available on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for 6 months. New requirements to conduct repeat 
performance testing every 5 years for facilities using an add-on 
control system other than a biofilter (see section IV.E of this 
preamble) were also proposed. The first of the repeat performance tests 
would be required to be conducted within 3 years after the effective 
date of the revised standards, or within 5 years (60 months) following 
the previous performance test, whichever is later, and thereafter 
within 60 months following the previous performance test. The EPA 
specifically requested comment on whether the proposed compliance times 
provide enough time for owners or operators to comply with the proposed 
amendments, and if the proposed time window is not adequate, requested 
that commenters provide an explanation of specific actions that would 
need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements 
and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of 
the revised requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The final action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2), therefore, the effective date of the final rule is 
the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the 180 days proposed by the EPA for 
existing facilities to comply with all of the proposed amendments is 
not enough time to complete all of the activities that must be done in 
order to effect a smooth transition to the new requirements, including: 
Developing a site-specific implementation plan; implementing new 
startup and shutdown procedures; reprogramming of electronic systems 
and automated alarms to account for the removal of SSM provisions and 
the addition of new startup and shutdown related work practices; 
reworking recordkeeping and reporting systems to match the layout of 
the new CEDRI form (e.g., breaking out reporting by individual 
equipment instead of by process group); developing and communicating 
guidance to ensure consistent implementation across a company's 
facilities; preparing permit applications and acquiring revised air 
permits to reflect the elimination of SSM provisions and addition of 
new requirements; developing procedures for estimating excess emissions 
due to deviations; and developing and providing training for facility 
staff on the revised requirements. The commenter further stated that 
applying for and receiving a permit revision to reflect the revised 
requirements alone will likely take more than 180 days and expressed 
concern that if additional time is not provided and if current permit 
language conflicts with the final RTR rule, facilities will have to 
determine how to comply with both the old requirements and the new 
requirements. The commenter also noted that working with information 
technology support staff to re-program a facility's electronic systems 
to align with the new requirements is an effort that takes more than 
180 days to plan and implement.
    After considering the public comments, the EPA recognizes that 180 
days is not practicable for completion of the steps needed to implement 
the PCWP rule changes given the complexity of operations in the PCWP 
source category. The PCWP industry involves manufacturing of several 
different products, using a variety of process unit and control system 
combinations that differ from facility to facility. As documented in 
the technology review, the PCWP processes and controls at many mills 
are highly interconnected (e.g., where multiple different types of 
process units are routed to the same control device; process units of 
one type are routed through process units of a different type to 
emissions control; or where the furnace that provides process heat is 
also part of the air pollution control system for some processes). The 
interconnectivity of processes and fire-prevention systems needed for 
processing wood requires a high degree of automation and 
interconnection in the programmable logic controllers and data 
acquisition systems (DAS) tailored to each PCWP plant site. Some 
companies have one PCWP facility while others have more than 10 
facilities manufacturing different PCWP products using a variety of 
equipment

[[Page 49452]]

configurations. The EPA understands that companies with numerous PCWP 
facilities need time for corporate coordination of IT programming 
resources across multiple uniquely configured plant sites, while 
companies with fewer facilities have more-limited environmental staff 
that are sometimes shared across two or three PCWP facilities to 
oversee reprogramming. The EPA has concluded that 1 year following the 
effective date of the final amendments is the most expeditious 
compliance period practicable for existing PCWP affected sources to 
make the DAS adjustments needed to demonstrate compliance with the 
revised requirements during startup and shutdown periods and to 
transition to electronic reporting. All existing affected facilities 
will have to continue to meet the current requirements of the NESHAP 
until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. Affected 
sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 6, 
2019 (the publication date of the proposed rulemaking) must comply with 
all requirements of the subpart, including the final amendments, no 
later than the effective date of the final rule or upon initial 
startup, whichever is later.
    Regarding the compliance timeline for semiannual reporting, the EPA 
received comments requesting that the new requirements come into effect 
at the beginning of a semiannual reporting period, and not in the 
middle of a reporting period to avoid two different reports being 
prepared. The EPA recognizes that there can be a transitional 
compliance period because of the way the effective date of the final 
PCWP rule is set as the date of publication of the final Federal 
Register document. During this transitional period for existing 
sources, the previously promulgated rule requirements must be met until 
the compliance date (e.g., compliance with the SSM plan), and then the 
newly promulgated requirements must be met thereafter. The EPA 
anticipates that this transitional semiannual reporting period will 
occur before the PCWP semiannual electronic reporting spreadsheet is 
required to be used. To ensure this, we have revised the final rule to 
specify use of the semiannual reporting template for the first full 
reporting period after it has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 
year.
    Regarding the compliance timeline for repeat emissions testing, the 
compliance dates are included in the final rule as proposed. No 
comments were received regarding the compliance dates for repeat 
emissions testing. As proposed, the first of the repeat performance 
tests must be conducted within 3 years after August 13, 2020, or within 
60 months following the previous performance test, whichever is later.

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

    As noted in the preamble to the proposed amendments, the EPA 
identified 230 facilities that are operating and subject to the PCWP 
NESHAP. This includes 109 facilities manufacturing one or more PCWP 
products (e.g., plywood, veneer, particleboard, OSB, hardboard, 
fiberboard, MDF, engineered wood products) and 121 facilities that 
produce kiln-dried lumber. Sixteen facilities produce PCWP products and 
kiln-dried lumber. Information on operational facilities is included in 
the Technology Review for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products 
NESHAP, available as Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243-0189. In 
addition, the EPA is aware of 13 greenfield facilities (four PCWP and 
nine kiln-dried lumber mills) that recently commenced construction as 
major sources of HAP emissions. The EPA is projecting that two new OSB 
mills will be constructed as major sources within the next 5 years, and 
that existing facilities will add or replace process units during this 
same time frame. More details on our projections of new sources are 
available in Projections of the Number of New and Reconstructed Sources 
for the Subpart DDDD Technology Review, available as Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243-0182.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

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

C. What are the cost impacts?

    No capital costs are estimated to be incurred to comply with the 
final amendments. The costs associated with the final amendments are 
related to recordkeeping and reporting labor costs and repeat 
performance testing. Because repeat performance testing is required 
every 5 years, costs are estimated and summarized over a 5-year period. 
The nationwide cost of the final amendments is estimated to include a 
one-time cost of $1.3 million for facilities to review the revised rule 
and make record systems adjustments and a cost of $3.5 million every 5 
years for repeat emissions testing. These costs are in 2018 dollars.
    Another metric for presenting the one-time costs is as a present 
value (PV), which is a technique that converts a stream of costs over 
time into a one-time estimate for the present year or other year. The 
EPA estimates that the PV of costs for these final amendments is $5.6 
million at a discount rate of 7 percent and $6.9 million at a discount 
rate of 3 percent. In addition, the EPA presents these costs as an 
equivalent annualized value (EAV) in order to provide an estimate of 
annual costs consistent with the PV. The EAV for these final amendments 
is estimated to be $0.9 million at a discount rate of 7 percent and 
$1.0 million at a discount rate of 3 percent. The PV and EAV cost 
estimates are in 2016 dollars, in part, to conform to Executive Order 
13771 requirements. These estimates have not changed since the 
proposal. For further information on the costs associated with the 
amendments, see the memorandum, Cost, Environmental, and Energy Impacts 
of Regulatory Options for Subpart DDDD, Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0243-0184, and the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business 
Analysis for the Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Products Risk and 
Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP, Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243-
0185.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA estimated that none of the ultimate parent owners affected 
by the proposed amendments would incur annualized costs of 1.0 percent 
or greater of their revenues, and that estimate has not changed since 
proposal. Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies 
and the

[[Page 49453]]

industries impacted by this action, and there will not be substantial 
impacts in the markets for affected products. For more information on 
the economic impact analysis conducted for the proposal, see the 
memorandum titled Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the 
Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Risk and Technology Review (RTR) 
NESHAP, Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243-0185.

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA is not finalizing changes to emissions limits, except to 
the extent necessary to make them applicable during SSM periods and to 
establish work practice requirements for certain startup and shutdown 
periods. The EPA estimates the final amendments (i.e., changes to SSM, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring) are not economically 
significant. Because these amendments are not considered economically 
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no 
emissions reductions were estimated, the EPA did not estimate any 
benefits from reducing emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) 
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the 
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from each source 
category across different demographic groups within the populations 
living near facilities. The results of the PCWP source category 
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category 
expose approximately 200,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 
million and zero people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. 
The percentages of the at-risk population in four of the 11 demographic 
groups (African American, Native American, below poverty level, and 
over 25 without a high school diploma) are greater than their 
respective nationwide percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Plywood and 
Composite Wood Products Source Category, Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0243-0181.

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 the Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source 
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, 
available in the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
0243.

