83_FR_11364 83 FR 11314 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review

83 FR 11314 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 50 (March 14, 2018)

Page Range11314-11341
FR Document2018-04939

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Leather Finishing Operations to address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA is required to conduct in accordance with section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). We found risks due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from this source category and determined that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We identified no new cost-effective controls under the technology review to achieve further emissions reductions. Therefore, we are proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these analyses. However, the EPA is proposing amendments to regulatory provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); amendments to add electronic reporting; and amendments to clarify certain rule requirements and provisions. While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action, if finalized, would result in improved compliance and implementation of the rule.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11314-11341]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04939]



[[Page 11313]]

Vol. 83

Wednesday,

No. 50

March 14, 2018

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather 
Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 11314]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194; FRL-9975-21-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT70


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather 
Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Leather Finishing Operations to address the 
results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA 
is required to conduct in accordance with section 112 of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA). We found risks due to emissions of air toxics to be 
acceptable from this source category and determined that the current 
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We 
identified no new cost-effective controls under the technology review 
to achieve further emissions reductions. Therefore, we are proposing no 
revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these analyses. 
However, the EPA is proposing amendments to regulatory provisions 
pertaining to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM); amendments to add electronic reporting; and 
amendments to clarify certain rule requirements and provisions. While 
the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action, if finalized, would result 
in improved compliance and implementation of the rule.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before April 13, 2018.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by March 19, 2018, 
then we will hold a public hearing on March 29, 2018 at the location 
described in the ADDRESSES section. The last day to pre-register in 
advance to speak at the public hearing will be March 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. Regulations.gov is our 
preferred method of receiving comments. However, other submission 
formats are accepted. To ship or send mail via the United States Postal 
Service, use the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194, Mail 
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. Use the 
following Docket Center address if you are using express mail, 
commercial delivery, hand delivery, or courier: EPA Docket Center, EPA 
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 
DC 20004. Delivery verification signatures will be available only 
during regular business hours.
    Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. See section I.C of this preamble 
for instructions on submitting CBI.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system).
    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held 
at EPA Headquarters, EPA WJC East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20004. If a public hearing is requested, then we 
will provide details about the public hearing on our Web site at: 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/leather-finishing-operations-national-emission-standards-hazardous. The EPA does not 
intend to publish another document in the Federal Register announcing 
any updates on the request for a public hearing. Please contact Ms. 
Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541-1063 or by email at StClair.Aimee@epa.gov 
to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public 
hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held.
    The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who 
arrive and register. If a hearing is held at a U.S. government 
facility, individuals planning to attend should be prepared to show a 
current, valid state- or federal-approved picture identification to the 
security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. An expired 
form of identification will not be permitted. Please note that the Real 
ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for 
entering federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by a 
noncompliant state, you must present an additional form of 
identification to enter a federal facility. Acceptable alternative 
forms of identification include: Federal employee badge, passports, 
enhanced driver's licenses, and military identification cards. 
Additional information on the Real ID Act is available at https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-frequently-asked-questions. In addition, you will 
need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring 
with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return 
this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed 
in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building, and 
demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security 
reasons.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources Group, Sector 
Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5032; 
fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: schrock.bill@epa.gov. 
For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, 
contact Matthew Woody, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-1535; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email 
address: woody.matthew@epa.gov. For information about the applicability 
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact John Cox, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW,

[[Page 11315]]

Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email 
address: cox.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in 
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 
1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is 
(202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0194. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. This 
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed in section 
1.C of this preamble. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your 
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 
not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's 
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TSD technical support document
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures
    A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
    B. How do we perform the technology review?
    C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by the source 
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, 
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
    C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    D. What other actions are we proposing?
    E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

[[Page 11316]]

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for 
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to 
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. On 
July 16, 1992, we published an initial list of source categories to be 
regulated (57 FR 31576), Initial List of Categories of Sources Under 
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The Leather 
Tanning and Finishing Operations source category was not included on 
the initial list, but was added by an update to the list on June 4, 
1996 (61 FR 28207), Revision of Initial List of Categories of Sources 
and Schedule for Standards Under Sections 112(c) and (e) of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990. On October 2, 2000, we proposed a NESHAP 
for the Leather Finishing Operations source category (65 FR 58702). The 
final rule was promulgated on February 27, 2002 (67 FR 9156) 
(henceforth referred to as the ``Leather Finishing NESHAP''), which 
modified the listing of this source category by deleting tanning 
facilities from the definition and renaming the source category 
``Leather Finishing Operations.'' The Revision of Initial List of 
Categories of Sources and Schedule for Standards Under Sections 112(c) 
and (e) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 61 FR 28197, 
28202, June 4, 1996), describes the Leather Finishing Operations source 
category as ``any facility or process engaged in conditioning and 
enhancement processes that give tanned leather distinctive and 
desirable qualities required by end users of the material.''

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               NESHAP and source category                 NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leather Finishing Operations...........................            3161
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the Internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
http://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/leather-finishing-operations-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication 
in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version 
of the proposal and key technical documents at this same Web site. 
Information on the overall RTR program is available at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194).

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk 
or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or 
CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 
one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed 
as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. If 
you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as 
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI 
only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-
02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0194.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

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

[[Page 11317]]

than the floor are commonly referred to as ``beyond-the-floor'' 
standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the 
EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to 
prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, 
CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based 
on generally available control technologies or management practices 
(GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and 
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA 
section 112(f). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to 
determine for source categories subject to MACT standards whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this 
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources 
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step process for 
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions 
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene 
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA 
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use 
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently 
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC 
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    The approach in the CAA process used by the EPA to evaluate 
residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a 
two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks 
are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health information, 
including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit 
on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) \1\ of approximately 
[1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 million].'' 54 FR 38045, September 
14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the 
emissions standards necessary to bring risks to an acceptable level 
without considering costs. In the second step of the process, the EPA 
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of 
safety ``in consideration of all health information, including the 
number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1-in-1 
million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and 
economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant 
to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must promulgate emission 
standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we 
consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent an 
adverse affect, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and 
other relevant factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Leather Finishing NESHAP was promulgated on February 27, 2002 
(67 FR 9156) and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT. The Leather 
Finishing NESHAP defines ``leather finishing'' as ``a single process or 
group of processes used to adjust and improve the physical and 
aesthetic characteristics of the leather surface through the multistage 
application of a coating comprised of dyes, pigments, film-forming 
materials, and performance modifiers dissolved or suspended in liquid 
carriers.'' 40 CFR 63.5460. The Leather Finishing NESHAP does not apply 
to equipment used solely for leather tanning operations or to portions 
of leather finishing operations using a solvent degreasing process 
subject to the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP (see 40 CFR 
63.5290(c)).
    There are currently four existing leather finishing operations that 
were identified as subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP: S.B. Foot 
Tanning Company of Red Wing, MN; Alliance Leather, Inc. of Peabody, MA; 
Pearl Leather Finishers, Inc. of Johnstown, NY; and Tasman Leather 
Group, LLC of Hartland, ME.
    In the overall process of leather products manufacturing, leather 
finishing is considered a dry operation as opposed to the ``wet-end'' 
operations associated with leather tanning. Leather finishing 
operations can be co-located with wet-end tannery operations or 
performed in stand-alone facilities. None of the four existing 
facilities subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP perform the initial 
wet-end tanning process that produces the commodity product known as 
``wet blues'' or ``blue stock;'' however, based on information 
available in the facility operating permits, the S.B. Foot and Tasman 
facilities each perform retanning, coloring, and fat liquoring 
operations. These are wet-end operations that soften, color, and 
restore fats and oils to the blue stock. The equipment used solely for 
leather tanning operations is not subject to the Leather Finishing 
NESHAP.
    In the dry-end leather finishing operations, coatings are typically 
applied to the leather substrate using spray, roll, and flow coating 
techniques. The emission source types subject to the emission limits 
under the Leather Finishing NESHAP include, but are not limited to 
coating and spraying equipment, coating storage and mixing, and dryers. 
Emissions of HAP occur from volatilization during the application of 
the coating, drying, or curing of the coating, and from handling, 
storage, and clean-up of the finishing materials. Wastewaters laden 
with HAP are also a potential source of emissions at facilities that 
use water curtains and water baths for particulate control. The 
emission point types associated with these emission sources include 
process vents, storage vessels, wastewater, and fugitive sources.
    In developing the Leather Finishing NESHAP, the EPA established 
MACT standards for four types of leather product process operations: 
(1) Upholstery leather with greater than or equal to 4 grams of add-on 
finish per square foot of leather; (2) upholstery leather with less 
than 4 grams of add-on finish per square foot of leather; (3)

[[Page 11318]]

water-resistant leather; and (4) nonwater-resistant leather. The MACT 
standards limit emissions from new and existing leather finishing 
operations and are expressed in terms of total HAP emissions per 1,000 
square feet of leather processed over a rolling 12-month compliance 
period. Sources must record the mass of HAP in coatings applied to the 
leather either through an inventory mass balance or ``measure-as-
applied'' approach. Using the mass balance approach, sources may choose 
to account for disposal of excess finish instead of assuming any excess 
finish is also emitted. Emissions are calculated based on the 
assumption that the entire HAP content of the applied finish is 
released to the environment. Sources using an add-on control device may 
account for the emission reduction achieved from the control device as 
measured by a performance test conducted in accordance with the 
requirements of the Leather Finishing NESHAP.
    Based on the data collected as described in section II.C and D of 
this preamble, HAP emissions from this source category include propyl 
cellosolve, glycol ethers, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, 
trimethylamine, diethylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol, 
toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, and chromium (III) compounds.

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

    For this RTR, the EPA collected information from the 2014 National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI, version 1), from facility permits and permit 
applications, and through discussions with facility representatives and 
state permitting authorities.
    The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that 
emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The database 
includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from point, 
nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this 
information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 
years. The NEI includes information necessary for conducting risk 
modeling, including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual 
emission points at facilities and the related emissions release 
parameters. We used NEI emissions and supporting data as the primary 
source of information to develop the model input file for the risk 
assessment (hereafter referred to as the ``RTR emissions dataset''). 
For more details on the NEI, see https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei.
    The EPA also gathered information on annual emissions, emission 
points, air pollution control devices, and process operations from 
facility construction and operating permits. We collected permits and 
supporting documentation from state permitting authorities either 
through direct contact with the agencies or through state-maintained 
online databases. The NEI and facility permits contained much of the 
information we used to develop the RTR emissions dataset. Supplemental 
information was collected via communication with facility 
representatives.
    The EPA contacted facility representatives for three of the four 
leather finishing operations subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP 
(identified in section II.B of this preamble) to collect supplemental 
and clarifying information for use in the RTR emissions dataset. 
Facility representatives provided information including production 
capacities, coating formulations, HAP emissions, and operating 
schedules. We were unable to establish contact with facility 
representatives for Alliance Leather, Inc. of Peabody, MA; however, the 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection confirmed the 
facility was in operation at the time of our inquiry (November 2016) 
and provided a facility annual emissions report for the 2015 reporting 
year. Contacts with facility representatives, our review of permit 
documentation, and our review of the 2014 NEI are documented in a 
separate memorandum titled Leather Finishing: Residual Risk Modeling 
File Supporting Documentation in the docket for this action.

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

    The EPA's Enforcement Compliance History Online (ECHO) database was 
used as a tool to identify which leather finishing operations were 
potentially subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. The ECHO database 
provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for 
approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. Using the search 
feature in ECHO, the EPA identified 120 facilities that could 
potentially be subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. The EPA also 
reviewed the membership directory of the Leather Industries of America 
trade association and supporting documentation for the 2002 rulemaking 
and identified an additional 35 facilities with operations potentially 
subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. We then searched state Web 
sites for operating permits for these facilities to determine whether 
the permits stated the facility contained leather finishing operations 
subject to the rule. For facilities for which permits were unavailable, 
we reviewed company Web sites, online news articles, and aerial imagery 
to determine if the facility was still in operation. Of the 155 
identified facilities, we determined that 24 facilities perform leather 
finishing operations and 131 facilities are either closed or do not 
perform leather finishing operations. Of the 24 facilities performing 
leather finishing operations, only four are subject to the Leather 
Finishing NESHAP. The 20 remaining facilities are area sources and not 
subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP.
    The EPA searched for Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT), Best Available Control Technology (BACT), and Lowest Achievable 
Emission Rate (LAER) determinations in the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 
(RBLC). The RBLC is a database that contains case-specific information 
of air pollution technologies that have been required to reduce the 
emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA's 
New Source Review (NSR) program, if a facility is planning new 
construction or a modification that will increase the air emissions by 
a certain amount, an NSR permit must be obtained. This central database 
promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and aids 
in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. We examined information 
contained in the RBLC to determine what technologies are currently used 
at leather finishing operations to reduce air emissions.
    The EPA also reviewed other information sources to determine 
whether there have been developments in practices, processes, or 
control technologies in the leather finishing operations source 
category. We reviewed subsequent regulatory actions for sources similar 
to leather finishing operations and conducted a review of literature 
published by industry organizations, technical journals, and government 
organizations. Additional details regarding our review of these 
information sources is contained in the memorandum titled CAA section 
112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Leather Finishing Source Category 
in the docket for this action.

III. Analytical Procedures

    In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the

[[Page 11319]]

proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this 
proposal.

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

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

    \2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a 
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where 
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential 
exposure to the HAP to the level at or below which no adverse 
chronic noncancer effects are expected; the HI is the sum of HQs for 
HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system.

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

    See 54 FR at 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR 
is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risks. 
The Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10 
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become 
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be 
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making 
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a 
particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the 
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other 
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the 
ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP 
that: ``EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can 
be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be 
determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly 
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' Id. at 
38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various 
risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our 
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
    The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information 
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not 
attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with 
emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category 
under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, 
persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in 
the vicinity of the sources in the category.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize 
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing 
noncancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference 
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For 
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to 
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the 
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a 
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in 
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other 
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to 
result in increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA's responses to this and all other key 
recommendations of the SAB's advisory on RTR risk assessment 
methodologies (which is available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-
007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memorandum to this rulemaking 
docket from David Guinnup titled, EPA's Actions in Response to the 
Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment 
Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this proposal. The Agency is (1) Conducting facility-wide 
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as 
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combining exposures 
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same 
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative 
pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the 
RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from 
all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HI from all noncarcinogens 
affecting the same target organ system.
    Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources 
combined in the

[[Page 11320]]

vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of 
doing so. Because of the contribution to total HAP risk from emission 
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR 
review, such estimates of total HAP risks would have significantly 
greater associated uncertainties than the source category or facility-
wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound 
those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable.

B. How do we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we 
identify such developments, in order to inform our decision of whether 
it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards, we analyze the 
technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated 
costs, energy implications, non-air environmental impacts, and we also 
considered the emission reductions. In addition, we considered the 
appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting 
existing sources.
    Based on our analyses of the available data and information, we 
identify potential developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be 
a ``development'':

     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that 
was not identified and considered during development of the original 
MACT standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional 
emissions reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).

    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed 
(or last updated) the NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data sources in 
our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to 
consider. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various 
industries that were promulgated since the MACT standards being 
reviewed in this action. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or 
technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify 
any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these 
efforts that could be applied to emission sources in the Leather 
Finishing Operations source category, as well as the costs, non-air 
impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these 
technologies. Finally, we reviewed information from other sources, such 
as state and/or local permitting agency databases and industry-
supported databases.

C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by the source category?

    The EPA conducted a risk assessment that provides estimates of the 
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the 
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential 
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to 
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The 
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks 
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 
the potential for adverse environmental effects. The eight sections 
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and 
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains 
the following document, which provides more information on the risk 
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather 
Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the December 2017 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess 
risks (as described in the eight primary steps below) are consistent 
with those peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009 and 
described in their peer review report issued in 2010 \4\; they are also 
consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk 
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory 
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 
Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    Data for four leather finishing operations as described in section 
II.C of this preamble were used to create the RTR emissions dataset. 
The emission sources in the RTR emissions dataset include the following 
types of emissions sources currently regulated by the Leather Finishing 
NESHAP: Coating and spraying equipment, coating storage and mixing, and 
dryers. The RTR emissions dataset also includes emissions from buffing 
operations. This RTR emissions dataset is based primarily on emissions 
data from the 2014 NEI, facility permits and permit supporting 
documentation, a state-provided facility annual emissions report, and 
information obtained through contact with facility representatives. 
These data sources provided all of the emissions data in the RTR 
emissions dataset and nearly all of the facility-specific data needed 
to conduct the risk modeling analysis. However, there were a few 
instances where default values were used to fill gaps in the facility-
specific data used in the risk modeling analysis. For example, default 
values were used for fugitive release parameters. Use of defaults is 
discussed in detail in the memorandum titled Leather Finishing: 
Residual Risk Modeling File Supporting Documentation in the docket for 
this action.
    The RTR emissions dataset was refined following an extensive 
quality assurance (QA) check of source locations, emission release 
characteristics, and annual emission estimates. We checked the 
coordinates of each emission source in the dataset using a computer 
program that renders a three-dimensional representation of Earth based 
on satellite imagery to ensure the emission point locations were 
correct. We also confirmed that each stack parameter was within 
acceptable QA range check boundaries. For further information on the 
EPA's QA review, see the memorandum titled Leather Finishing: Residual 
Risk Modeling File Supporting Documentation in the docket for this 
action.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data used to develop the RTR emissions 
dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified 
annual time period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower 
than the emission levels required to comply with the current MACT 
standards. The emissions level

[[Page 11321]]

allowed to be emitted by the MACT standards is referred to as the 
``MACT-allowable'' emissions level. We discussed the use of both MACT-
allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 
FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous 
Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, 
December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that 
assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 
reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum level facilities could 
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also 
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where 
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 
14, 1989).
    We used the RTR emissions dataset discussed in section III.C.1 of 
this preamble to estimate allowable emissions levels. The types and 
sources of data we used to estimate allowable emissions vary by 
facility and leather finishing operation type. Because the Leather 
Finishing NESHAP MACT limits are production-based limits (i.e., pounds 
HAP per square feet of leather processed), estimating MACT-allowable 
emissions for the Leather Finishing Operations source category would be 
accomplished by using the actual production level per leather finishing 
operation type to calculate emissions at the MACT limit per leather 
finishing operation type. However, we do not have actual production 
data (quantity and type of leather) for each permitted leather 
finishing operation because we did not petition facilities for this 
information with an information collection request (ICR). As a result, 
different methods for estimating allowable emissions were warranted for 
each facility and leather finishing operation type. This section 
provides a summary of our method for estimating allowable emissions for 
each facility. Refer to the memorandum titled Leather Finishing: 
Residual Risk Modeling File Supporting Documentation in the docket for 
this action for a more detailed discussion of the data and methods we 
used to calculate allowable emissions for these facilities.
    For Alliance Leather, we estimated allowable emissions for organic 
HAP using the Leather Finishing NESHAP limit on total HAP emissions 
that is specified in the facility's permit, which is 3.7 pounds of HAP 
emitted per 1,000 square feet of leather processed. The facility's 
total allowable annual HAP emission rate was estimated to be the 
product of this HAP limit (3.7 pounds per 1,000 square feet of leather 
processed), the design production capacity of the leather finishing 
process specified in the operating permit (16,200 square feet per 
hour), and the annual operating schedule contained in the 2014 NEI 
(2,000 hours per year). Given that we do not have actual production 
data for this leather finishing operation, we could not calculate the 
MACT-allowable emissions level as described above. However, using 
design production capacity in place of actual production is a more 
conservative approach, yielding a higher estimate for allowable organic 
HAP emissions. As further detailed in the memorandum cited above in 
this section, this approach yielded a total allowable annual HAP 
emission rate of 60 tpy, equivalent to 118 times the actual emission 
rate. Allowable organic HAP emissions for the risk modeling file were 
estimated by multiplying by 118 the actual organic HAP emission rates 
for each emission release point, emission process, and emission unit 
combination.
    For S.B. Foot Tanning Co. and Pearl Leather Finishers, Inc, we also 
do not have actual production data. Further, S.B. Foot has multiple 
leather finishing operations, each subject to a different production-
based NESHAP limit. To calculate the MACT-allowable emissions level for 
each leather finishing operation at the facility, we would need the 
actual production data for each leather finishing operation. Given our 
data limitations for these two facilities, we identified an alternative 
approach for estimating allowable emissions that was not available for 
Alliance Leather. S.B. Foot and Pearl Leather Finishers are subject to 
permitted mass-based limits on volatile organic compound(s) (VOC) 
emissions in tpy. We determined that we could use each facility's 
permitted VOC limit to estimate allowable organic HAP emissions because 
all organic HAP emitted are VOC and, in the coating formulations, there 
is little variation in the ratio of total organic HAP to total VOC. 
Using the ratio of each facility's permitted VOC emission limit to its 
reported \5\ annual VOC emissions, we estimated allowable organic HAP 
emissions as the product of actual organic HAP emissions and this 
ratio. For example, for S.B. Foot, permitted VOC emissions are 200 tpy 
and reported VOC emissions are 88.61 tpy, which yields a ratio of 2.26. 
For Pearl Leather Finishers, permitted VOC emissions are 194,180 pounds 
per year and reported VOC emissions are 41,926 pounds, which yields a 
ratio of 4.63. Using these ratios, we estimated allowable organic HAP 
emissions as the product of actual organic HAP emissions and the ratio. 
For S.B. Foot, actual organic HAP emissions are 16.18 tpy, which 
multiplied by 2.26 yields 36.5 tpy allowable organic HAP emissions. 
Using this same method for Pearl Leather Finishers yields an allowable 
organic HAP emission level of 5.1 tpy. Allowable organic HAP emissions 
for the risk modeling file were estimated for each facility by 
multiplying the actual organic HAP emission rates for each emission 
release point, emission process, and emission unit combination by the 
ratio. Refer to the memorandum cited above in this section for a 
detailed discussion about these data sources and calculations. We 
solicit comment on this proposed method of calculating allowable 
organic HAP emissions for S.B. Foot and Pearl Leather Finishers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Reported to the 2014 NEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Tasman Leather Group, LLC., allowable emissions were estimated 
using the maximum HAP emissions allowed for area sources, which is 10 
tpy for all HAP emitted (refer to the memorandum, Leather Finishing: 
Residual Risk Modeling File Supporting Documentation, in the docket for 
this action for further discussion on the status of this facility as an 
area source). Allowable emissions for organic HAP were set equivalent 
to this total annual HAP emission limit of 10 tpy. Allowable organic 
HAP emissions for the risk modeling file were estimated by multiplying 
the actual organic HAP emission rate (as reported in the 2014 NEI) for 
each emission release point, emission process, and emission unit 
combination by a factor of 2.78, which is the ratio of allowable total 
HAP emissions (10 tpy) to actual facility-wide emissions of HAP (3.59 
tpy). Refer to the memorandum cited above in this section for a 
detailed discussion about these data sources and calculations.
    We estimated allowable chromium (III) emissions from buffing 
operations as follows. For S.B. Foot, the allowable rate for each 
chromium-emitting emission release point was set equal to the potential 
to emit value in the facility's permit technical support document 
(TSD), which is 0.319 tpy chromium (III). No additional restrictions on 
chromium (III) emissions were identified. For Pearl Leather Finishers 
and Tasman Leather Group, we used emission factors presented in the 
S.B. Foot permit TSD to estimate the allowable emission rate for each 
chromium emission release point. For Pearl Leather Finishers, based on 
communication with facility representatives regarding average

[[Page 11322]]

production rate, design production capacity, and dust capture, and 
assuming a 90-percent control efficiency, we calculated an allowable 
chromium (III) emission rate of 0.266 tpy. For Tasman Leather Group, 
based on communication with facility representatives, we identified the 
design capacity of each buffing operation and established that four 
buffing operations currently operate. Using this design capacity, we 
calculated allowable chromium emissions based on permit special 
conditions for the facility allowing the operation of 12 such buffing 
units at any given time and requiring a 90-percent particulate removal 
efficiency. Based on these permitted conditions, we calculated an 
allowable chromium (III) emission rate of 4.98 tpy. Refer to the 
memorandum cited above in this section for a detailed discussion about 
these data sources and calculations. We identified no buffing 
operations at Alliance Leather.
    We solicit comment on our proposed methods for estimating allowable 
emissions. In addition to general comments on these proposed methods, 
we are interested in additional data that may improve our estimation of 
allowable emissions.
3. How did we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation 
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risks?
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3). The HEM-3 
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting 
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient 
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to 
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks 
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 
information.
a. Dispersion Modeling
    The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of 
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations 
from industrial facilities.\6\ To perform the dispersion modeling and 
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data 
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used 
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of 
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological 
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto 
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \7\ 
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human 
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census 
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill 
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health 
risks. These dose-response values are the latest values recommended by 
the EPA for HAP. They are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants and are discussed in more detail later in this 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \7\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Cancer
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the 
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted 
by each source for which we have emissions data in the source category. 
The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid are used as 
a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all 
the people who reside in that census block. We calculate the MIR for 
each facility as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime 
(24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, for a 70-year 
period) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of 
inhabited census blocks. Individual cancer risks are calculated by 
multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient 
concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter) by its unit 
risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper bound estimate of an 
individual's probability of contracting cancer over a lifetime of 
exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic 
meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use UREs from 
the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic 
pollutants without IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of 
cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, 
where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible dose-
response values have been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA 
guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that 
used by the EPA, we may use such dose-response values in place of, or 
in addition to, other values, if appropriate.
    To estimate incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated 
with emissions from the facilities in the source category, the EPA sums 
the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \8\ emitted by the modeled 
sources. Cancer incidence and the distribution of individual cancer 
risks for the population within 50 km of the sources are also estimated 
for the source category by summing individual risks. A distance of 50 
km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene 
NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of 
Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA classifies carcinogens as: Carcinogenic to humans, 
likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive evidence of 
carcinogenic potential. These classifications also coincide with the 
terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible 
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the 
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document 
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of 
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002) was published as a supplement 
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing 
the risks of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative 
cancer risks is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in 
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment 
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects 
Other Than Cancer
    To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific 
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is 
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ 
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ system to obtain 
a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic 
noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of 
several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is 
the EPA RfC (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/
searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/

[[Page 11323]]

search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary), defined as ``an estimate 
(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 
continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including 
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk 
of deleterious effects during a lifetime.'' In cases where an RfC from 
the EPA's IRIS database is not available or where the EPA determines 
that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic 
noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following 
prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly 
to the EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); 
(2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (http://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a 
scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in 
a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer 
review process similar to that used by the EPA.
d. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other 
Than Cancer
    For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response 
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks 
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes 
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and 
exposure location. We use the peak hourly emission rate,\9\ worst-case 
dispersion conditions, and, in accordance with our mandate under 
section 112 of the CAA, the point of highest off-site exposure to 
assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates 
of peak hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual 
annual emissions rates by a default factor (usually 10) to account 
for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the 
December 2017 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in 
Appendix 5 of the report: Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission 
Rates Relative to Long-term Emission Rates. Both are available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use 
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute 
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning 
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to 
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the 
estimated acute exposure by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP 
for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates 
acute HQs.
    An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below 
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 
exposure duration.'' \10\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, 
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical 
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most 
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of 
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to 
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not 
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent 
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to 
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\11\ They are 
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to 
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' 
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne 
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is 
predicted that the general population, including susceptible 
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not 
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of 
exposure.'' Airborne concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure 
levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient 
and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain 
asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the 
airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams 
per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the 
general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience 
irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or 
an impaired ability to escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot 
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in 
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne 
Toxicants, which is available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
    \11\ National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2001. Standing 
Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for 
Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program 
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National 
Academies to publish final AEGLs, (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERPGs are developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \12\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum 
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing 
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving 
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is 
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one 
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious 
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability 
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American 
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than 
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are 
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding 
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from 
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we 
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
    For this source category, facility-specific actual emissions were 
used to calculate peak hourly emissions in our acute inhalation 
screening risk assessment. For each HAP emitted by a facility, the peak 
hourly emission rate was calculated by dividing the actual annual 
emission rate by facility-specific annual operating hours and 
multiplying this hourly rate by an acute emission multiplier of 1.8. 
The multiplier was developed using U.S. census data reported in 2012 
through 2017 for leather finishing operations production capacity 
utilization over the period 2011 through 2016. The multiplier was 
calculated as the ratio of the highest

[[Page 11324]]

production rate capacity use factor (87.5) to the lowest production 
rate capacity use factor (46.6). Emissions from leather finishing 
operations are primarily from coatings operations. The production 
capacity of leather finishing operations is constrained by the amount 
of time it takes to apply and cure coatings, and machines are running 
more or less continuously, which gives a smooth temporal profile and, 
thus, a low emission adjustment factor. Consequently, actual emissions 
and acute hourly emissions will be similar, and the selected adjustment 
factor of 1.8 was selected over the default adjustment factor of 10. 
The description of how peak hourly emissions were calculated and 
additional information regarding operating hours at each facility in 
the source category can be found in Appendix 1--Emissions Inventory 
Support Document of the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the 
December 2017 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule in the docket 
for this rulemaking.
    In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts 
are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to 
1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening 
assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In 
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we 
consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined 
estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern. For this source 
category, the data refinements employed consisted of ensuring the 
locations where the maximum HQ occurred were off facility property and 
where the public could potentially be exposed. Also in estimating acute 
risks for the Leather Finishing Operations source category, we employed 
the following data refinements in calculating peak hourly emissions, as 
described above in this section: Used facility-specific operating hour 
data and developed an industry-specific multiplier based on industry-
specific U.S. census data. These refinements are discussed more fully 
in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather Finishing Operations 
Source Category in Support of the December 2017 Risk and Technology 
Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. How did we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening 
assessment?
    The EPA conducted a tiered screening assessment examining the 
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via 
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determined 
whether any sources in the source category emitted any HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), as 
identified in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume 
1, Appendix D, at http://www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
    For the Leather Finishing Operations source category, we did not 
identify emissions of any PB-HAP. Because we did not identify PB-HAP 
emissions, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for 
this source category.
5. How did we assess risks considering emissions control options?
    While emission control technologies were considered, the analysis 
determined the available control technologies were not cost effective 
for reducing HAP emissions from leather finishing operations. 
Therefore, we did not assess risk on the emission control options. For 
more information regarding analysis of available control technologies, 
see the memorandum, CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the 
Leather Finishing Source Category, which is available in the docket for 
this action.
6. How did we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effects, Environmental HAP, and Ecological 
Benchmarks
    The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for adverse environmental effects as required under section 
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse 
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, 
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of 
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of 
environmental quality over broad areas.''
    The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as 
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two 
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic organic 
matter, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead 
compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are 
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
    HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental 
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The 
acid gases, HCl and HF, were included due to their well-documented 
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the 
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four 
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes 
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and 
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological 
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and 
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and 
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological 
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
    An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has 
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each 
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks 
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological 
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, 
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect 
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a 
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available 
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist 
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    For the Leather Finishing Operations source category, we did not 
identify emissions of any PB-HAP. Because we did not identify PB-HAP 
emissions, no further evaluation of ecological impacts was conducted 
for this source category.
    For further information on how the environmental risk screening 
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics 
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological 
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in Support 
of the Risk and Technology Review December 2017 Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the Leather

[[Page 11325]]

Finishing Operations source category emitted any of the environmental 
HAP. For this source category, we did not identify emissions of any of 
the eight environmental HAP included in the screen. Because we did not 
identify environmental HAP emissions, no further evaluation of 
environmental risk was conducted.
7. How did we conduct facility-wide assessments?
    To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine 
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all 
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the 
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP 
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
    For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment 
using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 NEI. We used the 
NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or ``non-
category'' data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset 
from that used for the source category assessments described in this 
preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are 
emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of 
each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category 
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we 
made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and 
these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the 
portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source 
category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the 
facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and 
determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source 
category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather 
Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the Risk and 
Technology Review December 2017 Proposed Rule, available through the 
docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the 
facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the 
percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
8. How did we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although 
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are 
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the 
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute 
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our 
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the Risk and 
Technology Review December 2017 Proposed Rule, which is available in 
the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment 
was performed for this source category, a full discussion of the 
uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 
11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual 
Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved QA/
quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary 
depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are 
incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete 
the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other 
factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally 
are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term 
fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to 
year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects 
screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor 
applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended 
to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the 
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not 
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other 
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts 
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select 
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels 
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the 
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient 
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in 
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP 
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset 
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to 
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in 
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our 
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor 
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risks or the 
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. 
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high 
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants 
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when 
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we 
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the 
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We 
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block 
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, 
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a 
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that 
is

[[Page 11326]]

stated in the EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ``the primary 
goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an 
Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options 
that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should 
be health protective'' (EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines, pages 1-7). This 
is the approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
    Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been 
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. That 
is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of a 
quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence 
limit).\13\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as 
zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\14\ 
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic 
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To 
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without 
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor 
(UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993 and 1994) which considers uncertainty, 
variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to 
derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against 
appreciable risk of deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \14\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

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

    We present results of the Leather Finishing Operations source 
category risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the 
residual risk document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather 
Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the December 2017 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this 
action.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the 
inhalation risk assessment for the source category.