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 Cost

    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 final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the 
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1984.09. You can find a 
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart DDDD. The information requirements are based on 
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for 
all operators subject to national emissions standards. The information 
collection activities also include paperwork requirements associated 
with initial and repeat performance testing and parameter monitoring. 
The final amendments to the rule eliminate the paperwork requirements 
associated with the SSM plan and recordkeeping of SSM events and 
require electronic submittal of performance test results and semiannual 
compliance reports. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414).
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of facilities 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, that produce plywood, 
composite wood products, or kiln-dried lumber.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart DDDD).
    Estimated number of respondents: 244 facilities (including existing 
and new facilities projected to begin reporting during the ICR period).
    Frequency of response: The frequency varies depending on the type 
of response (e.g., initial notification, semiannual compliance report).
    Total estimated burden: 39,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $6,930,000 (per year), includes $2,365,000 
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if

[[Page 49454]]

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise 
has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the 
rule. Of the 69 ultimate parent entities that are subject to the rule, 
28 are small according to the Small Business Administration's small 
business size standards and standards regarding other entities (e.g., 
federally recognized tribes). None of the affected 28 small entities 
have annualized costs of 1 percent or greater of sales. The EPA has, 
therefore, concluded that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain 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. While this action 
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not 
exceed $100 million or more.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments 
own facilities that are impacted by the proposed changes to the NESHAP. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are discussed in 
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk 
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite 
Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Final Rule, which can be found in the docket for this 
action.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA is finalizing the 
use of the standards currently listed in Table 4 of the rule (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart DDDD). The EPA is amending 40 CFR 63.14 to incorporate 
by reference EPA Method 0011 for measurement of formaldehyde. Method 
0011 is applicable to the determination of destruction and removal 
efficiency of analytes including formaldehyde and other compounds. 
Pollutants withdrawn isokinetically from the emission source and are 
collected in aqueous acidic 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine. Formaldehyde 
present in the emission stream reacts to form a derivative that 
extracted, solvent-exchanged, concentrated, and then analyzed by high 
performance liquid chromatography. The SW-846 Method 0011 (Revision 0, 
December 1996) is available in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication No. SW-846. This 
method was included in the PCWP rule when it was promulgated in 2004 
and is reasonably available from the EPA at https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846-compendium. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of 
subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for 
permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring 
requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance 
specifications, or procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
    The following standards, referenced in the regulatory text, are 
already approved for incorporation by reference at their respective 
locations: NCASI Method CI/WP-98.01; NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.02; 
NCASI Method ISS/FP-A105.01; ASTM D6348-03.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.6 
of the preamble to the proposed amendments (84 FR 47074, September 6, 
2019) and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of 
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Plywood and Composite 
Wood Products Source Category, Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243-
0181.

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 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Andrew 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 A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (n)(8) through 
(28) as (n)(9) through (29) and adding new paragraph (n)(8) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (8) SW-846-0011, Sampling for Selected Aldehyde and Ketone 
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Revision 0, December 1996, in EPA 
Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods

[[Page 49455]]

for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, 
IBR approved for table 4 to subpart DDDD.
* * * * *

Subpart DDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products

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


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

    (a) * * *
    (1) If the initial startup of your affected source is before 
September 28, 2004, then you must comply with the compliance options, 
operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new and 
reconstructed sources in this subpart no later than September 28, 2004, 
except as otherwise specified in Sec. Sec.  63.2250, 63.2280(b) and 
(d), 63.2281(b)(6), and 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 
to this subpart.
    (2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after 
September 28, 2004, then you must comply with the compliance options, 
operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new and 
reconstructed sources in this subpart upon initial startup of your 
affected source, except as otherwise specified in Sec. Sec.  63.2250, 
63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6), and 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 6, 
7, 8, 9, and 10 to this subpart.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice 
requirements for existing sources no later than October 1, 2007, except 
as otherwise specified in Sec. Sec.  63.2240(c)(2)(vi)(A), 63.2250, 
63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6) and (c)(4), and 63.2282(a)(2) and 
Tables 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to this subpart.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.2240 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(A) to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (A) Before August 13, 2021, emissions during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction as described in the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan (SSMP). On and after August 13, 2021, emissions during 
safety-related shutdowns, pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns, 
or startup and shutdown of direct-fired softwood veneer dryer gas-fired 
burners.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.2250 is amended by:
0
a. Adding two sentences to the end of paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (e) through (g).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2250  What are the general requirements?

    (a) * * * For any affected source that commences construction or 
reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph (a) does not 
apply on and after August 13, 2020 or initial startup of the affected 
source, whichever is later. For all other affected sources, this 
paragraph (a) does not apply on and after August 13, 2021.
    (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment according to 
the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). For any affected source that 
commences construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this 
paragraph (b) does not apply on and after August 13, 2020 or initial 
startup of the affected source, whichever is later. For all other 
affected sources, this paragraph (b) does not apply on and after August 
13, 2021.
    (c) You must develop a written SSMP according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.6(e)(3). For any affected source that commences construction 
or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph (c) does not 
apply on and after August 13, 2020 or initial startup of the affected 
source, whichever is later. For all other affected sources, this 
paragraph (c) does not apply on and after August 13, 2021.
* * * * *
    (e) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of 
this part, except as noted in Table 10 to this subpart.
    (f) Upon August 13, 2020 or initial startup of the affected source, 
whichever is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and after August 13, 
2021 for all other affected sources, you must be in compliance with the 
compliance options, operating requirements, and the work practice 
requirements in this subpart when the process unit(s) subject to the 
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice 
requirements are operating, except as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) 
through (6) of this section.
    (1) Prior to process unit initial startup.
    (2) During safety-related shutdowns conducted according to the work 
practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (3) During pressurized refiner startup and shutdown according to 
the work practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (4) During startup and shutdown of direct-fired softwood veneer 
dryer gas-fired burners according to the work practice requirement in 
Table 3 to this subpart.
    (5) You must minimize the length of time when compliance options 
and operating requirements in this subpart are not met due to the 
conditions in paragraphs (f)(2) and (4) of this section.
    (6) The applicable standard during each of the operating conditions 
specified in paragraphs (f)(2) through (4) of this section are the work 
practice requirements in Table 3 to this subpart for safety-related 
shutdowns (row 6), pressurized refiner startup and shutdown (row 7), 
and direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup or shutdown 
of gas-fired burners (row 8). The otherwise applicable compliance 
options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements (in 
rows 1 through 5 of Table 3 to this subpart) do not apply during the 
operating conditions specified in paragraphs (f)(2) through (4) of this 
section.
    (g) For affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and for all other affected 
sources on and after August 13, 2021, you must always operate and 
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels 
required by this subpart. The general duty to minimize emissions does 
not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.

0
6. Section 63.2252 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 49456]]

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

    For process units not subject to the compliance options or work 
practice requirements specified in Sec.  63.2240 (including, but not 
limited to, lumber kilns), you are not required to comply with the 
compliance options, work practice requirements, performance testing, 
monitoring, and recordkeeping or reporting requirements of this 
subpart, or any other requirements in subpart A of this part, except 
for the initial notification requirements in Sec.  63.9(b).

0
7. Section 63.2262 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (m)(1), 
and (n)(1) to read as follows:


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

    (a) Testing procedures. You must conduct each performance test 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (o) of this 
section and according to the methods specified in Table 4 to this 
subpart.
    (b) Periods when performance tests must be conducted. You must 
conduct each performance test based on representative performance 
(i.e., performance based on representative operating conditions as 
defined in Sec.  63.2292) of the affected source for the period being 
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and 
shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
malfunction. You must describe representative operating conditions in 
your performance test report for the process and control systems and 
explain why they are representative. You must record the process 
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such 
conditions are representative. Upon request, you shall make available 
to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (1) During the performance test, you must continuously monitor the 
biofilter bed temperature during each of the required 1-hour test runs. 
To monitor biofilter bed temperature, you may use multiple 
thermocouples in representative locations throughout the biofilter bed 
and calculate the average biofilter bed temperature across these 
thermocouples prior to reducing the temperature data to 15-minute 
averages for purposes of establishing biofilter bed temperature limits. 
The biofilter bed temperature range must be established as the 
temperature values 10 percent below the minimum and 10 percent (not to 
exceed 8[deg] F) above the maximum 15-minute biofilter bed temperatures 
monitored during the three test runs. You may base your biofilter bed 
temperature range on values recorded during previous performance tests 
provided that the data used to establish the temperature ranges have 
been obtained using the test methods required in this subpart. If you 
use data from previous performance tests, you must certify that the 
biofilter and associated process unit(s) have not been modified 
subsequent to the date of the performance tests. Replacement of the 
biofilter media with the same type of material is not considered a 
modification of the biofilter for purposes of this section.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) During the performance test, you must identify and document the 
process unit controlling parameter(s) that affect total HAP emissions 
during the three-run performance test. The controlling parameters you 
identify must coincide with the representative operating conditions you 
describe according to paragraph (b) of this section. For each 
parameter, you must specify appropriate monitoring methods, monitoring 
frequencies, and for continuously monitored parameters, averaging times 
not to exceed 24 hours. The operating limit for each controlling 
parameter must then be established as the minimum, maximum, range, or 
average (as appropriate depending on the parameter) recorded during the 
performance test. Multiple three-run performance tests may be conducted 
to establish a range of parameter values under different operating 
conditions.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.2269 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) to 
read as follows:


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

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

0
9. Section 63.2270 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


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

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

0
10. Section 63.2271 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;

[[Page 49457]]

0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2271   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice 
requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
compliance option, operating requirement, and work practice requirement 
in Tables 7 and 8 to this subpart that applies to you. This includes 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and periods of control 
device maintenance specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 
section. These instances are deviations from the compliance options, 
operating requirements, and work practice requirements in this subpart. 
These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.2281.
* * * * *
    (4) Instances of safety-related shutdown, pressurized refiner 
startup and shutdown, and startup and shutdown of direct-fired softwood 
veneer dryer gas-fired burners subject to the work practice 
requirements in Table 3 to this subpart (rows 6 through 8) must be 
reported as required in Sec.  63.2281(c)(4). Instances when the work 
practice requirements in Table 3 to this subpart (rows 6 through 8) are 
used are not considered to be deviations from (or violations of) the 
otherwise applicable compliance options, operating requirements and 
work practice requirements (in rows 1 through 5 of Table 3 to this 
subpart) as long as you do not exceed the minimum amount of time 
necessary for these events.

0
11. Section 63.2280 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d) 
introductory text, and (d)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2280  What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) You must submit an Initial Notification no later than 120 
calendar days after September 28, 2004, or after initial startup, 
whichever is later, as specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2). Initial 
Notifications required to be submitted after August 13, 2020 for 
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after 
September 6, 2019, and on and after August 13, 2021 for all other 
affected sources submitting initial notifications required in Sec.  
63.9(b) must be submitted following the procedure specified in Sec.  
63.2281(h), (k), and (l).
* * * * *
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design 
evaluation, or other compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4, 
5, and 6 to this subpart, or a repeat performance test as specified in 
Table 7 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance 
Status as specified in Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii). After August 13, 2020 for 
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after 
September 6, 2019, and on and after August 13, 2021 for all other 
affected sources, submit all subsequent Notifications of Compliance 
Status following the procedure specified in Sec.  63.2281(h), (k), and 
(l).
* * * * *
    (2) For each compliance demonstration required in Tables 5, 6, and 
7 to this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according 
to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the 
Notification of Compliance Status, including a summary of the 
performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th 
calendar day following the completion of the performance test.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.2281 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(4);
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(6);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
0
f. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text;
0
g. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1);
0
h. Revising paragraph (e)(2);
0
i. Adding paragraphs (e)(12) and (13); and
0
j. Adding paragraphs (h) through (l).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2281  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) Unless the EPA Administrator has approved a different schedule 
for submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each 
report by the date in Table 9 to this subpart and as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6) After August 13, 2020 for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and 
after August 13, 2021 for all other affected sources, submit all 
subsequent reports following the procedure specified in paragraphs (h), 
(k) and (l) of this section.
    (c) * * *
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the 
compliance report must include the information specified in Sec.  
63.10(d)(5)(i) before August 13, 2021 for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction before September 6, 2019. 
After August 13, 2020 for affected sources that commenced construction 
or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and after August 13, 
2021 for all other affected sources, the compliance report must include 
the number of instances and total amount of time during the reporting 
period in which each of the startup/shutdown work practice requirements 
in Table 3 to this subpart (rows 6 through 8) is used in place of the 
otherwise applicable compliance options, operating requirements, and 
work practice requirements (in Table 3 to this subpart rows 1 through 
5). If a startup/shutdown work practice in Table 3 to this subpart 
(rows 6 through 8) is used for more than a total of 100 hours during 
the semiannual reporting period, you must report the date, time and 
duration of each instance when that startup/shutdown work practice was 
used.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Information on the date, time, duration, and cause of 
deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and 
the corrective action taken.
    (e) For each deviation from a compliance option, operating 
requirement, or work practice requirement occurring at an affected 
source where you are using a CMS to comply with the compliance options, 
operating requirements, or work practice requirements in this subpart, 
you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) and 
(e)(1) through (13) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
    (2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
    (12) For any failure to meet a compliance option in Sec.  63.2240, 
including the compliance options in Table 1A or 1B to this subpart or 
the emissions averaging compliance option, provide an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, 
and a description of

[[Page 49458]]

the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (13) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
* * * * *
    (h) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure 
specified in this paragraph (h), you must submit reports to the EPA via 
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which 
can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information submitted through 
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use 
CEDRI to submit information you claim as confidential business 
information (CBI). Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be 
claimed to be CBI. For semiannual compliance reports required in this 
section and Table 9 (row 1) to this subpart, you must use the 
appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart once the 
reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year. 
The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI 
website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report 
specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the 
report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the 
appropriate addresses listed in Sec.  63.13. You must begin submitting 
all subsequent reports via CEDRI in the first full reporting period 
after the report template for this subpart has been available in CEDRI 
for 1 year. Initial Notifications developed according to Sec.  
63.2280(b) and Notifications of Compliance Status developed according 
to Sec.  63.2280(d) may be uploaded in a user-specified format such as 
portable document format (PDF). The report must be submitted by the 
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which 
the report is submitted. Although we do not expect persons to assert a 
claim of CBI, if persons wish to assert a CBI claim, submit a complete 
report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report 
must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. 
Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used 
electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the 
electronic medium to 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. All CBI claims must be asserted at the 
time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions 
data is not entitled to confidential treatment and requires EPA to make 
emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not 
be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the 
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(i)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through 
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a 
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, 
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup 
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential Business Information (CBI). The EPA will make all 
the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without 
further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim 
as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be 
CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you 
claim some of the information submitted under this paragraph (i) is 
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to 
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the 
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact 
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described in this paragraph (i). All CBI claims must be asserted at the 
time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions 
data is not entitled to confidential treatment and requires EPA to make 
emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not 
be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (j) Within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous 
monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in Sec.  
63.2), you must submit the results of the performance evaluation 
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test 
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed 
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the 
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can 
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you 
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that 
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance 
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the 
EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential Business Information (CBI). The EPA will make all 
the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without 
further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim 
as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be 
CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you 
claim some of the information submitted under this paragraph (j) is 
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to 
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the 
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the

[[Page 49459]]

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 this paragraph (j). All CBI claims 
must be asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA 
section 114(c) emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment 
and requires EPA to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, 
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly 
available.
    (k) If you are required to electronically submit a report or 
notification through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX by this subpart, you may 
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with 
the electronic submittal reporting requirement in this section. To 
assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements 
outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the electronic submittal requirement in this subpart at the 
time of the notification, the date you submitted the report.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (l) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX by this subpart, you may assert a claim of force 
majeure for failure to timely comply with the electronic submittal 
requirement in this section. To assert a claim of force majeure, you 
must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (l)(1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the electronic submittal requirement in this subpart at the 
time of the notification, the date you submitted the report.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
13. Section 63.2282 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(2) 
and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2282  What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Before August 13, 2021, the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) 
through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction before September 
6, 2019. After August 13, 2021] for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and 
after August 13, 2021 for all other affected sources, the records 
related to startup and shutdown, failures to meet the standard, and 
actions taken to minimize emissions, specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 
through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Record the date, time, and duration of each startup and/or 
shutdown period, including the periods when the affected source was 
subject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown.
    (ii) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures; for each failure, record the 
date, time, cause and duration of each failure.
    (iii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, and the following 
information:
    (A) For any failure to meet a compliance option in Sec.  63.2240, 
including the compliance options in Table 1A or 1B to this subpart or 
the emissions averaging compliance option, record 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.
    (B) For each failure to meet an operating requirement in Table 2 to 
this subpart or work practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart, 
maintain sufficient information to estimate the quantity of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit. This information 
must be sufficient to provide a reliable emissions estimate if 
requested by the Administrator.
    (iv) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.2250(g), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan, with the program of corrective action included in the 
plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
* * * * *
    (f) You must keep the written CMS quality control procedures 
required by Sec.  63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the

[[Page 49460]]

affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to 
the provisions of this subpart, to be made available for inspection, 
upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan 
is revised, you must keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the 
performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for 
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years 
after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action 
should be included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).

0
14. Section 63.2283 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
15. Section 63.2290 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2290  What parts of the general provisions apply to me?

    Table 10 to this subpart shows which parts of the general 
provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

0
16. Section 63.2291 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory 
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2291  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.

0
17. Section 63.2292 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``MSF,'' ``Non-HAP coating,'' and 
``Representative operating conditions'';
0
b. Adding the definition of ``Safety-related shutdown'' in alphabetical 
order; and
0
c. Removing the definition of ``Startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan.''
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.2292  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    MSF means thousand square feet (92.9 square meters). Square footage 
of panels is usually measured on a thickness basis, such as \3/8\-inch, 
to define the total volume of panels. Equation 3 of Sec.  63.2262(j) 
shows how to convert from one thickness basis to another.
* * * * *
    Non-HAP coating means a coating with HAP contents below 0.1 percent 
by mass for Occupational Safety and Health Administration-defined 
carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR 
1910.1200, and below 1.0 percent by mass for other HAP compounds.
* * * * *
    Representative operating conditions means operation of a process 
unit during performance testing under the conditions that the process 
unit will typically be operating in the future, including use of a 
representative range of materials (e.g., wood material of a typical 
species mix and moisture content or typical resin formulation) and 
representative operating temperature range. Representative operating 
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown.
* * * * *
    Safety-related shutdown means an unscheduled shutdown of a process 
unit subject to a compliance option in Table 1B to this subpart (or a 
process unit with HAP control under an emissions averaging plan 
developed according to Sec.  63.2240(c)) during which time emissions 
from the process unit cannot be safely routed to the control system in 
place to meet the compliance options or operating requirements in this 
subpart without imminent danger to the process, control system, or 
system operator.
* * * * *

0
18. Table 2 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

                           Table 2 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Operating Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       If you operate a(n) . . .                     You must . . .                      Or you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Thermal oxidizer..................  Maintain the 3-hour block average         Maintain the 3-hour block
                                         firebox temperature above the minimum     average THC concentration \1\
                                         temperature established during the        in the thermal oxidizer
                                         performance test.                         exhaust below the maximum
                                                                                   concentration established
                                                                                   during the performance test.
(2) Catalytic oxidizer................  Maintain the 3-hour block average         Maintain the 3-hour block
                                         catalytic oxidizer temperature above      average THC concentration \1\
                                         the minimum temperature established       in the catalytic oxidizer
                                         during the performance test; AND check    exhaust below the maximum
                                         the activity level of a representative    concentration established
                                         sample of the catalyst annually except    during the performance test.
                                         as specified in footnote ``2'' to this
                                         table.
(3) Biofilter.........................  Maintain the 24-hour block biofilter bed  Maintain the 24-hour block
                                         temperature within the range              average THC concentration \1\
                                         established according to Sec.             in the biofilter exhaust
                                         63.2262(m).                               below the maximum
                                                                                   concentration established
                                                                                   during the performance test.
(4) Control device other than a         Petition the EPA Administrator for site-  Maintain the 3-hour block
 thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer,   specific operating parameter(s) to be     average THC concentration \1\
 or biofilter.                           established during the performance test   in the control device exhaust
                                         and maintain the average operating        below the maximum
                                         parameter(s) within the range(s)          concentration established
                                         established during the performance test.  during the performance test.

[[Page 49461]]

 
(5) Process unit that meets a           Maintain on a daily basis the process     Maintain the 3-hour block
 compliance option in Table 1A to this   unit controlling operating parameter(s)   average THC concentration \1\
 subpart, or a process unit that         within the ranges established during      in the process unit exhaust
 generates debits in an emissions        the performance test according to Sec.    below the maximum
 average without the use of a control     63.2262(n).                              concentration established
 device.                                                                           during the performance test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ You may choose to subtract methane from THC measurements.
\2\ You may forego the annual catalyst activity check during the calendar year when a performance test is
  conducted according to Table 4 to this subpart.


0
19. Table 3 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

     Table 3 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Work Practice Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  For the following process
   units at existing or new                  You must . . .
    affected sources . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dry rotary dryers........  Process furnish with a 24-hour block
                                average inlet moisture content of less
                                than or equal to 30 percent (by weight,
                                dry basis); AND operate with a 24-hour
                                block average inlet dryer temperature of
                                less than or equal to 600 [deg]F.
(2) Hardwood veneer dryers...  Process less than 30 volume percent
                                softwood species on an annual basis.
(3) Softwood veneer dryers...  Minimize fugitive emissions from the
                                dryer doors through (proper maintenance
                                procedures) and the green end of the
                                dryers (through proper balancing of the
                                heated zone exhausts).
(4) Veneer redryers..........  Process veneer that has been previously
                                dried, such that the 24-hour block
                                average inlet moisture content of the
                                veneer is less than or equal to 25
                                percent (by weight, dry basis).
(5) Group 1 miscellaneous      Use non-HAP coatings as defined in Sec.
 coating operations.            63.2292.
(6) Process units and control  Follow documented site-specific
 systems undergoing safety-     procedures such as use of automated
 related shutdown on and        controls or other measures that you have
 after August 13, 2021 except   developed to protect workers and
 as noted in footnote ``1''     equipment to ensure that the flow of raw
 to this table.                 materials (such as furnish or resin) and
                                fuel or process heat (as applicable)
                                ceases and that material is removed from
                                the process unit(s) as expeditiously as
                                possible given the system design to
                                reduce air emissions.
(7) Pressurized refiners       Route exhaust gases from the pressurized
 undergoing startup or          refiner to its dryer control system no
 shutdown on and after August   later than 15 minutes after wood is fed
 13, 2021 except as noted in    to the pressurized refiner during
 footnote ``1'' to this table.  startup. Stop wood flow into the
                                pressurized refiner no more than 15
                                minutes after wood fiber and exhaust
                                gases from the pressurized refiner stop
                                being routed to the dryer during
                                shutdown.
(8) Direct-fired softwood      Cease feeding green veneer into the
 veneer dryers undergoing       softwood veneer dryer and minimize the
 startup or shutdown of gas-    amount of time direct gas-fired softwood
 fired burners on and after     veneer dryers are vented to the
 August 13, 2021 except as      atmosphere due to the conditions
 noted in footnote ``1'' to     described in Sec.   63.2250(d).
 this table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or
  reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with this
  requirement beginning on August 13, 2020 or upon initial startup,
  whichever is later.


0
20. Table 4 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

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

[[Page 49462]]

 
(6) each process unit subject   measure emissions  Method 320 in
 to a compliance option in       of total HAP (as   appendix A to this
 table 1A to this subpart; OR    defined in Sec.    part; OR the NCASI
 for each process unit used in    63.2292).         Method IM/CAN/WP-
 calculation of an emissions                        99.02 (IBR, see Sec.
 average under Sec.                                   63.14); OR the
 63.2240(c).                                        NCASI Method ISS/FP-
                                                    A105.01 (IBR, see
                                                    Sec.   63.14); OR
                                                    ASTM D6348-03 (IBR,
                                                    see Sec.   63.14)
                                                    provided that
                                                    percent R as
                                                    determined in Annex
                                                    A5 of ASTM D6348-03
                                                    is equal or greater
                                                    than 70 percent and
                                                    less than or equal
                                                    to 130 percent.
(7) each process unit subject   measure emissions  Method 308 in
 to a compliance option in       of methanol.       appendix A to this
 table 1B to this subpart for                       part; OR Method 320
 which you choose to                                in appendix A to
 demonstrate compliance using                       this part; OR the
 a methanol compliance option.                      NCASI Method CI/WP-
                                                    98.01 (IBR, see Sec.
                                                      63.14); OR the
                                                    NCASI Method IM/CAN/
                                                    WP-99.02 (IBR, see
                                                    Sec.   63.14); OR
                                                    the NCASI Method ISS/
                                                    FP-A105.01 (IBR, see
                                                    Sec.   63.14).
(8) each process unit subject   measure emissions  Method 316 in
 to a compliance option in       of formaldehyde.   appendix A to this
 table 1B to this subpart for                       part; OR Method 320
 which you choose to                                in appendix A to
 demonstrate compliance using                       this part; OR Method
 a formaldehyde compliance                          0011 in ``Test
 option.                                            Methods for
                                                    Evaluating Solid
                                                    Waste, Physical/
                                                    Chemical Methods''
                                                    (EPA Publication No.
                                                    SW-846) for
                                                    formaldehyde (IBR,
                                                    see Sec.   63.14);
                                                    OR the NCASI Method
                                                    CI/WP-98.01 (IBR,
                                                    see Sec.   63.14);
                                                    OR the NCASI Method
                                                    IM/CAN/WP-99.02
                                                    (IBR, see Sec.
                                                    63.14); OR the NCASI
                                                    Method ISS/FP-
                                                    A105.01 (IBR, see
                                                    Sec.   63.14).
(9) each reconstituted wood     meet the design    Methods 204 and 204A
 product press at a new or       specifications     through 204F of 40
 existing affected source or     included in the    CFR part 51,
 reconstituted wood product      definition of      appendix M, to
 board cooler at a new           wood products      determine capture
 affected source subject to a    enclosure in       efficiency (except
 compliance option in table 1B   Sec.   63.2292;    for wood products
 to this subpart or used in      or determine the   enclosures as
 calculation of an emissions     percent capture    defined in Sec.
 average under Sec.              efficiency of      63.2292). Enclosures
 63.2240(c).                     the enclosure      that meet the
                                 directing          definition of wood
                                 emissions to an    products enclosure
                                 add-on control     or that meet Method
                                 device.            204 requirements for
                                                    a permanent total
                                                    enclosure (PTE) are
                                                    assumed to have a
                                                    capture efficiency
                                                    of 100 percent.
                                                    Enclosures that do
                                                    not meet either the
                                                    PTE requirements or
                                                    design criteria for
                                                    a wood products
                                                    enclosure must
                                                    determine the
                                                    capture efficiency
                                                    by constructing a
                                                    TTE according to the
                                                    requirements of
                                                    Method 204 and
                                                    applying Methods
                                                    204A through 204F
                                                    (as appropriate). As
                                                    an alternative to
                                                    Methods 204 and 204A
                                                    through 204F, you
                                                    may use the tracer
                                                    gas method contained
                                                    in appendix A to
                                                    this subpart.
(10) each reconstituted wood    determine the      a TTE and Methods 204
 product press at a new or       percent capture    and 204A through
 existing affected source or     efficiency.        204F (as
 reconstituted wood product                         appropriate) of 40
 board cooler at a new                              CFR part 51,
 affected source subject to a                       appendix M. As an
 compliance option in table 1A                      alternative to
 to this subpart.                                   installing a TTE and
                                                    using Methods 204
                                                    and 204A through
                                                    204F, you may use
                                                    the tracer gas
                                                    method contained in
                                                    appendix A to this
                                                    subpart. Enclosures
                                                    that meet the design
                                                    criteria (1) through
                                                    (4) in the
                                                    definition of wood
                                                    products enclosure,
                                                    or that meet Method
                                                    204 requirements for
                                                    a PTE (except for
                                                    the criteria
                                                    specified in section
                                                    6.2 of Method 204)
                                                    are assumed to have
                                                    a capture efficiency
                                                    of 100 percent.
                                                    Measured emissions
                                                    divided by the
                                                    capture efficiency
                                                    provides the
                                                    emission rate.
(11) each process unit subject  establish the      data from the
 to a compliance option in       site-specific      parameter monitoring
 tables 1A and 1B to this        operating          system or THC CEMS
 subpart or used in              requirements       and the applicable
 calculation of an emissions     (including the     performance test
 average under Sec.              parameter limits   method(s).
 63.2240(c).                     or THC
                                 concentration
                                 limits) in table
                                 2 to this
                                 subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
21. Table 6 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