[[Page 11327]]



                                        Table 2--Leather Finishing Operations Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Maximum  individual      Estimated population  at    Estimated  annual cancer     Maximum  chronic  non-      Maximum screening
                        cancer risk  (in 1       increased  risk of cancer     incidence  (cases per         cancer  TOSHI \3\       acute non-cancer HQ
                           million) \2\              >= 1-in-1 million                 year)           ----------------------------          \4\
     Number of     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                            ---------------------
  facilities \1\      Based on      Based on      Based on      Based on      Based on      Based on      Based on      Based on
                       actual       allowable      actual       allowable      actual        actual        actual       allowable      Based on actual
                      emissions     emissions     emissions     emissions     emissions     emissions     emissions     emissions      emissions level
                      level \2\       level       level \2\       level         level         level         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.................            0             0             0             0             0             0          0.04           0.3   HQREL = 3 (propyl
                                                                                                                                     cellosolve and
                                                                                                                                     glycol ethers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Leather Finishing Operations source category is the reproductive target organ.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
  available acute dose-response value.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions 
data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the maximum 
chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.04. While we would have 
estimated incremental individual lifetime cancer risks as discussed in 
section III.C.3.b of this preamble, there were no carcinogenic HAP 
emissions from this source category, so the maximum lifetime individual 
cancer risk is 0 and the total estimated national cancer incidence from 
these facilities based on actual emission levels is no excess cancer 
cases per year.
2. Acute Risk Results
    Table 2 of this preamble indicates that for the Leather Finishing 
Operations source category, the maximum HQ is 3, driven by propyl 
cellosolve and glycol ethers. The only acute dose-response value for 
propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers is the REL; therefore, only the 
HQREL is provided. Refinement of the acute risk results was 
performed using aerial photos to ensure that the location where the 
maximum risk was projected to occur was, in fact, a location where the 
general public could be exposed. The result of this refinement 
confirmed that the maximum acute risk result occurred where the public 
could potentially be exposed. This refinement, therefore, had no impact 
on the maximum HQ. For more detailed acute risk results refer to the 
draft residual risk document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather 
Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the December 2017 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this 
action.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    There are no PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this source category. 
Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway risks as a 
result of HAP emissions from this source category.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    There are no ``environmental HAP'' emitted by facilities in this 
source category. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental 
effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    An assessment of risk from facility-wide emissions was performed to 
provide context for the source category risks. Using the NEI data 
described in sections II.C and III.C of this preamble, the maximum 
cancer risk in the facility-wide assessment was 0.09-in-1 million and 
the maximum chronic noncancer HI index was 0.1 (for the reproductive 
system), both driven by emissions from external combustion boilers.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Leather Finishing 
Operations source category across different demographic groups within 
the populations living near facilities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, 
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, 
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a 
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people 
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated 
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for 1 of the 11 
demographic groups, Ages 65 and up, the percentage of the population 
living within 5 km of facilities in the source category is greater than 
the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. 
When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from 
leather finishing operations, we find that no one is exposed to a 
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI 
greater than 1.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Leather Finishing 
Operations, available in the docket for this action.

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

1. Risk Acceptability
    We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability 
determination, including the cancer MIR, the number of persons in 
various cancer and non-cancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the 
maximum non-cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute non-cancer HQ, the extent 
of non-cancer risks, the distribution of cancer and non-cancer risks in 
the exposed population, and risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, 
September 14, 1989).
    For the Leather Finishing Operations source category, the risk 
analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed 
are below 1-in-1 million from both actual and allowable emissions. 
These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the 
presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also 
shows no cancer incidence, as well as maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 
value of 0.04, which is significantly below 1. In addition, the risk 
assessment indicates no significant potential for multi-pathway health 
effects. The acute

[[Page 11328]]

non-cancer risks indicate a maximum HQ of 3.
    Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed 
above, including the uncertainties, we propose to find that the risks 
from the Leather Finishing Operations source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the Leather Finishing 
Operations source category are acceptable, risk estimates indicate the 
maximum acute non-cancer HQ screening estimate was greater than 1, 
driven by emissions of propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers and based on 
allowable emissions, as further discussed in section IV.A.2 of this 
preamble. We considered options for further reducing gaseous organic 
HAP emissions from leather finishing operations. The greatest reduction 
in organic HAP emissions that could be achieved for these operations 
would result from use of a concentrator followed by a regenerative 
thermal oxidizer (RTO), which we estimate would remove 98 percent of 
organic HAP emissions. Biological treatment together with use of a 
concentrator would achieve 84-percent removal of organic HAP emissions. 
Section IV.C of this preamble discusses the costs and impacts 
associated with use of these control technologies. The resulting cost-
effectiveness values for operating the concentrator followed by a RTO 
and for operating the concentrator plus biological treatment are 
$54,000 and $62,000 per ton of HAP removed, respectively. Due to our 
determinations that cancer risks are below 1-in-1 million and that the 
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value is below 1, uncertainties 
associated with the acute screening risk estimate (refer to the risk 
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather Finishing 
Operations Source Category in Support of the December 2017 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule in the docket for this action), and the 
substantial costs associated with the control options, we are proposing 
that additional standards for this source category are not required to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and that 
the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effects
    We did not identify emissions of any of the eight environmental HAP 
included in our environmental risk screening, and we are unaware of any 
adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source 
category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse 
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source 
category, and we are proposing that it is not necessary to promulgate a 
more stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect, 
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant 
factors.
    For the reasons above, we are not proposing to make any amendments 
to the existing NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2).

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?

    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in the practices, processes, 
and control technologies for the Leather Finishing Operations source 
category. The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding 
emissions sources that are currently regulated by the Leather Finishing 
NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to, coating and spraying 
equipment, coating storage and mixing, and dryers.
    As discussed further in sections II.C and D of this preamble, we 
conducted a search of the RBLC, other regulatory actions (MACT 
standards, area source standards, and residual risk standards) since 
the 2002 Leather Finishing NESHAP, literature related to research 
conducted for emission reductions from leather finishing operations 
emission sources, and state permits.
    We reviewed these data sources for information on add-on control 
technologies, other treatment units, work practices, procedures, and 
process alternatives that were not considered during the development of 
the Leather Finishing NESHAP. We also looked for information on 
improvements in add-on control technology, other treatment units, work 
practices, procedures, and process changes or pollution prevention 
alternatives that have occurred since development of the Leather 
Finishing NESHAP.
    After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we 
identified two control technologies for further evaluation that are 
technically feasible for use at leather finishing operations, but were 
not investigated during the original rule development: biological 
treatment and concentrators. Biological treatment was identified as a 
result of our literature review. In biological treatment, organic 
pollutants are converted to water and carbon dioxide after being 
consumed as food by microbes. Biological treatment can include 
biofilters, bio-trickling filters, and bioscrubbers among others. The 
use of a concentrator was identified by our review of residual risk 
standards. The technology review conducted for the Ship Building and 
Ship Repair source category identified the use of a concentrator, 
combined with an RTO, to control emissions from spray booths (75 FR 
80239). A concentrator uses an adsorbent to remove organic pollutants 
from an exhaust stream. Those pollutants are then desorbed from the 
adsorbent material using a stream much smaller in volume than the 
original exhaust stream. This lower flow rate stream is then directed 
to an RTO to destroy the desorbed pollutants. By using a concentrator, 
the resulting low flow rate, higher pollutant concentration stream is 
more economical to treat in an RTO than a high volume low concentration 
stream. The economics of operating a biological treatment unit could 
also potentially be improved in a similar manner by use of a 
concentrator.
    We evaluated the annual cost and emissions reductions of using 
biological treatment to reduce HAP emissions at each of the four 
leather finishing operations subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. 
Annual costs for each facility ranged from $43,000 to $417,000 per year 
for a total of approximately $840,000 for the industry. Assuming a 
control efficiency of 85 percent, HAP emissions would be reduced by 
approximately 0.43 tpy for the facility with the smallest projected 
reduction to 14 tpy for the facility with the largest projected 
reduction, for a cumulative total of 18 tpy for the four facilities 
subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. To install biological 
treatment at each facility, the resulting cost effectiveness ranged 
from $30,000 to $110,000 per ton of HAP reduced. Considering the high 
costs per ton of HAP reduced associated with the installation of 
biological treatment, we did not consider this technology to be cost 
effective for further reducing HAP emissions from leather finishing 
operations.
    During proposal of the Leather Finishing NESHAP, we considered the 
use of an RTO to control HAP emissions from leather finishing 
operations as a ``beyond-the-floor'' option; however, we rejected it 
because of a significantly higher cost per ton of emissions reductions 
(65 FR 58706). Our technology review revealed the use of a concentrator 
in addition to an RTO as a potential improvement in add-on control 
technology. We evaluated the annual cost and emissions reductions of 
using a rotary concentrator combined with an RTO and, as an 
alternative, a rotary concentrator combined with a

[[Page 11329]]

biological treatment unit for a model facility. Our analysis evaluated 
the annual costs of only the rotary concentrator on the basis that if 
operation of the concentrator is not cost effective, then operating 
both the concentrator and an RTO or biological treatment unit is also 
not cost effective. We calculated a total annual cost of operating the 
rotary concentrator of approximately $284,000 per year. Applying a 
control efficiency of 98 percent for the rotary concentrator and RTO, 
we calculated annual HAP emission reductions of 5.2 tpy. Assuming a 
control efficiency of 84 percent for the rotary concentrator and 
biological treatment combination, we calculated an annual HAP emission 
reduction of 4.5 tpy. The resulting cost-effectiveness values for the 
concentrator plus RTO and concentrator plus biological treatment are 
$54,000 and $62,000 per ton of HAP reduced, respectively; however, 
these dollar values only represent the cost of operating the 
concentrator and not the RTO or biological treatment process. 
Considering the high costs per ton of HAP reduced associated with only 
the operation of the rotary concentrator, we did not consider a 
concentrator and RTO or a concentrator and biological treatment to be 
cost effective for further reducing HAP emissions from leather 
finishing operations. Additional information about the assumptions and 
methodologies used in these calculations is documented in the 
memorandum titled CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the 
Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in the docket for this 
action.
    Considering the results of the technology review, we conclude that 
changes to the leather finishing operations emission limits are not 
warranted pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We are, therefore, not 
proposing to make any amendments to the existing NESHAP pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(6). We solicit comment on our proposed decision.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are 
proposing additional revisions. We are proposing revisions to the SSM 
provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent 
with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the 
requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) 
emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing a 
process to increase the ease and efficiency of performance test data 
submittal while improving data accessibility through the use of 
electronic data reporting. Finally, we are proposing clarifications to 
the regulatory text. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these 
issues are discussed below.
1. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply 
continuously.
    The Leather Finishing NESHAP currently requires that the standards 
apply at all times, consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA. The NESHAP 
specifies in 40 CFR 63.5320(a) ``All affected sources must be in 
compliance with the requirements of this subpart at all times, 
including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.'' However, the 
NESHAP includes provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with 
Sierra Club v. EPA or 40 CFR 63.5320(a). For example, Table 2 to the 
Leather Finishing NESHAP (i.e., the General Provisions applicability 
table, hereafter referred to as the ``General Provisions table to 
subpart TTTT'') incorporates all of the introductory paragraph to 40 
CFR 63.6(e), which provides that the standards do not apply at all 
times: ``The general duty to minimize emissions during a period of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction does not require the owner or 
operator to achieve emission levels that would be required by the 
applicable standard at other times if this is not consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices, nor does it require 
the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions 
if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.'' 
Further, the introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.6(e) refers to the SSM 
plan, which is not consistent with the NESHAP's exclusion (as specified 
in the General Provisions table to subpart TTTT) of the SSM plan in 40 
CFR 63.6(e)(3), SSM recordkeeping in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2), and SSM 
reporting in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5). In order to remove these 
inconsistencies within the NESHAP, to clarify the EPA's original intent 
that the standards apply at all times, and to ensure that the subpart 
requirements are consistent with the court decision cited above, we are 
proposing to unincorporate all General Provisions related to the SSM 
exemption and move any applicable portion of these General Provisions 
to the NESHAP.
    As is explained in more detail below, we are proposing two 
revisions to the General Provisions table to subpart TTTT to eliminate 
two General Provisions that include rule language providing an 
exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, we are proposing to 
eliminate language related to SSM that treats periods of startup and 
shutdown the same as periods of malfunction, as explained further 
below. Finally, we are proposing to revise the Deviation Notification 
Report and related records as they relate to malfunctions, as further 
described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are 
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment 
on whether we have successfully done so.
    The current rule specifies that the standards apply at all times. 
In promulgating the original NESHAP for Leather Finishing Operations, 
the EPA took into account startup and shutdown periods by applying a 
standard based on total coating used and HAP content and requiring a 
mass balance compliance method that was applicable for all operations, 
even periods of startup and shutdown. As a result, the EPA is not 
proposing any changes to the current requirement that all standards 
apply during those periods. However, as noted above and discussed 
further below, the current rule incorporates two general provisions 
that include rule language providing an exemption for periods of SSM, 
and the rule includes language that differentiates between normal 
operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing 
the general duty, and these provisions are not necessary or appropriate 
in light of the requirement that the standards apply at all times. 
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

[[Page 11330]]

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 we had information to determine that such work practices 
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performing 
sources. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will 
consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a 
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has 
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources 
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage 
commenters to provide any such information.
    For the Leather Finishing Operations source category, it is 
unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the 
standards. There are no instances where pollution control equipment 
could malfunction because none of the four leather finishing operations 
subject to the standard use pollution control equipment. Further, the 
standards are expressed as a yearly rolling average, and compliance is 
primarily dependent on the coating's HAP composition. Therefore, a 
malfunction of process equipment is not likely to result in a violation 
of the standards, and we have no information to suggest that it is 
feasible or necessary to establish standards for any type of 
malfunction associated with leather finishing operations. We encourage 
commenters to provide any such information.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the 
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction 
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among 
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize 
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and 
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the 
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in 
fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not 
instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 
CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those

[[Page 11331]]

situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. 40 CFR 63.5320(b) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by combining all of paragraph 
(e) into one row and changing the ``yes'' in column four to ``no.'' 
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 existing requirement that the standards 
apply at all times, as specified in 40 CFR 63.5320(a). Additional 
language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not 
necessary if the SSM exemption does not apply. We are proposing instead 
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5320(b) 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. If the SSM exemption does not apply, there is no need 
to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and 
malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the 
language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.5320(b) does not include 
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
b. 40 CFR 63.5360(b) Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to eliminate the sentence ``This includes periods 
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.'' in 40 CFR 63.5360(b), which 
refers to the requirement to report each instance in which you, a 
source, did not meet the standard. This sentence was originally 
included to clarify the EPA's intent at the time regarding the 
standards applying at all times; however, this clarifying language is 
no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the proposed new General 
Duty language discussed in section IV.D.1.a of this preamble because 
the language differentiates between normal operations, startup and 
shutdown, and malfunction events.
c. 40 CFR 63.5380 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by adding a separate row for 
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and specifying ``no'' in column four. Section 
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is 
instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 
63.5380(b). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to 
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions 
in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language 
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restates the SSM exemption and language that 
precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered 
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The proposed 
performance testing provisions will not allow performance testing 
during startup or shutdown. Note that no facilities subject to the 
Leather Finishing NESHAP will conduct a performance test because none 
use a control device to comply with the standards. Further, as in 40 
CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should 
not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during 
malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating 
conditions. However, in eliminating this reference to 40 CFR 63.7(e) in 
the General Provisions table to subpart TTTT, we are removing a 
requirement that the owner or operator make available to the 
Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to determine the 
condition of the performance test.'' The EPA is proposing to add a 
similar requirement back into the Leather Finishing NESHAP. The 
proposed language requires the owner or operator to record the process 
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and include in such records an explanation to support that 
such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) does not 
specifically require the information to be recorded, but the regulatory 
text the EPA is proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.5380(b) builds on that 
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the 
information.
d. 40 CFR 63.5430 Recordkeeping
    As discussed in section IV.D.1.e of this preamble, the EPA is 
proposing to revise the Deviation Notification Report to include two 
new reporting elements: (1) An estimate of the quantity of HAP emitted 
during the 12-month period of the report in excess of the standard, and 
(2) the cause of the events that resulted in the deviation from the 
standard (including unknown cause, if applicable). The EPA is proposing 
that any source submitting a Deviation Notification Report also keep a 
record of this information. The source would also be required to 
include a record of the actions taken to minimize emissions. The EPA is 
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to 
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine 
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data 
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize 
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. 
Further, the EPA is clarifying related records already required under 
40 CFR 63.5430(b) as part of the Deviation Notification Report under 40 
CFR 63.5420(b)(3), but not clearly listed, by specifically listing 
those required records in 40 CFR 63.5430(h) as: (1) The 12-month period 
in which the exceedance occurred, and, (2) each type of leather product 
process operation performed during the 12-month period in which the 
exceedance occurred.
    Finally, we are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 
subpart TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) to clarify the 
recordkeeping requirements for facilities that deviate from the 
standards as a result of a malfunction. In column five, we are 
proposing to replace the sentence ``Subpart TTTT has no recordkeeping 
requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunction events'' with the 
phrase ``See Sec.  63.5360 for CMS recordkeeping requirements if there 
is a deviation from the standard.'' This revision clarifies that 
certain records (e.g., a record of the Deviation Notification Report) 
must be retained if there is a deviation from the standards due to a 
malfunction.
e. 40 CFR 63.5420 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) to clarify the reporting 
requirements for facilities that deviate from the standards as a result 
of a malfunction. In column five, we are proposing to replace the 
sentence ``Subpart TTTT has no startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
reporting requirements'' with the sentence ``See Sec.  63.5420(b) for 
reporting requirements if there is a deviation from the standard.'' 
This revision clarifies that the Deviation Notification Report must be 
submitted if there is a deviation from the standards due to a 
malfunction. We are also proposing language that requires sources that 
fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the 
information concerning such events in the Deviation Notification Report 
already required under this rule. The Leather Finishing NESHAP 
currently requires this report to include (under 40 CFR 63.5420(b)(3)) 
each type of leather product process operation performed

[[Page 11332]]

during the 12-month period of the report. We are proposing a revision 
to 40 CFR 63.5420(b)(3) to clarify that this information should include 
an indication of the 12-month period of the report. We are also 
proposing that the report must contain two new reporting elements: (1) 
The cause of the events that resulted in the source failing to meet the 
standard as determined under 40 CFR 63.5330 (i.e., the compliance ratio 
exceeds 1.00) during the 12-month period (including unknown cause, if 
applicable) and (2) an estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) 
emitted during the 12-month period of the report in excess of the 
standard. As required in 40 CFR 63.5330, sources must determine 
compliance on a monthly basis based on a facility-wide average. Sources 
are required to establish on a monthly basis that the compliance ratio 
for the previous 12-month period is less than or equal to 1.00. This 
compliance ratio is calculated as required in 40 CFR 63.5330 by 
dividing the ``Actual HAP Loss'' (calculated as specified in 40 CFR 
63.5335) by the ``Allowable HAP Loss'' (calculated as specified in 40 
CFR 63.5340) (see Equation 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT). If the 
compliance ratio for the leather finishing operation exceeds 1.00, the 
source is ``deviating from compliance with the applicable HAP emission 
limits of subpart TTTT for the previous month'' as specified in 40 CFR 
63.5330(b)(2), and is required to submit a Deviation Notification 
Report under 40 CFR 63.5420(b). We are proposing that such a source be 
required to estimate the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted during the 
12-month period of the report in excess of the standard by subtracting 
the ``Allowable HAP Loss'' from the ``Actual HAP Loss.'' The difference 
between these two values would be the reported estimate of the quantity 
of HAP (in pounds) emitted during the 12-month period of the report in 
excess of the standard. The EPA is proposing these requirements 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.
f. 40 CFR 63.5460 Definitions
    We are proposing that the definition of ``Deviation'' be revised to 
remove language that was originally included to clarify the EPA's 
intent at the time regarding the standards applying at all times; 
however, it is no longer necessary or appropriate to use this language 
in light of the proposed new General Duty language discussed in section 
IV.D.1.a of this preamble because the language differentiates between 
normal operations, startup, and shutdown, and malfunction events. The 
current definition of ``Deviation'' is ``any instance in which an 
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 
such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 
established by this subpart, including but not limited to any emission 
limits or work practice standards; or (2) fails to meet any emission 
limits, operating limits, or work practice standards in this subpart 
during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not 
such failure is permitted by this subpart.'' We are proposing to 
eliminate the second criteria for the reasons stated above. The 
proposed new definition reads: ``Deviation means any instance in which 
an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 
such a source, fails to meet any requirement or obligation established 
by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limits or 
work practice standards.''
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners or 
operators of leather finishing operations submit electronic copies of 
required performance test reports through the EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI). The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of 
the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the 
usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with 
current trends in data availability, will further assist in the 
protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately 
result in less burden on the regulated community. Under current 
requirements, paper reports are often stored in filing cabinets or 
boxes, which make the reports more difficult to obtain and use for data 
analysis and sharing. Electronic storage of such reports make data more 
accessible for review, analysis, and sharing. Electronic reporting also 
eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
    The EPA estimates that no existing leather finishing operation 
subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP uses a control device to comply 
with the NESHAP. As such, no existing leather finishing operation is 
required to conduct performance tests or submit test reports, or would 
be required to submit electronic copies of test reports.
    In 2011, in response to Executive Order 13563, the EPA developed a 
plan \16\ to periodically review its regulations to determine if they 
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed in an effort to 
make regulations more effective and less burdensome. The plan includes 
replacing outdated paper reporting with electronic reporting. In 
keeping with this plan and the White House's Digital Government 
Strategy,\17\ in 2013, the EPA issued an Agency-wide policy specifying 
that new regulations will require reports to be electronic to the 
maximum extent possible.\18\ By requiring electronic submission of 
specified reports in this proposed rule, the EPA is taking steps to 
implement this policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/documents-retrospective-review.
    \17\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
    \18\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data, 
WebFIRE, is easily accessible to everyone and provides a user-friendly 
interface that any stakeholder can access. By making data readily 
available, electronic reporting increases the amount of data that can 
be used for many purposes. One example is the development of emissions 
factors. An emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to 
relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an 
activity associated with the release of that pollutant (e.g., kilograms 
of particulate emitted per megagram of coal burned). Such factors 
facilitate the estimation of emissions from various sources of air 
pollution and are an important tool in developing emissions 
inventories, which in turn are the basis for numerous efforts, 
including trends analysis, regional and local scale air quality 
modeling, regulatory impact assessments, and human exposure modeling. 
Emissions factors are also widely used in regulatory applicability 
determinations and in permitting decisions.

[[Page 11333]]

    The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many 
of the EPA's emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a 
particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the 
emissions factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we recognize 
that the quality of emissions factors varies based on the extent and 
quality of underlying data. We also recognize that emissions profiles 
on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number 
of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work 
practices), and it is important for emissions factors to be updated to 
keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emissions 
factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate 
the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically. 
By requiring the electronic submission of the reports identified in 
this proposed action, the EPA would be able to access and use the 
submitted data to update emissions factors more quickly and 
efficiently, creating factors that are characteristic of what is 
currently representative of the relevant industry sector. Likewise, an 
increase in the number of test reports used to develop the emissions 
factors will provide more confidence that the factor is of higher 
quality and representative of the whole industry sector.
    Additionally, by making the records, data, and reports addressed in 
this proposed rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated 
community, and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-
required technology and risk-based reviews. As a result of having 
performance test reports and air emission data readily accessible, our 
ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be improved and 
achieved within a shorter period of time. These data will provide 
useful information on control efficiencies being achieved and 
maintained in practice within a source category and across source 
categories for regulated sources and pollutants. These reports can also 
be used to inform the technology-review process by providing 
information on improvements to add-on control technology and new 
control technology.
    Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA's OAQPS would have 
air emissions and performance test data in hand; OAQPS would not have 
to collect these data from the EPA Regional offices or from delegated 
air agencies or industry sources in cases where these reports are not 
submitted to the EPA Regional offices. Thus, we anticipate fewer or 
less substantial ICRs in conjunction with prospective CAA-required 
technology and risk-based reviews may be needed. We expect this to 
result in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data 
collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive 
stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data 
electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to 
industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews 
more quickly, as OAQPS will not have to include the ICR collection time 
in the process or spend time collecting reports from the EPA Regional 
offices. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced 
burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency's ability 
to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased 
public health and environmental protection.
    Electronic reporting minimizes submission of unnecessary or 
duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple 
government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA's 
electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where air 
agencies continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will 
accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the 
option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to 
submit to the air agencies, and, thus, minimize the time spent 
reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage 
costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be 
minimized by replacing those records with electronic records of 
electronically submitted data and reports.
    Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated 
review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because 
performance test data would be readily-available in a standard 
electronic format, air agencies would be able to review reports and 
data electronically rather than having to conduct a review of the 
reports and data manually. Having reports and associated data in 
electronic format facilitates review through the use of software 
``search'' options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in 
spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the 
reported data being accessible to them through the EPA's electronic 
reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need access (as 
long as they have access to the Internet). The ability to access and 
review reports electronically assists air agencies in determining 
compliance with applicable regulations more quickly and accurately, 
potentially allowing a faster response to violations, which could 
minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the 
general public.
    The proposed electronic reporting of data is consistent with 
electronic data trends (e.g., electronic banking and income tax 
filing). Electronic reporting of environmental data is already common 
practice in many media offices at the EPA. The changes being proposed 
in this rulemaking are needed to continue the EPA's transition to 
electronic reporting.
    Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which 
electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, 
the decision to accept your claim of needing additional time to report 
is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should 
occur as soon as possible.
    In 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(4), we address the situation where an 
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI 
which preclude you from accessing the system and submitting required 
reports. If either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, 
and the unavailability prevents you from submitting a report by the 
required date, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage. We consider 
5 business days prior to the reporting deadline to be an appropriate 
timeframe because, if the system is down prior to this time, you still 
have one week to complete reporting once the system is back online. 
However, if the CDX or CEDRI is down during the week a report is due, 
we realize that this could greatly impact your ability to submit a 
required report on time. We will notify you about known outages as far 
in advance as possible by CHIEF Listserv notice, posting on the CEDRI 
Web site, and posting on the CDX Web site so that you can plan 
accordingly and still meet your reporting deadline. However, if a 
planned or unplanned outage occurs and you believe that it will affect 
or it has affected your ability to comply with an electronic reporting 
requirement, we have provided a process to assert such a claim.
    In 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(5), we address 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 you from 
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as 
required by this rule.

[[Page 11334]]

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. If such an event occurs or is still occurring or if there are 
still linger effects of the event in the five business days prior to a 
submission deadline, we have provided a process to assert a claim of 
force majeure.
    We are proposing these potential extensions to protect facilities 
from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a 
report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control 
as described above. We are not proposing an extension for other 
instances. Facilities should register for CEDRI far in advance of the 
initial compliance date, in order to make sure that they can complete 
the identity proofing process prior to the initial compliance date. 
Additionally, we recommend facilities start developing reports early, 
in case any questions arise during the reporting process.
3. Clarifications and Correction to the Rule
    We are proposing revisions to clarify the monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for control devices and the 
provisions for alternative schedules. We are also proposing one 
correction to the rule. Our proposed changes related to these issues 
are discussed below.
    Since the original Leather Finishing NESHAP was promulgated, no 
leather finishing operations have elected to use a control device to 
comply with the standards, and we do not anticipate that any facilities 
will elect to use a control device in the foreseeable future; however, 
we are taking this opportunity to propose clarifying text to assist any 
facility that elects in the future to use a control device to comply 
with the standards. Currently, the Leather Finishing NESHAP (i.e., in 
40 CFR 63.5360(a)(2)) requires facilities using a control device to 
comply with the NEHSAP to meet the requirements in ``40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS''; however, the Leather Finishing NESHAP does not provide 
any reference to the applicable section within subpart SS. To aid a 
facility in locating the requirements in subpart SS, we are proposing 
to replace the current general reference to subpart SS with a more 
specific reference to ``40 CFR 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS),'' which 
provides all applicable requirements for control devices (e.g., 
monitoring requirements, data reduction procedures, and recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements). This proposed change would affect both 40 
CFR 63.5360(a)(2) and 63.5430(g). We are also proposing related 
revisions to the General Provisions table to subpart TTTT (table 2). 
For table entry 40 CFR 63.8, we propose to replace the text ``Subpart 
TTTT does not require monitoring other than as specified therein'' in 
the fifth column with the text ``See Sec.  63.5360(a)(2) for monitoring 
requirements.'' For table entries 40 CFR 63.9(g), 63.10(c), and 
63.10(e), we propose to replace the text ``Subpart TTTT does not 
require CMS'' in the fifth column with the text ``See Sec.  
63.5360(a)(2) for monitoring requirements.'' These revisions would 
clarify that monitoring requirements apply if a facility were to elect 
to use a control device to comply with the standard. Further, in 40 CFR 
63.5375, we are proposing to change the rule language ``and can be used 
to comply with the HAP emission requirements of this subpart'' to ``and 
will be used to comply with the HAP emission requirements of this 
subpart'' because ``can'' could be interpreted to require a facility 
that owns a control device, which is not used to comply with the 
Leather Finishing NESHAP, but could be used to comply with the NESHAP 
(e.g., the control device is used to comply with a different regulation 
in its operating permit), to be required to conduct the performance 
test required in 40 CFR 63.5375, even though the device is not used to 
comply with the NESHAP.
    We are also proposing to clarify in two ways the language in 40 CFR 
63.5420(b)(4) regarding alternative schedules. First, by replacing 
``responsible agency'' with ``Administrator,'' because 
``Administrator'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.2 to include ``a State that 
has been delegated the authority to implement the provisions of this 
part'' (and the definition is incorporated by the Leather Finishing 
NESHAP). Second, by replacing ``does not object'' with ``approves an 
alternative schedule'' in order to require an affirmative action by the 
Administrator rather than affirmation by non-action.
    Finally, we are proposing a correction to the title of Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT. The current title is ``Table 2 to Subpart 
TTTT of Part 63--Leather Finishing HAP Emission Limits for Determining 
the Allowable HAP Loss,'' and the proposed title is ``Table 2 to 
Subpart TTTT of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart 
TTTT.''

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    The EPA is proposing that all of the amendments being proposed in 
this action would be effective upon publication of the final rule. The 
tasks necessary for existing facilities to comply with these proposed 
amendments related to SSM periods would require no time or resources. 
No facilities will be subject to the requirement to submit reports 
electronically. Therefore, the EPA believes that existing facilities 
will be able to comply with these proposed amendments related to SSM 
periods and the use of the electronic reporting tool (ERT), as soon as 
the final rule is effective, which will be the date of publication of 
the final rule. The EPA is specifically soliciting comment and 
additional data on the burden of complying with these proposed 
amendments.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The EPA determined that four leather finishing operations are 
currently subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. This determination 
was based on reviews on various online databases and information 
sources, as well as permits, company Web sites, and other online 
sources as discussed in section 3.2 of the memorandum titled Leather 
Finishing: Residual Risk Modeling File Supporting Documentation in the 
docket for this action. The EPA estimates that all four leather 
finishing operations currently subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP 
would be affected by the proposed requirement to review the final 
rulemaking, and none of the facilities would be affected by the 
proposed revisions to recordkeeping and reporting requirements related 
to the Deviation Notification Report or electronic reporting of 
performance tests. The EPA is not currently aware of any planned or 
potential new or reconstructed leather finishing operations.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual organic HAP emissions from the four 
leather finishing operations subject to the rule are approximately 22.5 
tpy. In this proposal, we recommend no new emission limits and require 
no additional controls; therefore, no air quality impacts are expected 
as a result of the proposed amendments.

[[Page 11335]]

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The four leather finishing operations subject to this proposal will 
incur costs to review the final rule. Nationwide annual costs 
associated with the proposed requirements are estimated to be a total 
of $705 for the initial year only. We believe that the four leather 
finishing operations which are known to be subject to this proposed 
rule can meet these proposed requirements without incurring additional 
capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs associated with 
this proposed rule are related to reviewing the rule. For further 
information on the proposed requirements for this rule, see section IV 
of this preamble. For further information on the costs associated with 
the proposed requirements of this rule, see the document titled 
Supporting Statement for Leather Finishing Operations and the 
memorandum titled Costs for the Leather Finishing Operations Source 
Category Risk and Technology Review, both in the docket for this 
action. The memorandum titled CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology Review 
for the Leather Finishing Source Category in the docket for this 
action. These documents present cost estimates associated with the 
regulatory options that were not selected for inclusion in this 
proposed rule.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The total national cost to comply with this proposed rule is 
estimated to be $705 in 2016 dollars, which is a one-time cost that 
will be incurred in the first year following promulgation of the final 
amendments. There are no additional emission control costs or 
additional emission reductions associated with this rule. The estimated 
cost of $705 is comprised of equal costs incurred by each of the four 
affected facilities, with each facility estimated to incur one-time 
labor costs of approximately $176 in order to become familiar with the 
rule. These costs are not expected to result in business closures, 
significant price increases, or substantial profit loss. No impacts on 
employment are expected given the minimal economic impact of the action 
on the affected firms. For further information on the economic impacts 
associated with the proposed requirements of this rule, see the 
memorandum titled Proposal Economic Impact Analysis for the 
Reconsideration of the Risk and Technology Review: Leather Finishing 
Operations Source Category in the docket for this action.