      Table 6 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Initial Compliance Demonstrations for Work Practice Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        For the following work practice         You have demonstrated initial
           For each . . .                      requirements . . .                    compliance if . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dry rotary dryer...............  Process furnish with an inlet          You meet the work practice
                                      moisture content less than or equal    requirement AND you submit a signed
                                      to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis)   statement with the Notification of
                                      AND operate with an inlet dryer        Compliance Status that the dryer
                                      temperature of less than or equal to   meets the criteria of a ``dry
                                      600 [deg]F.                            rotary dryer'' AND you have a
                                                                             record of the inlet moisture
                                                                             content and inlet dryer temperature
                                                                             (as required in Sec.   63.2263).

[[Page 49463]]

 
(2) Hardwood veneer dryer..........  Process less than 30 volume percent    You meet the work practice
                                      softwood species.                      requirement AND you submit a signed
                                                                             statement with the Notification of
                                                                             Compliance Status that the dryer
                                                                             meets the criteria of a ``hardwood
                                                                             veneer dryer'' AND you have a
                                                                             record of the percentage of
                                                                             softwoods processed in the dryer
                                                                             (as required in Sec.   63.2264).
(3) Softwood veneer dryer..........  Minimize fugitive emissions from the   You meet the work practice
                                      dryer doors and the green end.         requirement AND you submit with the
                                                                             Notification of Compliance Status a
                                                                             copy of your plan for minimizing
                                                                             fugitive emissions from the veneer
                                                                             dryer heated zones (as required in
                                                                             Sec.   63.2265).
(4) Veneer redryers................  Process veneer with an inlet moisture  You meet the work practice
                                      content of less than or equal to 25    requirement AND you submit a signed
                                      percent (by weight, dry basis).        statement with the Notification of
                                                                             Compliance Status that the dryer
                                                                             operates only as a redryer AND you
                                                                             have a record of the veneer inlet
                                                                             moisture content of the veneer
                                                                             processed in the redryer (as
                                                                             required in Sec.   63.2266).
(5) Group 1 miscellaneous coating    Use non-HAP coatings as defined in     You meet the work practice
 operations.                          Sec.   63.2292.                        requirement AND you submit a signed
                                                                             statement with the Notification of
                                                                             Compliance Status that you are
                                                                             using non-HAP coatings AND you have
                                                                             a record showing that you are using
                                                                             non-HAP coatings.
(6) Process units and control        Follow documented site-specific        You meet the work practice
 systems undergoing safety-related    procedures to ensure the flow of raw   requirement AND you have a record
 shutdown on and after August 13,     materials and fuel or process heat     of safety-related shutdown
 2021, except as noted in footnote    ceases and that material is removed    procedures available for inspection
 ``1'' to this table.                 from the process unit(s) as            by the delegated authority upon
                                      expeditiously as possible given the    request.
                                      system design to reduce air
                                      emissions.
(7) Pressurized refiners undergoing  Route exhaust gases from the           You meet the work practice
 startup or shutdown on and after     pressurized refiner to its dryer       requirement AND you have a record
 August 13, 2021, except as noted     control system no later than 15        of pressurized refiner startup and
 in footnote ``1'' to this table.     minutes after wood is fed to the       shutdown procedures available for
                                      pressurized refiner during startup.    inspection by the delegated
                                      Stop wood flow into the pressurized    authority upon request.
                                      refiner no more than 15 minutes
                                      after wood fiber and exhaust gases
                                      from the pressurized refiner stop
                                      being routed to the dryer during
                                      shutdown.
(8) Direct-fired softwood veneer     Cease feeding green veneer into the    You meet the work practice
 dryers undergoing startup or         softwood veneer dryer and minimize     requirement AND you have a record
 shutdown of gas-fired burners on     the amount of time direct gas-fired    of the procedures for startup and
 and after August 13, 2021, except    softwood veneer dryers are vented to   shutdown of softwood veneer dryer
 as noted in footnote ``1'' to this   the atmosphere due to the conditions   gas-fired burners available for
 table.                               described in Sec.   63.2250(d).        inspection by the delegated
                                                                             authority upon request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019
  must comply with this requirement beginning on August 13, 2020 or upon initial startup, whichever is later.


0
22. Table 7 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

Table 7 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With the Compliance Options and Operating Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      For the following compliance options     You must demonstrate continuous
             For . . .                  and operating requirements . . .             compliance by . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Each process unit listed in      Compliance options in Table 1B to      Collecting and recording the
 Table 1B to this subpart or used     this subpart or the emissions          operating parameter monitoring
 in calculation of an emissions       averaging compliance option in Sec.    system data listed in Table 2 to
 average under Sec.   63.2240(c).      63.2240(c) and the operating          this subpart for the process unit
                                      requirements in Table 2 to this        according to Sec.  Sec.
                                      subpart based on monitoring of         63.2269(a) through (b) and 63.2270;
                                      operating parameters.                  AND reducing the operating
                                                                             parameter monitoring system data to
                                                                             the specified averages in units of
                                                                             the applicable requirement
                                                                             according to calculations in Sec.
                                                                             63.2270; AND maintaining the
                                                                             average operating parameter at or
                                                                             above the minimum, at or below the
                                                                             maximum, or within the range
                                                                             (whichever applies) established
                                                                             according to Sec.   63.2262.

[[Page 49464]]

 
(2) Each process unit listed in      Compliance options in Tables 1A and    Collecting and recording the THC
 Tables 1A and 1B to this subpart     1B to this subpart or the emissions    monitoring data listed in Table 2
 or used in calculation of an         averaging compliance option in Sec.    to this subpart for the process
 emissions average under Sec.          63.2240(c) and the operating          unit according to Sec.
 63.2240(c).                          requirements in Table 2 to this        63.2269(d); AND reducing the CEMS
                                      subpart based on THC CEMS data.        data to 3-hour block averages
                                                                             according to calculations in Sec.
                                                                             63.2269(d); AND maintaining the 3-
                                                                             hour block average THC
                                                                             concentration in the exhaust gases
                                                                             less than or equal to the THC
                                                                             concentration established according
                                                                             to Sec.   63.2262.
(3) Each process unit using a        Compliance options in Tables 1B to     Conducting a repeat performance test
 biofilter.                           this subpart or the emissions          using the applicable method(s)
                                      averaging compliance option in Sec.    specified in Table 4 to this
                                       63.2240(c).                           subpart \1\ within 2 years
                                                                             following the previous performance
                                                                             test and within 180 days after each
                                                                             replacement of any portion of the
                                                                             biofilter bed media with a
                                                                             different type of media or each
                                                                             replacement of more than 50 percent
                                                                             (by volume) of the biofilter bed
                                                                             media with the same type of media.
(4) Each process unit using a        Compliance options in Table 1B to      Checking the activity level of a
 catalytic oxidizer.                  this subpart or the emissions          representative sample of the
                                      averaging compliance option in Sec.    catalyst at least annually \2\ and
                                       63.2240(c).                           taking any necessary corrective
                                                                             action to ensure that the catalyst
                                                                             is performing within its design
                                                                             range.
(5) Each process unit listed in      Compliance options in Table 1A to      Collecting and recording on a daily
 Table 1A to this subpart, or each    this subpart or the emissions          basis process unit controlling
 process unit without a control       averaging compliance option in Sec.    operating parameter data; AND
 device used in calculation of an      63.2240(c) and the operating          maintaining the operating parameter
 emissions averaging debit under      requirements in Table 2 to this        at or above the minimum, at or
 Sec.   63.2240(c).                   subpart based on monitoring of         below the maximum, or within the
                                      process unit controlling operating     range (whichever applies)
                                      parameters.                            established according to Sec.
                                                                             63.2262.
(6) Each Process unit listed in      Compliance options in Table 1B to      Implementing your plan to address
 Table 1B to this subpart using a     this subpart or the emissions          how organic HAP captured in the
 wet control device as the sole       averaging compliance option in Sec.    wastewater from the wet control
 means of reducing HAP emissions.      63.2240(c).                           device is contained or destroyed to
                                                                             minimize re-release to the
                                                                             atmosphere.
(7) Each process unit listed in      Compliance options in Tables 1B to     Conducting a repeat performance test
 Table 1B to this subpart using a     this subpart.                          using the applicable method(s)
 control device other than a                                                 specified in Table 4 to this
 biofilter.                                                                  subpart \1\ by August 13, 2023 or
                                                                             within 60 months following the
                                                                             previous performance test,
                                                                             whichever is later, and thereafter
                                                                             within 60 months following the
                                                                             previous performance test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When conducting a repeat performance test, the capture efficiency demonstration required in Table 4 to this
  subpart, row 9 is not required to be repeated with the repeat emissions test if the capture device is
  maintained and operated consistent with its design as well as its operation during the previous capture
  efficiency demonstration conducted according to Table 4 to this subpart, row 9 as specified in Sec.   63.2267.
\2\ You may forego the annual catalyst activity check during the calendar year when a performance test is
  conducted according to Table 4 to this subpart.


0
23. Table 8 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

          Table 8 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With the Work Practice Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        For the following work practice        You must demonstrate continuous
             For . . .                         requirements . . .                    compliance by . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dry rotary dryer...............  Process furnish with an inlet          Maintaining the 24-hour block
                                      moisture content less than or equal    average inlet furnish moisture
                                      to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis)   content at less than or equal to 30
                                      AND operate with an inlet dryer        percent (by weight, dry basis) AND
                                      temperature of less than or equal to   maintaining the 24-hour block
                                      600 [deg]F.                            average inlet dryer temperature at
                                                                             less than or equal to 600 [deg]F;
                                                                             AND keeping records of the inlet
                                                                             temperature of furnish moisture
                                                                             content and inlet dryer
                                                                             temperature.
(2) Hardwood veneer dryer..........  Process less than 30 volume percent    Maintaining the volume percent
                                      softwood species.                      softwood species processed below 30
                                                                             percent AND keeping records of the
                                                                             volume percent softwood species
                                                                             processed.
(3) Softwood veneer dryer..........  Minimize fugitive emissions from the   Following (and documenting that you
                                      dryer doors and the green end.         are following) your plan for
                                                                             minimizing fugitive emissions.

[[Page 49465]]

 
(4) Veneer redryers................  Process veneer with an inlet moisture  Maintaining the 24-hour block
                                      content of less than or equal to 25    average inlet moisture content of
                                      percent (by weight, dry basis).        the veneer processed at or below of
                                                                             less than or 25 percent AND keeping
                                                                             records of the inlet moisture
                                                                             content of the veneer processed.
(5) Group 1 miscellaneous coating    Use non-HAP coatings as defined in     Continuing to use non-HAP coatings
 operations.                          Sec.   63.2292.                        AND keeping records showing that
                                                                             you are using non-HAP coatings.
(6) Process units and control        Follow documented site-specific        Keeping records showing that you are
 systems undergoing safety-related    procedures to ensure the flow of raw   following the work practice
 shutdown on and after August 13,     materials and fuel or process heat     requirements during safety-related
 2021, except as noted in footnote    ceases and that material is removed    shutdowns.
 ``1'' to this table.                 from the process unit(s) as
                                      expeditiously as possible given the
                                      system design to reduce air
                                      emissions.
(7) Pressurized refiners undergoing  Route exhaust gases from the           Keeping records showing that you are
 startup or shutdown on and after     pressurized refiner to its dryer       following the work practice
 August 13, 2021, except as noted     control system no later than 15        requirements during pressurized
 in footnote ``1'' to this table.     minutes after wood is fed to the       refiner startup and shutdown
                                      pressurized refiner during startup.    events.
                                      Stop wood flow into the pressurized
                                      refiner no more than 15 minutes
                                      after wood fiber and exhaust gases
                                      from the pressurized refiner stop
                                      being routed to the dryer during
                                      shutdown..
(8) Direct-fired softwood veneer     Cease feeding green veneer into the    Keeping records showing that you are
 dryers undergoing startup or         softwood veneer dryer and minimize     following the work practice
 shutdown of gas-fired burners on     the amount of time direct gas-fired    requirements while undergoing
 and after August 13, 2021, except    softwood veneer dryers are vented to   startup or shutdown of softwood
 as noted in footnote ``1'' to this   the atmosphere due to the conditions   veneer dryer direct gas-fired
 table.                               described in Sec.   63.2250(d).        burners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019
  must comply with this requirement beginning on August 13, 2020 or upon initial startup, whichever is later.


0
24. Table 9 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

                          Table 9 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     You must submit a(n) . . .          The report must contain . . .        You must submit the report . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Compliance report..............  The information in Sec.   63.2281(c)   Semiannually according to the
                                      through (g).                           requirements in Sec.   63.2281(b).
(2) Immediate startup, shutdown,     (i) Actions taken for the event......  By fax or telephone within 2 working
 and malfunction report if you had   .....................................   days after starting actions
 a startup, shutdown, or             (ii) The information in Sec.            inconsistent with the plan.
 malfunction during the reporting     63.10(d)(5)(ii).                      By letter within 7 working days
 period that is not consistent with                                          after the end of the event unless
 your SSMP before August 13,                                                 you have made alternative
 2021.\1\                                                                    arrangements with the permitting
                                                                             authority.
(3) Performance test report........  The information required in Sec.       According to the requirements of
                                      63.7(g).                               Sec.   63.2281(i).
(4) CMS performance evaluation, as   The information required in Sec.       According to the requirements of
 required for CEMS under Sec.         63.7(g).                               Sec.   63.2281(j).
 63.2269(d)(2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The requirement for the SSM report in row 2 of this table does not apply for new or reconstructed affected
  sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019.


0
25. Table 10 to subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:

            Table 10 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to This Subpart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Applies to this    Applies to this
                                                                             subpart  before     subpart on and
                                                                             August 13, 2021,   after August 13,
           Citation                  Subject          Brief description      except as noted    2021, except as
                                                                               in  footnote    noted in footnote
                                                                              ``1'' to this      ``1'' to this
                                                                                  table              table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1..................  Applicability.....  Initial applicability    Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    determination;
                                                    applicability after
                                                    standard established;
                                                    permit requirements;
                                                    extensions,
                                                    notifications.
Sec.   63.2..................  Definitions.......  Definitions for          Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    standards in this part.
Sec.   63.3..................  Units and           Units and abbreviations  Yes..............  Yes.
                                Abbreviations.      for standards in this
                                                    part.