E. What are the benefits?

    While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in 
emissions of HAP, this action, if finalized, will improve 
implementation of the Leather Finishing NESHAP by clarifying the rule 
requirements as discussed in sections IV.D.1 and 3 of this preamble. 
Also, by adding electronic reporting of test reports for any control 
devices used to comply with the rule will provide the benefits 
discussed in section IV.D.2 of this preamble, including assisting state 
and local agencies that elect to use ERT to track compliance of the 
rule.

VI. Request for Comments

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

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for 
download on the RTR Web site at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP 
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR Web site, complete the following steps:

    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter 
email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations, 
etc.).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation 
to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194 (through the method described 
in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or 
multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all 
facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all 
sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data 
revision comments be submitted in the form of updated 
Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are generated by the 
Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are provided on the RTR 
Web site at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document 
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1985.07. You can 
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    Proposed costs are to review the final rule in the initial year. We 
are proposing no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements to the 
Leather Finishing Operations source category.
    Respondents/affected entities: Leather Finishing Operations.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TTTT).
    Estimated number of respondents: Four leather finishing operations.
    Frequency of response: Initially.
    Total estimated burden: 9 hours (per year) for the responding 
facilities and 0 hours (per year) for the Agency.
    Total estimated cost: $705 (per year).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information

[[Page 11336]]

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.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than April 13, 2018. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small 
businesses. The Agency has determined that each of the three small 
entities impacted by this action may experience an impact of less than 
0.01 percent of sales. Details of this analysis are presented in the 
memorandum titled Proposal Economic Impact Analysis for the 
Reconsideration of the Risk and Technology Review: Leather Finishing 
Operations Source Category 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. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in 
the leather finishing operations industry that would be affected by 
this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk 
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather Finishing 
Operations Source Category in Support of the December 2017 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule in the docket for this action.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the Leather Finishing Operations Sector Risk and 
Technology Review through the Enhanced National Standards Systems 
Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute. 
We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and 
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA 
Methods 24 and 311. The following VCS were identified as potentially 
acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this 
rule.
    The VCS California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 310 
``Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer 
Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products'' 
was identified as potentially applicable for EPA Method 311. The EPA 
decided not to use this VCS because the method is impractical as an 
alternative to EPA Method 311 because it targets chemicals that are VOC 
and are not HAP.
    Five VCS were identified as potentially applicable for EPA Method 
24, as follows:

     ASTM D2369-01 ``Standard Test Method for Volatile 
Content of Coatings'';
     ASTM D2697-86 (1998) ``Standard Test Method for Volume 
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings'';
     ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003) ``Standard Test Method 
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings 
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer'';
     ASTM D2111-95 (2000) ``Standard Test Methods for 
Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and 
Their Admixtures''; and
     ASTM D1963-85 (1996) Standard Test Method for Specific 
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 
25/25[deg]C.

    The EPA is proposing not to use these methods. The use of ASTM 
D2369-01, ASTM D2697-86 (1998), ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), and 
ASTM D1963-85 (1996) would be impractical for this NESHAP because they 
address only a portion of Method 24 and do not address density, which 
is the only portion of Method 24 used for compliance with the Leather 
Finishing NESHAP. Further, though ASTM D2111-95 (2000), ``Standard Test 
Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic 
Solvents and Their Admixtures,'' provides an alternative method for 
measuring density, this version of the ASTM method has expired. A 
thorough summary of the search conducted and results are included in 
the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Leather Finishing 
Operations in the docket for this action.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of 
this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology 
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Leather Finishing Operations in the docket for this action.
    As discussed in section IV.A of this preamble, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups, of the population close to the facilities (within 
50 km and within 5 km). In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution 
of HAP-related cancer risks and

[[Page 11337]]

noncancer hazards from the leather finishing operations across 
different social, demographic, and economic groups within the 
populations living near operations identified as having the highest 
risks.
    The analysis indicates that the minority population living within 
50 km (4,632,781 people, of which 25 percent are minority) and within 5 
km (158,482 people, of which 13 percent are minority) of the four 
leather finishing operations facilities is less than the minority 
population found nationwide (38 percent). The proximity results 
indicate that the population percentage for the ``Native American'' 
demographic group within 5 km of leather finishing operations emissions 
is slightly greater than the corresponding nationwide percentage for 
that same demographic. The percentage of people ages 65 and older 
residing within 5 km of leather finishing operations (18 percent) is 4 
percentage points higher than the corresponding nationwide percentage 
(14 percent). The other demographic groups included in the assessment 
within 5 km of leather finishing operations emissions were the same or 
lower than the corresponding nationwide percentages.
    When examining the cancer risk levels of those exposed to emissions 
from the four leather finishing operations, we find that there are no 
people within a 50-km radius of modeled facilities exposed to a cancer 
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million as a result of emissions 
from leather finishing operations. When examining the noncancer risk 
levels, we find that there are no people within a 50-km radius of 
modeled facilities exposed to a noncancer risk (in this analysis, 
reproductive HI) greater than 1 as a result of emissions from leather 
finishing operations.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or 
indigenous peoples because the health risks based on actual emissions 
are low (below 2-in-1 million), the population exposed to risks greater 
than 1-in-1 million is relatively small (750 persons), and the rule 
maintains or increases the level of environmental protection for all 
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. Further, 
the EPA believes that implementation of this rule will provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health of all demographic groups.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: February 28, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart TTTT--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Leather Finishing Operations

0
2. Section 63.5320 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.5320  How does my affected major source comply with the HAP 
emission standards?

    (a) All affected sources must be in compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart at all times.
    (b) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain 
any affected source, including associated air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The 
general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or 
operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels 
required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination 
of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and 
maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the 
Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring 
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of 
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected 
source.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.5360 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.5360  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission standards?

    (a) * * *
    (2) If you use an emission control device, you must comply with 40 
CFR part 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS) and collect the monitoring data as 
specified therein.
* * * * *
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.5305. These deviations must be reported 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.5420(b).
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.5375 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5375  When must I conduct a performance test or initial 
compliance demonstration?

    You must conduct performance tests after the installation of any 
emission control device that reduces HAP emissions and will be used to 
comply with the HAP emission requirements of this subpart. You must 
complete your performance tests not later than 60 calendar days before 
the end of the 12-month period used in the initial compliance 
determination.
0
5. Section 63.5380 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.5380  How do I conduct performance tests?

    (a) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(2) through (4) and the procedures of 
Sec.  63.997(e)(1) and (2).
    (b) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as 
the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on 
representative performance of the affected source for the period being 
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and 
shutdown. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests 
during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the 
owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such 
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance 
tests.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.5420 is amended by revising the introductory text of 
paragraph (b) and paragraphs (b)(3) and

[[Page 11338]]

(4), and adding paragraphs (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5420  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) You must submit a Deviation Notification Report for each 
compliance determination you make in which the compliance ratio exceeds 
1.00, as determined under Sec.  63.5330. Submit the deviation report by 
the fifteenth of the following month in which you determined the 
deviation from the compliance ratio. The Deviation Notification Report 
must include the items in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this 
section:
* * * * *
    (3) The 12-month period covered by the report and each type of 
leather product process operation performed during the 12-month period.
    (4) The compliance ratio comprising the deviation. You may reduce 
the frequency of submittal of the Deviation Notification Report if the 
Administrator of these NESHAP approves an alternative schedule.
    (5) An estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted during 
the 12 months specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section in excess 
of the allowable HAP loss. Calculate this estimate of excess emissions 
by subtracting the allowable HAP loss determined as specified in Sec.  
63.5340 from the actual HAP loss determined as specified in Sec.  
63.5335.
    (6) The cause of the events that resulted in the source failing to 
meet an applicable standard (including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (c) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit 
the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed 
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) 
Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file format 
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13 unless 
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
    (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information 
being submitted under paragraph (c)(1) is confidential business 
information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through 
the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent 
with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website, including 
information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic 
medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE 
CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-
02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in the 
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a planned or actual 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of 
time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and 
submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert 
a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the 
reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and 
length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in 
reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; 
describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if 
you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the 
notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report 
must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage 
is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and 
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the 
discretion of the Administrator.
    (5) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, 
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an 
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the 
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of 
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from 
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within 
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature 
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, 
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the 
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to 
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a 
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to 
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by 
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting 
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In 
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after 
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of 
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is 
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
7. Section 63.5430 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (g), and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5430  What records must I keep?

    You must satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in paragraphs (a) 
through (i) of this section by the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.5295.
* * * * *

[[Page 11339]]

    (g) If you use an emission control device, you must keep records of 
monitoring data as specified at Sec.  63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS).
    (h) In the event that the compliance ratio exceeded 1.00, as 
determined under Sec.  63.5330, keep a record of the information 
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this section for each 
exceedance.
    (1) The 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred, as 
reported in Sec.  63.5420(b).
    (2) Each type of leather product process operation performed during 
the 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred, as reported in 
Sec.  63.5420(b).
    (3) Estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted during the 
12 months specified in Sec.  63.5420(b)(3) in excess of the allowable 
HAP loss, as reported in Sec.  63.5420(b).
    (4) Cause of the events that resulted in the source failing to meet 
an applicable standard (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 
reported in Sec.  63.5420(b).
    (5) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.5320(b), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected 
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (i) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
8. Section 63.5460 is amended by revising the definition for 
``Deviation'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5460  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source fails to meet 
any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, 
but not limited to, any emission limits or work practice standards.
* * * * *
0
9. Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions 
to Subpart TTTT

    As required in Sec.  63.5450, you must meet the appropriate NESHAP 
General Provision requirements in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Subject of      Brief description of     Applies to
  General provisions citation       citation           requirement            subpart           Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1...................  Applicability...  Initial applicability  Yes.              .....................
                                                   determination;
                                                   applicability after
                                                   standard
                                                   established; permit
                                                   requirements;
                                                   extensions,
                                                   notifications.
Sec.   63.2...................  Definitions.....  Definitions for Part   Yes.............  Except as
                                                   63 standards.                            specifically
                                                                                            provided in this
                                                                                            subpart.
Sec.   63.3...................  Units and         Units and              Yes.              .....................
                                 abbreviations.    abbreviations for
                                                   Part 63 standards.
Sec.   63.4...................  Prohibited        Prohibited             Yes.              .....................
                                 activities and    activities;
                                 circumvention.    compliance date;
                                                   circumvention,
                                                   severability.
Sec.   63.5...................  Construction/     Applicability;         Yes.............  Except for paragraphs
                                 reconstruction.   applications;                            of Sec.   63.5 as
                                                   approvals.                               listed below.
Sec.   63.5(c)................  [Reserved].                                                .....................
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H)......  Application for   Type and quantity of   No..............  All sources emit HAP.
                                 approval.         HAP, operating                           Subpart TTTT does
                                                   parameters.                              not require control
                                                                                            from specific
                                                                                            emission points.
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(i)..........  [Reserved].                                                .....................
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(iii),         ................  Application for        No..............  The requirements of
 (d)(2), (d)(3)(ii).                               approval.                                the application for
                                                                                            approval for new and
                                                                                            reconstructed
                                                                                            sources are
                                                                                            described in Sec.
                                                                                            63.5320(b). General
                                                                                            provision
                                                                                            requirements for
                                                                                            identification of
                                                                                            HAP emission points
                                                                                            or estimates of
                                                                                            actual emissions are
                                                                                            not required.
                                                                                            Descriptions of
                                                                                            control and methods,
                                                                                            and the estimated
                                                                                            and actual control
                                                                                            efficiency of such
                                                                                            do not apply.
                                                                                            Requirements for
                                                                                            describing control
                                                                                            equipment and the
                                                                                            estimated and actual
                                                                                            control efficiency
                                                                                            of such equipment
                                                                                            apply only to
                                                                                            control equipment to
                                                                                            which the subpart
                                                                                            TTTT requirements
                                                                                            for quantifying
                                                                                            solvent destroyed by
                                                                                            an add-on control
                                                                                            device would be
                                                                                            applicable.
Sec.   63.6...................  Applicability of  Applicability of       Yes.............  Except for paragraphs
                                 general           general provisions.                      of Sec.   63.6 as
                                 provisions.                                                listed below.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(3).........  Compliance        .....................  No..............  Section Sec.
                                 dates, new and                                             63.5283 specifies
                                 reconstructed                                              the compliance dates
                                 sources.                                                   for new and
                                                                                            reconstructed
                                                                                            sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6).............  [Reserved].                                                .....................
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4).........  [Reserved].                                                .....................
Sec.   63.6(d)................  [Reserved].                                                .....................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1).............  Operation and     .....................  No..............  See Sec.   63.5320(b)
                                 maintenance                                                for general duty
                                 requirements.                                              requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).............  [Reserved].                                                .....................

[[Page 11340]]

 
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  Operation and     Startup, shutdown,     No..............  Subpart TTTT does not
                                 maintenance       and malfunction plan                     have any startup,
                                 requirements.     requirements.                            shutdown, and
                                                                                            malfunction plan
                                                                                            requirements.
Sec.   63.6(f)-(g)............  Compliance with   Comply with emission   No..............  Subpart TTTT does not
                                 nonopacity        standards at all                         have nonopacity
                                 emission          times except during                      requirements.
                                 standards         SSM.
                                 except during
                                 SSM.
Sec.   63.6(h)................  Opacity/visible   .....................  No..............  Subpart TTTT has no
                                 emission (VE)                                              opacity or visual
                                 standards.                                                 emission standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)................  Compliance        Procedures and         Yes.              .....................
                                 extension.        criteria for
                                                   responsible agency
                                                   to grant compliance
                                                   extension.
Sec.   63.6(j)................  Presidential      President may exempt   Yes.              .....................
                                 compliance        source category from
                                 exemption.        requirement to
                                                   comply with subpart.
Sec.   63.7...................  Performance       Schedule, conditions,  Yes.............  Except for paragraphs
                                 testing           notifications and                        of Sec.   63.7 as
                                 requirements.     procedures.                              listed below.
                                                                                            Subpart TTTT
                                                                                            requires performance
                                                                                            testing only if the
                                                                                            source applies
                                                                                            additional control
                                                                                            that destroys
                                                                                            solvent. Sec.
                                                                                            63.5311 requires
                                                                                            sources to follow
                                                                                            the performance
                                                                                            testing guidelines
                                                                                            of the General
                                                                                            Provisions if a
                                                                                            control is added.
Sec.   63.7(a)(2) (i) and       Performance       Applicability and      No..............  Sec.   63.5310(a) of
 (iii).                          testing           performance dates.                       subpart TTTT
                                 requirements.                                              specifies the
                                                                                            requirements of
                                                                                            performance testing
                                                                                            dates for new and
                                                                                            existing sources.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  Conduct of        Defines                No..............  See Sec.   63.5380.
                                 performance       representative
                                 tests.            conditions; provides
                                                   an exemption from
                                                   the standards for
                                                   periods of startup,
                                                   shutdown, and
                                                   malfunction;
                                                   requires that, upon
                                                   request, the owner
                                                   or operator shall
                                                   make available to
                                                   the Administrator
                                                   such records as may
                                                   be necessary to
                                                   determine the
                                                   conditions of
                                                   performance tests.
Sec.   63.8...................  Monitoring        Applicability,         No..............  See Sec.
                                 requirements.     conduct of                               63.5360(a)(2) for
                                                   monitoring,                              monitoring
                                                   operation and                            requirements.
                                                   maintenance, quality
                                                   control, performance
                                                   evaluations, use of
                                                   alternative
                                                   monitoring method,
                                                   reduction of
                                                   monitoring data.
Sec.   63.9...................  Notification      Applicability and      Yes.............  Except for paragraphs
                                 requirements.     State delegation.                        of Sec.   63.9 as
                                                                                            listed below.
Sec.   63.9(e)................  Notification of   Notify responsible     Yes.............  Applies only if
                                 performance       agency 60 days ahead.                    performance testing
                                 test.                                                      is performed.
Sec.   63.9(f)................  Notification of   Notify responsible     No..............  Subpart TTTT has no
                                 VE/opacity        agency 30 days ahead.                    opacity or visual
                                 observations.                                              emission standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)................  Additional        Notification of        No..............  See Sec.
                                 notifications     performance                              63.5360(a)(2) for
                                 when using a      evaluation;                              CMS requirements.
                                 continuous        notification using
                                 monitoring        COMS data;
                                 system (CMS).     notification that
                                                   exceeded criterion
                                                   for relative
                                                   accuracy.
Sec.   63.9(h)................  Notification of   Contents.............  No..............  Sec.   63.5320(d)
                                 compliance                                                 specifies
                                 status.                                                    requirements for the
                                                                                            notification of
                                                                                            compliance status.
Sec.   63.10..................  Recordkeeping/    Schedule for           Yes.............  Except for paragraphs
                                 reporting.        reporting, record                        of Sec.   63.10 as
                                                   storage.                                 listed below.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)............  Recordkeeping...  CMS recordkeeping;     No..............  See Sec.   63.5360
                                                   CMS records of                           for CMS
                                                   startup, shutdown,                       recordkeeping
                                                   and malfunction                          requirements, except
                                                   events.                                  see 63.5430(h) for
                                                                                            CMS recordkeeping
                                                                                            requirements if
                                                                                            there is a deviation
                                                                                            from the standard.
Sec.   63.10(c)...............  Recordkeeping...  Additional CMS         No..............  See Sec.
                                                   recordkeeping.                           63.5360(a)(2) for
                                                                                            CMS recordkeeping
                                                                                            requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)............  Reporting.......  Reporting performance  Yes.............  Applies only if
                                                   test results.                            performance testing
                                                                                            is performed.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)............  Reporting.......  Reporting opacity or   No..............  Subpart TTTT has no
                                                   VE observations.                         opacity or visible
                                                                                            emission standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)............  Reporting.......  Progress reports.....  Yes.............  Applies if a
                                                                                            condition of
                                                                                            compliance
                                                                                            extension.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)............  Reporting.......  Startup, shutdown,     No..............  See Sec.   63.5420(b)
                                                   and malfunction                          for reporting
                                                   reporting.                               requirements if
                                                                                            there is a deviation
                                                                                            from the standard.

[[Page 11341]]

 
Sec.   63.10(e)...............  Reporting.......  Additional CMS         No..............  See Sec.
                                                   reports.                                 63.5360(a)(2) for
                                                                                            monitoring
                                                                                            requirements.
Sec.   63.11..................  Control device    Requirements for       Yes.............  Applies only if your
                                 requirements.     flares.                                  source uses a flare
                                                                                            to control solvent
                                                                                            emissions. Subpart
                                                                                            TTTT does not
                                                                                            require flares.
Sec.   63.12..................  State authority   State authority to     Yes.              .....................
                                 and delegations.  enforce standards.
Sec.   63.13..................  State/regional    Addresses where        Yes.              .....................
                                 addresses.        reports,
                                                   notifications, and
                                                   requests are sent.
Sec.   63.14..................  Incorporation by  Test methods           Yes.              .....................
                                 reference.        incorporated by
                                                   reference.
Sec.   63.15..................  Availability of   Public and             Yes.              .....................
                                 information and   confidential
                                 confidentiality.  information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-04939 Filed 3-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



                                                  11314                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                                ADDRESSES:   Comments. Submit your                    epa.gov to request a public hearing, to
                                                  AGENCY                                                  comments, identified by Docket ID No.                 register to speak at the public hearing,
                                                                                                          EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0194, at http://                      or to inquire as to whether a public
                                                  40 CFR Part 63                                          www.regulations.gov. Follow the online                hearing will be held.
                                                                                                          instructions for submitting comments.                    The EPA will make every effort to
                                                  [EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0194; FRL–9975–21–                     Once submitted, comments cannot be                    accommodate all speakers who arrive
                                                  OAR]                                                    edited or removed from Regulations.gov.               and register. If a hearing is held at a U.S.
                                                                                                          Regulations.gov is our preferred method               government facility, individuals
                                                  RIN 2060–AT70                                           of receiving comments. However, other                 planning to attend should be prepared
                                                                                                          submission formats are accepted. To                   to show a current, valid state- or federal-
                                                  National Emission Standards for                         ship or send mail via the United States               approved picture identification to the
                                                  Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather                       Postal Service, use the following                     security staff in order to gain access to
                                                  Finishing Operations Residual Risk                      address: U.S. Environmental Protection                the meeting room. An expired form of
                                                  and Technology Review                                   Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID                  identification will not be permitted.
                                                  AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                       No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0194, Mail                        Please note that the Real ID Act, passed
                                                  Agency (EPA).                                           Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania                        by Congress in 2005, established new
                                                  ACTION: Proposed rule.
                                                                                                          Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.                      requirements for entering federal
                                                                                                          Use the following Docket Center address               facilities. If your driver’s license is
                                                  SUMMARY:   The Environmental Protection                 if you are using express mail,                        issued by a noncompliant state, you
                                                  Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments                    commercial delivery, hand delivery, or                must present an additional form of
                                                  to the National Emission Standards for                  courier: EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC                   identification to enter a federal facility.
                                                  Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for                   West Building, Room 3334, 1301                        Acceptable alternative forms of
                                                  Leather Finishing Operations to address                 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,                   identification include: Federal
                                                  the results of the residual risk and                    DC 20004. Delivery verification                       employee badge, passports, enhanced
                                                  technology review (RTR) that the EPA is                 signatures will be available only during              driver’s licenses, and military
                                                  required to conduct in accordance with                  regular business hours.                               identification cards. Additional
                                                  section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).                    Do not submit electronically any                   information on the Real ID Act is
                                                  We found risks due to emissions of air                  information you consider to be                        available at https://www.dhs.gov/real-
                                                  toxics to be acceptable from this source                Confidential Business Information (CBI)               id-frequently-asked-questions. In
                                                  category and determined that the                        or other information whose disclosure is              addition, you will need to obtain a
                                                  current NESHAP provides an ample                        restricted by statute. See section I.C of             property pass for any personal
                                                  margin of safety to protect public health.              this preamble for instructions on                     belongings you bring with you. Upon
                                                  We identified no new cost-effective                     submitting CBI.                                       leaving the building, you will be
                                                                                                             The EPA may publish any comment
                                                  controls under the technology review to                                                                       required to return this property pass to
                                                                                                          received to its public docket.
                                                  achieve further emissions reductions.                                                                         the security desk. No large signs will be
                                                                                                          Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
                                                  Therefore, we are proposing no                                                                                allowed in the building, cameras may
                                                                                                          etc.) must be accompanied by a written
                                                  revisions to the numerical emission                                                                           only be used outside of the building,
                                                                                                          comment. The written comment is
                                                  limits based on these analyses.                                                                               and demonstrations will not be allowed
                                                                                                          considered the official comment and
                                                  However, the EPA is proposing                                                                                 on federal property for security reasons.
                                                                                                          should include discussion of all points
                                                  amendments to regulatory provisions                                                                           FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
                                                                                                          you wish to make. The EPA will
                                                  pertaining to emissions during periods                                                                        questions about this proposed action,
                                                                                                          generally not consider comments or
                                                  of startup, shutdown, and malfunction                   comment contents located outside of the               contact Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural
                                                  (SSM); amendments to add electronic                     primary submission (i.e., on the Web,                 Resources Group, Sector Policies and
                                                  reporting; and amendments to clarify                    cloud, or other file sharing system).                 Programs Division (E143–03), Office of
                                                  certain rule requirements and                              For additional submission methods,                 Air Quality Planning and Standards,
                                                  provisions. While the proposed                          the full EPA public comment policy,                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                                                  amendments would not result in                          information about CBI or multimedia                   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
                                                  reductions in emissions of hazardous air                submissions, and general guidance on                  27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
                                                  pollutants (HAP), this action, if                       making effective comments, please visit               5032; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and
                                                  finalized, would result in improved                     https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/                         email address: schrock.bill@epa.gov. For
                                                  compliance and implementation of the                    commenting-epa-dockets.                               specific information regarding the risk
                                                  rule.                                                      Public Hearing. If a public hearing is             modeling methodology, contact
                                                  DATES: Comments. Comments must be                       requested, it will be held at EPA                     Matthew Woody, Health and
                                                  received on or before April 30, 2018.                   Headquarters, EPA WJC East Building,                  Environmental Impacts Division (C539–
                                                  Under the Paperwork Reduction Act                       1201 Constitution Avenue NW,                          02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
                                                  (PRA), comments on the information                      Washington, DC 20004. If a public                     Standards, U.S. Environmental
                                                  collection provisions are best assured of               hearing is requested, then we will                    Protection Agency, Research Triangle
                                                  consideration if the Office of                          provide details about the public hearing              Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
                                                  Management and Budget (OMB)                             on our Web site at: https://                          number: (919) 541–1535; fax number:
                                                  receives a copy of your comments on or                  www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-                   (919) 541–0840; and email address:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  before April 13, 2018.                                  pollution/leather-finishing-operations-               woody.matthew@epa.gov. For
                                                     Public Hearing. If a public hearing is               national-emission-standards-hazardous.                information about the applicability of
                                                  requested by March 19, 2018, then we                    The EPA does not intend to publish                    the NESHAP to a particular entity,
                                                  will hold a public hearing on March 29,                 another document in the Federal                       contact John Cox, Office of Enforcement
                                                  2018 at the location described in the                   Register announcing any updates on the                and Compliance Assurance, U.S.
                                                  ADDRESSES section. The last day to pre-                 request for a public hearing. Please                  Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
                                                  register in advance to speak at the                     contact Ms. Aimee St. Clair at (919)                  WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A),
                                                  public hearing will be March 27, 2018.                  541–1063 or by email at StClair.Aimee@                1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00002   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                               11315

                                                  Washington DC 20460; telephone                          be able to consider your comment.                     I. General Information
                                                  number: (202) 564–1395; and email                       Electronic files should not include                      A. Does this action apply to me?
                                                  address: cox.john@epa.gov.                              special characters or any form of                        B. Where can I get a copy of this document
                                                                                                          encryption and be free of any defects or                    and other related information?
                                                  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                                                                                       C. What should I consider as I prepare my
                                                     Docket. The EPA has established a                    viruses. For additional information
                                                                                                                                                                      comments for the EPA?
                                                  docket for this rulemaking under Docket                 about the EPA’s public docket, visit the              II. Background
                                                  ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0194. All                        EPA Docket Center homepage at http://                    A. What is the statutory authority for this
                                                  documents in the docket are listed in                   www.epa.gov/dockets.                                        action?
                                                  the Regulations.gov index. Although                       Preamble Acronyms and                                  B. What is this source category and how
                                                  listed in the index, some information is                Abbreviations. We use multiple                              does the current NESHAP regulate its
                                                  not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other              acronyms and terms in this preamble.                        HAP emissions?
                                                  information whose disclosure is                         While this list may not be exhaustive, to                C. What data collection activities were
                                                                                                          ease the reading of this preamble and for                   conducted to support this action?
                                                  restricted by statute. Certain other                                                                             D. What other relevant background
                                                  material, such as copyrighted material,                 reference purposes, the EPA defines the
                                                                                                          following terms and acronyms here:                          information and data are available?
                                                  is not placed on the Internet and will be                                                                     III. Analytical Procedures
                                                  publicly available only in hard copy.                   AEGL acute exposure guideline level                      A. How do we consider risk in our
                                                  Publicly available docket materials are                 AERMOD air dispersion model used by the                     decision-making?
                                                  available either electronically in                        HEM–3 model                                            B. How do we perform the technology
                                                  Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the                  CAA Clean Air Act                                           review?
                                                                                                          CalEPA California EPA                                    C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks
                                                  EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA                       CBI Confidential Business Information
                                                  WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution                                                                                posed by the source category?
                                                                                                          CDX Central Data Exchange                             IV. Analytical Results and Proposed
                                                  Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The                          CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data                         Decisions
                                                  Public Reading Room is open from 8:30                     Reporting Interface
                                                                                                                                                                   A. What are the results of the risk
                                                  a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through                       CFR Code of Federal Regulations
                                                                                                                                                                      assessment and analyses?
                                                  Friday, excluding legal holidays. The                   EPA Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                                                                                                                   B. What are our proposed decisions
                                                  telephone number for the Public                         ERPG Emergency Response Planning
                                                                                                            Guidelines                                                regarding risk acceptability, ample
                                                  Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and                     FR Federal Register                                         margin of safety, and adverse
                                                  the telephone number for the EPA                        HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)                              environmental effects?
                                                  Docket Center is (202) 566–1742.                        HCl hydrochloric acid                                    C. What are the results and proposed
                                                     Instructions. Direct your comments to                HEM–3 Human Exposure Model                                  decisions based on our technology
                                                  Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–                          HF hydrogen fluoride                                        review?
                                                  0194. The EPA’s policy is that all                      HI hazard index                                          D. What other actions are we proposing?
                                                                                                          HQ hazard quotient                                       E. What compliance dates are we
                                                  comments received will be included in                                                                               proposing?
                                                  the public docket without change and                    ICR information collection request
                                                                                                          IRIS Integrated Risk Information System               V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
                                                  may be made available online at http://                 km kilometer                                                Economic Impacts
                                                  www.regulations.gov, including any                      MACT maximum achievable control                          A. What are the affected sources?
                                                  personal information provided, unless                     technology                                             B. What are the air quality impacts?
                                                  the comment includes information                        mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter                         C. What are the cost impacts?
                                                  claimed to be CBI or other information                  MIR maximum individual risk                              D. What are the economic impacts?
                                                  whose disclosure is restricted by statute.              NAICS North American Industry                            E. What are the benefits?
                                                  Do not submit information that you                        Classification System                               VI. Request for Comments
                                                                                                          NESHAP national emission standards for                VII. Submitting Data Corrections
                                                  consider to be CBI or otherwise                           hazardous air pollutants                            VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
                                                  protected through http://                               NTTAA National Technology Transfer and                   A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
                                                  www.regulations.gov or email. This type                   Advancement Act                                           Planning and Review and Executive
                                                  of information should be submitted by                   OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and                    Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
                                                  mail as discussed in section 1.C of this                  Standards                                                 Regulatory Review
                                                  preamble. The http://                                   OMB Office of Management and Budget                      B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
                                                  www.regulations.gov Web site is an                      PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to                    Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
                                                  ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which                        be persistent and bio-accumulative in the                 Costs
                                                                                                            environment                                            C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
                                                  means the EPA will not know your                        QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
                                                  identity or contact information unless                                                                           D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
                                                                                                          RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse                        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
                                                  you provide it in the body of your                      REL reference exposure level                                (UMRA)
                                                  comment. If you send an email                           RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act                           F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
                                                  comment directly to the EPA without                     RfC reference concentration                              G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
                                                  going through http://                                   RfD reference dose                                          and Coordination With Indian Tribal
                                                  www.regulations.gov, your email                         RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
                                                                                                                                                                      Governments
                                                  address will be automatically captured                  RTR residual risk and technology review
                                                                                                                                                                   H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
                                                                                                          SAB Science Advisory Board
                                                  and included as part of the comment                     SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
                                                                                                                                                                      Children from Environmental Health
                                                  that is placed in the public docket and                                                                             Risks and Safety Risks
                                                                                                          TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
                                                  made available on the Internet. If you                  tpy tons per year                                        I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  submit an electronic comment, the EPA                   TSD technical support document                              Concerning Regulations That
                                                  recommends that you include your                        UF uncertainty factor                                       Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
                                                                                                          UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act                           Distribution, or Use
                                                  name and other contact information in
                                                                                                          URE unit risk estimate                                   J. National Technology Transfer and
                                                  the body of your comment and with any                                                                               Advancement Act (NTTAA)
                                                  disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA                   VCS voluntary consensus standards
                                                                                                                                                                   K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
                                                  cannot read your comment due to                           Organization of this Document. The                        To Address Environmental Justice in
                                                  technical difficulties and cannot contact               information in this preamble is                             Minority Populations and Low-Income
                                                  you for clarification, the EPA may not                  organized as follows:                                       Populations