[[Page 49466]]

 
Sec.   63.4..................  Prohibited          Prohibited activities;   Yes..............  Yes.
                                Activities and      compliance date;
                                Circumvention.      circumvention,
                                                    fragmentation.
Sec.   63.5..................  Preconstruction     Preconstruction review   Yes..............  Yes.
                                Review and          requirements of
                                Notification        section 112(i)(1).
                                Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(a)...............  Applicability.....  GP apply unless          Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    compliance extension;
                                                    GP apply to area
                                                    sources that become
                                                    major.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)........  Compliance Dates    Standards apply at       Yes..............  Yes.
                                for New and         effective date; 3
                                Reconstructed       years after effective
                                Sources.            date; upon startup; 10
                                                    years after
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction
                                                    commences for section
                                                    112(f).
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)............  Notification......  Must notify if           Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    commenced construction
                                                    or reconstruction
                                                    after proposal.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)............  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)............  Compliance Dates    Area sources that        Yes..............  Yes.
                                for New and         become major must
                                Reconstructed       comply with major
                                Area Sources that   source standards
                                Become Major.       immediately upon
                                                    becoming major,
                                                    regardless of whether
                                                    required to comply
                                                    when they were an area
                                                    source.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)........  Compliance Dates    Comply according to      Yes..............  Yes.
                                for Existing        date in subpart, which
                                Sources.            must be no later than
                                                    3 years after
                                                    effective date; for
                                                    section 112(f)
                                                    standards, comply
                                                    within 90 days of
                                                    effective date unless
                                                    compliance extension.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)........  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)............  Compliance Dates    Area sources that        Yes..............  Yes.
                                for Existing Area   become major must
                                Sources that        comply with major
                                Become Major.       source standards by
                                                    date indicated in
                                                    subpart or by
                                                    equivalent time period
                                                    (e.g., 3 years).
Sec.   63.6(d)...............  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).........  General Duty to     You must operate and     Yes..............  No, see Sec.
                                Minimize            maintain affected                           63.2250 for
                                Emissions.          source in a manner                          general duty
                                                    consistent with safety                      requirement.
                                                    and good air pollution
                                                    control practices for
                                                    minimizing emissions.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)........  Requirement to      You must correct         Yes..............  No.
                                Correct             malfunctions as soon
                                Malfunctions ASAP.  as practicable after
                                                    their occurrence.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii).......  Operation and       Operation and            Yes..............  Yes.
                                Maintenance         maintenance
                                Requirements.       requirements are
                                                    enforceable
                                                    independent of
                                                    emissions limitations
                                                    or other requirements
                                                    in relevant standards.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)............  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)............  Startup, Shutdown,  Requirement for SSM and  Yes..............  No.
                                and Malfunction     SSMP; content of SSMP.
                                Plan (SSMP).
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)............  SSM Exemption.....  You must comply with     No. See Sec.       No.
                                                    emission standards at    63.2250(a).
                                                    all times except
                                                    during SSM.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)........  Methods for         Compliance based on      Yes..............  Yes.
                                Determining         performance test,
                                Compliance/         operation and
                                Finding of          maintenance plans,
                                Compliance.         records, inspection.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)........  Alternative         Procedures for getting   Yes..............  Yes.
                                Standard.           an alternative
                                                    standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)............  SSM Exemption.....  You must comply with     NA...............  No.
                                                    opacity and visible
                                                    emission standards at
                                                    all times except
                                                    during SSM.
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)-(9)........  Opacity/Visible     Requirements for         NA...............  NA.
                                Emission (VE)       opacity and visible
                                Standards.          emission standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14).......  Compliance          Procedures and criteria  Yes..............  Yes.
                                Extension.          for Administrator to
                                                    grant compliance
                                                    extension.
Sec.   63.6(i)(15)...........  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.6(i)(16)...........  Compliance          Compliance extension     Yes..............  Yes.
                                Extension.          and Administrator's
                                                    authority.
Sec.   63.6(j)...............  Presidential        President may exempt     Yes..............  Yes.
                                Compliance          source category from
                                Exemption.          requirement to comply
                                                    with rule.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)........  Performance Test    Dates for conducting     Yes..............  Yes.
                                Dates.              initial performance
                                                    testing and other
                                                    compliance
                                                    demonstrations; must
                                                    conduct 180 days after
                                                    first subject to rule.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)............  Section 114         Administrator may        Yes..............  Yes.
                                Authority.          require a performance
                                                    test under CAA section
                                                    114 at any time.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)............  Notification of     Must notify              Yes..............  Yes.
                                Performance Test.   Administrator 60 days
                                                    before the test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)............  Notification of     If have to reschedule    Yes..............  Yes.
                                Rescheduling.       performance test, must
                                                    notify Administrator
                                                    as soon as practicable.
Sec.   63.7(c)...............  Quality Assurance/  Requirement to submit    Yes..............  Yes.
                                Test Plan.          site-specific test
                                                    plan 60 days before
                                                    the test or on date
                                                    Administrator agrees
                                                    with; test plan
                                                    approval procedures;
                                                    performance audit
                                                    requirements; internal
                                                    and external QA
                                                    procedures for testing.
Sec.   63.7(d)...............  Testing Facilities  Requirements for         Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    testing facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)............  Performance         Performance tests must   Yes..............  No, see Sec.
                                Testing.            be conducted under                          63.2262(a)-(b).
                                                    representative
                                                    conditions; cannot
                                                    conduct performance
                                                    tests during SSM; not
                                                    a violation to exceed
                                                    standard during SSM.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)............  Conditions for      Must conduct according   Yes..............  Yes.
                                Conducting          to rule and EPA test
                                Performance Tests.  methods unless
                                                    Administrator approves
                                                    alternative.

[[Page 49467]]

 
Sec.   63.7(e)(3)............  Test Run Duration.  Must have three test     Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    runs for at least the
                                                    time specified in the
                                                    relevant standard;
                                                    compliance is based on
                                                    arithmetic mean of
                                                    three runs; specifies
                                                    conditions when data
                                                    from an additional
                                                    test run can be used.
Sec.   63.7(f)...............  Alternative Test    Procedures by which      Yes..............  Yes.
                                Method.             Administrator can
                                                    grant approval to use
                                                    an alternative test
                                                    method.
Sec.   63.7(g)...............  Performance Test    Must include raw data    Yes..............  Yes.
                                Data Analysis.      in performance test
                                                    report; must submit
                                                    performance test data
                                                    60 days after end of
                                                    test with the
                                                    notification of
                                                    compliance status;
                                                    keep data for 5 years.
Sec.   63.7(h)...............  Waiver of Tests...  Procedures for           Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    Administrator to waive
                                                    performance test.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)............  Applicability of    Subject to all           Yes..............  Yes.
                                Monitoring          monitoring
                                Requirements.       requirements in
                                                    standard.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)............  Performance         Performance              Yes..............  Yes.
                                Specifications.     specifications in
                                                    appendix B of part 60
                                                    of this chapter apply.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)............  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)............  Monitoring with     Requirements for flares  NA...............  NA.
                                Flares.             in Sec.   63.11 apply.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)............  Monitoring........  Must conduct monitoring  Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    according to standard
                                                    unless Administrator
                                                    approves alternative.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)........  Multiple Effluents  Specific requirements    Yes..............  Yes.
                                and Multiple        for installing
                                Monitoring          monitoring systems;
                                Systems.            must install on each
                                                    effluent before it is
                                                    combined and before it
                                                    is released to the
                                                    atmosphere unless
                                                    Administrator approves
                                                    otherwise; if more
                                                    than one monitoring
                                                    system on an emission
                                                    point, must report all
                                                    monitoring system
                                                    results, unless one
                                                    monitoring system is a
                                                    backup.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)............  Monitoring System   Maintain monitoring      Yes..............  Yes.
                                Operation and       system in a manner
                                Maintenance.        consistent with and
                                                    good air pollution
                                                    control practices.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).........  Operation and       Must maintain and        Yes..............  No.
                                Maintenance of      operate CMS in
                                CMS.                accordance with Sec.
                                                    63.6(e)(1).
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)........  Spare Parts for     Must maintain spare      Yes..............  Yes.
                                CMS.                parts for routine CMS
                                                    repairs.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).......  Requirements to     Must develop and         Yes..............  No.
                                Develop SSMP for    implement SSMP for CMS.
                                CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)........  Monitoring System   Must install to get      Yes..............  Yes.
                                Installation.       representative
                                                    emission of parameter
                                                    measurements; must
                                                    verify operational
                                                    status before or at
                                                    performance test.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)............  CMS Requirements..  CMS must be operating    Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    except during
                                                    breakdown, out-of-
                                                    control, repair,
                                                    maintenance, and high-
                                                    level calibration
                                                    drifts; COMS must have
                                                    a minimum of one cycle
                                                    of sampling and
                                                    analysis for each
                                                    successive 10-second
                                                    period and one cycle
                                                    of data recording for
                                                    each successive 6-
                                                    minute period; CEMS
                                                    must have a minimum of
                                                    one cycle of operation
                                                    for each successive 15-
                                                    minute period.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)............  Continuous Opacity  COMS minimum procedures  NA...............  NA.
                                Monitoring System
                                (COMS) Minimum
                                Procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)........  CMS Requirements..  Zero and high-level      Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    calibration check
                                                    requirements; out-of-
                                                    control periods.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)........  CMS Quality         Requirements for CMS     Yes. Refer to      Yes. Refer to
                                Control.            quality control,         Sec.               Sec.
                                                    including calibration,   63.2269(a)-(c)     63.2269(a)-(c)
                                                    etc..                    for CPMS quality   for CPMS quality
                                                                             control            control
                                                                             procedures to be   procedures to be
                                                                             included in the    included in the
                                                                             quality control    quality control
                                                                             program.           program.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)............  Written Procedures  Must keep quality        Yes..............  No, see Sec.
                                for CMS.            control plan on record                      63.2282(f).
                                                    for 5 years. Keep old
                                                    versions for 5 years
                                                    after revisions. May
                                                    incorporate as part of
                                                    SSMP to avoid
                                                    duplication..
Sec.   63.8(e)...............  CMS Performance     Notification,            Yes, for CEMS....  Yes, for CEMS.
                                Evaluation.         performance evaluation
                                                    test plan, reports.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)........  Alternative         Procedures for           Yes..............  Yes.
                                Monitoring Method.  Administrator to
                                                    approve alternative
                                                    monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)............  Alternative to      Procedures for           Yes, for CEMS....  Yes, for CEMS.
                                Relative Accuracy   Administrator to
                                Test.               approve alternative
                                                    relative accuracy
                                                    tests for CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(g)...............  Data Reduction....  COMS 6-minute averages   Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    calculated over at
                                                    least 36 evenly spaced
                                                    data points; CEMS 1
                                                    hour averages computed
                                                    over at least 4
                                                    equally spaced data
                                                    points; data that
                                                    can't be used in
                                                    average; rounding of
                                                    data.
Sec.   63.9(a)...............  Notification        Applicability and State  Yes..............  Yes.
                                Requirements.       delegation.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(2)........  Initial             Submit notification 120  Yes..............  Yes.
                                Notifications.      days after effective
                                                    date; contents of
                                                    notification.
Sec.   63.9(b)(3)............  [Reserved]........