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00003   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                  11316                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  I. General Information                                  B. Where can I get a copy of this                     seq.). Section 112 of the CAA
                                                                                                          document and other related                            establishes a two-stage regulatory
                                                  A. Does this action apply to me?                        information?                                          process to develop standards for
                                                     Table 1 of this preamble lists the                      In addition to being available in the              emissions of HAP from stationary
                                                  NESHAP and associated regulated                         docket, an electronic copy of this action             sources. Generally, the first stage
                                                  industrial source category that is the                  is available on the Internet. Following               involves establishing technology-based
                                                  subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not                signature by the EPA Administrator, the               standards and the second stage involves
                                                                                                          EPA will post a copy of this proposed                 evaluating so-called maximum
                                                  intended to be exhaustive, but rather
                                                                                                          action at http://www.epa.gov/stationary-              achievable control technology (MACT)
                                                  provides a guide for readers regarding
                                                                                                          sources-air-pollution/leather-finishing-              standards to determine whether
                                                  the entities that this proposed action is
                                                                                                          operations-national-emission-                         additional standards are needed to
                                                  likely to affect. The proposed standards,                                                                     further address any remaining risk
                                                  once promulgated, will be directly                      standards-hazardous. Following
                                                                                                          publication in the Federal Register, the              associated with HAP emissions. This
                                                  applicable to the affected sources.                                                                           second stage is commonly referred to as
                                                                                                          EPA will post the Federal Register
                                                  Federal, state, local, and tribal                                                                             the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition
                                                                                                          version of the proposal and key
                                                  government entities would not be                                                                              to the residual risk review, the CAA also
                                                                                                          technical documents at this same Web
                                                  affected by this proposed action. On                    site. Information on the overall RTR                  requires the EPA to review standards set
                                                  July 16, 1992, we published an initial                  program is available at http://                       under CAA section 112 every 8 years to
                                                  list of source categories to be regulated               www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.                determine if there are ‘‘developments in
                                                  (57 FR 31576), Initial List of Categories                  A redline version of the regulatory                practices, processes, or control
                                                  of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of                   language that incorporates the proposed               technologies’’ that may be appropriate
                                                  the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.                   changes in this action is available in the            to incorporate into the standards. This
                                                  The Leather Tanning and Finishing                       docket for this action (Docket ID No.                 review is commonly referred to as the
                                                  Operations source category was not                      EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0194).                                ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two
                                                  included on the initial list, but was                                                                         reviews are combined into a single
                                                                                                          C. What should I consider as I prepare                rulemaking, it is commonly referred to
                                                  added by an update to the list on June
                                                                                                          my comments for the EPA?                              as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’
                                                  4, 1996 (61 FR 28207), Revision of
                                                  Initial List of Categories of Sources and                 Submitting CBI. Do not submit                       The discussion that follows identifies
                                                  Schedule for Standards Under Sections                   information containing CBI to the EPA                 the most relevant statutory sections and
                                                  112(c) and (e) of the Clean Air Act                     through http://www.regulations.gov or                 briefly explains the contours of the
                                                  Amendments of 1990. On October 2,                       email. Clearly mark the part or all of the            methodology used to implement these
                                                                                                          information that you claim to be CBI.                 statutory requirements. A more
                                                  2000, we proposed a NESHAP for the
                                                                                                          For CBI information on a disk or CD–                  comprehensive discussion appears in
                                                  Leather Finishing Operations source
                                                                                                          ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the                the document titled CAA Section 112
                                                  category (65 FR 58702). The final rule
                                                                                                          outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI                  Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory
                                                  was promulgated on February 27, 2002                    and then identify electronically within               Authority and Methodology in the
                                                  (67 FR 9156) (henceforth referred to as                 the disk or CD–ROM the specific                       docket for this rulemaking.
                                                  the ‘‘Leather Finishing NESHAP’’),                      information that is claimed as CBI. In
                                                  which modified the listing of this source                                                                        In the first stage of the CAA section
                                                                                                          addition to one complete version of the               112 standard setting process, the EPA
                                                  category by deleting tanning facilities                 comments that includes information                    promulgates technology-based standards
                                                  from the definition and renaming the                    claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy                under CAA section 112(d) for categories
                                                  source category ‘‘Leather Finishing                     of the comments that does not contain                 of sources identified as emitting one or
                                                  Operations.’’ The Revision of Initial List              the information claimed as CBI for                    more of the HAP listed in CAA section
                                                  of Categories of Sources and Schedule                   inclusion in the public docket. If you                112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are
                                                  for Standards Under Sections 112(c)                     submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not                 either major sources or area sources, and
                                                  and (e) of the Clean Air Act                            contain CBI, mark the outside of the                  CAA section 112 establishes different
                                                  Amendments of 1990 (see 61 FR 28197,                    disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not               requirements for major source standards
                                                  28202, June 4, 1996), describes the                     contain CBI. Information not marked as                and area source standards. ‘‘Major
                                                  Leather Finishing Operations source                     CBI will be included in the public                    sources’’ are those that emit or have the
                                                  category as ‘‘any facility or process                   docket and the EPA’s electronic public                potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy)
                                                  engaged in conditioning and                             docket without prior notice. Information              or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or
                                                  enhancement processes that give tanned                  marked as CBI will not be disclosed                   more of any combination of HAP. All
                                                  leather distinctive and desirable                       except in accordance with procedures                  other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For
                                                  qualities required by end users of the                  set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or                   major sources, CAA section 112(d)
                                                  material.’’                                             deliver information identified as CBI                 provides that the technology-based
                                                                                                          only to the following address: OAQPS                  NESHAP must reflect the maximum
                                                    TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL                         Document Control Officer (C404–02),                   degree of emission reductions of HAP
                                                                                                          OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection                  achievable (after considering cost,
                                                     SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY                        Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
                                                     THIS PROPOSED ACTION                                                                                       energy requirements, and non-air
                                                                                                          Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No.               quality health and environmental
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                                                                          EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0194.                                 impacts). These standards are
                                                       NESHAP and source                NAICS code 1                                                            commonly referred to as MACT
                                                           category                                       II. Background
                                                                                                                                                                standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also
                                                  Leather Finishing Operations              3161          A. What is the statutory authority for                establishes a minimum control level for
                                                                                                          this action?                                          MACT standards, known as the MACT
                                                    1 North   American      Industry     Classification
                                                  System.                                                    The statutory authority for this action            ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider
                                                                                                          is provided by sections 112 and 301 of                control options that are more stringent
                                                                                                          the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et                than the floor. Standards more stringent


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00004   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                           11317

                                                  than the floor are commonly referred to                 [cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately                operations or to portions of leather
                                                  as ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ standards. In                   [1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1                    finishing operations using a solvent
                                                  certain instances, as provided in CAA                   million].’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14,                degreasing process subject to the
                                                  section 112(h), the EPA may set work                    1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA              Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP
                                                  practice standards where it is not                      must determine the emissions standards                (see 40 CFR 63.5290(c)).
                                                  feasible to prescribe or enforce a                      necessary to bring risks to an acceptable                There are currently four existing
                                                  numerical emission standard. For area                   level without considering costs. In the               leather finishing operations that were
                                                  sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the                second step of the process, the EPA                   identified as subject to the Leather
                                                  EPA discretion to set standards based on                considers whether the emissions                       Finishing NESHAP: S.B. Foot Tanning
                                                  generally available control technologies                standards provide an ample margin of                  Company of Red Wing, MN; Alliance
                                                                                                          safety ‘‘in consideration of all health               Leather, Inc. of Peabody, MA; Pearl
                                                  or management practices (GACT
                                                                                                          information, including the number of                  Leather Finishers, Inc. of Johnstown,
                                                  standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
                                                                                                          persons at risk levels higher than                    NY; and Tasman Leather Group, LLC of
                                                     The second stage in standard-setting                 approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as              Hartland, ME.
                                                  focuses on identifying and addressing                   other relevant factors, including costs                  In the overall process of leather
                                                  any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk                 and economic impacts, technological                   products manufacturing, leather
                                                  according to CAA section 112(f). Section                feasibility, and other factors relevant to            finishing is considered a dry operation
                                                  112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to                each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA               as opposed to the ‘‘wet-end’’ operations
                                                  determine for source categories subject                 must promulgate emission standards                    associated with leather tanning. Leather
                                                  to MACT standards whether                               necessary to provide an ample margin of               finishing operations can be co-located
                                                  promulgation of additional standards is                 safety to protect public health. After                with wet-end tannery operations or
                                                  needed to provide an ample margin of                    conducting the ample margin of safety                 performed in stand-alone facilities.
                                                  safety to protect public health or to                   analysis, we consider whether a more                  None of the four existing facilities
                                                  prevent an adverse environmental                        stringent standard is necessary to                    subject to the Leather Finishing
                                                  effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA                    prevent an adverse affect, taking into                NESHAP perform the initial wet-end
                                                  provides that this residual risk review is              consideration costs, energy, safety, and              tanning process that produces the
                                                  not required for categories of area                     other relevant factors.                               commodity product known as ‘‘wet
                                                  sources subject to GACT standards.                         CAA section 112(d)(6) separately                   blues’’ or ‘‘blue stock;’’ however, based
                                                  Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further                 requires the EPA to review standards                  on information available in the facility
                                                  expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the                promulgated under CAA section 112                     operating permits, the S.B. Foot and
                                                  two-step process for developing                         and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking                Tasman facilities each perform
                                                  standards to address any residual risk                  into account developments in practices,               retanning, coloring, and fat liquoring
                                                                                                          processes, and control technologies)’’ no             operations. These are wet-end
                                                  and the Agency’s interpretation of
                                                                                                          less frequently than every 8 years. In                operations that soften, color, and restore
                                                  ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in
                                                                                                          conducting this so-called ‘‘technology                fats and oils to the blue stock. The
                                                  the National Emissions Standards for
                                                                                                          review,’’ the EPA is not required to                  equipment used solely for leather
                                                  Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene                                                                             tanning operations is not subject to the
                                                                                                          recalculate the MACT floor. Natural
                                                  Emissions from Maleic Anhydride                                                                               Leather Finishing NESHAP.
                                                                                                          Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v.
                                                  Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants,                    EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir.                      In the dry-end leather finishing
                                                  Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene                        2008). Association of Battery Recyclers,              operations, coatings are typically
                                                  Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product                    Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir.                  applied to the leather substrate using
                                                  Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54                    2013). The EPA may consider cost in                   spray, roll, and flow coating techniques.
                                                  FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The                      deciding whether to revise the standards              The emission source types subject to the
                                                  EPA notified Congress in the Risk                       pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).                    emission limits under the Leather
                                                  Report that the Agency intended to use                                                                        Finishing NESHAP include, but are not
                                                  the Benzene NESHAP approach in                          B. What is this source category and how               limited to coating and spraying
                                                  making CAA section 112(f) residual risk                 does the current NESHAP regulate its                  equipment, coating storage and mixing,
                                                  determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p.                    HAP emissions?                                        and dryers. Emissions of HAP occur
                                                  ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted                       The Leather Finishing NESHAP was                   from volatilization during the
                                                  this approach in its residual risk                      promulgated on February 27, 2002 (67                  application of the coating, drying, or
                                                  determinations and the United States                    FR 9156) and codified at 40 CFR part 63,              curing of the coating, and from
                                                  Court of Appeals for the District of                    subpart TTTT. The Leather Finishing                   handling, storage, and clean-up of the
                                                  Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the                 NESHAP defines ‘‘leather finishing’’ as               finishing materials. Wastewaters laden
                                                  EPA’s interpretation that CAA section                   ‘‘a single process or group of processes              with HAP are also a potential source of
                                                  112(f)(2) incorporates the approach                     used to adjust and improve the physical               emissions at facilities that use water
                                                  established in the Benzene NESHAP.                      and aesthetic characteristics of the                  curtains and water baths for particulate
                                                  See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083                    leather surface through the multistage                control. The emission point types
                                                  (D.C. Cir. 2008).                                       application of a coating comprised of                 associated with these emission sources
                                                                                                          dyes, pigments, film-forming materials,               include process vents, storage vessels,
                                                     The approach in the CAA process                      and performance modifiers dissolved or                wastewater, and fugitive sources.
                                                  used by the EPA to evaluate residual                    suspended in liquid carriers.’’ 40 CFR                   In developing the Leather Finishing
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  risk and to develop standards under                     63.5460. The Leather Finishing                        NESHAP, the EPA established MACT
                                                  CAA section 112(f)(2) is a two-step                     NESHAP does not apply to equipment                    standards for four types of leather
                                                  approach. In the first step, the EPA                    used solely for leather tanning                       product process operations: (1)
                                                  determines whether risks are acceptable.                                                                      Upholstery leather with greater than or
                                                  This determination ‘‘considers all health                  1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual
                                                                                                                                                                equal to 4 grams of add-on finish per
                                                  information, including risk estimation                  risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one      square foot of leather; (2) upholstery
                                                  uncertainty, and includes a presumptive                 metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated
                                                                                                          risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum     leather with less than 4 grams of add-
                                                  limit on maximum individual lifetime                    level of a pollutant for a lifetime.                  on finish per square foot of leather; (3)


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00005   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                  11318                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  water-resistant leather; and (4)                        www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/                searched state Web sites for operating
                                                  nonwater-resistant leather. The MACT                    national-emissions-inventory-nei.                     permits for these facilities to determine
                                                  standards limit emissions from new and                     The EPA also gathered information on               whether the permits stated the facility
                                                  existing leather finishing operations and               annual emissions, emission points, air                contained leather finishing operations
                                                  are expressed in terms of total HAP                     pollution control devices, and process                subject to the rule. For facilities for
                                                  emissions per 1,000 square feet of                      operations from facility construction                 which permits were unavailable, we
                                                  leather processed over a rolling 12-                    and operating permits. We collected                   reviewed company Web sites, online
                                                  month compliance period. Sources must                   permits and supporting documentation                  news articles, and aerial imagery to
                                                  record the mass of HAP in coatings                      from state permitting authorities either              determine if the facility was still in
                                                  applied to the leather either through an                through direct contact with the agencies              operation. Of the 155 identified
                                                  inventory mass balance or ‘‘measure-as-                 or through state-maintained online                    facilities, we determined that 24
                                                  applied’’ approach. Using the mass                      databases. The NEI and facility permits               facilities perform leather finishing
                                                  balance approach, sources may choose                    contained much of the information we                  operations and 131 facilities are either
                                                  to account for disposal of excess finish                used to develop the RTR emissions                     closed or do not perform leather
                                                  instead of assuming any excess finish is                dataset. Supplemental information was                 finishing operations. Of the 24 facilities
                                                  also emitted. Emissions are calculated                  collected via communication with                      performing leather finishing operations,
                                                  based on the assumption that the entire                 facility representatives.                             only four are subject to the Leather
                                                  HAP content of the applied finish is                       The EPA contacted facility                         Finishing NESHAP. The 20 remaining
                                                  released to the environment. Sources                    representatives for three of the four                 facilities are area sources and not
                                                  using an add-on control device may                      leather finishing operations subject to               subject to the Leather Finishing
                                                  account for the emission reduction                      the Leather Finishing NESHAP                          NESHAP.
                                                  achieved from the control device as                     (identified in section II.B of this                      The EPA searched for Reasonably
                                                  measured by a performance test                          preamble) to collect supplemental and
                                                                                                                                                                Available Control Technology (RACT),
                                                  conducted in accordance with the                        clarifying information for use in the
                                                                                                                                                                Best Available Control Technology
                                                  requirements of the Leather Finishing                   RTR emissions dataset. Facility
                                                                                                                                                                (BACT), and Lowest Achievable
                                                  NESHAP.                                                 representatives provided information
                                                                                                                                                                Emission Rate (LAER) determinations in
                                                    Based on the data collected as                        including production capacities, coating
                                                                                                                                                                the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
                                                  described in section II.C and D of this                 formulations, HAP emissions, and
                                                                                                                                                                (RBLC). The RBLC is a database that
                                                  preamble, HAP emissions from this                       operating schedules. We were unable to
                                                                                                                                                                contains case-specific information of air
                                                  source category include propyl                          establish contact with facility
                                                                                                                                                                pollution technologies that have been
                                                  cellosolve, glycol ethers, diethylene                   representatives for Alliance Leather, Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                required to reduce the emissions of air
                                                  glycol monobutyl ether, trimethylamine,                 of Peabody, MA; however, the
                                                                                                          Massachusetts Department of                           pollutants from stationary sources.
                                                  diethylene glycol monomethyl ether,
                                                                                                          Environmental Protection confirmed the                Under the EPA’s New Source Review
                                                  ethylene glycol, toluene, methyl
                                                                                                          facility was in operation at the time of              (NSR) program, if a facility is planning
                                                  isobutyl ketone, and chromium (III)
                                                                                                          our inquiry (November 2016) and                       new construction or a modification that
                                                  compounds.
                                                                                                          provided a facility annual emissions                  will increase the air emissions by a
                                                  C. What data collection activities were                 report for the 2015 reporting year.                   certain amount, an NSR permit must be
                                                  conducted to support this action?                       Contacts with facility representatives,               obtained. This central database
                                                     For this RTR, the EPA collected                      our review of permit documentation,                   promotes the sharing of information
                                                  information from the 2014 National                      and our review of the 2014 NEI are                    among permitting agencies and aids in
                                                  Emissions Inventory (NEI, version 1),                   documented in a separate memorandum                   case-by-case determinations for NSR
                                                  from facility permits and permit                        titled Leather Finishing: Residual Risk               permits. We examined information
                                                  applications, and through discussions                   Modeling File Supporting                              contained in the RBLC to determine
                                                  with facility representatives and state                 Documentation in the docket for this                  what technologies are currently used at
                                                  permitting authorities.                                 action.                                               leather finishing operations to reduce
                                                     The NEI is a database that contains                                                                        air emissions.
                                                  information about sources that emit                     D. What other relevant background                        The EPA also reviewed other
                                                  criteria air pollutants, their precursors,              information and data are available?                   information sources to determine
                                                  and HAP. The database includes                             The EPA’s Enforcement Compliance                   whether there have been developments
                                                  estimates of annual air pollutant                       History Online (ECHO) database was                    in practices, processes, or control
                                                  emissions from point, nonpoint, and                     used as a tool to identify which leather              technologies in the leather finishing
                                                  mobile sources in the 50 states, the                    finishing operations were potentially                 operations source category. We
                                                  District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and                  subject to the Leather Finishing                      reviewed subsequent regulatory actions
                                                  the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this               NESHAP. The ECHO database provides                    for sources similar to leather finishing
                                                  information and releases an updated                     integrated compliance and enforcement                 operations and conducted a review of
                                                  version of the NEI database every 3                     information for approximately 800,000                 literature published by industry
                                                  years. The NEI includes information                     regulated facilities nationwide. Using                organizations, technical journals, and
                                                  necessary for conducting risk modeling,                 the search feature in ECHO, the EPA                   government organizations. Additional
                                                  including annual HAP emissions                          identified 120 facilities that could                  details regarding our review of these
                                                  estimates from individual emission                      potentially be subject to the Leather                 information sources is contained in the
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  points at facilities and the related                    Finishing NESHAP. The EPA also                        memorandum titled CAA section
                                                  emissions release parameters. We used                   reviewed the membership directory of                  112(d)(6) Technology Review for the
                                                  NEI emissions and supporting data as                    the Leather Industries of America trade               Leather Finishing Source Category in
                                                  the primary source of information to                    association and supporting                            the docket for this action.
                                                  develop the model input file for the risk               documentation for the 2002 rulemaking
                                                                                                                                                                III. Analytical Procedures
                                                  assessment (hereafter referred to as the                and identified an additional 35 facilities
                                                  ‘‘RTR emissions dataset’’). For more                    with operations potentially subject to                  In this section, we describe the
                                                  details on the NEI, see https://                        the Leather Finishing NESHAP. We then                 analyses performed to support the


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00006   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                                 11319

                                                  proposed decisions for the RTR and                      of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure           transformation in the vicinity of the
                                                  other issues addressed in this proposal.                be considered, but also incidence, the                sources in the category.
                                                                                                          presence of non-cancer health effects, and the           The EPA understands the potential
                                                  A. How do we consider risk in our                       uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this          importance of considering an
                                                  decision-making?                                        way, the effect on the most exposed                   individual’s total exposure to HAP in
                                                     As discussed in section II.A of this                 individuals can be reviewed as well as the
                                                                                                          impact on the general public. These factors
                                                                                                                                                                addition to considering exposure to
                                                  preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP,                     can then be weighed in each individual case.          HAP emissions from the source category
                                                  in evaluating and developing standards                  This approach complies with the Vinyl                 and facility. We recognize that such
                                                  under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply                   Chloride mandate that the Administrator               consideration may be particularly
                                                  a two-step process to determine whether                 ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the          important when assessing noncancer
                                                  or not risks are acceptable and to                      public by employing [her] expertise to assess         risks, where pollutant-specific exposure
                                                  determine if the standards provide an                   available data. It also complies with the             health reference levels (e.g., reference
                                                  ample margin of safety to protect public                Congressional intent behind the CAA, which            concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
                                                  health. As explained in the Benzene                     did not exclude the use of any particular             assumption that thresholds exist for
                                                  NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on                    measure of public health risk from the EPA’s          adverse health effects. For example, the
                                                  acceptability cannot be reduced to any                  consideration with respect to CAA section
                                                                                                          112 regulations, and thereby implicitly
                                                                                                                                                                EPA recognizes that, although exposures
                                                  single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he                      permits consideration of any and all                  attributable to emissions from a source
                                                  Administrator believes that the                         measures of health risk which the                     category or facility alone may not
                                                  acceptability of risk under [previous]                  Administrator, in [her] judgment, believes are        indicate the potential for increased risk
                                                  section 112 is best judged on the basis                 appropriate to determining what will ‘protect         of adverse noncancer health effects in a
                                                  of a broad set of health risk measures                  the public health’.’’                                 population, the exposures resulting
                                                  and information.’’ 54 FR 38046,                                                                               from emissions from the facility in
                                                                                                             See 54 FR at 38057, September 14,
                                                  September 14, 1989. Similarly, with                                                                           combination with emissions from all of
                                                                                                          1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only
                                                  regard to the ample margin of safety                                                                          the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to
                                                  determination, ‘‘the Agency again                       one factor to be weighed in determining
                                                                                                                                                                which an individual is exposed may be
                                                  considers all of the health risk and other              acceptability of risks. The Benzene
                                                                                                                                                                sufficient to result in increased risk of
                                                  health information considered in the                    NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of
                                                                                                                                                                adverse noncancer health effects. In
                                                  first step. Beyond that information,                    approximately one in 10 thousand
                                                                                                                                                                May 2010, the Science Advisory Board
                                                  additional factors relating to the                      should ordinarily be the upper end of
                                                                                                                                                                (SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR
                                                  appropriate level of control will also be               the range of acceptability. As risks
                                                                                                                                                                assessments will be most useful to
                                                  considered, including cost and                          increase above this benchmark, they
                                                                                                                                                                decision makers and communities if
                                                  economic impacts of controls,                           become presumptively less acceptable
                                                                                                                                                                results are presented in the broader
                                                  technological feasibility, uncertainties,               under CAA section 112, and would be
                                                                                                                                                                context of aggregate and cumulative
                                                  and any other relevant factors.’’ Id.                   weighed with the other health risk                    risks, including background
                                                     The Benzene NESHAP approach                          measures and information in making an                 concentrations and contributions from
                                                  provides flexibility regarding factors the              overall judgment on acceptability. Or,                other sources in the area.’’ 3
                                                  EPA may consider in making                              the Agency may find, in a particular                     In response to the SAB
                                                  determinations and how the EPA may                      case, that a risk that includes MIR less              recommendations, the EPA is
                                                  weigh those factors for each source                     than the presumptively acceptable level               incorporating cumulative risk analyses
                                                  category. The EPA conducts a risk                       is unacceptable in the light of other                 into its RTR risk assessments, including
                                                  assessment that provides estimates of                   health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045.                  those reflected in this proposal. The
                                                  the MIR posed by the HAP emissions                      Similarly, with regard to the ample                   Agency is (1) Conducting facility-wide
                                                  from each source in the source category,                margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated             assessments, which include source
                                                  the hazard index (HI) for chronic                       in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA                     category emission points, as well as
                                                  exposures to HAP with the potential to                  believes the relative weight of the many              other emission points within the
                                                  cause noncancer health effects, and the                 factors that can be considered in                     facilities; (2) combining exposures from
                                                  hazard quotient (HQ) for acute                          selecting an ample margin of safety can               multiple sources in the same category
                                                  exposures to HAP with the potential to                  only be determined for each specific                  that could affect the same individuals;
                                                  cause noncancer health effects.2 The                    source category. This occurs mainly                   and (3) for some persistent and
                                                  assessment also provides estimates of                   because technological and economic                    bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzing
                                                  the distribution of cancer risks within                 factors (along with the health-related                the ingestion route of exposure. In
                                                  the exposed populations, cancer                         factors) vary from source category to                 addition, the RTR risk assessments have
                                                  incidence, and an evaluation of the                     source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also              always considered aggregate cancer risk
                                                  potential for adverse environmental                     consider the uncertainties associated                 from all carcinogens and aggregate
                                                  effects. The scope of EPA’s risk analysis               with the various risk analyses, as                    noncancer HI from all noncarcinogens
                                                  is consistent with EPA’s response to                    discussed earlier in this preamble, in                affecting the same target organ system.
                                                  comment on our policy under the                         our determinations of acceptability and                  Although we are interested in placing
                                                  Benzene NESHAP where the EPA                            ample margin of safety.                               source category and facility-wide HAP
                                                  explained that:                                            The EPA notes that it has not                      risks in the context of total HAP risks
                                                                                                          considered certain health information to              from all sources combined in the
                                                  ‘‘[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator
                                                                                                          date in making residual risk
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  permits consideration of multiple measures
                                                                                                          determinations. At this time, we do not                  3 The EPA’s responses to this and all other key

                                                                                                          attempt to quantify those HAP risks that              recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR
                                                     2 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated
                                                                                                                                                                risk assessment methodologies (which is available
                                                  with a lifetime of exposure at the highest              may be associated with emissions from                 at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
                                                  concentration of HAP where people are likely to         other facilities that do not include the              4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-
                                                  live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential exposure     source category under review, mobile                  SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a
                                                  to the HAP to the level at or below which no                                                                  memorandum to this rulemaking docket from David
                                                  adverse chronic noncancer effects are expected; the
                                                                                                          source emissions, natural source                      Guinnup titled, EPA’s Actions in Response to the
                                                  HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same       emissions, persistent environmental                   Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR
                                                  target organ or organ system.                           pollution, or atmospheric                             Risk Assessment Methodologies.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00007   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                  11320                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  vicinity of each source, we are                         data sources in our investigation of                  1. How did we estimate actual
                                                  concerned about the uncertainties of                    potential practices, processes, or                    emissions and identify the emissions
                                                  doing so. Because of the contribution to                controls to consider. Among the sources               release characteristics?
                                                  total HAP risk from emission sources                    we reviewed were the NESHAP for                          Data for four leather finishing
                                                  other than those that we have studied in                various industries that were                          operations as described in section II.C of
                                                  depth during this RTR review, such                      promulgated since the MACT standards                  this preamble were used to create the
                                                  estimates of total HAP risks would have                 being reviewed in this action. We                     RTR emissions dataset. The emission
                                                  significantly greater associated                        reviewed the regulatory requirements                  sources in the RTR emissions dataset
                                                  uncertainties than the source category or               and/or technical analyses associated                  include the following types of emissions
                                                  facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate                 with these regulatory actions to identify             sources currently regulated by the
                                                  or cumulative assessments would                         any practices, processes, and control                 Leather Finishing NESHAP: Coating and
                                                  compound those uncertainties, making                    technologies considered in these efforts              spraying equipment, coating storage and
                                                  the assessments too unreliable.                                                                               mixing, and dryers. The RTR emissions
                                                                                                          that could be applied to emission
                                                  B. How do we perform the technology                     sources in the Leather Finishing                      dataset also includes emissions from
                                                  review?                                                 Operations source category, as well as                buffing operations. This RTR emissions
                                                                                                          the costs, non-air impacts, and energy                dataset is based primarily on emissions
                                                     Our technology review focuses on the
                                                                                                          implications associated with the use of               data from the 2014 NEI, facility permits
                                                  identification and evaluation of
                                                                                                          these technologies. Finally, we reviewed              and permit supporting documentation, a
                                                  developments in practices, processes,
                                                                                                          information from other sources, such as               state-provided facility annual emissions
                                                  and control technologies that have
                                                                                                          state and/or local permitting agency                  report, and information obtained
                                                  occurred since the MACT standards
                                                                                                          databases and industry-supported                      through contact with facility
                                                  were promulgated. Where we identify
                                                                                                                                                                representatives. These data sources
                                                  such developments, in order to inform                   databases.
                                                                                                                                                                provided all of the emissions data in the
                                                  our decision of whether it is
                                                                                                          C. How did we estimate post-MACT                      RTR emissions dataset and nearly all of
                                                  ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions
                                                                                                          risks posed by the source category?                   the facility-specific data needed to
                                                  standards, we analyze the technical
                                                                                                                                                                conduct the risk modeling analysis.
                                                  feasibility of applying these                              The EPA conducted a risk assessment                However, there were a few instances
                                                  developments and the estimated costs,                   that provides estimates of the MIR for                where default values were used to fill
                                                  energy implications, non-air                            cancer posed by the HAP emissions                     gaps in the facility-specific data used in
                                                  environmental impacts, and we also
                                                                                                          from each source in the source category,              the risk modeling analysis. For example,
                                                  considered the emission reductions. In
                                                                                                          the HI for chronic exposures to HAP                   default values were used for fugitive
                                                  addition, we considered the
                                                                                                          with the potential to cause noncancer                 release parameters. Use of defaults is
                                                  appropriateness of applying controls to
                                                                                                          health effects, and the HQ for acute                  discussed in detail in the memorandum
                                                  new sources versus retrofitting existing
                                                                                                          exposures to HAP with the potential to                titled Leather Finishing: Residual Risk
                                                  sources.
                                                                                                          cause noncancer health effects. The                   Modeling File Supporting
                                                     Based on our analyses of the available
                                                                                                          assessment also provides estimates of                 Documentation in the docket for this
                                                  data and information, we identify
                                                                                                          the distribution of cancer risks within               action.
                                                  potential developments in practices,
                                                                                                          the exposed populations, cancer                          The RTR emissions dataset was
                                                  processes, and control technologies. For
                                                                                                          incidence, and an evaluation of the                   refined following an extensive quality
                                                  this exercise, we consider any of the
                                                                                                          potential for adverse environmental                   assurance (QA) check of source
                                                  following to be a ‘‘development’’:
                                                                                                          effects. The eight sections that follow               locations, emission release
                                                     • Any add-on control technology or other                                                                   characteristics, and annual emission
                                                  equipment that was not identified and                   this paragraph describe how we
                                                                                                                                                                estimates. We checked the coordinates
                                                  considered during development of the                    estimated emissions and conducted the
                                                                                                                                                                of each emission source in the dataset
                                                  original MACT standards;                                risk assessment. The docket for this
                                                     • Any improvements in add-on control
                                                                                                                                                                using a computer program that renders
                                                                                                          rulemaking contains the following                     a three-dimensional representation of
                                                  technology or other equipment (that were                document, which provides more
                                                  identified and considered during                                                                              Earth based on satellite imagery to
                                                  development of the original MACT
                                                                                                          information on the risk assessment                    ensure the emission point locations
                                                  standards) that could result in additional              inputs and models: Residual Risk                      were correct. We also confirmed that
                                                  emissions reduction;                                    Assessment for the Leather Finishing                  each stack parameter was within
                                                     • Any work practice or operational                   Operations Source Category in Support                 acceptable QA range check boundaries.
                                                  procedure that was not identified or                    of the December 2017 Risk and                         For further information on the EPA’s
                                                  considered during development of the                    Technology Review Proposed Rule. The                  QA review, see the memorandum titled
                                                  original MACT standards;
                                                                                                          methods used to assess risks (as                      Leather Finishing: Residual Risk
                                                     • Any process change or pollution
                                                  prevention alternative that could be broadly            described in the eight primary steps                  Modeling File Supporting
                                                  applied to the industry and that was not                below) are consistent with those peer-                Documentation in the docket for this
                                                  identified or considered during development             reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB                  action.
                                                  of the original MACT standards; and                     in 2009 and described in their peer                   2. How did we estimate MACT-
                                                     • Any significant changes in the cost                review report issued in 2010 4; they are
                                                  (including cost effectiveness) of applying                                                                    allowable emissions?
                                                                                                          also consistent with the key
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  controls (including controls the EPA                                                                            The available emissions data used to
                                                  considered during the development of the
                                                                                                          recommendations contained in that
                                                                                                          report.                                               develop the RTR emissions dataset
                                                  original MACT standards).                                                                                     include estimates of the mass of HAP
                                                    In addition to reviewing the practices,                 4 U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review
                                                                                                                                                                emitted during a specified annual time
                                                  processes, and control technologies that                (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review
                                                                                                                                                                period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels
                                                  were considered at the time we                          by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case         are often lower than the emission levels
                                                  originally developed (or last updated)                  Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and         required to comply with the current
                                                  the NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of                    Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010.              MACT standards. The emissions level


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00008   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                            11321

                                                  allowed to be emitted by the MACT                       per 1,000 square feet of leather                      which yields a ratio of 4.63. Using these
                                                  standards is referred to as the ‘‘MACT-                 processed), the design production                     ratios, we estimated allowable organic
                                                  allowable’’ emissions level. We                         capacity of the leather finishing process             HAP emissions as the product of actual
                                                  discussed the use of both MACT-                         specified in the operating permit                     organic HAP emissions and the ratio.
                                                  allowable and actual emissions in the                   (16,200 square feet per hour), and the                For S.B. Foot, actual organic HAP
                                                  final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR                    annual operating schedule contained in                emissions are 16.18 tpy, which
                                                  19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the                 the 2014 NEI (2,000 hours per year).                  multiplied by 2.26 yields 36.5 tpy
                                                  proposed and final Hazardous Organic                    Given that we do not have actual                      allowable organic HAP emissions. Using
                                                  NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, June 14,                      production data for this leather                      this same method for Pearl Leather
                                                  2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21,                     finishing operation, we could not                     Finishers yields an allowable organic
                                                  2006, respectively). In those actions, we               calculate the MACT-allowable                          HAP emission level of 5.1 tpy.
                                                  noted that assessing the risks at the                   emissions level as described above.                   Allowable organic HAP emissions for
                                                  MACT-allowable level is inherently                      However, using design production                      the risk modeling file were estimated for
                                                  reasonable since these risks reflect the                capacity in place of actual production is             each facility by multiplying the actual
                                                  maximum level facilities could emit and                 a more conservative approach, yielding                organic HAP emission rates for each
                                                  still comply with national emission                     a higher estimate for allowable organic               emission release point, emission
                                                  standards. We also explained that it is                 HAP emissions. As further detailed in                 process, and emission unit combination
                                                  reasonable to consider actual emissions,                the memorandum cited above in this                    by the ratio. Refer to the memorandum
                                                  where such data are available, in both                  section, this approach yielded a total                cited above in this section for a detailed
                                                  steps of the risk analysis, in accordance               allowable annual HAP emission rate of                 discussion about these data sources and
                                                  with the Benzene NESHAP approach.                       60 tpy, equivalent to 118 times the                   calculations. We solicit comment on
                                                  (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).                      actual emission rate. Allowable organic               this proposed method of calculating
                                                     We used the RTR emissions dataset                    HAP emissions for the risk modeling file              allowable organic HAP emissions for
                                                  discussed in section III.C.1 of this                    were estimated by multiplying by 118                  S.B. Foot and Pearl Leather Finishers.
                                                  preamble to estimate allowable                          the actual organic HAP emission rates                    For Tasman Leather Group, LLC.,
                                                  emissions levels. The types and sources                 for each emission release point,                      allowable emissions were estimated
                                                  of data we used to estimate allowable                   emission process, and emission unit                   using the maximum HAP emissions
                                                  emissions vary by facility and leather                  combination.                                          allowed for area sources, which is 10
                                                  finishing operation type. Because the                      For S.B. Foot Tanning Co. and Pearl                tpy for all HAP emitted (refer to the
                                                  Leather Finishing NESHAP MACT                           Leather Finishers, Inc, we also do not                memorandum, Leather Finishing:
                                                  limits are production-based limits (i.e.,               have actual production data. Further,                 Residual Risk Modeling File Supporting
                                                  pounds HAP per square feet of leather                   S.B. Foot has multiple leather finishing              Documentation, in the docket for this
                                                  processed), estimating MACT-allowable                   operations, each subject to a different               action for further discussion on the
                                                  emissions for the Leather Finishing                     production-based NESHAP limit. To                     status of this facility as an area source).
                                                  Operations source category would be                     calculate the MACT-allowable                          Allowable emissions for organic HAP
                                                  accomplished by using the actual                        emissions level for each leather                      were set equivalent to this total annual
                                                  production level per leather finishing                  finishing operation at the facility, we               HAP emission limit of 10 tpy. Allowable
                                                  operation type to calculate emissions at                would need the actual production data                 organic HAP emissions for the risk
                                                  the MACT limit per leather finishing                    for each leather finishing operation.                 modeling file were estimated by
                                                  operation type. However, we do not                      Given our data limitations for these two              multiplying the actual organic HAP
                                                  have actual production data (quantity                   facilities, we identified an alternative              emission rate (as reported in the 2014
                                                  and type of leather) for each permitted                 approach for estimating allowable                     NEI) for each emission release point,
                                                  leather finishing operation because we                  emissions that was not available for                  emission process, and emission unit
                                                  did not petition facilities for this                    Alliance Leather. S.B. Foot and Pearl                 combination by a factor of 2.78, which
                                                  information with an information                         Leather Finishers are subject to                      is the ratio of allowable total HAP
                                                  collection request (ICR). As a result,                  permitted mass-based limits on volatile               emissions (10 tpy) to actual facility-
                                                  different methods for estimating                        organic compound(s) (VOC) emissions                   wide emissions of HAP (3.59 tpy). Refer
                                                  allowable emissions were warranted for                  in tpy. We determined that we could                   to the memorandum cited above in this
                                                  each facility and leather finishing                     use each facility’s permitted VOC limit               section for a detailed discussion about
                                                  operation type. This section provides a                 to estimate allowable organic HAP                     these data sources and calculations.
                                                  summary of our method for estimating                    emissions because all organic HAP                        We estimated allowable chromium
                                                  allowable emissions for each facility.                  emitted are VOC and, in the coating                   (III) emissions from buffing operations
                                                  Refer to the memorandum titled Leather                  formulations, there is little variation in            as follows. For S.B. Foot, the allowable
                                                  Finishing: Residual Risk Modeling File                  the ratio of total organic HAP to total               rate for each chromium-emitting
                                                  Supporting Documentation in the                         VOC. Using the ratio of each facility’s               emission release point was set equal to
                                                  docket for this action for a more detailed              permitted VOC emission limit to its                   the potential to emit value in the
                                                  discussion of the data and methods we                   reported 5 annual VOC emissions, we                   facility’s permit technical support
                                                  used to calculate allowable emissions                   estimated allowable organic HAP                       document (TSD), which is 0.319 tpy
                                                  for these facilities.                                   emissions as the product of actual                    chromium (III). No additional
                                                     For Alliance Leather, we estimated                   organic HAP emissions and this ratio.                 restrictions on chromium (III) emissions
                                                  allowable emissions for organic HAP                     For example, for S.B. Foot, permitted                 were identified. For Pearl Leather
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  using the Leather Finishing NESHAP                      VOC emissions are 200 tpy and reported                Finishers and Tasman Leather Group,
                                                  limit on total HAP emissions that is                    VOC emissions are 88.61 tpy, which                    we used emission factors presented in
                                                  specified in the facility’s permit, which               yields a ratio of 2.26. For Pearl Leather             the S.B. Foot permit TSD to estimate the
                                                  is 3.7 pounds of HAP emitted per 1,000                  Finishers, permitted VOC emissions are                allowable emission rate for each
                                                  square feet of leather processed. The                   194,180 pounds per year and reported                  chromium emission release point. For
                                                  facility’s total allowable annual HAP                   VOC emissions are 41,926 pounds,                      Pearl Leather Finishers, based on
                                                  emission rate was estimated to be the                                                                         communication with facility
                                                  product of this HAP limit (3.7 pounds                     5 Reported   to the 2014 NEI.                       representatives regarding average


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00009   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                  11322                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  production rate, design production                      is a library of meteorological data,                  UREs, where available. In cases where
                                                  capacity, and dust capture, and                         which is used for dispersion                          new, scientifically credible dose-
                                                  assuming a 90-percent control                           calculations. This library includes 1                 response values have been developed in
                                                  efficiency, we calculated an allowable                  year (2016) of hourly surface and upper               a manner consistent with the EPA
                                                  chromium (III) emission rate of 0.266                   air observations from 824                             guidelines and have undergone a peer
                                                  tpy. For Tasman Leather Group, based                    meteorological stations, selected to                  review process similar to that used by
                                                  on communication with facility                          provide coverage of the United States                 the EPA, we may use such dose-
                                                  representatives, we identified the design               and Puerto Rico. A second library of                  response values in place of, or in
                                                  capacity of each buffing operation and                  United States Census Bureau census                    addition to, other values, if appropriate.
                                                  established that four buffing operations                block 7 internal point locations and                     To estimate incremental individual
                                                  currently operate. Using this design                    populations provides the basis of                     lifetime cancer risks associated with
                                                  capacity, we calculated allowable                       human exposure calculations (U.S.                     emissions from the facilities in the
                                                  chromium emissions based on permit                      Census, 2010). In addition, for each                  source category, the EPA sums the risks
                                                  special conditions for the facility                     census block, the census library                      for each of the carcinogenic HAP 8
                                                  allowing the operation of 12 such                       includes the elevation and controlling                emitted by the modeled sources. Cancer
                                                  buffing units at any given time and                     hill height, which are also used in                   incidence and the distribution of
                                                  requiring a 90-percent particulate                      dispersion calculations. A third library              individual cancer risks for the
                                                  removal efficiency. Based on these                      of pollutant-specific dose-response                   population within 50 km of the sources
                                                  permitted conditions, we calculated an                  values is used to estimate health risks.              are also estimated for the source
                                                  allowable chromium (III) emission rate                  These dose-response values are the                    category by summing individual risks. A
                                                  of 4.98 tpy. Refer to the memorandum                    latest values recommended by the EPA                  distance of 50 km is consistent with
                                                  cited above in this section for a detailed              for HAP. They are available at https://               both the analysis supporting the 1989
                                                  discussion about these data sources and                 www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-                       Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044,
                                                  calculations. We identified no buffing                  assessment-assessing-health-risks-                    September 14, 1989) and the limitations
                                                  operations at Alliance Leather.                         associated-exposure-hazardous-air-                    of Gaussian dispersion models,
                                                     We solicit comment on our proposed                   pollutants and are discussed in more                  including AERMOD.
                                                  methods for estimating allowable                        detail later in this section.                         c. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
                                                  emissions. In addition to general
                                                                                                          b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP                  That May Cause Health Effects Other
                                                  comments on these proposed methods,
                                                                                                          That May Cause Cancer                                 Than Cancer
                                                  we are interested in additional data that
                                                  may improve our estimation of                              In developing the risk assessment for                 To assess the risk of noncancer health
                                                  allowable emissions.                                    chronic exposures, we use the estimated               effects from chronic exposure to HAP,
                                                                                                          annual average ambient air                            we calculate either an HQ or a target
                                                  3. How did we conduct dispersion                        concentrations of each HAP emitted by                 organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI).
                                                  modeling, determine inhalation                          each source for which we have                         We calculate an HQ when a single
                                                  exposures, and estimate individual and                  emissions data in the source category.                noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more
                                                  population inhalation risks?                            The air concentrations at each nearby                 than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we
                                                     Both long-term and short-term                        census block centroid are used as a                   sum the HQ for each of the HAP that
                                                  inhalation exposure concentrations and                  surrogate for the chronic inhalation                  affects a common target organ system to
                                                  health risks from the source category                   exposure concentration for all the                    obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the
                                                  addressed in this proposal were                         people who reside in that census block.               estimated exposure divided by the
                                                  estimated using the Human Exposure                      We calculate the MIR for each facility as             chronic noncancer dose-response value,
                                                  Model (HEM–3). The HEM–3 performs                       the cancer risk associated with a                     which is a value selected from one of
                                                  three primary risk assessment activities:               continuous lifetime (24 hours per day,                several sources. The preferred chronic
                                                  (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to                   7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, for               noncancer dose-response value is the
                                                  estimate the concentrations of HAP in                   a 70-year period) exposure to the                     EPA RfC (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_
                                                  ambient air, (2) estimating long-term                   maximum concentration at the centroid                 internet/registry/termreg/searchand
                                                  and short-term inhalation exposures to                  of inhabited census blocks. Individual                retrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/
                                                  individuals residing within 50                          cancer risks are calculated by
                                                  kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,                 multiplying the estimated lifetime                       8 EPA classifies carcinogens as: Carcinogenic to

                                                  and (3) estimating individual and                                                                             humans, likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and
                                                                                                          exposure to the ambient concentration                 suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.
                                                  population-level inhalation risks using                 of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic                  These classifications also coincide with the terms
                                                  the exposure estimates and quantitative                 meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE).               ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and
                                                  dose-response information.                              The URE is an upper bound estimate of                 possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the
                                                                                                                                                                terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for
                                                  a. Dispersion Modeling                                  an individual’s probability of                        Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51
                                                                                                          contracting cancer over a lifetime of                 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the
                                                     The air dispersion model AERMOD,                     exposure to a concentration of 1                      document Supplemental Guidance for Conducting
                                                  used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the                  microgram of the pollutant per cubic                  Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures
                                                  EPA’s preferred models for assessing air                meter of air. For residual risk
                                                                                                                                                                (EPA/630/R–00/002) was published as a
                                                  pollutant concentrations from industrial                                                                      supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both
                                                                                                          assessments, we generally use UREs                    documents can be obtained from https://
                                                  facilities.6 To perform the dispersion                  from the EPA’s Integrated Risk                        cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  modeling and to develop the                             Information System (IRIS). For                        20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944.
                                                  preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3                                                                             Summing the risks of these individual compounds
                                                                                                          carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS                  to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach
                                                  draws on three data libraries. The first                values, we look to other reputable                    that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their
                                                                                                          sources of cancer dose-response values,               2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics
                                                    6 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air                                                                Assessment (NATA) titled NATA—Evaluating the
                                                  Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General         often using California EPA (CalEPA)                   National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—
                                                  Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion                                                                 an SAB Advisory, available at http://
                                                  Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218,                   7 A census block is the smallest geographic area    yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915BB
                                                  November 9, 2005).                                      for which census statistics are tabulated.            04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00010   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                                 11323

                                                  search.do?details=&vocabName=                           exposure durations), if available, to                  milligrams per cubic meter) of a
                                                  IRIS%20Glossary), defined as ‘‘an                       calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is                   substance above which it is predicted
                                                  estimate (with uncertainty spanning                     calculated by dividing the estimated                   that the general population, including
                                                  perhaps an order of magnitude) of a                     acute exposure by the acute dose-                      susceptible individuals, could
                                                  continuous inhalation exposure to the                   response value. For each HAP for which                 experience irreversible or other serious,
                                                  human population (including sensitive                   acute dose-response values are                         long-lasting adverse health effects or an
                                                  subgroups) that is likely to be without                 available, the EPA calculates acute HQs.               impaired ability to escape.’’ Id.
                                                  an appreciable risk of deleterious effects                 An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the                       ERPGs are developed for emergency
                                                  during a lifetime.’’ In cases where an                  concentration level at or below which                  planning and are intended as health-
                                                  RfC from the EPA’s IRIS database is not                 no adverse health effects are anticipated              based guideline concentrations for
                                                  available or where the EPA determines                   for a specified exposure duration.’’ 10                single exposures to chemicals.’’ 12 Id. at
                                                  that using a value other than the RfC is                Acute RELs are based on the most                       1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the
                                                  appropriate, the chronic noncancer                      sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect             maximum airborne concentration below
                                                  dose-response value can be a value from                 reported in the peer-reviewed medical                  which it is believed that nearly all
                                                  the following prioritized sources, which                and toxicological literature. They are                 individuals could be exposed for up to
                                                  define their dose-response values                       designed to protect the most sensitive                 1 hour without experiencing other than
                                                  similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency for                individuals in the population through                  mild transient adverse health effects or
                                                  Toxic Substances and Disease Registry                   the inclusion of margins of safety.                    without perceiving a clearly defined,
                                                  (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (http://                     Because margins of safety are                          objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly,
                                                  www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2)                  incorporated to address data gaps and                  the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the
                                                  the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure                   uncertainties, exceeding the REL does                  maximum airborne concentration below
                                                  Level (REL) (http://oehha.ca.gov/air/                   not automatically indicate an adverse                  which it is believed that nearly all
                                                  crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-                    health impact. AEGLs represent                         individuals could be exposed for up to
                                                  spots-program-guidance-manual-                          threshold exposure limits for the general              one hour without experiencing or
                                                  preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as                  public and are applicable to emergency                 developing irreversible or other serious
                                                  noted above, a scientifically credible                  exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8                 health effects or symptoms which could
                                                  dose-response value that has been                       hours.11 They are guideline levels for                 impair an individual’s ability to take
                                                  developed in a manner consistent with                   ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term                       protective action.’’ Id. at 1.
                                                  the EPA guidelines and has undergone                    exposures to airborne concentrations of                   An acute REL for 1-hour exposure
                                                  a peer review process similar to that                   acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’              durations is typically lower than its
                                                  used by the EPA.                                        Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically                  corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1.
                                                                                                          defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration                Even though their definitions are
                                                  d. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP                      (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or
                                                  That May Cause Health Effects Other                                                                            slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the
                                                                                                          mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of                 same as the corresponding ERPG–1s,
                                                  Than Cancer                                             a substance above which it is predicted                and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG–
                                                     For each HAP for which appropriate                   that the general population, including                 2s. The maximum HQs from our acute
                                                  acute inhalation dose-response values                   susceptible individuals, could                         inhalation screening risk assessment
                                                  are available, the EPA also assesses the                experience notable discomfort,                         typically result when we use the acute
                                                  potential health risks due to acute                     irritation, or certain asymptomatic                    REL for a HAP. In cases where the
                                                  exposure. For these assessments, the                    nonsensory effects. However, the effects               maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also
                                                  EPA makes conservative assumptions                      are not disabling and are transient and                report the HQ based on the next highest
                                                  about emission rates, meteorology, and                  reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’               acute dose-response value (usually the
                                                  exposure location. We use the peak                      Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1                   AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1).
                                                  hourly emission rate,9 worst-case                       represent exposure levels that can                        For this source category, facility-
                                                  dispersion conditions, and, in                          produce mild and progressively                         specific actual emissions were used to
                                                  accordance with our mandate under                       increasing but transient and                           calculate peak hourly emissions in our
                                                  section 112 of the CAA, the point of                    nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory                  acute inhalation screening risk
                                                  highest off-site exposure to assess the                 irritation or certain asymptomatic,                    assessment. For each HAP emitted by a
                                                  potential risk to the maximally exposed                 nonsensory effects.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are                   facility, the peak hourly emission rate
                                                  individual.                                             defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration                was calculated by dividing the actual
                                                     To characterize the potential health                 (expressed as parts per million or                     annual emission rate by facility-specific
                                                  risks associated with estimated acute                                                                          annual operating hours and multiplying
                                                  inhalation exposures to a HAP, we                         10 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air
                                                                                                                                                                 this hourly rate by an acute emission
                                                  generally use multiple acute dose-                      Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-
                                                                                                          hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot           multiplier of 1.8. The multiplier was
                                                  response values, including acute RELs,                  Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I,      developed using U.S. census data
                                                  acute exposure guideline levels                         The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure
                                                                                                                                                                 reported in 2012 through 2017 for
                                                  (AEGLs), and emergency response                         Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at
                                                                                                          http://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-    leather finishing operations production
                                                  planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour                   hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-         capacity utilization over the period 2011
                                                                                                          summary.                                               through 2016. The multiplier was
                                                    9 In the absence of hourly emission data, we            11 National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2001.
                                                  develop estimates of peak hourly emission rates by      Standing Operating Procedures for Developing
                                                                                                                                                                 calculated as the ratio of the highest
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  multiplying the average actual annual emissions         Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals,
                                                  rates by a default factor (usually 10) to account for   page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/          12 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March

                                                  variability. This is documented in Residual Risk        production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_          2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association.
                                                  Assessment for the Leather Finishing Operations         standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that      Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/
                                                  Source Category in Support of the December 2017         the National Advisory Committee for Acute              AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse
                                                  Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in         Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous                PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20
                                                  Appendix 5 of the report: Analysis of Data on           Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL         Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20
                                                  Short-term Emission Rates Relative to Long-term         program continues to operate at the EPA and works      Procedures%20%20-%20March%20
                                                  Emission Rates. Both are available in the docket for    with the National Academies to publish final           2014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-
                                                  this rulemaking.                                        AEGLs, (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).                     2014%29.pdf.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00011   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                  11324                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  production rate capacity use factor                     significant human health risks due to                 the screening assessment are
                                                  (87.5) to the lowest production rate                    exposures via routes other than                       hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen
                                                  capacity use factor (46.6). Emissions                   inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first                fluoride (HF).
                                                  from leather finishing operations are                   determined whether any sources in the                    HAP that persist and bioaccumulate
                                                  primarily from coatings operations. The                 source category emitted any HAP                       are of particular environmental concern
                                                  production capacity of leather finishing                known to be persistent and                            because they accumulate in the soil,
                                                  operations is constrained by the amount                 bioaccumulative in the environment                    sediment, and water. The acid gases,
                                                  of time it takes to apply and cure                      (PB–HAP), as identified in the EPA’s Air              HCl and HF, were included due to their
                                                  coatings, and machines are running                      Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See                   well-documented potential to cause
                                                  more or less continuously, which gives                  Volume 1, Appendix D, at http://                      direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
                                                  a smooth temporal profile and, thus, a                  www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-                    environmental risk screening
                                                  low emission adjustment factor.                         and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-                         assessment, we evaluate the following
                                                  Consequently, actual emissions and                      assessment-reference-library).                        four exposure media: Terrestrial soils,
                                                  acute hourly emissions will be similar,                   For the Leather Finishing Operations                surface water bodies (includes water-
                                                  and the selected adjustment factor of 1.8               source category, we did not identify                  column and benthic sediments), fish
                                                  was selected over the default adjustment                emissions of any PB–HAP. Because we                   consumed by wildlife, and air. Within
                                                  factor of 10. The description of how                    did not identify PB–HAP emissions, no                 these four exposure media, we evaluate
                                                  peak hourly emissions were calculated                   further evaluation of multipathway risk               nine ecological assessment endpoints,
                                                  and additional information regarding                    was conducted for this source category.               which are defined by the ecological
                                                  operating hours at each facility in the                                                                       entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP
                                                  source category can be found in                         5. How did we assess risks considering                (other than lead), both community-level
                                                  Appendix 1—Emissions Inventory                          emissions control options?                            and population-level endpoints are
                                                  Support Document of the document                           While emission control technologies                included. For acid gases, the ecological
                                                  titled Residual Risk Assessment for the                 were considered, the analysis                         assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant
                                                  Leather Finishing Operations Source                     determined the available control                      communities.
                                                  Category in Support of the December                     technologies were not cost effective for                 An ecological benchmark represents a
                                                  2017 Risk and Technology Review                         reducing HAP emissions from leather                   concentration of HAP that has been
                                                  Proposed Rule in the docket for this                    finishing operations. Therefore, we did               linked to a particular environmental
                                                  rulemaking.                                             not assess risk on the emission control               effect level. For each environmental
                                                     In our acute inhalation screening risk               options. For more information regarding               HAP, we identified the available
                                                  assessment, acute impacts are deemed                    analysis of available control                         ecological benchmarks for each
                                                  negligible for HAP where acute HQs are                  technologies, see the memorandum,                     assessment endpoint. We identified,
                                                  less than or equal to 1 (even under the                 CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology                      where possible, ecological benchmarks
                                                  conservative assumptions of the                         Review for the Leather Finishing Source               at the following effect levels: Probable
                                                  screening assessment), and no further                   Category, which is available in the                   effect levels, lowest-observed-adverse-
                                                  analysis is performed for these HAP. In                 docket for this action.                               effect level, and no-observed-adverse-
                                                  cases where an acute HQ from the                                                                              effect level. In cases where multiple
                                                  screening step is greater than 1, we                    6. How did we conduct the                             effect levels were available for a
                                                  consider additional site-specific data to               environmental risk screening                          particular PB–HAP and assessment
                                                  develop a more refined estimate of the                  assessment?                                           endpoint, we use all of the available
                                                  potential for acute impacts of concern.                 a. Adverse Environmental Effects,                     effect levels to help us to determine
                                                  For this source category, the data                      Environmental HAP, and Ecological                     whether ecological risks exist and, if so,
                                                  refinements employed consisted of                       Benchmarks                                            whether the risks could be considered
                                                  ensuring the locations where the                                                                              significant and widespread.
                                                  maximum HQ occurred were off facility                     The EPA conducts a screening                           For the Leather Finishing Operations
                                                  property and where the public could                     assessment to examine the potential for               source category, we did not identify
                                                  potentially be exposed. Also in                         adverse environmental effects as                      emissions of any PB–HAP. Because we
                                                  estimating acute risks for the Leather                  required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of                did not identify PB–HAP emissions, no
                                                  Finishing Operations source category,                   the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA                 further evaluation of ecological impacts
                                                  we employed the following data                          defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’              was conducted for this source category.
                                                  refinements in calculating peak hourly                  as ‘‘any significant and widespread                      For further information on how the
                                                  emissions, as described above in this                   adverse effect, which may reasonably be               environmental risk screening
                                                  section: Used facility-specific operating               anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or            assessment was conducted, including a
                                                  hour data and developed an industry-                    other natural resources, including                    discussion of the risk metrics used, how
                                                  specific multiplier based on industry-                  adverse impacts on populations of                     the environmental HAP were identified,
                                                  specific U.S. census data. These                        endangered or threatened species or                   and how the ecological benchmarks
                                                  refinements are discussed more fully in                 significant degradation of                            were selected, see Appendix 9 of the
                                                  the Residual Risk Assessment for the                    environmental quality over broad                      Residual Risk Assessment for Leather
                                                  Leather Finishing Operations Source                     areas.’’                                              Finishing Operations Source Category in
                                                  Category in Support of the December                       The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which                 Support of the Risk and Technology
                                                  2017 Risk and Technology Review                         are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’             Review December 2017 Proposed Rule,
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  Proposed Rule, which is available in the                in its screening assessment: Six PB–                  which is available in the docket for this
                                                  docket for this action.                                 HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP                    action.
                                                                                                          included in the screening assessment
                                                  4. How did we conduct the                               are arsenic compounds, cadmium                        b. Environmental Risk Screening
                                                  multipathway exposure and risk                          compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic                 Methodology
                                                  screening assessment?                                   organic matter, mercury (both inorganic                  For the environmental risk screening
                                                     The EPA conducted a tiered screening                 mercury and methyl mercury), and lead                 assessment, the EPA first determined
                                                  assessment examining the potential for                  compounds. The acid gases included in                 whether any facilities in the Leather


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00012   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                            11325

                                                  Finishing Operations source category                    used conservative tools and                           underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not
                                                  emitted any of the environmental HAP.                   assumptions, ensures that our decisions               including building downwash). Other
                                                  For this source category, we did not                    are health and environmentally                        options that we select have the potential
                                                  identify emissions of any of the eight                  protective. A brief discussion of the                 to either under- or overestimate ambient
                                                  environmental HAP included in the                       uncertainties in the RTR emissions                    levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor
                                                  screen. Because we did not identify                     dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation              locations). On balance, considering the
                                                  environmental HAP emissions, no                         exposure estimates, and dose-response                 directional nature of the uncertainties
                                                  further evaluation of environmental risk                relationships follows below. Also                     commonly present in ambient
                                                  was conducted.                                          included are those uncertainties specific             concentrations estimated by dispersion
                                                                                                          to our acute screening assessments,                   models, the approach we apply in the
                                                  7. How did we conduct facility-wide
                                                                                                          multipathway screening assessments,                   RTR assessments should yield unbiased
                                                  assessments?
                                                                                                          and our environmental risk screening                  estimates of ambient HAP
                                                     To put the source category risks in                  assessments. A more thorough                          concentrations. We also note that the
                                                  context, we typically examine the risks                 discussion of these uncertainties is                  selection of meteorology dataset
                                                  from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the                 included in the Residual Risk                         location could have an impact on the
                                                  facility includes all HAP-emitting                      Assessment for the Leather Finishing                  risk estimates. As we continue to update
                                                  operations within a contiguous area and                 Operations Source Category in Support                 and expand our library of
                                                  under common control. In other words,                   of the Risk and Technology Review                     meteorological station data used in our
                                                  we examine the HAP emissions not only                   December 2017 Proposed Rule, which is                 risk assessments, we expect to reduce
                                                  from the source category emission                       available in the docket for this action. If           this variability.
                                                  points of interest, but also emissions of               a multipathway site-specific assessment
                                                  HAP from all other emission sources at                                                                        c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
                                                                                                          was performed for this source category,
                                                  the facility for which we have data.                                                                          Assessment
                                                                                                          a full discussion of the uncertainties
                                                     For this source category, we                         associated with that assessment can be                   Although every effort is made to
                                                  conducted the facility-wide assessment                  found in Appendix 11 of that document,                identify all of the relevant facilities and
                                                  using a dataset that the EPA compiled                   Site-Specific Human Health                            emission points, as well as to develop
                                                  from the 2014 NEI. We used the NEI                      Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment                 accurate estimates of the annual
                                                  data for the facility and did not adjust                Report.                                               emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
                                                  any category or ‘‘non-category’’ data.                                                                        uncertainties in our emission inventory
                                                  Therefore, there could be differences in                a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions                 likely dominate the uncertainties in the
                                                  the dataset from that used for the source               Dataset                                               exposure assessment. Some
                                                  category assessments described in this                     Although the development of the RTR                uncertainties in our exposure
                                                  preamble. We analyzed risks due to the                  emissions dataset involved QA/quality                 assessment include human mobility,
                                                  inhalation of HAP that are emitted                      control processes, the accuracy of                    using the centroid of each census block,
                                                  ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations                   emissions values will vary depending                  assuming lifetime exposure, and
                                                  residing within 50 km of each facility,                 on the source of the data, the degree to              assuming only outdoor exposures. For
                                                  consistent with the methods used for                    which data are incomplete or missing,                 most of these factors, there is neither an
                                                  the source category analysis described                  the degree to which assumptions made                  under nor overestimate when looking at
                                                  above. For these facility-wide risk                     to complete the datasets are accurate,                the maximum individual risks or the
                                                  analyses, we made a reasonable attempt                  errors in emission estimates, and other               incidence, but the shape of the
                                                  to identify the source category risks, and              factors. The emission estimates                       distribution of risks may be affected.
                                                  these risks were compared to the                        considered in this analysis generally are             With respect to outdoor exposures,
                                                  facility-wide risks to determine the                    annual totals for certain years, and they             actual exposures may not be as high if
                                                  portion of facility-wide risks that could               do not reflect short-term fluctuations                people spend time indoors, especially
                                                  be attributed to the source category                    during the course of a year or variations             for very reactive pollutants or larger
                                                  addressed in this proposal. We also                     from year to year. The estimates of peak              particles. For all factors, we reduce
                                                  specifically examined the facility that                 hourly emission rates for the acute                   uncertainty when possible. For
                                                  was associated with the highest estimate                effects screening assessment were based               example, with respect to census-block
                                                  of risk and determined the percentage of                on an emission adjustment factor                      centroids, we analyze large blocks using
                                                  that risk attributable to the source                    applied to the average annual hourly                  aerial imagery and adjust locations of
                                                  category of interest. The Residual Risk                 emission rates, which are intended to                 the block centroids to better represent
                                                  Assessment for the Leather Finishing                    account for emission fluctuations due to              the population in the blocks. We also
                                                  Operations Source Category in Support                   normal facility operations.                           add additional receptor locations where
                                                  of the Risk and Technology Review                                                                             the population of a block is not well
                                                                                                          b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
                                                  December 2017 Proposed Rule, available                                                                        represented by a single location.
                                                  through the docket for this action,                        We recognize there is uncertainty in
                                                                                                          ambient concentration estimates                       d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response
                                                  provides the methodology and results of
                                                                                                          associated with any model, including                  Relationships
                                                  the facility-wide analyses, including all
                                                  facility-wide risks and the percentage of               the EPA’s recommended regulatory                        There are uncertainties inherent in
                                                  source category contribution to facility-               dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a                  the development of the dose-response
                                                  wide risks.                                             model to estimate ambient pollutant                   values used in our risk assessments for
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                                                                          concentrations, the user chooses certain              cancer effects from chronic exposures
                                                  8. How did we consider uncertainties in                 options to apply. For RTR assessments,                and noncancer effects from both chronic
                                                  risk assessment?                                        we select some model options that have                and acute exposures. Some
                                                     Uncertainty and the potential for bias               the potential to overestimate ambient air             uncertainties are generally expressed
                                                  are inherent in all risk assessments,                   concentrations (e.g., not including                   quantitatively, and others are generally
                                                  including those performed for this                      plume depletion or pollutant                          expressed in qualitative terms. We note,
                                                  proposal. Although uncertainty exists,                  transformation). We select other model                as a preface to this discussion, a point
                                                  we believe that our approach, which                     options that have the potential to                    on dose-response uncertainty that is