[[Page 49468]]

 
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)-(5)........  Initial             Submit notification 120  Yes..............  Yes.
                                Notifications.      days after effective
                                                    date; notification of
                                                    intent to construct/
                                                    reconstruct;
                                                    notification of
                                                    commencement of
                                                    construct/reconstruct;
                                                    notification of
                                                    startup; contents of
                                                    each.
Sec.   63.9(c)...............  Request for         Can request if cannot    Yes..............  Yes.
                                Compliance          comply by date or if
                                Extension.          installed best
                                                    available control
                                                    technology/lowest
                                                    achievable emission
                                                    rate.
Sec.   63.9(d)...............  Notification of     For sources that         Yes..............  Yes.
                                Special             commence construction
                                Compliance          between proposal and
                                Requirements for    promulgation and want
                                New Source.         to comply 3 years
                                                    after effective date.
Sec.   63.9(e)...............  Notification of     Notify EPA               Yes..............  Yes.
                                Performance Test.   Administrator 60 days
                                                    prior.
Sec.   63.9(f)...............  Notification of     Notify EPA               No...............  No.
                                Visible Emissions/  Administrator 30 days
                                Opacity Test.       prior.
Sec.   63.9(g)...............  Additional          Notification of          Yes..............  Yes.
                                Notifications       performance
                                When Using CMS.     evaluation;
                                                    notification using
                                                    COMS data;
                                                    notification that
                                                    exceeded criterion for
                                                    relative accuracy.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(6)........  Notification of     Contents; due 60 days    Yes..............  Yes.
                                Compliance Status.  after end of
                                                    performance test or
                                                    other compliance
                                                    demonstration, except
                                                    for opacity/VE, which
                                                    are due 30 days after;
                                                    when to submit to
                                                    Federal vs. State
                                                    authority.
Sec.   63.9(i)...............  Adjustment of       Procedures for           Yes..............  Yes.
                                Submittal           Administrator to
                                Deadlines.          approve change in when
                                                    notifications must be
                                                    submitted.
Sec.   63.9(j)...............  Change in Previous  Must submit within 15    Yes..............  Yes.
                                Information.        days after the change.
Sec.   63.10(a)..............  Recordkeeping/      Applies to all, unless   Yes..............  Yes.
                                Reporting.          compliance extension;
                                                    when to submit to
                                                    Federal vs. State
                                                    authority; procedures
                                                    for owners of more
                                                    than one source.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...........  Recordkeeping/      General Requirements;    Yes..............  Yes.
                                Reporting.          keep all records
                                                    readily available;
                                                    keep for 5 years.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)........  Recordkeeping of    Records of occurrence    Yes..............  No, see Sec.
                                Occurrence and      and duration of each                        63.2282(a).
                                Duration of         startup or shutdown
                                Startups and        that causes source to
                                Shutdowns.          exceed emission
                                                    limitation.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii).......  Recordkeeping of    Records of occurrence    Yes..............  No, see Sec.
                                Failures to Meet    and duration of each                        63.2282(a) for
                                a Standard.         malfunction of                              recordkeeping of
                                                    operation or air                            (1) date, time
                                                    pollution control and                       and duration;
                                                    monitoring equipment.                       (2) listing of
                                                                                                affected source
                                                                                                or equipment,
                                                                                                and an estimate
                                                                                                of the quantity
                                                                                                of each
                                                                                                regulated
                                                                                                pollutant
                                                                                                emitted over the
                                                                                                standard; and
                                                                                                (3) actions to
                                                                                                minimize
                                                                                                emissions and
                                                                                                correct the
                                                                                                failure.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)......  Maintenance         Records of maintenance   Yes..............  Yes.
                                Records.            performed on air
                                                    pollution control and
                                                    monitoring equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...  Actions Taken to    Records of actions       Yes..............  No.
                                Minimize            taken during SSM to
                                Emissions During    minimize emissions.
                                SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi) and     CMS Records.......  Malfunctions,            Yes..............  Yes.
 (x)-(xi).                                          inoperative, out-of-
                                                    control.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix).  Records...........  Measurements to          Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    demonstrate compliance
                                                    with compliance
                                                    options and operating
                                                    requirements;
                                                    performance test,
                                                    performance
                                                    evaluation, and
                                                    visible emission
                                                    observation results;
                                                    measurements to
                                                    determine conditions
                                                    of performance tests
                                                    and performance
                                                    evaluations.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)......  Records...........  Records when under       Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    waiver.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).....  Records...........  Records when using       Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    alternative to
                                                    relative accuracy test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)......  Records...........  All documentation        Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    supporting initial
                                                    notification and
                                                    notification of
                                                    compliance status.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...........  Records...........  Applicability            Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-   Records...........  Additional records for   Yes..............  Yes.
 (14).                                              CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8).......  Records...........  Records of excess        No...............  No.
                                                    emissions and
                                                    parameter monitoring
                                                    exceedances for CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..........  Use of SSMP.......  Use SSMP to satisfy      Yes..............  No.
                                                    recordkeeping
                                                    requirements for
                                                    identification of
                                                    malfunction,
                                                    correction action
                                                    taken, and nature of
                                                    repairs to CMS.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...........  General Reporting   Requirement to report..  Yes..............  Yes.
                                Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...........  Report of           When to submit to        Yes..............  Yes.
                                Performance Test    Federal or State
                                Results.            authority.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...........  Reporting Opacity   What to report and when  NA...............  NA.
                                or VE
                                Observations.

[[Page 49469]]

 
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...........  Progress Reports..  Must submit progress     Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    reports on schedule if
                                                    under compliance
                                                    extension.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)........  Periodic SSM        Contents and submission  Yes..............  No, see Sec.
                                Reports.            of periodic SSM                             63.2281(d)-(e)
                                                    reports.                                    for malfunction
                                                                                                reporting
                                                                                                requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii).......  Immediate SSM       Contents and submission  Yes..............  No.
                                Reports.            of immediate SSM
                                                    reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2).......  Additional CMS      Must report results for  Yes..............  Yes.
                                Reports.            each CEM on a unit;
                                                    written copy of
                                                    performance
                                                    evaluation; 3 copies
                                                    of COMS performance
                                                    evaluation.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)...........  Reports...........  Excess emission reports  No...............  No.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)...........  Reporting COMS      Must submit COMS data    NA...............  NA.
                                Data.               with performance test
                                                    data.
Sec.   63.10(f)..............  Waiver for          Procedures for EPA       Yes..............  Yes.
                                Recordkeeping/      Administrator to waive.
                                Reporting.
Sec.   63.11.................  Control Device and  Requirements for flares  NA...............  NA.
                                Work Practice       and alternative work
                                Requirements.       practice for equipment
                                                    leaks.
Sec.   63.12.................  State Authority     State authority to       Yes..............  Yes.
                                and Delegations.    enforce standards.
Sec.   63.13.................  Addresses.........  Addresses where          Yes..............  Yes.
                                                    reports,
                                                    notifications, and
                                                    requests are sent.
Sec.   63.14.................  Incorporations by   Test methods             Yes..............  Yes.
                                Reference.          incorporated by
                                                    reference.
Sec.   63.15.................  Availability of     Public and confidential  Yes..............  Yes.
                                Information and     information.
                                Confidentiality.
Sec.   63.16.................  Performance Track   Requirements for         Yes..............  Yes.
                                Provisions.         Performance Track
                                                    member facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019
  must comply with the requirements in column 5 of this table beginning on August 13, 2020 or upon initial
  startup, whichever is later.

[FR Doc. 2020-12725 Filed 8-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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