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00013   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                  11326                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  stated in the EPA’s 2005 Cancer                         dose-response values at different levels              risk. Similarly, for an individual
                                                  Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary                  of severity should be factored into the               compound in a group (e.g., ethylene
                                                  goal of EPA actions is protection of                    risk characterization as potential                    glycol diethyl ether) that does not have
                                                  human health; accordingly, as an                        uncertainties.                                        a specified dose-response value, we also
                                                  Agency policy, risk assessment                             Uncertainty also exists in the                     apply the most protective dose-response
                                                  procedures, including default options                   selection of ecological benchmarks for                value from the other compounds in the
                                                  that are used in the absence of scientific              the environmental risk screening                      group to estimate risk.
                                                  data to the contrary, should be health                  assessment. We established a hierarchy
                                                  protective’’ (EPA’s 2005 Cancer                         of preferred benchmark sources to allow               e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation
                                                  Guidelines, pages 1–7). This is the                     selection of benchmarks for each                      Screening Assessments
                                                  approach followed here as summarized                    environmental HAP at each ecological                    In addition to the uncertainties
                                                  in the next paragraphs.                                 assessment endpoint. We searched for                  highlighted above, there are several
                                                     Cancer UREs used in our risk                         benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e.,             factors specific to the acute exposure
                                                  assessments are those that have been                    no-effects level, threshold-effect level,             assessment that the EPA conducts as
                                                  developed to generally provide an upper                 and probable effect level), but not all               part of the risk review under section 112
                                                  bound estimate of risk. That is, they                   combinations of ecological assessment/                of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute
                                                  represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the              environmental HAP had benchmarks for                  inhalation exposure assessment
                                                  true value of a quantity’’ (although this               all three effect levels. Where multiple               depends on the simultaneous
                                                  is usually not a true statistical                       effect levels were available for a                    occurrence of independent factors that
                                                  confidence limit).13 In some                            particular HAP and assessment                         may vary greatly, such as hourly
                                                  circumstances, the true risk could be as                endpoint, we used all of the available                emissions rates, meteorology, and the
                                                  low as zero; however, in other                          effect levels to help us determine                    presence of humans at the location of
                                                  circumstances the risk could be                         whether risk exists and whether the risk              the maximum concentration. In the
                                                  greater.14 Chronic noncancer RfC and                    could be considered significant and                   acute screening assessment that we
                                                  reference dose (RfD) values represent                   widespread.                                           conduct under the RTR program, we
                                                  chronic exposure levels that are                           Although every effort is made to                   assume that peak emissions from the
                                                  intended to be health-protective levels.                identify appropriate human health effect              source category and worst-case
                                                  To derive dose-response values that are                 dose-response values for all pollutants               meteorological conditions co-occur,
                                                  intended to be ‘‘without appreciable                    emitted by the sources in this risk                   thus, resulting in maximum ambient
                                                  risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an                  assessment, some HAP emitted by this                  concentrations. These two events are
                                                  uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S.                  source category are lacking dose-                     unlikely to occur at the same time,
                                                  EPA, 1993 and 1994) which considers                     response assessments. Accordingly,                    making these assumptions conservative.
                                                  uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the               these pollutants cannot be included in                We then include the additional
                                                  available data. The UFs are applied to                  the quantitative risk assessment, which               assumption that a person is located at
                                                  derive dose-response values that are                    could result in quantitative estimates                this point during this same time period.
                                                  intended to protect against appreciable                 understating HAP risk. To help to                     For this source category, these
                                                  risk of deleterious effects.                            alleviate this potential underestimate,               assumptions would tend to be worst-
                                                     Many of the UFs used to account for                  where we conclude similarity with a                   case actual exposures as it is unlikely
                                                  variability and uncertainty in the                      HAP for which a dose-response value is                that a person would be located at the
                                                  development of acute dose-response                      available, we use that value as a                     point of maximum exposure during the
                                                  values are quite similar to those                       surrogate for the assessment of the HAP               time when peak emissions and worst-
                                                  developed for chronic durations.                        for which no value is available. To the
                                                  Additional adjustments are often                                                                              case meteorological conditions occur
                                                                                                          extent use of surrogates indicates                    simultaneously.
                                                  applied to account for uncertainty in                   appreciable risk, we may identify a need
                                                  extrapolation from observations at one                  to increase priority for an IRIS                      IV. Analytical Results and Proposed
                                                  exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to                    assessment for that substance. We                     Decisions
                                                  derive an acute dose-response value at                  additionally note that, generally
                                                  another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour).                                                                     A. What are the results of the risk
                                                                                                          speaking, HAP of greatest concern due                 assessment and analyses?
                                                  Not all acute dose-response values are                  to environmental exposures and hazard
                                                  developed for the same purpose, and                     are those for which dose-response                        We present results of the Leather
                                                  care must be taken when interpreting                    assessments have been performed,                      Finishing Operations source category
                                                  the results of an acute assessment of                   reducing the likelihood of understating               risk assessment briefly below and in
                                                  human health effects relative to the                    risk. Further, HAP not included in the                more detail in the residual risk
                                                  dose-response value or values being                     quantitative assessment are assessed                  document, Residual Risk Assessment for
                                                  exceeded. Where relevant to the                                                                               the Leather Finishing Operations Source
                                                                                                          qualitatively and considered in the risk
                                                  estimated exposures, the lack of acute                                                                        Category in Support of the December
                                                                                                          characterization that informs the risk
                                                                                                          management decisions, including                       2017 Risk and Technology Review
                                                    13 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_
                                                                                                          consideration of HAP reductions                       Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
                                                  internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/
                                                  glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=            achieved by various control options.                  action.
                                                  &glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).                            For a group of compounds that are                  1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                    14 An exception to this is the URE for benzene,
                                                                                                          unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we
                                                  which is considered to cover a range of values, each                                                             Table 2 of this preamble provides a
                                                  end of which is considered to be equally plausible,
                                                                                                          conservatively use the most protective
                                                  and which is based on maximum likelihood                dose-response value of an individual                  summary of the results of the inhalation
                                                  estimates.                                              compound in that group to estimate                    risk assessment for the source category.




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00014   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                                         11327

                                                                                   TABLE 2—LEATHER FINISHING OPERATIONS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS
                                                                                 Maximum                      Estimated population               Estimated                       Maximum                 Maximum screening
                                                                                 individual                        at increased                annual cancer                      chronic               acute non-cancer HQ 4
                                                                                cancer risk                       risk of cancer                 incidence                      non-cancer
                                                                              (in 1 million) 2                   ≥ 1-in-1 million             (cases per year)                   TOSHI 3
                                                   Number of
                                                   facilities 1       Based on          Based on            Based on         Based on     Based on        Based on      Based on        Based on           Based on actual
                                                                       actual           allowable            actual          allowable     actual          actual        actual         allowable          emissions level
                                                                      emissions         emissions           emissions        emissions    emissions       emissions     emissions       emissions
                                                                       level 2             level             level 2            level       level           level         level            level

                                                  4 ...............       0                      0                0             0             0               0            0.04              0.3    HQREL = 3 (propyl cellosolve
                                                                                                                                                                                                     and glycol ethers)
                                                     1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
                                                     2 Maximum  individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
                                                     3 Maximum  TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Leather Finishing Operations source category is the reproductive target organ.
                                                    4 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown
                                                  use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute
                                                  dose-response value.


                                                     The results of the inhalation risk                                 HAP emissions from this source                            within 5 km of facilities in the source
                                                  modeling using actual emissions data,                                 category.                                                 category is greater than the
                                                  as shown in Table 2 of this preamble,                                                                                           corresponding national percentage for
                                                                                                                        4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
                                                  indicate the maximum chronic                                                                                                    the same demographic groups. When
                                                  noncancer TOSHI value could be up to                                     There are no ‘‘environmental HAP’’                     examining the risk levels of those
                                                  0.04. While we would have estimated                                   emitted by facilities in this source                      exposed to emissions from leather
                                                  incremental individual lifetime cancer                                category. Therefore, we do not expect an                  finishing operations, we find that no
                                                  risks as discussed in section III.C.3.b of                            adverse environmental effect as a result                  one is exposed to a cancer risk at or
                                                  this preamble, there were no                                          of HAP emissions from this source                         above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic
                                                  carcinogenic HAP emissions from this                                  category.                                                 noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
                                                  source category, so the maximum                                                                                                    The methodology and the results of
                                                                                                                        5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
                                                  lifetime individual cancer risk is 0 and                                                                                        the demographic analysis are presented
                                                                                                                           An assessment of risk from facility-                   in a technical report, Risk and
                                                  the total estimated national cancer
                                                                                                                        wide emissions was performed to                           Technology Review—Analysis of
                                                  incidence from these facilities based on
                                                                                                                        provide context for the source category                   Demographic Factors for Populations
                                                  actual emission levels is no excess
                                                                                                                        risks. Using the NEI data described in                    Living Near Leather Finishing
                                                  cancer cases per year.
                                                                                                                        sections II.C and III.C of this preamble,                 Operations, available in the docket for
                                                  2. Acute Risk Results                                                 the maximum cancer risk in the facility-                  this action.
                                                                                                                        wide assessment was 0.09-in-1 million
                                                     Table 2 of this preamble indicates that                            and the maximum chronic noncancer HI                      B. What are our proposed decisions
                                                  for the Leather Finishing Operations                                  index was 0.1 (for the reproductive                       regarding risk acceptability, ample
                                                  source category, the maximum HQ is 3,                                 system), both driven by emissions from                    margin of safety, and adverse
                                                  driven by propyl cellosolve and glycol                                external combustion boilers.                              environmental effects?
                                                  ethers. The only acute dose-response                                                                                            1. Risk Acceptability
                                                  value for propyl cellosolve and glycol                                6. What demographic groups might
                                                                                                                        benefit from this regulation?                                We weigh all health risk factors in our
                                                  ethers is the REL; therefore, only the
                                                                                                                           To examine the potential for any                       risk acceptability determination,
                                                  HQREL is provided. Refinement of the
                                                                                                                        environmental justice issues that might                   including the cancer MIR, the number of
                                                  acute risk results was performed using
                                                                                                                        be associated with the source category,                   persons in various cancer and non-
                                                  aerial photos to ensure that the location
                                                                                                                        we performed a demographic analysis,                      cancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the
                                                  where the maximum risk was projected
                                                                                                                        which is an assessment of risks to                        maximum non-cancer TOSHI, the
                                                  to occur was, in fact, a location where
                                                                                                                        individual demographic groups of the                      maximum acute non-cancer HQ, the
                                                  the general public could be exposed.
                                                                                                                        populations living within 5 km and                        extent of non-cancer risks, the
                                                  The result of this refinement confirmed
                                                                                                                        within 50 km of the facilities. In the                    distribution of cancer and non-cancer
                                                  that the maximum acute risk result
                                                                                                                        analysis, we evaluated the distribution                   risks in the exposed population, and
                                                  occurred where the public could                                                                                                 risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR
                                                  potentially be exposed. This refinement,                              of HAP-related cancer and noncancer
                                                                                                                        risks from the Leather Finishing                          38044, September 14, 1989).
                                                  therefore, had no impact on the                                                                                                    For the Leather Finishing Operations
                                                  maximum HQ. For more detailed acute                                   Operations source category across
                                                                                                                                                                                  source category, the risk analysis
                                                  risk results refer to the draft residual                              different demographic groups within the
                                                                                                                                                                                  indicates that the cancer risks to the
                                                  risk document, Residual Risk                                          populations living near facilities.15
                                                                                                                                                                                  individual most exposed are below 1-in-
                                                  Assessment for the Leather Finishing                                     Results of the demographic analysis
                                                                                                                                                                                  1 million from both actual and
                                                  Operations Source Category in Support                                 indicate that, for 1 of the 11
                                                                                                                                                                                  allowable emissions. These risks are
                                                  of the December 2017 Risk and                                         demographic groups, Ages 65 and up,
                                                                                                                                                                                  considerably less than 100-in-1 million,
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  Technology Review Proposed Rule, in                                   the percentage of the population living
                                                                                                                                                                                  which is the presumptive upper limit of
                                                  the docket for this action.                                                                                                     acceptable risk. The risk analysis also
                                                                                                                          15 Demographic groups included in the analysis

                                                  3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results                                are: White, African American, Native American,            shows no cancer incidence, as well as
                                                                                                                        other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino,          maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI
                                                    There are no PB–HAP emitted by                                      children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64       value of 0.04, which is significantly
                                                                                                                        years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults
                                                  facilities in this source category.                                   without a high school diploma, people living below
                                                                                                                                                                                  below 1. In addition, the risk assessment
                                                  Therefore, we do not expect any human                                 the poverty level, people living two times the            indicates no significant potential for
                                                  health multipathway risks as a result of                              poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.        multi-pathway health effects. The acute


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014        18:36 Mar 13, 2018           Jkt 244001   PO 00000    Frm 00015   Fmt 4701    Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM    14MRP2


                                                  11328                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  non-cancer risks indicate a maximum                     Therefore, we do not expect there to be               and bioscrubbers among others. The use
                                                  HQ of 3.                                                an adverse environmental effect as a                  of a concentrator was identified by our
                                                    Considering all the health risk                       result of HAP emissions from this                     review of residual risk standards. The
                                                  information and factors discussed                       source category, and we are proposing                 technology review conducted for the
                                                  above, including the uncertainties, we                  that it is not necessary to promulgate a              Ship Building and Ship Repair source
                                                  propose to find that the risks from the                 more stringent standard to prevent an                 category identified the use of a
                                                  Leather Finishing Operations source                     adverse environmental effect, taking                  concentrator, combined with an RTO, to
                                                  category are acceptable.                                into consideration costs, energy, safety,             control emissions from spray booths (75
                                                  2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis                      and other relevant factors.                           FR 80239). A concentrator uses an
                                                                                                            For the reasons above, we are not                   adsorbent to remove organic pollutants
                                                     Although we are proposing that the                   proposing to make any amendments to                   from an exhaust stream. Those
                                                  risks from the Leather Finishing                        the existing NESHAP pursuant to CAA                   pollutants are then desorbed from the
                                                  Operations source category are                          section 112(f)(2).                                    adsorbent material using a stream much
                                                  acceptable, risk estimates indicate the                                                                       smaller in volume than the original
                                                  maximum acute non-cancer HQ                             C. What are the results and proposed
                                                                                                          decisions based on our technology                     exhaust stream. This lower flow rate
                                                  screening estimate was greater than 1,                                                                        stream is then directed to an RTO to
                                                  driven by emissions of propyl cellosolve                review?
                                                                                                                                                                destroy the desorbed pollutants. By
                                                  and glycol ethers and based on                             As described in section III.B of this              using a concentrator, the resulting low
                                                  allowable emissions, as further                         preamble, our technology review                       flow rate, higher pollutant concentration
                                                  discussed in section IV.A.2 of this                     focused on identifying developments in                stream is more economical to treat in an
                                                  preamble. We considered options for                     the practices, processes, and control                 RTO than a high volume low
                                                  further reducing gaseous organic HAP                    technologies for the Leather Finishing                concentration stream. The economics of
                                                  emissions from leather finishing                        Operations source category. The EPA                   operating a biological treatment unit
                                                  operations. The greatest reduction in                   reviewed various information sources                  could also potentially be improved in a
                                                  organic HAP emissions that could be                     regarding emissions sources that are                  similar manner by use of a concentrator.
                                                  achieved for these operations would                     currently regulated by the Leather                       We evaluated the annual cost and
                                                  result from use of a concentrator                       Finishing NESHAP, which include, but                  emissions reductions of using biological
                                                  followed by a regenerative thermal                      are not limited to, coating and spraying              treatment to reduce HAP emissions at
                                                  oxidizer (RTO), which we estimate                       equipment, coating storage and mixing,                each of the four leather finishing
                                                  would remove 98 percent of organic                      and dryers.                                           operations subject to the Leather
                                                  HAP emissions. Biological treatment                        As discussed further in sections II.C              Finishing NESHAP. Annual costs for
                                                  together with use of a concentrator                     and D of this preamble, we conducted                  each facility ranged from $43,000 to
                                                  would achieve 84-percent removal of                     a search of the RBLC, other regulatory                $417,000 per year for a total of
                                                  organic HAP emissions. Section IV.C of                  actions (MACT standards, area source                  approximately $840,000 for the
                                                  this preamble discusses the costs and                   standards, and residual risk standards)               industry. Assuming a control efficiency
                                                  impacts associated with use of these                    since the 2002 Leather Finishing                      of 85 percent, HAP emissions would be
                                                  control technologies. The resulting cost-               NESHAP, literature related to research                reduced by approximately 0.43 tpy for
                                                  effectiveness values for operating the                  conducted for emission reductions from                the facility with the smallest projected
                                                  concentrator followed by a RTO and for                  leather finishing operations emission                 reduction to 14 tpy for the facility with
                                                  operating the concentrator plus                         sources, and state permits.                           the largest projected reduction, for a
                                                  biological treatment are $54,000 and                       We reviewed these data sources for                 cumulative total of 18 tpy for the four
                                                  $62,000 per ton of HAP removed,                         information on add-on control                         facilities subject to the Leather
                                                  respectively. Due to our determinations                 technologies, other treatment units,                  Finishing NESHAP. To install biological
                                                  that cancer risks are below 1-in-1                      work practices, procedures, and process               treatment at each facility, the resulting
                                                  million and that the maximum chronic                    alternatives that were not considered                 cost effectiveness ranged from $30,000
                                                  noncancer TOSHI value is below 1,                       during the development of the Leather                 to $110,000 per ton of HAP reduced.
                                                  uncertainties associated with the acute                 Finishing NESHAP. We also looked for                  Considering the high costs per ton of
                                                  screening risk estimate (refer to the risk              information on improvements in add-on                 HAP reduced associated with the
                                                  report titled Residual Risk Assessment                  control technology, other treatment                   installation of biological treatment, we
                                                  for the Leather Finishing Operations                    units, work practices, procedures, and                did not consider this technology to be
                                                  Source Category in Support of the                       process changes or pollution prevention               cost effective for further reducing HAP
                                                  December 2017 Risk and Technology                       alternatives that have occurred since                 emissions from leather finishing
                                                  Review Proposed Rule in the docket for                  development of the Leather Finishing                  operations.
                                                  this action), and the substantial costs                 NESHAP.                                                  During proposal of the Leather
                                                  associated with the control options, we                    After reviewing information from the               Finishing NESHAP, we considered the
                                                  are proposing that additional standards                 aforementioned sources, we identified                 use of an RTO to control HAP emissions
                                                  for this source category are not required               two control technologies for further                  from leather finishing operations as a
                                                  to provide an ample margin of safety to                 evaluation that are technically feasible              ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ option; however, we
                                                  protect public health, and that the                     for use at leather finishing operations,              rejected it because of a significantly
                                                  current standards provide an ample                      but were not investigated during the                  higher cost per ton of emissions
                                                  margin of safety to protect public health.              original rule development: biological                 reductions (65 FR 58706). Our
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                                                                          treatment and concentrators. Biological               technology review revealed the use of a
                                                  3. Adverse Environmental Effects                        treatment was identified as a result of               concentrator in addition to an RTO as a
                                                     We did not identify emissions of any                 our literature review. In biological                  potential improvement in add-on
                                                  of the eight environmental HAP                          treatment, organic pollutants are                     control technology. We evaluated the
                                                  included in our environmental risk                      converted to water and carbon dioxide                 annual cost and emissions reductions of
                                                  screening, and we are unaware of any                    after being consumed as food by                       using a rotary concentrator combined
                                                  adverse environmental effects caused by                 microbes. Biological treatment can                    with an RTO and, as an alternative, a
                                                  HAP emitted by this source category.                    include biofilters, bio-trickling filters,            rotary concentrator combined with a


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00016   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                           11329

                                                  biological treatment unit for a model                   efficiency of performance test data                   intent that the standards apply at all
                                                  facility. Our analysis evaluated the                    submittal while improving data                        times, and to ensure that the subpart
                                                  annual costs of only the rotary                         accessibility through the use of                      requirements are consistent with the
                                                  concentrator on the basis that if                       electronic data reporting. Finally, we are            court decision cited above, we are
                                                  operation of the concentrator is not cost               proposing clarifications to the                       proposing to unincorporate all General
                                                  effective, then operating both the                      regulatory text. Our analyses and                     Provisions related to the SSM
                                                  concentrator and an RTO or biological                   proposed changes related to these issues              exemption and move any applicable
                                                  treatment unit is also not cost effective.              are discussed below.                                  portion of these General Provisions to
                                                  We calculated a total annual cost of                                                                          the NESHAP.
                                                                                                          1. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction                    As is explained in more detail below,
                                                  operating the rotary concentrator of
                                                                                                          Requirements                                          we are proposing two revisions to the
                                                  approximately $284,000 per year.
                                                  Applying a control efficiency of 98                        In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v.             General Provisions table to subpart
                                                  percent for the rotary concentrator and                 EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the              TTTT to eliminate two General
                                                  RTO, we calculated annual HAP                           Court vacated portions of two                         Provisions that include rule language
                                                  emission reductions of 5.2 tpy.                         provisions in the EPA’s CAA section                   providing an exemption for periods of
                                                  Assuming a control efficiency of 84                     112 regulations governing the emissions               SSM. Additionally, we are proposing to
                                                  percent for the rotary concentrator and                 of HAP during periods of SSM.                         eliminate language related to SSM that
                                                  biological treatment combination, we                    Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM               treats periods of startup and shutdown
                                                  calculated an annual HAP emission                       exemption contained in 40 CFR                         the same as periods of malfunction, as
                                                  reduction of 4.5 tpy. The resulting cost-               63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding             explained further below. Finally, we are
                                                  effectiveness values for the concentrator               that under section 302(k) of the CAA,                 proposing to revise the Deviation
                                                  plus RTO and concentrator plus                          emissions standards or limitations must               Notification Report and related records
                                                  biological treatment are $54,000 and                    be continuous in nature and that the                  as they relate to malfunctions, as further
                                                  $62,000 per ton of HAP reduced,                         SSM exemption violates the CAA’s                      described below.
                                                  respectively; however, these dollar                     requirement that some CAA section 112                    The EPA has attempted to ensure that
                                                  values only represent the cost of                       standards apply continuously.                         the provisions we are proposing to
                                                  operating the concentrator and not the                     The Leather Finishing NESHAP                       eliminate are inappropriate,
                                                  RTO or biological treatment process.                    currently requires that the standards                 unnecessary, or redundant in the
                                                  Considering the high costs per ton of                   apply at all times, consistent with Sierra            absence of the SSM exemption. We are
                                                  HAP reduced associated with only the                    Club v. EPA. The NESHAP specifies in                  specifically seeking comment on
                                                  operation of the rotary concentrator, we                40 CFR 63.5320(a) ‘‘All affected sources              whether we have successfully done so.
                                                  did not consider a concentrator and                     must be in compliance with the                           The current rule specifies that the
                                                  RTO or a concentrator and biological                    requirements of this subpart at all times,            standards apply at all times. In
                                                  treatment to be cost effective for further              including periods of startup, shutdown,               promulgating the original NESHAP for
                                                  reducing HAP emissions from leather                     and malfunction.’’ However, the                       Leather Finishing Operations, the EPA
                                                  finishing operations. Additional                        NESHAP includes provisions related to                 took into account startup and shutdown
                                                  information about the assumptions and                   SSM that are not consistent with Sierra               periods by applying a standard based on
                                                  methodologies used in these                             Club v. EPA or 40 CFR 63.5320(a). For                 total coating used and HAP content and
                                                  calculations is documented in the                       example, Table 2 to the Leather                       requiring a mass balance compliance
                                                  memorandum titled CAA section                           Finishing NESHAP (i.e., the General                   method that was applicable for all
                                                  112(d)(6) Technology Review for the                     Provisions applicability table, hereafter             operations, even periods of startup and
                                                  Leather Finishing Operations Source                     referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions               shutdown. As a result, the EPA is not
                                                  Category in the docket for this action.                 table to subpart TTTT’’) incorporates all             proposing any changes to the current
                                                     Considering the results of the                       of the introductory paragraph to 40 CFR               requirement that all standards apply
                                                  technology review, we conclude that                     63.6(e), which provides that the                      during those periods. However, as noted
                                                  changes to the leather finishing                        standards do not apply at all times:                  above and discussed further below, the
                                                  operations emission limits are not                      ‘‘The general duty to minimize                        current rule incorporates two general
                                                  warranted pursuant to CAA section                       emissions during a period of startup,                 provisions that include rule language
                                                  112(d)(6). We are, therefore, not                       shutdown, or malfunction does not                     providing an exemption for periods of
                                                  proposing to make any amendments to                     require the owner or operator to achieve              SSM, and the rule includes language
                                                  the existing NESHAP pursuant to CAA                     emission levels that would be required                that differentiates between normal
                                                  section 112(d)(6). We solicit comment                   by the applicable standard at other                   operations, startup and shutdown, and
                                                  on our proposed decision.                               times if this is not consistent with safety           malfunction events in describing the
                                                                                                          and good air pollution control practices,             general duty, and these provisions are
                                                  D. What other actions are we proposing?                 nor does it require the owner or operator             not necessary or appropriate in light of
                                                    In addition to the proposed actions                   to make any further efforts to reduce                 the requirement that the standards
                                                  described above, we are proposing                       emissions if levels required by the                   apply at all times. Periods of startup,
                                                  additional revisions. We are proposing                  applicable standard have been                         normal operations, and shutdown are all
                                                  revisions to the SSM provisions of the                  achieved.’’ Further, the introductory                 predictable and routine aspects of a
                                                  MACT rule in order to ensure that they                  paragraph to 40 CFR 63.6(e) refers to the             source’s operations. Malfunctions, in
                                                  are consistent with the Court decision in               SSM plan, which is not consistent with                contrast, are neither predictable nor
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C.                the NESHAP’s exclusion (as specified in               routine. Instead they are, by definition,
                                                  Cir. 2008), which vacated two                           the General Provisions table to subpart               sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
                                                  provisions that exempted sources from                   TTTT) of the SSM plan in 40 CFR                       preventable failures of emissions
                                                  the requirement to comply with                          63.6(e)(3), SSM recordkeeping in 40                   control, process, or monitoring
                                                  otherwise applicable CAA section                        CFR 63.10(b)(2), and SSM reporting in                 equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of
                                                  112(d) emission standards during                        40 CFR 63.10(d)(5). In order to remove                malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA
                                                  periods of SSM. We also are proposing                   these inconsistencies within the                      section 112 as not requiring emissions
                                                  a process to increase the ease and                      NESHAP, to clarify the EPA’s original                 that occur during periods of


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00017   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                  11330                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  malfunction to be factored into                         decision to proceed on the basis of                   relevant best performing sources and
                                                  development of CAA section 112                          imperfect scientific information, rather              establish a standard for such
                                                  standards and this reading has been                     than to ‘invest the resources to conduct              malfunctions. We also encourage
                                                  upheld as reasonable by the Court in                    the perfect study.’ ’’) See also,                     commenters to provide any such
                                                  U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579,                  Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,                information.
                                                  606–610 (2016). Under CAA section                       1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of                For the Leather Finishing Operations
                                                  112, emissions standards for new                        things, no general limit, individual                  source category, it is unlikely that a
                                                  sources must be no less stringent than                  permit, or even any upset provision can               malfunction would result in a violation
                                                  the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best                      anticipate all upset situations. After a              of the standards. There are no instances
                                                  controlled similar source and for                       certain point, the transgression of                   where pollution control equipment
                                                  existing sources generally must be no                   regulatory limits caused by                           could malfunction because none of the
                                                  less stringent than the average emission                ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’               four leather finishing operations subject
                                                  limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best                     such as strikes, sabotage, operator                   to the standard use pollution control
                                                  performing 12 percent of sources in the                 intoxication or insanity, and a variety of            equipment. Further, the standards are
                                                  category. There is nothing in CAA                       other eventualities, must be a matter for             expressed as a yearly rolling average,
                                                  section 112 that directs the Agency to                  the administrative exercise of case-by-               and compliance is primarily dependent
                                                  consider malfunctions in determining                    case enforcement discretion, not for                  on the coating’s HAP composition.
                                                  the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best                      specification in advance by                           Therefore, a malfunction of process
                                                  performing sources when setting                         regulation.’’). In addition, emissions                equipment is not likely to result in a
                                                  emission standards. As the Court has                    during a malfunction event can be                     violation of the standards, and we have
                                                  recognized, the phrase ‘‘average                        significantly higher than emissions at                no information to suggest that it is
                                                  emissions limitation achieved by the                    any other time of source operation. For               feasible or necessary to establish
                                                  best performing 12 percent of’’ sources                 example, if an air pollution control                  standards for any type of malfunction
                                                  ‘‘says nothing about how the                            device with 99-percent removal goes off-              associated with leather finishing
                                                  performance of the best units is to be                  line as a result of a malfunction (as                 operations. We encourage commenters
                                                  calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water                might happen if, for example, the bags                to provide any such information.
                                                  Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141                    in a baghouse catch fire) and the                        In the unlikely event that a source
                                                  (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA                         emission unit is a steady state type unit             fails to comply with the applicable CAA
                                                  accounts for variability in setting                     that would take days to shut down, the                section 112(d) standards as a result of a
                                                  emissions standards, nothing in CAA                     source would go from 99-percent                       malfunction event, the EPA would
                                                  section 112 requires the Agency to                      control to zero control until the control             determine an appropriate response
                                                  consider malfunctions as part of that                   device was repaired. The source’s                     based on, among other things, the good
                                                  analysis. The EPA is not required to                    emissions during the malfunction                      faith efforts of the source to minimize
                                                  treat a malfunction in the same manner                  would be 100 times higher than during                 emissions during malfunction periods,
                                                  as the type of variation in performance                 normal operations. As such, the                       including preventative and corrective
                                                  that occurs during routine operations of                emissions over a 4-day malfunction                    actions, as well as root cause analyses
                                                  a source. A malfunction is a failure of                 period would exceed the annual                        to ascertain and rectify excess
                                                  the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or                  emissions of the source during normal                 emissions. The EPA would also
                                                  usual manner,’’ and no statutory                        operations. As this example illustrates,              consider whether the source’s failure to
                                                  language compels the EPA to consider                    accounting for malfunctions could lead                comply with the CAA section 112(d)
                                                  such events in setting CAA section 112                  to standards that are not reflective of               standard was, in fact, sudden,
                                                  standards.                                              (and significantly less stringent than)               infrequent, not reasonably preventable,
                                                     As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar                levels that are achieved by a well-                   and was not instead caused in part by
                                                  Corp, accounting for malfunctions in                    performing non-malfunctioning source.                 poor maintenance or careless operation.
                                                  setting standards would be difficult, if                It is reasonable to interpret CAA section             40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
                                                  not impossible, given the myriad                        112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s                    If the EPA determines in a particular
                                                  different types of malfunctions that can                approach to malfunctions is consistent                case that an enforcement action against
                                                  occur across all sources in the category                with CAA section 112 and is a                         a source for violation of an emission
                                                  and given the difficulties associated                   reasonable interpretation of the statute.             standard is warranted, the source can
                                                  with predicting or accounting for the                      Although no statutory language                     raise any and all defenses in that
                                                  frequency, degree, and duration of                      compels the EPA to set standards for                  enforcement action and the federal
                                                  various malfunctions that might occur.                  malfunctions, the EPA has the                         district court will determine what, if
                                                  Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to                     discretion to do so where feasible. For               any, relief is appropriate. The same is
                                                  conceive of a standard that could apply                 example, in the Petroleum Refinery                    true for citizen enforcement actions.
                                                  equally to the wide range of possible                   Sector RTR, the EPA established a work                Similarly, the presiding officer in an
                                                  boiler malfunctions, ranging from an                    practice standard for unique types of                 administrative proceeding can consider
                                                  explosion to minor mechanical defects.                  malfunction that result in releases from              any defense raised and determine
                                                  Any possible standard is likely to be                   pressure relief devices or emergency                  whether administrative penalties are
                                                  hopelessly generic to govern such a                     flaring events because we had                         appropriate.
                                                  wide array of circumstances.’’). As such,               information to determine that such work                  In summary, the EPA interpretation of
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  the performance of units that are                       practices reflected the level of control              the CAA and, in particular, CAA section
                                                  malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’                    that applies to the best performing                   112, is reasonable and encourages
                                                  foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v.                  sources. 80 FR 75178, 75211–14                        practices that will avoid malfunctions.
                                                  EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999)                 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will                      Administrative and judicial procedures
                                                  (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude                  consider whether circumstances warrant                for addressing exceedances of the
                                                  in determining the extent of data-                      setting standards for a particular type of            standards fully recognize that violations
                                                  gathering necessary to solve a problem.                 malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA               may occur despite good faith efforts to
                                                  We generally defer to an agency’s                       has sufficient information to identify the            comply and can accommodate those


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00018   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                            11331

                                                  situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830                proposing to add a performance testing                The EPA is proposing to require that
                                                  F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016).                               requirement at 40 CFR 63.5380(b). The                 sources keep records of this information
                                                                                                          performance testing requirements we                   to ensure that there is adequate
                                                  a. 40 CFR 63.5320(b) General Duty
                                                                                                          are proposing to add differ from the                  information to allow the EPA to
                                                     We are proposing to revise the                       General Provisions performance testing                determine the severity of any failure to
                                                  General Provisions table to subpart                     provisions in several respects. The                   meet a standard, and to provide data
                                                  TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)                 regulatory text does not include the                  that may document how the source met
                                                  by combining all of paragraph (e) into                  language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that                    the general duty to minimize emissions
                                                  one row and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in                     restates the SSM exemption and                        when the source has failed to meet an
                                                  column four to ‘‘no.’’ Section                          language that precluded startup and                   applicable standard. Further, the EPA is
                                                  63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty                shutdown periods from being                           clarifying related records already
                                                  to minimize emissions. Some of the                      considered ‘‘representative’’ for                     required under 40 CFR 63.5430(b) as
                                                  language in that section is no longer                   purposes of performance testing. The                  part of the Deviation Notification Report
                                                  necessary or appropriate in light of the                proposed performance testing                          under 40 CFR 63.5420(b)(3), but not
                                                  existing requirement that the standards                 provisions will not allow performance                 clearly listed, by specifically listing
                                                  apply at all times, as specified in 40                  testing during startup or shutdown.                   those required records in 40 CFR
                                                  CFR 63.5320(a). Additional language in                  Note that no facilities subject to the                63.5430(h) as: (1) The 12-month period
                                                  40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes                           Leather Finishing NESHAP will conduct                 in which the exceedance occurred, and,
                                                  requirements that are not necessary if                  a performance test because none use a                 (2) each type of leather product process
                                                  the SSM exemption does not apply. We                    control device to comply with the                     operation performed during the 12-
                                                  are proposing instead to add general                    standards. Further, as in 40 CFR                      month period in which the exceedance
                                                  duty regulatory text at 40 CFR                          63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted               occurred.
                                                  63.5320(b) that reflects the general duty               under this subpart should not be                         Finally, we are proposing to revise the
                                                  to minimize emissions while                             conducted during malfunctions because                 General Provisions table to subpart
                                                  eliminating the reference to periods                    conditions during malfunctions are                    TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR
                                                  covered by an SSM exemption. The                        often not representative of normal                    63.10(b)(2) to clarify the recordkeeping
                                                  current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)                operating conditions. However, in                     requirements for facilities that deviate
                                                  characterizes what the general duty                     eliminating this reference to 40 CFR                  from the standards as a result of a
                                                  entails during periods of SSM. If the                   63.7(e) in the General Provisions table to            malfunction. In column five, we are
                                                  SSM exemption does not apply, there is                  subpart TTTT, we are removing a                       proposing to replace the sentence
                                                  no need to differentiate between normal                 requirement that the owner or operator                ‘‘Subpart TTTT has no recordkeeping
                                                  operations, startup and shutdown, and                   make available to the Administrator                   requirements for startup, shutdown, and
                                                  malfunction events in describing the                    such records ‘‘as may be necessary to                 malfunction events’’ with the phrase
                                                  general duty. Therefore, the language                   determine the condition of the                        ‘‘See § 63.5360 for CMS recordkeeping
                                                  the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR                         performance test.’’ The EPA is                        requirements if there is a deviation from
                                                  63.5320(b) does not include that                        proposing to add a similar requirement                the standard.’’ This revision clarifies
                                                  language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).                        back into the Leather Finishing                       that certain records (e.g., a record of the
                                                                                                          NESHAP. The proposed language                         Deviation Notification Report) must be
                                                  b. 40 CFR 63.5360(b) Compliance With
                                                                                                          requires the owner or operator to record              retained if there is a deviation from the
                                                  Standards
                                                                                                          the process information that is                       standards due to a malfunction.
                                                     We are proposing to eliminate the                    necessary to document operating
                                                  sentence ‘‘This includes periods of                                                                           e. 40 CFR 63.5420 Reporting
                                                                                                          conditions during the test and include
                                                  startup, shutdown, and malfunction.’’ in                in such records an explanation to                        We are proposing to revise the
                                                  40 CFR 63.5360(b), which refers to the                  support that such conditions represent                General Provisions table to subpart
                                                  requirement to report each instance in                  normal operation. Section 63.7(e) does                TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR
                                                  which you, a source, did not meet the                   not specifically require the information              63.10(d)(5) to clarify the reporting
                                                  standard. This sentence was originally                  to be recorded, but the regulatory text               requirements for facilities that deviate
                                                  included to clarify the EPA’s intent at                 the EPA is proposing to add to 40 CFR                 from the standards as a result of a
                                                  the time regarding the standards                        63.5380(b) builds on that requirement                 malfunction. In column five, we are
                                                  applying at all times; however, this                    and makes explicit the requirement to                 proposing to replace the sentence
                                                  clarifying language is no longer                        record the information.                               ‘‘Subpart TTTT has no startup,
                                                  necessary or appropriate in light of the                                                                      shutdown, and malfunction reporting
                                                  proposed new General Duty language                      d. 40 CFR 63.5430 Recordkeeping                       requirements’’ with the sentence ‘‘See
                                                  discussed in section IV.D.1.a of this                      As discussed in section IV.D.1.e of                § 63.5420(b) for reporting requirements
                                                  preamble because the language                           this preamble, the EPA is proposing to                if there is a deviation from the
                                                  differentiates between normal                           revise the Deviation Notification Report              standard.’’ This revision clarifies that
                                                  operations, startup and shutdown, and                   to include two new reporting elements:                the Deviation Notification Report must
                                                  malfunction events.                                     (1) An estimate of the quantity of HAP                be submitted if there is a deviation from
                                                                                                          emitted during the 12-month period of                 the standards due to a malfunction. We
                                                  c. 40 CFR 63.5380 Performance                           the report in excess of the standard, and             are also proposing language that
                                                  Testing                                                 (2) the cause of the events that resulted             requires sources that fail to meet an
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                     We are proposing to revise the                       in the deviation from the standard                    applicable standard at any time to report
                                                  General Provisions table to subpart                     (including unknown cause, if                          the information concerning such events
                                                  TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR                         applicable). The EPA is proposing that                in the Deviation Notification Report
                                                  63.7(e)(1) by adding a separate row for                 any source submitting a Deviation                     already required under this rule. The
                                                  40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and specifying ‘‘no’’                 Notification Report also keep a record of             Leather Finishing NESHAP currently
                                                  in column four. Section 63.7(e)(1)                      this information. The source would also               requires this report to include (under 40
                                                  describes performance testing                           be required to include a record of the                CFR 63.5420(b)(3)) each type of leather
                                                  requirements. The EPA is instead                        actions taken to minimize emissions.                  product process operation performed


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00019   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                  11332                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  during the 12-month period of the                       or appropriate to use this language in                control device to comply with the
                                                  report. We are proposing a revision to                  light of the proposed new General Duty                NESHAP. As such, no existing leather
                                                  40 CFR 63.5420(b)(3) to clarify that this               language discussed in section IV.D.1.a                finishing operation is required to
                                                  information should include an                           of this preamble because the language                 conduct performance tests or submit test
                                                  indication of the 12-month period of the                differentiates between normal                         reports, or would be required to submit
                                                  report. We are also proposing that the                  operations, startup, and shutdown, and                electronic copies of test reports.
                                                  report must contain two new reporting                   malfunction events. The current                          In 2011, in response to Executive
                                                  elements: (1) The cause of the events                   definition of ‘‘Deviation’’ is ‘‘any                  Order 13563, the EPA developed a
                                                  that resulted in the source failing to                  instance in which an affected source
                                                                                                                                                                plan 16 to periodically review its
                                                  meet the standard as determined under                   subject to this subpart, or an owner or
                                                                                                                                                                regulations to determine if they should
                                                  40 CFR 63.5330 (i.e., the compliance                    operator of such a source: (1) Fails to
                                                                                                                                                                be modified, streamlined, expanded, or
                                                  ratio exceeds 1.00) during the 12-month                 meet any requirement or obligation
                                                                                                                                                                repealed in an effort to make regulations
                                                  period (including unknown cause, if                     established by this subpart, including
                                                                                                                                                                more effective and less burdensome.
                                                  applicable) and (2) an estimate of the                  but not limited to any emission limits or
                                                                                                                                                                The plan includes replacing outdated
                                                  quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted                     work practice standards; or (2) fails to
                                                                                                                                                                paper reporting with electronic
                                                  during the 12-month period of the                       meet any emission limits, operating
                                                                                                                                                                reporting. In keeping with this plan and
                                                  report in excess of the standard. As                    limits, or work practice standards in this
                                                                                                                                                                the White House’s Digital Government
                                                  required in 40 CFR 63.5330, sources                     subpart during startup, shutdown, or
                                                  must determine compliance on a                          malfunction, regardless of whether or                 Strategy,17 in 2013, the EPA issued an
                                                  monthly basis based on a facility-wide                  not such failure is permitted by this                 Agency-wide policy specifying that new
                                                  average. Sources are required to                        subpart.’’ We are proposing to eliminate              regulations will require reports to be
                                                  establish on a monthly basis that the                   the second criteria for the reasons stated            electronic to the maximum extent
                                                  compliance ratio for the previous 12-                   above. The proposed new definition                    possible.18 By requiring electronic
                                                  month period is less than or equal to                   reads: ‘‘Deviation means any instance in              submission of specified reports in this
                                                  1.00. This compliance ratio is calculated               which an affected source subject to this              proposed rule, the EPA is taking steps
                                                  as required in 40 CFR 63.5330 by                        subpart, or an owner or operator of such              to implement this policy.
                                                  dividing the ‘‘Actual HAP Loss’’                        a source, fails to meet any requirement                  The EPA Web site that stores the
                                                  (calculated as specified in 40 CFR                      or obligation established by this subpart,            submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, is
                                                  63.5335) by the ‘‘Allowable HAP Loss’’                  including, but not limited to, any                    easily accessible to everyone and
                                                  (calculated as specified in 40 CFR                      emission limits or work practice                      provides a user-friendly interface that
                                                  63.5340) (see Equation 1 of 40 CFR part                 standards.’’                                          any stakeholder can access. By making
                                                  63, subpart TTTT). If the compliance                                                                          data readily available, electronic
                                                                                                          2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
                                                  ratio for the leather finishing operation                                                                     reporting increases the amount of data
                                                  exceeds 1.00, the source is ‘‘deviating                    Through this proposal, the EPA is                  that can be used for many purposes.
                                                  from compliance with the applicable                     proposing that owners or operators of                 One example is the development of
                                                  HAP emission limits of subpart TTTT                     leather finishing operations submit                   emissions factors. An emissions factor is
                                                  for the previous month’’ as specified in                electronic copies of required                         a representative value that attempts to
                                                  40 CFR 63.5330(b)(2), and is required to                performance test reports through the                  relate the quantity of a pollutant
                                                  submit a Deviation Notification Report                  EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)                     released to the atmosphere with an
                                                  under 40 CFR 63.5420(b). We are                         using the Compliance and Emissions                    activity associated with the release of
                                                  proposing that such a source be required                Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The                 that pollutant (e.g., kilograms of
                                                  to estimate the quantity of HAP (in                     EPA believes that the electronic                      particulate emitted per megagram of
                                                  pounds) emitted during the 12-month                     submittal of the reports addressed in                 coal burned). Such factors facilitate the
                                                  period of the report in excess of the                   this proposed rulemaking will increase                estimation of emissions from various
                                                  standard by subtracting the ‘‘Allowable                 the usefulness of the data contained in               sources of air pollution and are an
                                                  HAP Loss’’ from the ‘‘Actual HAP                        those reports, is in keeping with current             important tool in developing emissions
                                                  Loss.’’ The difference between these two                trends in data availability, will further             inventories, which in turn are the basis
                                                  values would be the reported estimate of                assist in the protection of public health             for numerous efforts, including trends
                                                  the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted                 and the environment, and will                         analysis, regional and local scale air
                                                  during the 12-month period of the                       ultimately result in less burden on the               quality modeling, regulatory impact
                                                  report in excess of the standard. The                   regulated community. Under current                    assessments, and human exposure
                                                  EPA is proposing these requirements to                  requirements, paper reports are often                 modeling. Emissions factors are also
                                                  ensure that there is adequate                           stored in filing cabinets or boxes, which             widely used in regulatory applicability
                                                  information to determine compliance, to                 make the reports more difficult to obtain             determinations and in permitting
                                                  allow the EPA to determine the severity                 and use for data analysis and sharing.                decisions.
                                                  of the failure to meet an applicable                    Electronic storage of such reports make
                                                  standard, and to provide data that may                  data more accessible for review,                        16 EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective
                                                  document how the source met the                         analysis, and sharing. Electronic                     Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https://
                                                  general duty to minimize emissions                      reporting also eliminates paper-based,                www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/documents-
                                                  during a failure to meet an applicable                  manual processes, thereby saving time                 retrospective-review.
                                                                                                                                                                  17 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century
                                                  standard.                                               and resources, simplifying data entry,
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                                                                                                                                Platform to Better Serve the American People, May
                                                                                                          eliminating redundancies, minimizing                  2012. Available at: https://
                                                  f. 40 CFR 63.5460 Definitions                           data reporting errors, and providing data             obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/
                                                     We are proposing that the definition                 quickly and accurately to affected                    omb/egov/digital-government/digital-
                                                  of ‘‘Deviation’’ be revised to remove                   facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the            government.html.
                                                                                                                                                                  18 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA
                                                  language that was originally included to                public.
                                                                                                                                                                Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https://
                                                  clarify the EPA’s intent at the time                       The EPA estimates that no existing                 www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/
                                                  regarding the standards applying at all                 leather finishing operation subject to the            documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-
                                                  times; however, it is no longer necessary               Leather Finishing NESHAP uses a                       09-30.pdf.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00020   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                           11333

                                                    The EPA has received feedback from                    conjunction with prospective CAA-                     accurately, potentially allowing a faster
                                                  stakeholders asserting that many of the                 required technology and risk-based                    response to violations, which could
                                                  EPA’s emissions factors are outdated or                 reviews may be needed. We expect this                 minimize harmful air emissions. This
                                                  not representative of a particular                      to result in a decrease in time spent by              benefits both air agencies and the
                                                  industry emission source. While the                     industry to respond to data collection                general public.
                                                  EPA believes that the emissions factors                 requests. We also expect the ICRs to                     The proposed electronic reporting of
                                                  are suitable for their intended purpose,                contain less extensive stack testing                  data is consistent with electronic data
                                                  we recognize that the quality of                        provisions, as we will already have                   trends (e.g., electronic banking and
                                                  emissions factors varies based on the                   stack test data electronically. Reduced               income tax filing). Electronic reporting
                                                  extent and quality of underlying data.                  testing requirements would be a cost                  of environmental data is already
                                                  We also recognize that emissions                        savings to industry. The EPA should                   common practice in many media offices
                                                  profiles on different pieces of                         also be able to conduct these required                at the EPA. The changes being proposed
                                                  equipment can change over time due to                   reviews more quickly, as OAQPS will                   in this rulemaking are needed to
                                                  a number of factors (fuel changes,                      not have to include the ICR collection                continue the EPA’s transition to
                                                  equipment improvements, industry                        time in the process or spend time                     electronic reporting.
                                                  work practices), and it is important for                collecting reports from the EPA                          Additionally, we have identified two
                                                  emissions factors to be updated to keep                 Regional offices. While the regulated                 broad circumstances in which electronic
                                                  up with these changes. The EPA is                       community may benefit from a reduced                  reporting extensions may be provided.
                                                  currently pursuing emissions factor                     burden of ICRs, the general public                    In both circumstances, the decision to
                                                  development improvements that                           benefits from the agency’s ability to                 accept your claim of needing additional
                                                  include procedures to incorporate the                   provide these required reviews more                   time to report is within the discretion of
                                                  source test data that we are proposing be               quickly, resulting in increased public                the Administrator, and reporting should
                                                  submitted electronically. By requiring                  health and environmental protection.                  occur as soon as possible.
                                                  the electronic submission of the reports                   Electronic reporting minimizes                        In 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(4), we address
                                                  identified in this proposed action, the                 submission of unnecessary or                          the situation where an extension may be
                                                  EPA would be able to access and use the                 duplicative reports in cases where                    warranted due to outages of the EPA’s
                                                  submitted data to update emissions                      facilities report to multiple government              CDX or CEDRI which preclude you from
                                                  factors more quickly and efficiently,                   agencies and the agencies opt to rely on              accessing the system and submitting
                                                  creating factors that are characteristic of             the EPA’s electronic reporting system to              required reports. If either the CDX or
                                                  what is currently representative of the                 view report submissions. Where air                    CEDRI is unavailable at any time
                                                  relevant industry sector. Likewise, an                  agencies continue to require a paper                  beginning 5 business days prior to the
                                                  increase in the number of test reports                  copy of these reports and will accept a               date that the submission is due, and the
                                                  used to develop the emissions factors                   hard copy of the electronic report,                   unavailability prevents you from
                                                  will provide more confidence that the                   facilities will have the option to print              submitting a report by the required date,
                                                  factor is of higher quality and                         paper copies of the electronic reporting              you may assert a claim of EPA system
                                                  representative of the whole industry                    forms to submit to the air agencies, and,             outage. We consider 5 business days
                                                  sector.                                                 thus, minimize the time spent reporting               prior to the reporting deadline to be an
                                                    Additionally, by making the records,                  to multiple agencies. Additionally,                   appropriate timeframe because, if the
                                                  data, and reports addressed in this                     maintenance and storage costs                         system is down prior to this time, you
                                                  proposed rulemaking readily available,                  associated with retaining paper records               still have one week to complete
                                                  the EPA, the regulated community, and                   could likewise be minimized by                        reporting once the system is back
                                                  the public will benefit when the EPA                    replacing those records with electronic               online. However, if the CDX or CEDRI
                                                  conducts its CAA-required technology                    records of electronically submitted data              is down during the week a report is due,
                                                  and risk-based reviews. As a result of                  and reports.                                          we realize that this could greatly impact
                                                  having performance test reports and air                    Air agencies could benefit from more               your ability to submit a required report
                                                  emission data readily accessible, our                   streamlined and automated review of                   on time. We will notify you about
                                                  ability to carry out comprehensive                      the electronically submitted data. For                known outages as far in advance as
                                                  reviews will be improved and achieved                   example, because performance test data                possible by CHIEF Listserv notice,
                                                  within a shorter period of time. These                  would be readily-available in a standard              posting on the CEDRI Web site, and
                                                  data will provide useful information on                 electronic format, air agencies would be              posting on the CDX Web site so that you
                                                  control efficiencies being achieved and                 able to review reports and data                       can plan accordingly and still meet your
                                                  maintained in practice within a source                  electronically rather than having to                  reporting deadline. However, if a
                                                  category and across source categories for               conduct a review of the reports and data              planned or unplanned outage occurs
                                                  regulated sources and pollutants. These                 manually. Having reports and associated               and you believe that it will affect or it
                                                  reports can also be used to inform the                  data in electronic format facilitates                 has affected your ability to comply with
                                                  technology-review process by providing                  review through the use of software                    an electronic reporting requirement, we
                                                  information on improvements to add-on                   ‘‘search’’ options, as well as the                    have provided a process to assert such
                                                  control technology and new control                      downloading and analyzing of data in                  a claim.
                                                  technology.                                             spreadsheet format. Additionally, air                    In 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(5), we address
                                                    Under an electronic reporting system,                 agencies would benefit from the                       the situation where an extension may be
                                                  the EPA’s OAQPS would have air                          reported data being accessible to them                warranted due to a force majeure event,
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  emissions and performance test data in                  through the EPA’s electronic reporting                which is defined as an event that will
                                                  hand; OAQPS would not have to collect                   system wherever and whenever they                     be or has been caused by circumstances
                                                  these data from the EPA Regional offices                want or need access (as long as they                  beyond the control of the affected
                                                  or from delegated air agencies or                       have access to the Internet). The ability             facility, its contractors, or any entity
                                                  industry sources in cases where these                   to access and review reports                          controlled by the affected facility that
                                                  reports are not submitted to the EPA                    electronically assists air agencies in                prevents you from complying with the
                                                  Regional offices. Thus, we anticipate                   determining compliance with applicable                requirement to submit a report
                                                  fewer or less substantial ICRs in                       regulations more quickly and                          electronically as required by this rule.


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00021   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                  11334                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  Examples of such events are acts of                     63.5360(a)(2) and 63.5430(g). We are                  E. What compliance dates are we
                                                  nature, acts of war or terrorism, or                    also proposing related revisions to the               proposing?
                                                  equipment failure or safety hazards                     General Provisions table to subpart
                                                  beyond the control of the facility. If                  TTTT (table 2). For table entry 40 CFR                   The EPA is proposing that all of the
                                                  such an event occurs or is still occurring              63.8, we propose to replace the text                  amendments being proposed in this
                                                  or if there are still linger effects of the             ‘‘Subpart TTTT does not require                       action would be effective upon
                                                  event in the five business days prior to                monitoring other than as specified                    publication of the final rule. The tasks
                                                  a submission deadline, we have                          therein’’ in the fifth column with the                necessary for existing facilities to
                                                  provided a process to assert a claim of                 text ‘‘See § 63.5360(a)(2) for monitoring             comply with these proposed
                                                  force majeure.                                                                                                amendments related to SSM periods
                                                                                                          requirements.’’ For table entries 40 CFR
                                                     We are proposing these potential                                                                           would require no time or resources. No
                                                  extensions to protect facilities from                   63.9(g), 63.10(c), and 63.10(e), we
                                                                                                          propose to replace the text ‘‘Subpart                 facilities will be subject to the
                                                  noncompliance in cases where they                                                                             requirement to submit reports
                                                  cannot successfully submit a report by                  TTTT does not require CMS’’ in the fifth
                                                                                                                                                                electronically. Therefore, the EPA
                                                  the reporting deadline for reasons                      column with the text ‘‘See
                                                                                                                                                                believes that existing facilities will be
                                                  outside of their control as described                   § 63.5360(a)(2) for monitoring
                                                                                                                                                                able to comply with these proposed
                                                  above. We are not proposing an                          requirements.’’ These revisions would
                                                                                                                                                                amendments related to SSM periods and
                                                  extension for other instances. Facilities               clarify that monitoring requirements
                                                                                                                                                                the use of the electronic reporting tool
                                                  should register for CEDRI far in advance                apply if a facility were to elect to use a
                                                                                                                                                                (ERT), as soon as the final rule is
                                                  of the initial compliance date, in order                control device to comply with the
                                                                                                                                                                effective, which will be the date of
                                                  to make sure that they can complete the                 standard. Further, in 40 CFR 63.5375,
                                                  identity proofing process prior to the                                                                        publication of the final rule. The EPA is
                                                                                                          we are proposing to change the rule
                                                  initial compliance date. Additionally,                                                                        specifically soliciting comment and
                                                                                                          language ‘‘and can be used to comply
                                                  we recommend facilities start                                                                                 additional data on the burden of
                                                                                                          with the HAP emission requirements of                 complying with these proposed
                                                  developing reports early, in case any                   this subpart’’ to ‘‘and will be used to
                                                  questions arise during the reporting                                                                          amendments.
                                                                                                          comply with the HAP emission
                                                  process.                                                requirements of this subpart’’ because                V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
                                                  3. Clarifications and Correction to the                 ‘‘can’’ could be interpreted to require a             and Economic Impacts
                                                  Rule                                                    facility that owns a control device,                  A. What are the affected sources?
                                                     We are proposing revisions to clarify                which is not used to comply with the
                                                  the monitoring, recordkeeping, and                      Leather Finishing NESHAP, but could                      The EPA determined that four leather
                                                  reporting requirements for control                      be used to comply with the NESHAP                     finishing operations are currently
                                                  devices and the provisions for                          (e.g., the control device is used to                  subject to the Leather Finishing
                                                  alternative schedules. We are also                      comply with a different regulation in its             NESHAP. This determination was based
                                                  proposing one correction to the rule.                   operating permit), to be required to                  on reviews on various online databases
                                                  Our proposed changes related to these                   conduct the performance test required                 and information sources, as well as
                                                  issues are discussed below.                             in 40 CFR 63.5375, even though the                    permits, company Web sites, and other
                                                     Since the original Leather Finishing                 device is not used to comply with the                 online sources as discussed in section
                                                  NESHAP was promulgated, no leather                      NESHAP.                                               3.2 of the memorandum titled Leather
                                                  finishing operations have elected to use                                                                      Finishing: Residual Risk Modeling File
                                                                                                             We are also proposing to clarify in
                                                  a control device to comply with the                                                                           Supporting Documentation in the
                                                  standards, and we do not anticipate that                two ways the language in 40 CFR
                                                                                                          63.5420(b)(4) regarding alternative                   docket for this action. The EPA
                                                  any facilities will elect to use a control                                                                    estimates that all four leather finishing
                                                  device in the foreseeable future;                       schedules. First, by replacing
                                                                                                                                                                operations currently subject to the
                                                  however, we are taking this opportunity                 ‘‘responsible agency’’ with
                                                                                                                                                                Leather Finishing NESHAP would be
                                                  to propose clarifying text to assist any                ‘‘Administrator,’’ because
                                                                                                                                                                affected by the proposed requirement to
                                                  facility that elects in the future to use a             ‘‘Administrator’’ is defined in 40 CFR
                                                                                                                                                                review the final rulemaking, and none
                                                  control device to comply with the                       63.2 to include ‘‘a State that has been
                                                                                                                                                                of the facilities would be affected by the
                                                  standards. Currently, the Leather                       delegated the authority to implement
                                                                                                                                                                proposed revisions to recordkeeping
                                                  Finishing NESHAP (i.e., in 40 CFR                       the provisions of this part’’ (and the
                                                                                                                                                                and reporting requirements related to
                                                  63.5360(a)(2)) requires facilities using a              definition is incorporated by the Leather             the Deviation Notification Report or
                                                  control device to comply with the                       Finishing NESHAP). Second, by                         electronic reporting of performance
                                                  NEHSAP to meet the requirements in                      replacing ‘‘does not object’’ with                    tests. The EPA is not currently aware of
                                                  ‘‘40 CFR part 63, subpart SS’’; however,                ‘‘approves an alternative schedule’’ in               any planned or potential new or
                                                  the Leather Finishing NESHAP does not                   order to require an affirmative action by             reconstructed leather finishing
                                                  provide any reference to the applicable                 the Administrator rather than                         operations.
                                                  section within subpart SS. To aid a                     affirmation by non-action.
                                                  facility in locating the requirements in                                                                      B. What are the air quality impacts?
                                                  subpart SS, we are proposing to replace                    Finally, we are proposing a correction
                                                  the current general reference to subpart                to the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63,              The EPA estimates that annual
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  SS with a more specific reference to ‘‘40               subpart TTTT. The current title is                    organic HAP emissions from the four
                                                  CFR 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS),’’ which                  ‘‘Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63—                 leather finishing operations subject to
                                                  provides all applicable requirements for                Leather Finishing HAP Emission Limits                 the rule are approximately 22.5 tpy. In
                                                  control devices (e.g., monitoring                       for Determining the Allowable HAP                     this proposal, we recommend no new
                                                  requirements, data reduction                            Loss,’’ and the proposed title is ‘‘Table             emission limits and require no
                                                  procedures, and recordkeeping and                       2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63—                         additional controls; therefore, no air
                                                  reporting requirements). This proposed                  Applicability of General Provisions to                quality impacts are expected as a result
                                                  change would affect both 40 CFR                         Subpart TTTT.’’                                       of the proposed amendments.


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00022   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                                 11335

                                                  C. What are the cost impacts?                           E. What are the benefits?                                4. Send the entire downloaded file with
                                                                                                                                                                suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access
                                                     The four leather finishing operations                   While the proposed amendments                      format and all accompanying documentation
                                                  subject to this proposal will incur costs               would not result in reductions in                     to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0194
                                                                                                          emissions of HAP, this action, if                     (through the method described in the
                                                  to review the final rule. Nationwide
                                                                                                          finalized, will improve implementation                ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
                                                  annual costs associated with the
                                                                                                          of the Leather Finishing NESHAP by                       5. If you are providing comments on a
                                                  proposed requirements are estimated to                  clarifying the rule requirements as                   single facility or multiple facilities, you need
                                                  be a total of $705 for the initial year                 discussed in sections IV.D.1 and 3 of                 only submit one file for all facilities. The file
                                                  only. We believe that the four leather                  this preamble. Also, by adding                        should contain all suggested changes for all
                                                  finishing operations which are known to                                                                       sources at that facility (or facilities). We
                                                                                                          electronic reporting of test reports for
                                                  be subject to this proposed rule can                                                                          request that all data revision comments be
                                                                                                          any control devices used to comply with               submitted in the form of updated Microsoft®
                                                  meet these proposed requirements                        the rule will provide the benefits                    Excel files that are generated by the
                                                  without incurring additional capital or                 discussed in section IV.D.2 of this                   Microsoft® Access file. These files are
                                                  operational costs. Therefore, the only                  preamble, including assisting state and               provided on the RTR Web site at http://
                                                  costs associated with this proposed rule                local agencies that elect to use ERT to               www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
                                                  are related to reviewing the rule. For                  track compliance of the rule.
                                                  further information on the proposed                                                                           VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
                                                                                                          VI. Request for Comments                              Reviews
                                                  requirements for this rule, see section IV
                                                  of this preamble. For further                              We solicit comments on all aspects of                Additional information about these
                                                  information on the costs associated with                this proposed action. In addition to                  statutes and Executive Orders can be
                                                  the proposed requirements of this rule,                 general comments on this proposed                     found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-
                                                  see the document titled Supporting                      action, we are also interested in                     regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
                                                  Statement for Leather Finishing                         additional data that may improve the
                                                                                                          risk assessments and other analyses. We               A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
                                                  Operations and the memorandum titled
                                                                                                          are specifically interested in receiving              Planning and Review and Executive
                                                  Costs for the Leather Finishing
                                                                                                          any improvements to the data used in                  Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
                                                  Operations Source Category Risk and                                                                           Regulatory Review
                                                                                                          the site-specific emissions profiles used
                                                  Technology Review, both in the docket
                                                                                                          for risk modeling. Such data should                     This action is not a significant
                                                  for this action. The memorandum titled                  include supporting documentation in
                                                  CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology                                                                              regulatory action and was, therefore, not
                                                                                                          sufficient detail to allow                            submitted to OMB for review.
                                                  Review for the Leather Finishing Source                 characterization of the quality and
                                                  Category in the docket for this action.                 representativeness of the data or                     B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
                                                  These documents present cost estimates                  information. Section VII of this                      Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
                                                  associated with the regulatory options                  preamble provides more information on                 Costs
                                                  that were not selected for inclusion in                 submitting data.                                        This action is not expected to be an
                                                  this proposed rule.                                                                                           Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
                                                                                                          VII. Submitting Data Corrections
                                                  D. What are the economic impacts?                                                                             because this action is not significant
                                                                                                            The site-specific emissions profiles                under Executive Order 12866.
                                                     The total national cost to comply with               used in the source category risk and
                                                                                                          demographic analyses and instructions                 C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
                                                  this proposed rule is estimated to be
                                                  $705 in 2016 dollars, which is a one-                   are available for download on the RTR                   The information collection activities
                                                                                                          Web site at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/                  in this proposed rule have been
                                                  time cost that will be incurred in the
                                                                                                          atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files                  submitted for approval to the OMB
                                                  first year following promulgation of the
                                                                                                          include detailed information for each                 under the PRA. The ICR document that
                                                  final amendments. There are no
                                                                                                          HAP emissions release point for the                   the EPA prepared has been assigned
                                                  additional emission control costs or                    facilities in the source category.
                                                  additional emission reductions                                                                                EPA ICR number 1985.07. You can find
                                                                                                            If you believe that the data are not                a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
                                                  associated with this rule. The estimated                representative or are inaccurate, please
                                                  cost of $705 is comprised of equal costs                                                                      rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
                                                                                                          identify the data in question, provide                  Proposed costs are to review the final
                                                  incurred by each of the four affected                   your reason for concern, and provide                  rule in the initial year. We are proposing
                                                  facilities, with each facility estimated to             any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if               no new reporting or recordkeeping
                                                  incur one-time labor costs of                           available. When you submit data, we                   requirements to the Leather Finishing
                                                  approximately $176 in order to become                   request that you provide documentation                Operations source category.
                                                  familiar with the rule. These costs are                 of the basis for the revised values to                  Respondents/affected entities: Leather
                                                  not expected to result in business                      support your suggested changes. To                    Finishing Operations.
                                                  closures, significant price increases, or               submit comments on the data                             Respondent’s obligation to respond:
                                                  substantial profit loss. No impacts on                  downloaded from the RTR Web site,                     Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart
                                                  employment are expected given the                       complete the following steps:                         TTTT).
                                                  minimal economic impact of the action                     1. Within this downloaded file, enter                 Estimated number of respondents:
                                                  on the affected firms. For further                      suggested revisions to the data fields                Four leather finishing operations.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  information on the economic impacts                     appropriate for that information.                       Frequency of response: Initially.
                                                  associated with the proposed                              2. Fill in the commenter information fields           Total estimated burden: 9 hours (per
                                                  requirements of this rule, see the                      for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter          year) for the responding facilities and 0
                                                  memorandum titled Proposal Economic                     name, commenter organization, commenter
                                                                                                          email address, commenter phone number,
                                                                                                                                                                hours (per year) for the Agency.
                                                  Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration                 and revision comments).                                 Total estimated cost: $705 (per year).
                                                  of the Risk and Technology Review:                        3. Gather documentation for any suggested             An agency may not conduct or
                                                  Leather Finishing Operations Source                     emissions revisions (e.g., performance test           sponsor, and a person is not required to
                                                  Category in the docket for this action.                 reports, material balance calculations, etc.).        respond to, a collection of information


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00023   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                  11336                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  unless it displays a currently valid OMB                finishing operations industry that would                 • ASTM D2369–01 ‘‘Standard Test Method
                                                  control number. The OMB control                         be affected by this action. Thus,                     for Volatile Content of Coatings’’;
                                                  numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40                 Executive Order 13175 does not apply                     • ASTM D2697–86 (1998) ‘‘Standard Test
                                                                                                          to this action.                                       Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in
                                                  CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
                                                                                                                                                                Clear or Pigmented Coatings’’;
                                                     Submit your comments on the                                                                                   • ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved 2003)
                                                                                                          H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
                                                  Agency’s need for this information, the                                                                       ‘‘Standard Test Method for Percent Volume
                                                                                                          Children From Environmental Health
                                                  accuracy of the provided burden                                                                               Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented
                                                                                                          Risks and Safety Risks
                                                  estimates, and any suggested methods                                                                          Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer’’;
                                                  for minimizing respondent burden to                       This action is not subject to Executive                • ASTM D2111–95 (2000) ‘‘Standard Test
                                                  the EPA using the docket identified at                  Order 13045 because it is not                         Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of
                                                  the beginning of this rule. You may also                economically significant as defined in                Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
                                                  send your ICR-related comments to                       Executive Order 12866, and because the                Admixtures’’; and
                                                                                                          EPA does not believe the environmental                   • ASTM D1963–85 (1996) Standard Test
                                                  OMB’s Office of Information and
                                                                                                          health or safety risks addressed by this              Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils,
                                                  Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_                                                                         Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at
                                                  submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention:                      action present a disproportionate risk to
                                                                                                                                                                25/25°C.
                                                  Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is                  children. This action’s health and risk
                                                  required to make a decision concerning                  assessments are contained in sections III               The EPA is proposing not to use these
                                                  the ICR between 30 and 60 days after                    and IV of this preamble and further                   methods. The use of ASTM D2369–01,
                                                  receipt, OMB must receive comments no                   documented in the risk report titled                  ASTM D2697–86 (1998), ASTM D6093–
                                                  later than April 13, 2018. The EPA will                 Residual Risk Assessment for the                      97 (Reapproved 2003), and ASTM
                                                  respond to any ICR-related comments in                  Leather Finishing Operations Source                   D1963–85 (1996) would be impractical
                                                  the final rule.                                         Category in Support of the December                   for this NESHAP because they address
                                                                                                          2017 Risk and Technology Review                       only a portion of Method 24 and do not
                                                  D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)                     Proposed Rule in the docket for this                  address density, which is the only
                                                     I certify that this action will not have             action.                                               portion of Method 24 used for
                                                  a significant economic impact on a                                                                            compliance with the Leather Finishing
                                                                                                          I. Executive Order 13211: Actions                     NESHAP. Further, though ASTM
                                                  substantial number of small entities
                                                                                                          Concerning Regulations That                           D2111–95 (2000), ‘‘Standard Test
                                                  under the RFA. The small entities
                                                                                                          Significantly Affect Energy Supply,                   Methods for Specific Gravity and
                                                  subject to the requirements of this
                                                                                                          Distribution, or Use                                  Density of Halogenated Organic
                                                  action are small businesses. The Agency
                                                  has determined that each of the three                      This action is not subject to Executive            Solvents and Their Admixtures,’’
                                                  small entities impacted by this action                  Order 13211, because it is not a                      provides an alternative method for
                                                  may experience an impact of less than                   significant regulatory action under                   measuring density, this version of the
                                                  0.01 percent of sales. Details of this                  Executive Order 12866.                                ASTM method has expired. A thorough
                                                  analysis are presented in the                                                                                 summary of the search conducted and
                                                                                                          J. National Technology Transfer and
                                                  memorandum titled Proposal Economic                                                                           results are included in the
                                                                                                          Advancement Act (NTTAA)
                                                  Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration                                                                       memorandum titled Voluntary
                                                  of the Risk and Technology Review:                         This action involves technical                     Consensus Standard Results for
                                                  Leather Finishing Operations Source                     standards. Therefore, the EPA                         National Emission Standards for
                                                  Category in the docket for this action.                 conducted searches for the Leather                    Hazardous Air Pollutants for Leather
                                                                                                          Finishing Operations Sector Risk and                  Finishing Operations in the docket for
                                                  E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act                         Technology Review through the                         this action.
                                                  (UMRA)                                                  Enhanced National Standards Systems
                                                                                                          Network Database managed by the                       K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
                                                    This action does not contain an
                                                                                                          American National Standards Institute.                Actions To Address Environmental
                                                  unfunded mandate of $100 million or
                                                                                                          We also contacted voluntary consensus                 Justice in Minority Populations and
                                                  more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
                                                                                                          standards (VCS) organizations and                     Low-Income Populations
                                                  1531– 1538, and does not significantly
                                                  or uniquely affect small governments.                   accessed and searched their databases.                   The EPA believes that this action does
                                                  The action imposes no enforceable duty                  We conducted searches for EPA                         not have disproportionately high and
                                                  on any state, local, or tribal governments              Methods 24 and 311. The following VCS                 adverse human health or environmental
                                                  or the private sector.                                  were identified as potentially acceptable             effects on minority populations, low
                                                                                                          alternatives to the EPA test methods for              income populations, and/or indigenous
                                                  F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism                    the purpose of this rule.                             peoples, as specified in Executive Order
                                                    This action does not have federalism                     The VCS California Air Resources                   12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
                                                  implications. It will not have substantial              Board (CARB) Method 310                                  The documentation for this decision
                                                  direct effects on the states, on the                    ‘‘Determination of Volatile Organic                   is contained in section IV.A of this
                                                  relationship between the national                       Compounds (VOC) in Consumer                           preamble and the technical report titled
                                                  government and the states, or on the                    Products and Reactive Organic                         Risk and Technology Review—Analysis
                                                  distribution of power and                               Compounds in Aerosol Coating                          of Demographic Factors for Populations
                                                  responsibilities among the various                      Products’’ was identified as potentially              Living Near Leather Finishing
                                                  levels of government.                                   applicable for EPA Method 311. The                    Operations in the docket for this action.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                                                                          EPA decided not to use this VCS                          As discussed in section IV.A of this
                                                  G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation                  because the method is impractical as an               preamble, we performed a demographic
                                                  and Coordination With Indian Tribal                     alternative to EPA Method 311 because                 analysis, which is an assessment of risks
                                                  Governments                                             it targets chemicals that are VOC and are             to individual demographic groups, of
                                                    This action does not have tribal                      not HAP.                                              the population close to the facilities
                                                  implications as specified in Executive                     Five VCS were identified as                        (within 50 km and within 5 km). In this
                                                  Order 13175. No tribal facilities are                   potentially applicable for EPA Method                 analysis, we evaluated the distribution
                                                  known to be engaged in the leather                      24, as follows:                                       of HAP-related cancer risks and


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00024   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                             11337

                                                  noncancer hazards from the leather                      protect public health of all demographic              § 63.5360 How do I demonstrate
                                                  finishing operations across different                   groups.                                               continuous compliance with the emission
                                                  social, demographic, and economic                                                                             standards?
                                                                                                          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
                                                  groups within the populations living                                                                            (a) * * *
                                                  near operations identified as having the                  Environmental protection, Air                         (2) If you use an emission control
                                                  highest risks.                                          pollution control, Hazardous                          device, you must comply with 40 CFR
                                                     The analysis indicates that the                      substances, Reporting and                             part 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS) and
                                                  minority population living within 50                    recordkeeping requirements.                           collect the monitoring data as specified
                                                  km (4,632,781 people, of which 25                                                                             therein.
                                                                                                            Dated: February 28, 2018.
                                                  percent are minority) and within 5 km                                                                         *     *     *     *    *
                                                  (158,482 people, of which 13 percent                    E. Scott Pruitt,
                                                                                                          Administrator.                                          (b) You must report each instance in
                                                  are minority) of the four leather                                                                             which you did not meet the emission
                                                  finishing operations facilities is less                   For the reasons set out in the                      standards in § 63.5305. These deviations
                                                  than the minority population found                      preamble, the Environmental Protection                must be reported according to the
                                                  nationwide (38 percent). The proximity                  Agency proposes to amend title 40,                    requirements in § 63.5420(b).
                                                  results indicate that the population                    chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal
                                                  percentage for the ‘‘Native American’’                                                                        *     *     *     *    *
                                                                                                          Regulations as follows:
                                                  demographic group within 5 km of                                                                              ■ 4. Section 63.5375 is revised to read
                                                  leather finishing operations emissions is               PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION                             as follows:
                                                  slightly greater than the corresponding                 STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR                           § 63.5375 When must I conduct a
                                                  nationwide percentage for that same                     POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE                                 performance test or initial compliance
                                                  demographic. The percentage of people                   CATEGORIES                                            demonstration?
                                                  ages 65 and older residing within 5 km                                                                           You must conduct performance tests
                                                  of leather finishing operations (18                     ■ 1. The authority citation for part 63               after the installation of any emission
                                                  percent) is 4 percentage points higher                  continues to read as follows:                         control device that reduces HAP
                                                  than the corresponding nationwide                           Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.                 emissions and will be used to comply
                                                  percentage (14 percent). The other
                                                                                                                                                                with the HAP emission requirements of
                                                  demographic groups included in the                      Subpart TTTT—National Emission                        this subpart. You must complete your
                                                  assessment within 5 km of leather                       Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants                performance tests not later than 60
                                                  finishing operations emissions were the                 for Leather Finishing Operations                      calendar days before the end of the 12-
                                                  same or lower than the corresponding
                                                                                                                                                                month period used in the initial
                                                  nationwide percentages.                                 ■ 2. Section 63.5320 is amended by
                                                     When examining the cancer risk                                                                             compliance determination.
                                                                                                          revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
                                                  levels of those exposed to emissions                                                                          ■ 5. Section 63.5380 is amended by
                                                                                                          as follows:
                                                  from the four leather finishing                                                                               revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
                                                  operations, we find that there are no                   § 63.5320 How does my affected major                  as follows:
                                                  people within a 50-km radius of                         source comply with the HAP emission
                                                                                                          standards?                                            § 63.5380   How do I conduct performance
                                                  modeled facilities exposed to a cancer                                                                        tests?
                                                  risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1                      (a) All affected sources must be in                   (a) Each performance test must be
                                                  million as a result of emissions from                   compliance with the requirements of                   conducted according to the
                                                  leather finishing operations. When                      this subpart at all times.                            requirements in § 63.7(e)(2) through (4)
                                                  examining the noncancer risk levels, we                   (b) At all times, the owner or operator             and the procedures of § 63.997(e)(1) and
                                                  find that there are no people within a                  must operate and maintain any affected                (2).
                                                  50-km radius of modeled facilities                      source, including associated air                        (b) Performance tests shall be
                                                  exposed to a noncancer risk (in this                    pollution control equipment and
                                                  analysis, reproductive HI) greater than 1                                                                     conducted under such conditions as the
                                                                                                          monitoring equipment, in a manner                     Administrator specifies to the owner or
                                                  as a result of emissions from leather                   consistent with safety and good air
                                                  finishing operations.                                                                                         operator based on representative
                                                                                                          pollution control practices for                       performance of the affected source for
                                                     The EPA has determined that this
                                                                                                          minimizing emissions. The general duty                the period being tested. Representative
                                                  proposed rule does not have
                                                                                                          to minimize emissions does not require                conditions exclude periods of startup
                                                  disproportionately high and adverse
                                                                                                          the owner or operator to make any                     and shutdown. The owner or operator
                                                  human health or environmental effects
                                                                                                          further efforts to reduce emissions if                may not conduct performance tests
                                                  on minority populations, low-income
                                                                                                          levels required by the applicable                     during periods of malfunction. The
                                                  populations, and/or indigenous peoples
                                                                                                          standard have been achieved.                          owner or operator must record the
                                                  because the health risks based on actual
                                                                                                          Determination of whether a source is                  process information that is necessary to
                                                  emissions are low (below 2-in-1
                                                                                                          operating in compliance with operation                document operating conditions during
                                                  million), the population exposed to
                                                  risks greater than 1-in-1 million is                    and maintenance requirements will be                  the test and include in such record an
                                                  relatively small (750 persons), and the                 based on information available to the                 explanation to support that such
                                                  rule maintains or increases the level of                Administrator that may include, but is                conditions represent normal operation.
                                                  environmental protection for all affected               not limited to, monitoring results,                   Upon request, the owner or operator
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  populations without having any                          review of operation and maintenance                   shall make available to the
                                                  disproportionately high and adverse                     procedures, review of operation and                   Administrator such records as may be
                                                  human health or environmental effects                   maintenance records, and inspection of                necessary to determine the conditions of
                                                  on any population, including any                        the affected source.                                  performance tests.
                                                  minority, low-income, or indigenous                     *     *     *     *     *                             *     *     *     *    *
                                                  populations. Further, the EPA believes                  ■ 3. Section 63.5360 is amended by                    ■ 6. Section 63.5420 is amended by
                                                  that implementation of this rule will                   revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to read            revising the introductory text of
                                                  provide an ample margin of safety to                    as follows:                                           paragraph (b) and paragraphs (b)(3) and


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00025   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                  11338                 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                  (4), and adding paragraphs (b)(5), (b)(6),              markup language (XML) schema listed                   as soon as possible after the outage is
                                                  and (c) to read as follows:                             on the EPA’s ERT website.                             resolved. The decision to accept the
                                                                                                            (2) For data collected using test                   claim of EPA system outage and allow
                                                  § 63.5420   What reports must I submit and              methods that are not supported by the                 an extension to the reporting deadline is
                                                  when?                                                   EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT                  solely within the discretion of the
                                                  *      *     *    *     *                               website at the time of the test, you must             Administrator.
                                                     (b) You must submit a Deviation                      submit the results of the performance                    (5) If you are required to
                                                  Notification Report for each compliance                 test to the Administrator at the                      electronically submit a report through
                                                  determination you make in which the                     appropriate address listed in § 63.13                 CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX and a force
                                                  compliance ratio exceeds 1.00, as                       unless the Administrator agrees to or                 majeure event is about to occur, occurs,
                                                  determined under § 63.5330. Submit the                  specifies an alternate reporting method.              or has occurred or there are lingering
                                                  deviation report by the fifteenth of the                  (3) If you claim that some of the                   effects from such an event within the
                                                  following month in which you                            performance test information being                    period of time beginning 5 business
                                                  determined the deviation from the                       submitted under paragraph (c)(1) is                   days prior to the date the submission is
                                                  compliance ratio. The Deviation                         confidential business information (CBI),              due, the owner or operator may assert a
                                                  Notification Report must include the                    you must submit a complete file                       claim of force majeure for failure to
                                                  items in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of               generated through the use of the EPA’s                timely comply with the reporting
                                                  this section:                                           ERT or an alternate electronic file                   requirement. For the purposes of this
                                                  *      *     *    *     *                               consistent with the XML schema listed                 section, a force majeure event is defined
                                                     (3) The 12-month period covered by                   on the EPA’s ERT website, including                   as an event that will be or has been
                                                  the report and each type of leather                     information claimed to be CBI, on a                   caused by circumstances beyond the
                                                  product process operation performed                     compact disc, flash drive or other                    control of the affected facility, its
                                                  during the 12-month period.                             commonly used electronic storage                      contractors, or any entity controlled by
                                                     (4) The compliance ratio comprising                  medium to the EPA. The electronic                     the affected facility that prevents you
                                                  the deviation. You may reduce the                       medium must be clearly marked as CBI                  from complying with the requirement to
                                                  frequency of submittal of the Deviation                 and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE                     submit a report electronically within the
                                                  Notification Report if the Administrator                CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,                  time period prescribed. Examples of
                                                                                                          Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–                    such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
                                                  of these NESHAP approves an
                                                                                                          02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC                     hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts
                                                  alternative schedule.
                                                                                                          27703. The same ERT or alternate file                 of war or terrorism, or equipment failure
                                                     (5) An estimate of the quantity of HAP
                                                                                                          with the CBI omitted must be submitted                or safety hazard beyond the control of
                                                  (in pounds) emitted during the 12
                                                                                                          to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as                       the affected facility (e.g., large scale
                                                  months specified in paragraph (b)(3) of
                                                                                                          described in paragraph (c)(1) of this                 power outage). If you intend to assert a
                                                  this section in excess of the allowable                 section.                                              claim of force majeure, you must submit
                                                  HAP loss. Calculate this estimate of                      (4) If you are required to                          notification to the Administrator in
                                                  excess emissions by subtracting the                     electronically submit a report through                writing as soon as possible following the
                                                  allowable HAP loss determined as                        the Compliance and Emissions Data                     date you first knew, or through due
                                                  specified in § 63.5340 from the actual                  Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in the EPA’s              diligence should have known, that the
                                                  HAP loss determined as specified in                     Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due                  event may cause or caused a delay in
                                                  § 63.5335.                                              to a planned or actual outage of either               reporting. You must provide to the
                                                     (6) The cause of the events that                     the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems within                 Administrator a written description of
                                                  resulted in the source failing to meet an               the period of time beginning 5 business               the force majeure event and a rationale
                                                  applicable standard (including                          days prior to the date that the                       for attributing the delay in reporting
                                                  unknown cause, if applicable).                          submission is due, you will be or are                 beyond the regulatory deadline to the
                                                     (c) Within 60 days after the date of                 precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX                 force majeure event; describe the
                                                  completing each performance test (as                    and submitting a required report within               measures taken or to be taken to
                                                  defined in § 63.2) required by this                     the time prescribed, you may assert a                 minimize the delay in reporting; and
                                                  subpart, you must submit the results of                 claim of EPA system outage for failure                identify a date by which you propose to
                                                  the performance test following the                      to timely comply with the reporting                   report, or if you have already met the
                                                  procedures specified in paragraphs                      requirement. You must submit                          reporting requirement at the time of the
                                                  (c)(1) through (3) of this section.                     notification to the Administrator in                  notification, the date you reported. In
                                                     (1) For data collected using test                    writing as soon as possible following the             any circumstance, the reporting must
                                                  methods supported by the EPA’s                          date you first knew, or through due                   occur as soon as possible after the force
                                                  Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as                      diligence should have known, that the                 majeure event occurs. The decision to
                                                  listed on the EPA’s ERT website                         event may cause or caused a delay in                  accept the claim of force majeure and
                                                  (https://www.epa.gov/                                   reporting. You must provide to the                    allow an extension to the reporting
                                                  electronicreporting-air-emissions/                      Administrator a written description                   deadline is solely within the discretion
                                                  electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time               identifying the date, time and length of              of the Administrator.
                                                  of the test, you must submit the results                the outage; a rationale for attributing the           ■ 7. Section 63.5430 is amended by
                                                  of the performance test to the EPA via                  delay in reporting beyond the regulatory              revising the introductory text and
                                                  the Compliance and Emissions Data                       deadline to the EPA system outage;                    paragraph (g), and adding paragraphs (h)
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can                 describe the measures taken or to be                  and (i) to read as follows:
                                                  be accessed through the EPA’s Central                   taken to minimize the delay in
                                                  Data Exchange (CDX) (https://                           reporting; and identify a date by which               § 63.5430   What records must I keep?
                                                  cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data                   you propose to report, or if you have                    You must satisfy the recordkeeping
                                                  must be submitted in a file format                      already met the reporting requirement at              requirements in paragraphs (a) through
                                                  generated through the use of the EPA’s                  the time of the notification, the date you            (i) of this section by the compliance date
                                                  ERT or an alternate electronic file                     reported. In any circumstance, the                    specified in § 63.5295.
                                                  format consistent with the extensible                   report must be submitted electronically               *      *     *     *     *


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Mar 13, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00026   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM   14MRP2


                                                                              Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                                                                  11339

                                                    (g) If you use an emission control                                      (4) Cause of the events that resulted                                     § 63.5460     What definitions apply to this
                                                  device, you must keep records of                                        in the source failing to meet an                                            subpart?
                                                  monitoring data as specified at                                         applicable standard (including                                              *     *     *     *     *
                                                  § 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS).                                            unknown cause, if applicable), as
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Deviation means any instance in
                                                    (h) In the event that the compliance                                  reported in § 63.5420(b).
                                                                                                                            (5) Actions taken to minimize                                             which an affected source subject to this
                                                  ratio exceeded 1.00, as determined                                                                                                                  subpart, or an owner or operator of such
                                                  under § 63.5330, keep a record of the                                   emissions in accordance with
                                                                                                                          § 63.5320(b), and any corrective actions                                    a source fails to meet any requirement
                                                  information specified in paragraphs                                                                                                                 or obligation established by this subpart,
                                                  (h)(1) through (5) of this section for each                             taken to return the affected unit to its
                                                                                                                          normal or usual manner of operation.                                        including, but not limited to, any
                                                  exceedance.                                                                                                                                         emission limits or work practice
                                                                                                                            (i) Any records required to be
                                                    (1) The 12-month period in which the                                  maintained by this part that are                                            standards.
                                                  exceedance occurred, as reported in                                     submitted electronically via the EPA’s
                                                  § 63.5420(b).                                                                                                                                       *     *     *     *     *
                                                                                                                          CEDRI may be maintained in electronic
                                                    (2) Each type of leather product                                                                                                                  ■ 9. Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63
                                                                                                                          format. This ability to maintain
                                                  process operation performed during the                                                                                                              is revised to read as follows:
                                                                                                                          electronic copies does not affect the
                                                  12-month period in which the                                            requirement for facilities to make                                          Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63—
                                                  exceedance occurred, as reported in                                     records, data, and reports available                                        Applicability of General Provisions to
                                                  § 63.5420(b).                                                           upon request to a delegated air agency                                      Subpart TTTT
                                                    (3) Estimate of the quantity of HAP (in                               or the EPA as part of an on-site
                                                  pounds) emitted during the 12 months                                    compliance evaluation.                                                        As required in § 63.5450, you must
                                                  specified in § 63.5420(b)(3) in excess of                               ■ 8. Section 63.5460 is amended by                                          meet the appropriate NESHAP General
                                                  the allowable HAP loss, as reported in                                  revising the definition for ‘‘Deviation’’                                   Provision requirements in the following
                                                  § 63.5420(b).                                                           to read as follows:                                                         table:

                                                    General provisions                                                                                                                       Applies to
                                                                                      Subject of citation                      Brief description of requirement                                                              Explanation
                                                        citation                                                                                                                              subpart

                                                  § 63.1 ........................   Applicability .............         Initial applicability determination; applica-                        Yes.
                                                                                                                           bility after standard established; permit
                                                                                                                           requirements; extensions, notifications.
                                                  § 63.2 ........................   Definitions ...............         Definitions for Part 63 standards .............                      Yes .........    Except as specifically provided in this
                                                                                                                                                                                                                subpart.
                                                  § 63.3 ........................   Units and abbrevia-                 Units and abbreviations for Part 63                                  Yes.
                                                                                      tions.                              standards.
                                                  § 63.4 ........................   Prohibited activities               Prohibited activities; compliance date;                              Yes.
                                                                                      and circumvention.                  circumvention, severability.
                                                  § 63.5 ........................   Construction/recon-                 Applicability; applications; approvals .......                       Yes .........    Except for paragraphs of § 63.5 as listed
                                                                                      struction.                                                                                                                below.
                                                  § 63.5(c) ....................    [Reserved].
                                                  § 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) .......       Application for ap-                 Type and quantity of HAP, operating pa-                              No ...........   All sources emit HAP. Subpart TTTT
                                                                                      proval.                             rameters.                                                                              does not require control from specific
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 emission points.
                                                  § 63.5(d)(1)(i) ............      [Reserved].
                                                  § 63.5(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2),        .................................   Application for approval ...........................                 No ...........   The requirements of the application for
                                                     (d)(3)(ii).                                                                                                                                                approval for new and reconstructed
                                                                                                                                                                                                                sources are described in § 63.5320(b).
                                                                                                                                                                                                                General provision requirements for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                identification of HAP emission points
                                                                                                                                                                                                                or estimates of actual emissions are
                                                                                                                                                                                                                not required. Descriptions of control
                                                                                                                                                                                                                and methods, and the estimated and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                actual control efficiency of such do not
                                                                                                                                                                                                                apply. Requirements for describing
                                                                                                                                                                                                                control equipment and the estimated
                                                                                                                                                                                                                and actual control efficiency of such
                                                                                                                                                                                                                equipment apply only to control equip-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                ment to which the subpart TTTT re-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                quirements for quantifying solvent de-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                stroyed by an add-on control device
                                                                                                                                                                                                                would be applicable.
                                                  § 63.6 ........................   Applicability of gen-               Applicability of general provisions ...........                      Yes .........    Except for paragraphs of § 63.6 as listed
                                                                                      eral provisions.                                                                                                          below.
                                                  § 63.6(b)(1)–(3) .........        Compliance dates,                   ..................................................................   No ...........   Section § 63.5283 specifies the compli-
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                                                      new and recon-                                                                                                            ance dates for new and reconstructed
                                                                                      structed sources.                                                                                                         sources.
                                                  § 63.6(b)(6) ................     [Reserved].
                                                  § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) .........        [Reserved].
                                                  § 63.6(d) ....................    [Reserved].
                                                  § 63.6(e)(1) ................     Operation and main-                 ..................................................................   No ...........   See § 63.5320(b) for general duty re-
                                                                                      tenance require-                                                                                                          quirement.
                                                                                      ments.
                                                  § 63.6(e)(2) ................     [Reserved].



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014       18:36 Mar 13, 2018        Jkt 244001       PO 00000       Frm 00027        Fmt 4701        Sfmt 4702       E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM           14MRP2


                                                  11340                       Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                    General provisions                                                                                                                Applies to
                                                                                     Subject of citation                Brief description of requirement                                                              Explanation
                                                        citation                                                                                                                       subpart

                                                  § 63.6(e)(3) ................     Operation and main-          Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan                              No ...........   Subpart TTTT does not have any start-
                                                                                      tenance require-             requirements.                                                                         up, shutdown, and malfunction plan re-
                                                                                      ments.                                                                                                             quirements.
                                                  § 63.6(f)–(g) ...............     Compliance with              Comply with emission standards at all                                No ...........   Subpart TTTT does not have nonopacity
                                                                                      nonopacity emis-             times except during SSM.                                                              requirements.
                                                                                      sion standards ex-
                                                                                      cept during SSM.
                                                  § 63.6(h) ....................    Opacity/visible emis-        ..................................................................   No ...........   Subpart TTTT has no opacity or visual
                                                                                      sion (VE) stand-                                                                                                   emission standards.
                                                                                      ards.
                                                  § 63.6(i) .....................   Compliance exten-            Procedures and criteria for responsible                              Yes.
                                                                                      sion.                        agency to grant compliance extension.
                                                  § 63.6(j) .....................   Presidential compli-         President may exempt source category                                 Yes.
                                                                                      ance exemption.              from requirement to comply with sub-
                                                                                                                   part.
                                                  § 63.7 ........................   Performance testing          Schedule, conditions, notifications and                              Yes .........    Except for paragraphs of § 63.7 as listed
                                                                                      requirements.                procedures.                                                                            below. Subpart TTTT requires perform-
                                                                                                                                                                                                          ance testing only if the source applies
                                                                                                                                                                                                          additional control that destroys solvent.
                                                                                                                                                                                                          § 63.5311 requires sources to follow
                                                                                                                                                                                                          the performance testing guidelines of
                                                                                                                                                                                                          the General Provisions if a control is
                                                                                                                                                                                                          added.
                                                  § 63.7(a)(2) (i) and              Performance testing          Applicability and performance dates .......                          No ...........   § 63.5310(a) of subpart TTTT specifies
                                                     (iii).                           requirements.                                                                                                       the requirements of performance test-
                                                                                                                                                                                                          ing dates for new and existing
                                                                                                                                                                                                          sources.
                                                  § 63.7(e)(1) ................     Conduct of perform-          Defines representative conditions; pro-                              No ...........   See § 63.5380.
                                                                                     ance tests.                   vides an exemption from the standards
                                                                                                                   for periods of startup, shutdown, and
                                                                                                                   malfunction; requires that, upon re-
                                                                                                                   quest, the owner or operator shall
                                                                                                                   make available to the Administrator
                                                                                                                   such records as may be necessary to
                                                                                                                   determine the conditions of perform-
                                                                                                                   ance tests.
                                                  § 63.8 ........................   Monitoring require-          Applicability, conduct of monitoring, oper-                          No ...........   See § 63.5360(a)(2) for monitoring re-
                                                                                     ments.                        ation and maintenance, quality control,                                               quirements.
                                                                                                                   performance evaluations, use of alter-
                                                                                                                   native monitoring method, reduction of
                                                                                                                   monitoring data.
                                                  § 63.9 ........................   Notification require-        Applicability and State delegation ...........                       Yes .........    Except for paragraphs of § 63.9 as listed
                                                                                      ments.                                                                                                             below.
                                                  § 63.9(e) ....................    Notification of per-         Notify responsible agency 60 days ahead                              Yes .........    Applies only if performance testing is
                                                                                      formance test.                                                                                                     performed.
                                                  § 63.9(f) .....................   Notification of VE/          Notify responsible agency 30 days ahead                              No ...........   Subpart TTTT has no opacity or visual
                                                                                      opacity observa-                                                                                                   emission standards.
                                                                                      tions.
                                                  § 63.9(g) ....................    Additional notifica-         Notification of performance evaluation;                              No ...........   See § 63.5360(a)(2) for CMS require-
                                                                                      tions when using             notification using COMS data; notifica-                                               ments.
                                                                                      a continuous                 tion that exceeded criterion for relative
                                                                                      monitoring system            accuracy.
                                                                                      (CMS).
                                                  § 63.9(h) ....................    Notification of com-         Contents ...................................................         No ...........   § 63.5320(d) specifies requirements for
                                                                                      pliance status.                                                                                                     the notification of compliance status.
                                                  § 63.10 ......................    Recordkeeping/re-            Schedule for reporting, record storage ....                          Yes .........    Except for paragraphs of § 63.10 as list-
                                                                                      porting.                                                                                                            ed below.
                                                  § 63.10(b)(2) ..............      Recordkeeping ........       CMS recordkeeping; CMS records of                                    No ...........   See § 63.5360 for CMS recordkeeping
                                                                                                                  startup, shutdown, and malfunction                                                      requirements, except see 63.5430(h)
                                                                                                                  events.                                                                                 for CMS recordkeeping requirements if
                                                                                                                                                                                                          there is a deviation from the standard.
                                                  § 63.10(c) ..................     Recordkeeping ........       Additional CMS recordkeeping ................                        No ...........   See § 63.5360(a)(2) for CMS record-
                                                                                                                                                                                                          keeping requirements.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                                  § 63.10(d)(2) ..............      Reporting ................   Reporting performance test results .........                         Yes .........    Applies only if performance testing is
                                                                                                                                                                                                          performed.
                                                  § 63.10(d)(3) ..............      Reporting ................   Reporting opacity or VE observations .....                           No ...........   Subpart TTTT has no opacity or visible
                                                                                                                                                                                                          emission standards.
                                                  § 63.10(d)(4) ..............      Reporting ................   Progress reports ......................................              Yes .........    Applies if a condition of compliance ex-
                                                                                                                                                                                                          tension.
                                                  § 63.10(d)(5) ..............      Reporting ................   Startup, shutdown, and malfunction re-                               No ...........   See § 63.5420(b) for reporting require-
                                                                                                                   porting.                                                                               ments if there is a deviation from the
                                                                                                                                                                                                          standard.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014       18:36 Mar 13, 2018     Jkt 244001    PO 00000      Frm 00028        Fmt 4701        Sfmt 4702       E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM           14MRP2


                                                                             Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                                          11341

                                                    General provisions                                                                                                Applies to
                                                                                    Subject of citation               Brief description of requirement                                               Explanation
                                                        citation                                                                                                       subpart

                                                  § 63.10(e) ..................    Reporting ................   Additional CMS reports ............................   No ...........   See § 63.5360(a)(2) for monitoring re-
                                                                                                                                                                                         quirements.
                                                  § 63.11 ......................   Control device re-           Requirements for flares ...........................   Yes .........    Applies only if your source uses a flare
                                                                                    quirements.                                                                                          to control solvent emissions. Subpart
                                                                                                                                                                                         TTTT does not require flares.
                                                  § 63.12 ......................   State authority and          State authority to enforce standards .......          Yes.
                                                                                     delegations.
                                                  § 63.13 ......................   State/regional ad-           Addresses where reports, notifications,               Yes.
                                                                                     dresses.                     and requests are sent.
                                                  § 63.14 ......................   Incorporation by ref-        Test methods incorporated by reference                Yes.
                                                                                     erence.
                                                  § 63.15 ......................   Availability of infor-       Public and confidential information ..........        Yes.
                                                                                     mation and con-
                                                                                     fidentiality.



                                                  [FR Doc. 2018–04939 Filed 3–13–18; 8:45 am]
                                                  BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014      18:36 Mar 13, 2018     Jkt 244001    PO 00000    Frm 00029     Fmt 4701   Sfmt 9990    E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM         14MRP2



Document Created: 2018-03-14 01:06:28
Document Modified: 2018-03-14 01:06:28
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionProposed rule.
DatesComments. Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before April 13, 2018.
ContactFor questions about this proposed action, contact Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5032;
FR Citation83 FR 11314 
RIN Number2060-AT70
CFR AssociatedEnvironmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Hazardous Substances and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR