Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194-0106
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review
Posted Date: 2019-02-12T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3308-3324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01317]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194; FRL-9988-83-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT70

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Leather Finishing Operations source category 
regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), electronic reporting, and 
clarification of rule provisions. These final amendments address 
emissions during periods of SSM, add electronic reporting, and revise 
certain rule requirements and provisions. Although these amendments 
will not reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), they are 
expected to improve compliance and implementation of the rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a 
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194. All 
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov 
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, 
e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC 
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, 
DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. The telephone number 
for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number 
for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources Group, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5032; fax 
number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: schrock.bill@epa.gov. For 
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact 
Matthew Woody, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-

[[Page 3309]]

02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-1535; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email 
address: woody.matthew@epa.gov. For information about the applicability 
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact John Cox, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and 
email address: cox.john@epa.gov.

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

CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CRA Congressional Review Act
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
REL recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Background information. On March 14, 2018 (83 FR 11314), the EPA 
proposed revisions to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP based on 
our RTR. On May 15, 2018 (83 FR 22438), the EPA re-opened the comment 
period on the proposed rule that closed on April 30, 2018, extending 
the comment period to June 14, 2018. In this action, we are finalizing 
decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more 
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and 
provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public 
comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is 
available in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and the 
EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology Review and 
Amendments for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory 
language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in 
the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Leather Finishing Operations source category and 
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Leather Finishing 
Operations source category in our March 14, 2018, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Leather Finishing Operations 
Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Leather Finishing Operations Source 
Category
    C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction for the Leather Finishing 
Operations Source Category
    D. Requirements for Submission of Performance Tests for the 
Leather Finishing Operations Source Category
    E. Technical Revisions and Corrections for the Leather Finishing 
Operations Source Category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NAICS \1\
                  NESHAP and source category                      code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leather finishing operations.................................      3161
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the

[[Page 3310]]

internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will 
post a copy of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/leather-finishing-operations-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication in the Federal Register, the 
EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents 
at this same website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR 
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) by April 15, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, 
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For 
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the 
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited 
to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through 
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; 
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, 
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive 
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
standards; or any combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The EPA promulgated the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP on 
February 27, 2002 (67 FR 9156). The standards are codified at 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart TTTT. The leather finishing industry consists of 
facilities that adjust and improve the physical and aesthetic 
characteristics of the leather surface through the multistage 
application of a coating comprised of dyes, pigments, film-forming 
materials, and performance modifiers dissolved or suspended in liquid 
carriers. The Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP does not apply to 
equipment used solely for leather tanning operations or to portions of 
leather finishing operations using a solvent degreasing process subject 
to the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.5290(c)). The 
source category covered by this MACT

[[Page 3311]]

standard currently includes four facilities.
    Leather finishing is considered a dry operation as opposed to the 
``wet-end'' operations associated with leather tanning. As further 
discussed in section II.B of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 
14, 2018), leather finishing operations can be co-located with wet-end 
tannery operations or performed in stand-alone facilities; however, 
equipment used solely for leather tanning (or retanning) operations is 
not subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP. In the dry-end 
leather finishing operations, coatings are typically applied to the 
leather substrate using spray, roll, and flow coating techniques. The 
emission source types subject to the emission limits under the Leather 
Finishing Operations NESHAP include, but are not limited to, coating 
and spraying equipment, coating storage and mixing, and dryers. Refer 
to section II.B of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) 
for discussion of emissions from these and additional emission source 
types, including the HAP emitted.
    The MACT standards address emissions from four types of leather 
product process operations: (1) Upholstery leather with greater than or 
equal to 4 grams of add-on finish per square foot of leather, (2) 
upholstery leather with less than 4 grams of add-on finish per square 
foot of leather, (3) water-resistant leather, and (4) non-water-
resistant leather. The standards limit emissions from new and existing 
leather finishing operations and are expressed in terms of total HAP 
emissions per 1,000 square feet of leather processed over a rolling 12-
month compliance period. Sources must record the mass of HAP in 
coatings applied to the leather either through an inventory mass 
balance or ``measure-as-applied'' approach. Using the mass balance 
approach, sources may choose to account for disposal of excess finish 
instead of assuming any excess finish is also emitted. Emissions are 
calculated based on the assumption that the entire HAP content of the 
applied finish is released to the environment. Sources using an add-on 
control device may account for the emission reduction achieved from the 
control device as measured by a performance test conducted in 
accordance with the requirements of the Leather Finishing Operations 
NESHAP. We are not finalizing any revisions to the numerical emission 
limits nor to the methods for determining compliance with these limits.

C. What changes did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations 
source category in our March 14, 2018, proposal?

    On March 14, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TTTT, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the 
proposed rule, we proposed amendments to the SSM provisions of the MACT 
rule, a new requirement to electronically report performance test data, 
and clarifications to certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements for control devices and the provisions for alternative 
schedules, as well as a correction to the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart TTTT. We proposed no revisions to the numerical 
emission limits based on our technology review and risk analyses.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Leather Finishing Operations 
source category. This action also finalizes other changes to the 
NESHAP, including amendments to the SSM provisions, addition of 
electronic reporting of performance test data, and clarifications to 
certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for 
control devices and the provisions for alternative schedules, as well 
as a correction to the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
TTTT.

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

    We found risk due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from 
this source category and determined that the current NESHAP provides an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents an adverse 
environmental effect. Therefore, we did not propose and are not 
finalizing any revisions to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP 
based on our analyses conducted under CAA section 112(f).

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

    We determined that there are no developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing 
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing 
Operations NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM. In 
its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), 
the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 
112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. 
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of 
the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in 
nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that 
some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. As detailed in 
section IV.C of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), 
the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP requires that the standards 
apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.5320(a)), consistent with the Court 
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). The EPA 
took into account startup and shutdown periods in the 2002 rulemaking 
by applying a standard based on total coating used and HAP content and 
requiring a mass balance compliance method that was applicable for all 
operations, even periods of startup and shutdown. As a result, the EPA 
is not finalizing any changes to the current requirement that all 
standards apply during those periods. Refer to section IV.C of the 
March 14, 2018, proposal preamble for further discussion of the EPA's 
rationale for this decision.
    Further, the EPA is not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As 
discussed in section IV.C of the March 14, 2018, proposal preamble, the 
EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur 
during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA 
section 112 standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set 
standards for malfunctions where feasible. For the Leather Finishing 
Operations source category, it is unlikely that a malfunction would 
result in a violation of the standards, and no comments were submitted 
that would suggest otherwise. There are no instances where pollution 
control equipment could malfunction because none of the four facilities 
subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP use pollution 
control equipment. Further, the standards are expressed as a yearly 
rolling average, and compliance is primarily dependent on the coating's

[[Page 3312]]

HAP composition. Therefore, a malfunction of process equipment is not 
likely to result in a violation of the standards, and we have no 
information to suggest that it is feasible or necessary to establish 
standards for any type of malfunction associated with leather finishing 
operations. Refer to section IV.C of the March 14, 2018, proposal 
preamble for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the decision 
not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the 
actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source fails 
to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result 
of a malfunction event, given that administrative and judicial 
procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize 
that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can 
accommodate those situations.
    As is explained in more detail below, we are finalizing two 
proposed revisions to the General Provisions table to 40 CRF part 63, 
subpart TTTT, to eliminate two General Provisions that include rule 
language providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, we 
are finalizing our proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that 
treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as periods of 
malfunction, as explained further below. Finally, we are finalizing our 
proposal to revise the Deviation Notification Report and related 
records as they relate to malfunctions, as further described below. As 
discussed in section IV.C of the March 14, 2018, proposal preamble, 
these revisions are consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 
63.5320(a) that the standards apply at all times. Refer to sections 
III.C.1 through 5 of this preamble for a detailed discussion of these 
amendments.
1. 40 CFR 63.5320(b) General Duty
    We are finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions 
table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT (Table 2), entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e) by combining all of paragraph (e) into one row and changing the 
``yes'' in column four to ``no.'' We are replacing reference to 40 CFR 
63.6(e) with new general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5320(b) that 
reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the 
reference in 40 CFR 63.6(e) to periods covered by an SSM exemption. 
Refer to section IV.D.1.a of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 
14, 2018) for further discussion of this revision.
2. 40 CFR 63.5360(b) Compliance With Standards
    We are finalizing as proposed removal of the sentence, ``This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.'' in 40 CFR 
63.5360(b), which refers to the requirement to report each instance in 
which a source did not meet the standard. Refer to section IV.D.1.b of 
the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further 
discussion of this revision.
3. 40 CFR 63.5380 Performance Testing
    We are finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions 
table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT (Table 2), entry for 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1) by adding a separate row for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and 
specifying ``no'' in column four. We are replacing reference to 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1) with a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.5380(b). 
Refer to section IV.D.1.c of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 
14, 2018) for further discussion of these revisions.
4. 40 CFR 63.5430 Recordkeeping
    We are finalizing as proposed revision of the Deviation 
Notification Report to include two new reporting elements: (1) An 
estimate of the quantity of HAP emitted during the 12-month period of 
the report in excess of the standard, and (2) the cause of the events 
that resulted in the deviation from the standard (including unknown 
cause, if applicable). We are finalizing the proposed requirement that 
any source submitting a Deviation Notification Report also keep a 
record of this information, as well as a record of the actions taken to 
minimize emissions, and we are finalizing revision of 40 CFR 
63.5420(b)(3) to clarify records already required. Finally, we are 
finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions table to 40 
CFR part 63, subpart TTTT (table 2), entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) to 
clarify the recordkeeping requirements for facilities that deviate from 
the standards as a result of a malfunction. Refer to section IV.D.1.d 
of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further 
discussion of these revisions.
5. 40 CFR 63.5420 Reporting
    We are finalizing as proposed revision of the General Provisions 
table to subpart TTTT (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) to clarify 
the reporting requirements for facilities that deviate from the 
standards as a result of a malfunction. We are finalizing as proposed 
revision of 40 CFR 63.5420(b)(3) to clarify that the Deviation 
Notification Report should include an indication of the 12-month period 
of the report. We are also finalizing as proposed two new reporting 
elements to include in the Deviation Notification Report: (1) the cause 
of the events that resulted in the source failing to meet the standard 
as determined under 40 CFR 63.5330 (i.e., the compliance ratio exceeds 
1.00) during the 12-month period (including unknown cause, if 
applicable) and (2) an estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) 
emitted during the 12-month period of the report in excess of the 
standard, calculated by subtracting the ``Allowable HAP Loss'' from the 
``Actual HAP Loss.'' Refer to section IV.D.1.e of the proposal preamble 
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further discussion of these 
revisions.
6. 40 CFR 63.5460 Definitions
    We are finalizing as proposed revision of the definition of 
``Deviation'' to read ``Deviation means any instance in which an 
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 
such a source, fails to meet any requirement or obligation established 
by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limits or 
work practice standards.'' This revision removes language that 
differentiated between normal operations, startup, and shutdown, and 
malfunction events. Refer to section IV.D.1.f of the proposal preamble 
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for further discussion of this revision.

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

    We are finalizing as proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing 
Operations NESHAP to clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements for control devices and the provisions for 
alternative schedules and to correct the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart TTTT. Refer to section IV.D.3 of the proposal preamble 
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for a detailed description of these 
amendments.

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

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on February 12, 2019. The compliance date for 
existing leather finishing operations is February 12, 2019. New sources 
must comply with all of the standards immediately upon the effective 
date of the standard, February 12, 2019, or upon startup, whichever is 
later. The tasks necessary for existing facilities to comply with these 
proposed amendments related to SSM periods will require no time or 
resources. No facilities will be subject to

[[Page 3313]]

the requirement to submit reports electronically (see below). 
Therefore, existing facilities will be able to comply with these 
proposed amendments related to SSM periods and the use of the 
electronic reporting software discussed in section III.F of this 
preamble as soon as the final rule is effective, which will be the date 
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to 
the EPA?

    As we proposed, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and 
efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the 
EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners and operators of leather 
finishing operations facilities to submit electronic copies of certain 
required performance test reports.
    Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic 
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an 
electronic performance test report tool called the Electronic Reporting 
Tool (ERT). The ERT will generate an electronic report package, which 
will be submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX). A description of the ERT and instructions for using ERT can be 
found at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. CEDRI can be 
accessed through the CDX website (https://www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The EPA estimates that no existing leather finishing operation 
subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP uses a control 
device to comply with the NESHAP. As such, no existing leather 
finishing operation will conduct performance tests or submit electronic 
copies of test reports.
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will 
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that 
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT website. The EPA believes, 
through this approach, industry will save time in the performance test 
submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking benefits industry by 
reducing recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are 
submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept in 
hard copy.
    State, local, and tribal agencies may benefit from more streamlined 
and accurate review of performance test data that will become available 
to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data publicly available 
enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough 
discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct 
computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided 
software, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal (83 FR 
11314, March 14, 2018).
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 
control strategy development, and other air pollution control 
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance 
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies, and the 
EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of 
emission inventories and air quality regulations.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Leather Finishing Operations source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the document titled 
Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Responses for the Proposed 
Risk and Technology Review and Amendments for the Leather Finishing 
Operations NESHAP, in the docket for this action.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Leather Finishing Operations Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Leather 
Finishing Operations source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk review 
and presented the results for the review, along with our proposed 
decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in 
the March 14, 2018, proposed rule for the Leather Finishing Operations 
source category (83 FR 11314). The results of the risk assessment are 
presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble and in more detail in the 
residual risk document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather 
Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the December 2017 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this 
action.

                           Table 2--Leather Finishing Operations Inhalation Risk Assessment Results in the March 2018 Proposal
                                                              [83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated Annual         Maximum chronic       Maximum screening
                                     cancer risk  (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence      noncancer  TOSHI \3\      acute  noncancer
                                        million) \2\           cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    ------------------------ hazard quotient  (HQ)
                                  ------------------------         million        ------------------------                                  \4\
    Number of  facilities \1\                             ------------------------                          Based on    Based on  ----------------------
                                    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable
                                     actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions     Based on actual
                                    emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions     level       level       emissions level
                                    level \2\     level     level \2\     level     level \2\     level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4................................
                                            0           0           0           0           0           0        0.04         0.3  HQREL = 3 (propyl
                                                                                                                                    cellosolve and
                                                                                                                                    glycol ethers).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Leather Finishing Operations source category is
  the reproductive target organ.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value; for propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers, this is the recommended exposure limit (REL).

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions 
data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the maximum 
chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.04. While we would have 
estimated incremental individual lifetime cancer risks as discussed in 
section III.C.3.b of the preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR 
11314, March 14, 2018), there were no carcinogenic HAP emissions from 
this source category, so

[[Page 3314]]

the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk is 0, and the total 
estimated national cancer incidence from these facilities based on 
actual emission levels is no excess cancer cases per year.
    Table 2 of this preamble indicates that for the Leather Finishing 
Operations source category, the maximum HQ is 3, driven by propyl 
cellosolve and glycol ethers. The only acute dose-response value for 
propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers is the REL; therefore, only the 
HQREL is provided. Refinement of the acute risk results was 
performed using aerial photos to ensure that the location where the 
maximum risk was projected to occur was, in fact, a location where the 
general public could be exposed. The result of this refinement 
confirmed that the maximum acute risk result occurred where the public 
could potentially be exposed. This refinement, therefore, had no impact 
on the maximum HQ. For more detailed acute risk results, refer to the 
draft residual risk document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the December 
2017 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this 
action.
    An assessment of risk from facility-wide emissions was performed to 
provide context for the source category risks. Using the National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI) data described in sections II.C and III.C of 
the preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), 
the maximum cancer risk in the facility-wide assessment was 0.09-in-1 
million, and the maximum chronic noncancer hazard index (HI) was 0.1 
(for the reproductive system), both driven by emissions from external 
combustion boilers.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) 
and within 50 km of the facilities, and we found that no one is exposed 
to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer 
TOSHI greater than 1. The methodology and the results of the 
demographic analysis are presented in a technical report titled Risk 
and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Leather Finishing Operations, in the docket for this 
action.
    We weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability 
determination and we proposed that the risk posed by emissions from 
this source category is acceptable. We then considered whether the 
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and 
whether more stringent standards were necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect by taking into consideration costs, energy, 
safety, and other relevant factors. In determining whether the 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, 
we examined the same risk factors that we investigated for our 
acceptability determination and also considered the costs, 
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to 
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with 
emissions from the source category. As noted in the discussion of the 
ample margin of safety analysis in the preamble to the proposed rule on 
March 14, 2018 (83 FR 11328), we considered options for further 
reducing gaseous organic HAP emissions from leather finishing 
operations. We considered the reduction in gaseous organic HAP 
emissions that could be achieved by the application of a biological 
treatment unit, the use of a concentrator followed by a regenerative 
thermal oxidizer (RTO), and the use of a concentrator followed by 
biological treatment. The total annual cost per facility of a rotary 
concentrator alone or biological treatment alone ranges from $43,000 to 
$417,000 per year. Application of a concentrator followed by an RTO 
would achieve an estimated annual HAP emission reduction of 5.2 tpy, 
and application of a concentrator plus biological treatment would 
achieve an estimated annual HAP emission reduction of 4.5 tpy. The 
corresponding cost effectiveness for application of a rotary 
concentrator or biological treatment would range from $30,000 and 
$110,000 per ton of HAP removed, respectively. Due to our 
determinations that cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million and that the 
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value is below 1, uncertainties 
associated with the acute screening risk estimate (refer to the risk 
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather Finishing 
Operations Source Category in Support of the December 2017 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action), and 
the substantial costs associated with the control options, we proposed 
that additional standards for this source category are not required to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and that 
the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. Based on the results of our environmental risk screening 
assessment, we also proposed that more stringent standards are not 
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Leather Finishing Operations 
source category?
    Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), neither the risk 
assessment nor our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety or adverse environmental effects have changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    We received various comments related to the risk review and some 
commenters requested that we make changes to our residual risk review 
results and approach. However, we evaluated the comments and determined 
that no changes to our risk assessment methods or conclusions are 
warranted. An in-depth account of the comments and responses is located 
in the memorandum titled Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's 
Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology Review and Amendments 
for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, in the docket for this 
action. The following paragraphs discuss the major comments we received 
and our responses.
    Comment: One commenter stated that there is evidence of hexavalent 
chromium emissions from leather finishing operations and leather 
tanning processes and products, questioning why the EPA did not 
evaluate these emissions and health risks and establish emission 
standards accordingly. The commenter referenced NEI data showing 
hexavalent chromium emissions from leather finishing facilities.
    Response: We disagree that there is evidence of hexavalent chromium 
emissions from the Leather Finishing Operations source category. The 
NEI data cited by the commenter represent hexavalent chromium emissions 
from boilers at the Tasman and S.B. Foot facilities subject to the 
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, but boilers are not subject to the 
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, and, thus, such data do not create 
a basis for the EPA to evaluate emissions and health risks of 
hexavalent chromium for source types at any facility subject to the 
Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP. The NEI does not include 
hexavalent chromium emission data for any other emission source types 
at any facility subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP. The 
EPA is not aware of any source of hexavalent chromium emissions data 
for the leather

[[Page 3315]]

finishing operations subject to the Leather Finishing Operations 
NESHAP, and the commenters have provided no such data. The references 
cited by the commenters focus primarily on the leather tanning 
processes, which do not occur at the facilities covered by the Leather 
Finishing Operations NESHAP. Additionally, the references cited do not 
directly address air emissions of hexavalent chromium from leather 
finishing operations and are, therefore, not relevant to this 
rulemaking. Two references cited by the commenter mention the 
possibility of spontaneous oxidation of trivalent chromium into its 
hexavalent form in post-tanning operations, but the references do not 
provide any hexavalent chromium emissions data, and no such data exist 
for any of the leather finishing operations subject to the Leather 
Finishing Operations NESHAP. As a result, there is no basis for the EPA 
to evaluate the emissions and health risks of hexavalent chromium from 
these four facilities.
    Comment: One commenter provided data for actual monthly HAP use for 
the S.B. Foot Tanning Co. facility subject to the Leather Finishing 
Operations NESHAP, stating that the data indicate that hourly emissions 
could be up to 1.5 times greater than the emissions rate that the EPA 
used to estimate acute exposures. The data provided by the commenter 
show monthly HAP emissions for the S.B. Foot Tanning Co. facility based 
on data of actual monthly HAP use by the facility over a 4-year period 
(i.e., 51 data points). To compare with the EPA's calculated acute HAP 
emissions rate (i.e., 0.00467 tons/hour) for the facility, the 
commenter estimated the average hourly rate of HAP emissions for each 
month in the 4-year period using the facility's actual monthly HAP 
usage values and monthly operating hours. To show months in which the 
facility's estimated hourly HAP emissions rate exceeded the EPA's 
estimated acute hourly HAP emissions rate for the S.B. Foot Tanning Co. 
facility, the commenter calculated for each month the ratio of the 
commenter's hourly HAP emissions rate to the EPA's calculated acute HAP 
emissions rate. Ratios above 1.0 would show months in which the 
facility's estimated hourly HAP emissions rate exceeds the EPA's acute 
hourly HAP emissions rate, calling into question the EPA's calculated 
acute HAP emissions rate of 0.00467 tons per hour and the EPA's acute 
factor of 1.8.
    Response: The EPA reviewed the commenter's submitted data and 
determined that the data support the EPA's acute HAP emissions rate of 
0.00467 tons/hour and acute factor of 1.8. The ratios calculated by the 
commenter indicate an average ratio of 0.41 and a median of 0.392. Of 
the 51 months of data provided by the commenter, only two values exceed 
1.0, and five values exceed 0.8. To investigate the two data points 
that exceed 1.0, we contacted the commenter, and the commenter referred 
us to S.B. Foot Tanning Co. The S.B. Foot Tanning Co. facility 
representative indicated that HAP emissions referred to in the 
commenter's data are primarily associated with a storage tank and that 
the two data points in question resulted from the inaccurate process of 
measuring the material's volume (see the memorandum titled 
Clarification of Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Usage Data for S.B. Foot 
Tanning Co., Submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, in 
the docket for this action). From this information, we conclude that 
the two data points are erroneous. Based on these results, the data, 
excluding the two erroneous data points, submitted by the commenter 
support our acute factor of 1.8 and we are not revising the factor.
    Comment: Two commenters objected to the EPA's decision that the 
acute risk result for the Leather Finishing Operations source category 
(i.e., HQ of 3) is acceptable. One commenter noted that the HQ of 3 is 
driven entirely by propyl cellosolve and expressed concern for the 
toxicity of this pollutant. The commenter expressed concern that short-
term outdoor human exposures have a high potential of occurring and the 
highest HQ was predicted well within residential areas. One commenter 
asserted that the EPA provides no rational justification for ignoring 
the acute risk (HQ of 3) and the finding that there are chronic 
noncancer risks to the reproductive system. The commenter listed 
various human health effects associated with propyl cellosolve and 
cited references for these health effects.
    Response: We disagree that the risk acceptability determination as 
it relates to the acute risk HQ of 3 for propyl cellosolve is not 
sufficiently justified. For this source category, we concluded that the 
risks are acceptable based on all of the available health information--
cancer, chronic noncancer, and acute noncancer risk assessment 
results--and associated uncertainties. It is important to note that we 
have not established, under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, a numerical 
range for risk acceptability for noncancer effects (chronic or acute), 
nor have we determined that there is a bright line above which 
acceptability is denied. However, we have established that, as exposure 
increases above a reference level (as indicated by a HQ or TOSHI 
greater than 1), confidence that the public will not experience adverse 
health effects decreases and the likelihood that an effect will occur 
increases.
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR 
11314, March 14, 2018), in conducting risk assessments for a group of 
compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively 
use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound 
in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound 
in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a 
specified dose-response value, we apply the most protective dose-
response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk. 
In the case of propyl cellosolve, for acute screening-level assessment, 
we used the acute REL for ethylene glycol monomethyl ether as a 
surrogate for propyl cellosolve since there is no specific acute 
inhalation health benchmark for this glycol ether. Given that ethylene 
glycol monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use 
of this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA's risk 
assessment.
    The acute screening analysis resulted in a maximum acute noncancer 
HQ of 3 based on the acute REL for ethylene glycol monomethyl ether. 
For acute screening-level assessments, to better characterize the 
potential health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute 
exposures to HAP, we typically examine a wider range of available acute 
health metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in 
acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and 
uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic 
reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-
protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those 
levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the level of exposure 
that would cause health effects is not specifically known. As the 
exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for 
effects increases. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or 
ERPG-1 is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible effects are 
anticipated in the general population for a single exposure), we 
typically use them as additional comparative measures. However, neither 
of these is available for propyl cellosolve or for ethylene glycol 
monomethyl ether. Taking into account the conservatism included in

[[Page 3316]]

the acute screening-level assessment, including use of an acute REL for 
a highly toxic glycol ether, we would not expect acute exposures at 
levels that would cause adverse effects.
    Additional conservatism in the acute exposure assessment that the 
EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA 
includes several factors. The degree of accuracy of an acute inhalation 
exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of 
independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions 
rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans at the location of the 
maximum concentration. We also assume that peak emissions from each 
emission point in the source category and worst-case meteorological 
conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. 
These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these 
assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption 
that a person is located at this point during the same time period. For 
this source category, these assumptions are likely to overestimate the 
true worst-case actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would 
be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak 
emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions occur 
simultaneously. Thus, as discussed in the document titled Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in 
Support of the Risk and Technology Review December 2017 Proposed Rule, 
in the docket for this action, by assuming the co-occurrence of 
independent factors for the acute screening assessment, the results are 
intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-protective.
    For the Leather Finishing Operations source category, we considered 
all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, 
including other uncertainties associated with the risk assessment, to 
ensure that our decisions are health and environmentally protective (a 
discussion of these uncertainties is available in section III.C of the 
preamble to the proposed amendments (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) and 
in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Leather 
Finishing Operations Source Category in Support of the Risk and 
Technology Review December 2017 Proposed Rule, in the docket for this 
action), in proposing that the risks from the Leather Finishing 
Operations source category are acceptable. The risk analysis for the 
proposed rule amendments indicated that the cancer risks to the 
individual most exposed are below 1-in-1 million from both actual and 
allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 
million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The 
risk analysis also showed no cancer incidence, as well as maximum 
chronic noncancer TOSHI value of 0.04, which is significantly below 1. 
In addition, the risk assessment indicated no significant potential for 
multipathway health effects.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's risk review and 
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons 
explained in the proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the 
Leather Finishing Operations source category are acceptable, and the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant 
to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our residual risk review as 
proposed.

B. Technology Review for the Leather Finishing Operations Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Leather Finishing Operations source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology 
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources 
in the source category. After conducting the CAA section 112(d)(6) 
technology review of the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, we 
proposed that revisions to the standards are not necessary because we 
identified no cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or 
control technologies. More information concerning our technology review 
is in the memorandum titled CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for 
the Leather Finishing Source Category, in the docket for this action 
and in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14, 
2018).
2. How did the technology review change for the Leather Finishing 
Operations source category?
    Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), the technology review 
has not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    No commenters provided input on the proposed technology review.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that 
no cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies were identified in our technology review to warrant 
revisions to the standards. We evaluated all of the comments on the 
EPA's technology review and determined that no changes to the review 
are needed. More information concerning our technology review is in the 
memorandum titled CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the 
Leather Finishing Source Category, in the docket for this action, and 
in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14, 
2018). Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing 
our technology review as proposed.

C. SSM for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations source 
category?
    We proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP 
to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent 
with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. More 
information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14, 2018).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Leather Finishing 
Operations source category?
    We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no changes 
(83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018).
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are 
our responses?
    We received two comments related to our proposed revisions to the 
SSM provisions. One commenter generally supported the proposed 
revisions to the SSM provisions. One commenter requested that we revise 
our approach to handling force majeure events. We evaluated the 
comments and determined that no changes to the proposed SSM provisions 
are warranted. A summary of these comments and our responses are 
located in the memorandum titled Summary of Public Comments and the 
EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and

[[Page 3317]]

Technology Review and Amendments for the Leather Finishing Operations 
NESHAP, in the docket for this action.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that proposed 40 CFR 
63.5420(c)(5) provides an exemption from reporting due to force majeure 
events. The commenter noted that the Court rejected similar 
``affirmative defense'' to civil penalties for malfunctions (NRDC v. 
EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). The commenter also argued that 
adding such an exemption would be arbitrary and unlawful because it 
would undermine the reporting requirements by providing a justification 
to delay reporting, and, thus, undermine compliance, enforcement, and 
fulfillment of the emissions standards designed to protect public 
health and the environment at the core of the CAA's and section 7412's 
purpose (42 U.S.C. 740).
    Response: The commenter is incorrect in referring to 40 CFR 
63.5420(c)(5) as an ``exemption.'' This provision provides instructions 
for actions an affected source should take if it is unable to submit an 
electronic report (required under 40 CFR 63.5420(c)) ``due to a force 
majeure event that is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred, or if 
there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of 
time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is 
due'' under 40 CFR 63.5420(c). We note that there is no exception or 
exemption to reporting, only a method for requesting an extension of 
the reporting deadline. As specified in 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(5), ``[t]he 
decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to 
the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the 
Administrator.'' There is no predetermined timeframe for the length of 
extension that can be granted, as this is something best determined by 
the Administrator when reviewing the circumstances surrounding the 
request. Different circumstances may require a different length of 
extension for electronic reporting. For example, a tropical storm may 
delay electronic reporting for a day, but a category 5 hurricane event 
may delay electronic reporting much longer, especially if the facility 
has no power, and, as such, the owner or operator has no ability to 
access electronically stored data or to submit reports electronically. 
The Administrator will be the most knowledgeable on the events leading 
to the request for extension and will assess whether an extension is 
appropriate and, if so, determine a reasonable length. The 
Administrator may even request that the report be sent in hardcopy 
until electronic reporting can be resumed. While no new fixed duration 
deadline is set, the regulation does require that the report be 
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the CEDRI outage is 
resolved or after the force majeure event occurs.
    We also note that the force majeure mimics long-standing language 
in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4) and 60.8(a)(1) regarding the time granted for 
conducting a performance test and such language has not undermined 
compliance or enforcement.
    Moreover, we disagree that the reporting extension will undermine 
enforcement because the Administrator has full discretion to accept or 
reject the claim of a CEDRI system outage or force majeure. As such, an 
extension is not automatic and is agreed to on an individual basis by 
the Administrator. If the Administrator determines that a facility has 
not acted in good faith to reasonably report in a timely manner, the 
Administrator can reject the claim and find that the failure to report 
timely is a deviation from the regulation. CEDRI system outages are 
infrequent, but the EPA knows when they occur and whether a facility's 
claim is legitimate. Force majeure events (e.g., natural disasters 
impacting a facility) are also usually well-known events.
    We also disagree that the ability to request a reporting extension 
would undermine compliance and fulfillment of the emissions standards. 
While reporting is an important mechanism for the EPA and air agencies 
to assess whether owners and operators are in compliance with emissions 
standards, reporting obligations have nothing to do with whether an 
owner or operator is required to be in compliance with an emissions 
standard, especially where the deadline for meeting the standard has 
already passed and the owner or operator has certified that they are in 
compliance with the standard.
    Additionally, the ability to request a reporting extension does not 
apply to a broad category of circumstances; on the contrary, the scope 
for submitting a reporting extension request is very limited in that 
claims can only be made for events outside of the owner's or operator's 
control that occur in the 5 business days prior to the reporting 
deadline. The claim must then be approved by the Administrator, and, in 
approving such a claim, the Administrator agrees that something outside 
the control of the owner or operator prevented the owner or operator 
from meeting its reporting obligation. In no circumstance does this 
reporting extension allow for the owner or operator to be out of 
compliance with the emissions standards.
    The reporting deadline extension differs from the affirmative 
defense to civil penalties for malfunctions the D.C. Circuit vacated as 
beyond EPA's authority under the CAA in NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 
(D.C. Cir. 2014). Unlike the affirmative defense addressed in NRDC, the 
reporting provision does not address penalty liability for 
noncompliance with emission standards, but merely addresses, under a 
narrow set of circumstances outside the control of the facilities, the 
deadline for reporting.
    Based on our evaluation of the comments, we have determined that no 
changes to our proposed revisions to the SSM provisions are warranted.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments 
to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, 
we determined that these amendments remove and revise provisions 
related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the 
standards apply at all times. More information concerning the proposed 
amendments to the SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed 
rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14, 2018). Therefore, we are finalizing 
our approach for the SSM provisions as proposed.

D. Requirements for Submission of Performance Tests for the Leather 
Finishing Operations Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations source 
category?
    We proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP 
to require owners and operators of leather finishing operations 
facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance 
test reports. More information concerning these proposed revisions is 
in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337, March 14, 
2018).
2. How did the requirements for submission of performance tests change 
for the Leather Finishing Operations source category?
    Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), the requirement for 
owners and operators of leather finishing operations facilities to 
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports 
has not changed.

[[Page 3318]]

3. What key comments did we receive on submission of performance tests, 
and what are our responses?
    We received one comment providing input on the proposed requirement 
for owners and operators of leather finishing operations facilities to 
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports, 
and the commenter generally supported our amendments. We evaluated the 
comment and determined that no changes to our proposed electronic 
reporting requirements are warranted. A summary of this comment and our 
response are located in the memorandum titled Summary of Public 
Comments and the EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology 
Review and Amendments for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP, in 
the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach on requirements for 
submission of performance tests?
    We evaluated the comment on the EPA's proposed amendments requiring 
owners and operators of leather finishing operations facilities to 
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports. 
In light of this evaluation and for the reasons explained in the 
proposed rule, we determined that these amendments would increase the 
ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Further, 
the EPA estimates that while no existing leather finishing operation 
subject to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP uses a control 
device to comply with the NESHAP, the rule allows for a source to use a 
control device to comply, and these electronic reporting provisions are 
necessary. As such, no existing leather finishing operation is required 
to conduct performance tests, submit test reports, or submit electronic 
copies of test reports. More information concerning the proposed 
requirement for owners and operators of leather finishing operations 
facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance 
test reports is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-
11337). Therefore, we are finalizing our approach on requirements for 
submission of performance tests as proposed.

E. Technical Revisions and Corrections for the Leather Finishing 
Operations Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Leather Finishing Operations source 
category?
    We proposed amendments to the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP 
to clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 
for control devices and the provisions for alternative schedules, and 
to correct the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT. More 
information concerning these proposed revisions is in the preamble to 
the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-11337).
2. How did the technical revisions and corrections change for the 
Leather Finishing Operations source category?
    Since proposal (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018), the technical 
revisions and corrections have not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technical revisions and 
corrections, and what are our responses?
    No commenters provided input on the proposed technical revisions 
and corrections to clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements for control devices and the provisions for alternative 
schedules, and to correct the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TTTT.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technical 
revisions and corrections?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that 
these amendments clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements for control devices and the provisions for alternative 
schedules. More information concerning the proposed technical revisions 
and correction is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 11314-
11337). Therefore, we are finalizing our technical revisions and 
corrections as proposed.

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

    There are currently four existing leather finishing operations 
facilities that were identified as subject to the Leather Finishing 
Operations NESHAP: S.B. Foot Tanning Company of Red Wing, Minnesota; 
Alliance Leather, Inc. of Peabody, Massachusetts; Pearl Leather 
Finishers, Inc. of Johnstown, New York; and Tasman Leather Group, LLC 
of Hartland, Maine.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual organic HAP emissions from the four 
leather finishing operations facilities subject to the rule are 
approximately 22.5 tpy. This final rule does not require compliance 
with more stringent emission limits or require additional controls; 
therefore, no air quality impacts are expected as a result of the 
amendments.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The four leather finishing operations facilities subject to these 
final amendments will incur costs to review the final amendments. 
Nationwide annual costs associated with the final amendments are 
estimated to be a total of $832 for the initial year only. We believe 
that the four leather finishing operations facilities that are known to 
be subject to final amendments can comply without incurring additional 
capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs associated with 
these final amendments are related to reviewing the rule. For further 
information on the final amendments, see section IV of the proposal 
preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018). For further information on the 
costs associated with the final amendments, see the supporting 
statement for the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP (EPA Information 
Collection Request (ICR) Number 1985.09, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Control Number 2060-0478), the memorandum titled Costs for 
the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category Risk and Technology 
Review--Final Amendments, and the memorandum titled CAA section 
112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Leather Finishing Source Category, 
in the docket for this action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The total national cost to comply with these final amendments is 
estimated to be $832 in 2016 dollars, which is a one-time cost that 
will be incurred in the first year following promulgation of these 
final amendments. There are no additional emission control costs or 
additional emission reductions associated with this rule. The estimated 
cost of $832 consists of equal costs incurred by each of the four 
affected facilities, with each facility estimated to incur one-time 
labor costs of approximately $208 in order to become familiar with the 
rule. These costs are not expected to result in business closures, 
significant price increases, or substantial profit loss. No impacts on 
employment are expected given the minimal economic impact of the action 
on the affected firms. For further information on the economic impacts 
associated with these final amendments, see the memorandum titled Final 
Economic Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the Risk and 
Technology Review: Leather Finishing Operations Source Category, in the 
docket for this action.

[[Page 3319]]

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the amendments in this final rule will not result in 
reductions in emissions of HAP, this final rule will improve 
implementation of the Leather Finishing Operations NESHAP by clarifying 
the rule requirements as discussed in sections IV.D.1 and IV.D.3 of the 
proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018). Also, adding 
electronic reporting of test reports for any control devices used in 
the future to comply with these final amendments will provide the 
benefits discussed in section IV.D.2 of the proposal preamble (83 FR 
11314, March 14, 2018), including assisting state and local agencies 
that elect to use ERT to track compliance of the rule.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of this 
preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Leather 
Finishing Operations, in the docket for this action. As discussed in 
section IV.A of this preamble, we performed a demographic analysis, 
which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the 
populations living within 50 km and within 5 km of the facilities. In 
this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer 
risks and noncancer hazards from the leather finishing operations 
across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the 
populations living near operations identified as having the highest 
risks.
    The analysis indicates that the minority population living within 
50 km (4,632,781 people, of which 25 percent are minority) and within 5 
km (158,482 people, of which 13 percent are minority) of the four 
leather finishing operations facilities is less than the minority 
population found nationwide (38 percent). The proximity results 
indicate that the population percentage for the ``Other and 
Multiracial'' demographic group within 50 km of leather finishing 
operations emissions is slightly greater than the corresponding 
nationwide percentage for that same demographic. The percentage of 
people ages 65 and older residing within 5 km of leather finishing 
operations (18 percent) is 4 percentage points higher than the 
corresponding nationwide percentage (14 percent). The other demographic 
groups included in the assessment within 5 km of leather finishing 
operations emissions were the same or lower than the corresponding 
nationwide percentages.
    When examining the cancer risk levels of those exposed to emissions 
from the four leather finishing operations, we find that there are no 
people within a 50-km radius of modeled facilities exposed to a cancer 
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million as a result of emissions 
from leather finishing operations. There are no known cancer risks 
posed by HAP emissions from the four facilities, because the HAP 
emitted have no known cancer risks. When examining the noncancer risk 
levels, we find that there are no people within a 50-km radius of 
modeled facilities exposed to a noncancer risk (in this analysis, 
reproductive HI) greater than 1 as a result of emissions from leather 
finishing operations.
    The EPA has determined that this action does not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or 
indigenous peoples because the health risks based on actual emissions 
are low (below 2-in-1 million), the population exposed to risks greater 
than 1-in-1 million is relatively small (750 persons), and the rule 
maintains or increases the level of environmental protection for all 
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. Further, 
the EPA believes that implementation of this rule will provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health of all demographic groups.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 
2018) and further documented in the report titled Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in 
Support of the December 2017 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, 
in the docket for this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the 
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1985.09. You can find a 
copy of the ICR in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0194), and it is briefly summarized here. The information 
collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions, which are essential in determining compliance and mandatory 
for all operators subject to national emissions standards. These 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by 
CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA 
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    We are finalizing changes to the Leather Finishing Operations 
NESHAP paperwork requirements in the form of requiring review of the 
final rule in the initial year. We are finalizing no new reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements for the Leather Finishing Operations source 
category.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include leather 
finishing operations.

[[Page 3320]]

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (authorized by 
section 114 of the CAA).
    Estimated number of respondents: Four leather finishing operations.
    Frequency of response: Initially.
    Total estimated burden: 9 hours (per year) for the responding 
facilities and 0 hours (per year) for the Agency.
    Total estimated cost: $832 (per year).

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no 
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small 
entities subject to the rule. The Agency has determined that of the 
four entities subject to this action, three are small businesses. The 
Agency has determined that each of the three small entities impacted by 
this action may experience an impact of less than 0.01 percent of 
sales. Details of this analysis are presented in the memorandum titled 
Final Economic Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the Risk and 
Technology Review: Leather Finishing Operations Source Category, in the 
docket for this action. We have, therefore, concluded that this action 
will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small 
entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 
2018) and further documented in the report titled Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category in 
Support of the December 2017 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, 
in the docket for this action.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the Leather Finishing Operations Sector RTR 
through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database 
managed by the American National Standards Institute. We also contacted 
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and 
searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 24 and 
311 and identified six VCS as potentially acceptable alternatives for 
the purpose of this rule. Refer to section VIII.J of the proposal 
preamble (83 FR 11314, March 14, 2018) for a list of these methods. As 
proposed, we are not including these VCS in the final rule as 
alternative test methods because the methods are either impractical as 
an alternative to EPA Methods 24 and 311, do not address the parameter 
required to be measured, or have expired. Further, no alternative test 
methods were brought to our attention in public comments on the March 
14, 2018, proposal. A brief summary of these results is provided in 
section VIII.J of the March 14, 2018, proposal preamble. A thorough 
summary of the search conducted, and results are included in the 
memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Leather Finishing 
Operations, in the docket for this action.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section V.F of 
this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology 
Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Leather Finishing Operations, in the public docket for this action.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: December 21, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3321]]

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

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

0
3. Section 63.5360 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to 
read as follows:

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

    (a) * * *
    (2) If you use an emission control device, you must comply with 
Sec.  63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS of this part) and collect the monitoring 
data as specified therein.
* * * * *
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.5305. These deviations must be reported 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.5420(b).
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.5375 is revised to read as follows:

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

    You must conduct performance tests after the installation of any 
emission control device that reduces HAP emissions and will be used to 
comply with the HAP emission requirements of this subpart. You must 
complete your performance tests not later than 60 calendar days before 
the end of the 12-month period used in the initial compliance 
determination.

0
5. Section 63.5380 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  63.5380  How do I conduct performance tests?

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

0
6. Section 63.5420 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory 
text and (b)(3) and (4) and adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) and (c) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  63.5420  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) You must submit a Deviation Notification Report for each 
compliance determination you make in which the compliance ratio exceeds 
1.00, as determined under Sec.  63.5330. Submit the deviation report by 
the fifteenth of the following month in which you determined the 
deviation from the compliance ratio. The Deviation Notification Report 
must include the items in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this 
section:
* * * * *
    (3) The 12-month period covered by the report and each type of 
leather product process operation performed during the 12-month period.
    (4) The compliance ratio comprising the deviation. You may reduce 
the frequency of submittal of the Deviation Notification Report if the 
Administrator of these NESHAP approves an alternative schedule.
    (5) An estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted during 
the 12 months specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section in excess 
of the allowable HAP loss. Calculate this estimate of excess emissions 
by subtracting the allowable HAP loss determined as specified in Sec.  
63.5340 from the actual HAP loss determined as specified in Sec.  
63.5335.
    (6) The cause of the events that resulted in the source failing to 
meet an applicable standard (including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (c) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit 
the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI Interface can be 
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format 
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic 
file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema 
listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13 unless 
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
    (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information 
being submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is confidential 
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive 
or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The 
electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via 
the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due

[[Page 3322]]

to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems 
within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date 
that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing 
CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time 
prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to 
timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit 
notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible 
following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have 
known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You 
must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the 
date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the 
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system 
outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 
delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, 
or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the 
notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report 
must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage 
is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and 
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the 
discretion of the Administrator.
    (5) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, 
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an 
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the 
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of 
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from 
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within 
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature 
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, 
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the 
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to 
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a 
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to 
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by 
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting 
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In 
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after 
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of 
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is 
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.

0
7. Section 63.5430 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (g) and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.5430  What records must I keep?

    You must satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in paragraphs (a) 
through (i) of this section by the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.5295.
* * * * *
    (g) If you use an emission control device, you must keep records of 
monitoring data as specified at Sec.  63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS of this 
part).
    (h) In the event that the compliance ratio exceeded 1.00, as 
determined under Sec.  63.5330, keep a record of the information 
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this section for each 
exceedance.
    (1) The 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred, as 
reported in Sec.  63.5420(b).
    (2) Each type of leather product process operation performed during 
the 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred, as reported in 
Sec.  63.5420(b).
    (3) Estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted during the 
12 months specified in Sec.  63.5420(b)(3) in excess of the allowable 
HAP loss, as reported in Sec.  63.5420(b).
    (4) Cause of the events that resulted in the source failing to meet 
an applicable standard (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 
reported in Sec.  63.5420(b).
    (5) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.5320(b), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected 
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (i) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
8. Section 63.5460 is amended by revising the definition for 
``Deviation'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.5460  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source fails to meet 
any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, 
but not limited to, any emission limits or work practice standards.
* * * * *

0
9. Table 2 to subpart TTTT of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.5450, you must meet the appropriate NESHAP 
General Provision requirements in the following table:

             Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart TTTT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Brief description      Applies to
   General provisions citation    Subject of citation     of requirement         subpart          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.....................  Applicability......  Initial              Yes.............
                                                        applicability
                                                        determination;
                                                        applicability
                                                        after standard
                                                        established;
                                                        permit
                                                        requirements;
                                                        extensions,
                                                        notifications..
Sec.   63.2.....................  Definitions........  Definitions for      Yes.............  Except as
                                                        Part 63 standards.                     specifically
                                                                                               provided in this
                                                                                               subpart.
Sec.   63.3.....................  Units and            Units and            Yes.............
                                   abbreviations.       abbreviations for
                                                        Part 63 standards.

[[Page 3323]]

 
Sec.   63.4.....................  Prohibited           Prohibited           Yes.............
                                   activities and       activities;
                                   circumvention.       compliance date;
                                                        circumvention,
                                                        severability.
Sec.   63.5.....................  Construction/        Applicability;       Yes.............  Except for
                                   reconstruction.      applications;                          paragraphs of
                                                        approvals.                             Sec.   63.5 as
                                                                                               listed below.
Sec.   63.5(c)..................  [Reserved].........
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H)........  Application for      Type and quantity    No..............  All sources emit
                                   approval.            of HAP, operating                      HAP. Subpart TTTT
                                                        parameters..                           does not require
                                                                                               control from
                                                                                               specific emission
                                                                                               points.
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(i)............  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2),                        Application for      No..............  The requirements
 (d)(3)(ii).                                            approval.                              of the
                                                                                               application for
                                                                                               approval for new
                                                                                               and reconstructed
                                                                                               sources are
                                                                                               described in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.5320(b).
                                                                                               General provision
                                                                                               requirements for
                                                                                               identification of
                                                                                               HAP emission
                                                                                               points or
                                                                                               estimates of
                                                                                               actual emissions
                                                                                               are not required.
                                                                                               Descriptions of
                                                                                               control and
                                                                                               methods, and the
                                                                                               estimated and
                                                                                               actual control
                                                                                               efficiency of
                                                                                               such do not
                                                                                               apply.
                                                                                               Requirements for
                                                                                               describing
                                                                                               control equipment
                                                                                               and the estimated
                                                                                               and actual
                                                                                               control
                                                                                               efficiency of
                                                                                               such equipment
                                                                                               apply only to
                                                                                               control equipment
                                                                                               to which the
                                                                                               subpart TTTT
                                                                                               requirements for
                                                                                               quantifying
                                                                                               solvent destroyed
                                                                                               by an add-on
                                                                                               control device
                                                                                               would be
                                                                                               applicable.
Sec.   63.6.....................  Applicability of     Applicability of     Yes.............  Except for
                                   general provisions.  general provisions.                    paragraphs of
                                                                                               Sec.   63.6 as
                                                                                               listed below.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(3)...........  Compliance dates,                         No..............  Section Sec.
                                   new and                                                     63.5283 specifies
                                   reconstructed                                               the compliance
                                   sources.                                                    dates for new and
                                                                                               reconstructed
                                                                                               sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)...............  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)...........  [Reserved].                               ................
Sec.   63.6(d)..................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)...............  Operation and        ...................  No..............  See Sec.
                                   maintenance                                                 63.5320(b) for
                                   requirements.                                               general duty
                                                                                               requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)...............  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)...............  Operation and        Startup, shutdown,   No..............  Subpart TTTT does
                                   maintenance          and malfunction                        not have any
                                   requirements.        plan requirements.                     startup,
                                                                                               shutdown, and
                                                                                               malfunction plan
                                                                                               requirements.
Sec.   63.6(f)-(g)..............  Compliance with      Comply with          No..............  Subpart TTTT does
                                   nonopacity           emission standards                     not have
                                   emission standards   at all times                           nonopacity
                                   except during SSM.   except during SSM.                     requirements.
Sec.   63.6(h)..................  Opacity/visible      ...................  No..............  Subpart TTTT has
                                   emission (VE)                                               no opacity or
                                   standards.                                                  visual emission
                                                                                               standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)..................  Compliance           Procedures and       Yes.............
                                   extension.           criteria for
                                                        responsible agency
                                                        to grant
                                                        compliance
                                                        extension.
Sec.   63.6(j)..................  Presidential         President may        Yes.............
                                   compliance           exempt source
                                   exemption.           category from
                                                        requirement to
                                                        comply with
                                                        subpart.
Sec.   63.7.....................  Performance testing  Schedule,            Yes.............  Except for
                                   requirements.        conditions,                            paragraphs of
                                                        notifications and                      Sec.   63.7 as
                                                        procedures.                            listed below.
                                                                                               Subpart TTTT
                                                                                               requires
                                                                                               performance
                                                                                               testing only if
                                                                                               the source
                                                                                               applies
                                                                                               additional
                                                                                               control that
                                                                                               destroys solvent.
                                                                                               Sec.   63.5311
                                                                                               requires sources
                                                                                               to follow the
                                                                                               performance
                                                                                               testing
                                                                                               guidelines of the
                                                                                               General
                                                                                               Provisions if a
                                                                                               control is added.
Sec.   63.7(a)(2) (i) and (iii).  Performance testing  Applicability and    No..............  Sec.   63.5310(a)
                                   requirements.        performance dates.                     of subpart TTTT
                                                                                               specifies the
                                                                                               requirements of
                                                                                               performance
                                                                                               testing dates for
                                                                                               new and existing
                                                                                               sources.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)...............  Conduct of           Defines              No..............  See Sec.
                                   performance tests.   representative                         63.5380.
                                                        conditions;
                                                        provides an
                                                        exemption from the
                                                        standards for
                                                        periods of
                                                        startup, shutdown,
                                                        and malfunction;
                                                        requires that,
                                                        upon request, the
                                                        owner or operator
                                                        shall make
                                                        available to the
                                                        Administrator such
                                                        records as may be
                                                        necessary to
                                                        determine the
                                                        conditions of
                                                        performance tests.
Sec.   63.8.....................  Monitoring           Applicability,       No..............  See Sec.
                                   requirements.        conduct of                             63.5360(a)(2) for
                                                        monitoring,                            monitoring
                                                        operation and                          requirements.
                                                        maintenance,
                                                        quality control,
                                                        performance
                                                        evaluations, use
                                                        of alternative
                                                        monitoring method,
                                                        reduction of
                                                        monitoring data.
Sec.   63.9.....................  Notification         Applicability and    Yes.............  Except for
                                   requirements.        State delegation.                      paragraphs of
                                                                                               Sec.   63.9 as
                                                                                               listed below.
Sec.   63.9(e)..................  Notification of      Notify responsible   Yes.............  Applies only if
                                   performance test.    agency 60 days                         performance
                                                        ahead.                                 testing is
                                                                                               performed.
Sec.   63.9(f)..................  Notification of VE/  Notify responsible   No..............  Subpart TTTT has
                                   opacity              agency 30 days                         no opacity or
                                   observations.        ahead.                                 visual emission
                                                                                               standards.

[[Page 3324]]

 
Sec.   63.9(g)..................  Additional           Notification of      No..............  See Sec.
                                   notifications when   performance                            63.5360(a)(2) for
                                   using a continuous   evaluation;                            CMS requirements.
                                   monitoring system    notification using
                                   (CMS).               COMS data;
                                                        notification that
                                                        exceeded criterion
                                                        for relative
                                                        accuracy.
Sec.   63.9(h)..................  Notification of      Contents...........  No..............  Sec.   63.5320(d)
                                   compliance status.                                          specifies
                                                                                               requirements for
                                                                                               the notification
                                                                                               of compliance
                                                                                               status.
Sec.   63.10....................  Recordkeeping/       Schedule for         Yes.............  Except for
                                   reporting.           reporting, record                      paragraphs of
                                                        storage.                               Sec.   63.10 as
                                                                                               listed below.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)..............  Recordkeeping......  CMS recordkeeping;   No..............  See Sec.   63.5360
                                                        CMS records of                         for CMS
                                                        startup, shutdown,                     recordkeeping
                                                        and malfunction                        requirements,
                                                        events.                                except see Sec.
                                                                                               63.5430(h) for
                                                                                               CMS recordkeeping
                                                                                               requirements if
                                                                                               there is a
                                                                                               deviation from
                                                                                               the standard.
Sec.   63.10(c).................  Recordkeeping......  Additional CMS       No..............  See Sec.
                                                        recordkeeping.                         63.5360(a)(2) for
                                                                                               CMS recordkeeping
                                                                                               requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)..............  Reporting..........  Reporting            Yes.............  Applies only if
                                                        performance test                       performance
                                                        results.                               testing is
                                                                                               performed.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)..............  Reporting..........  Reporting opacity    No..............  Subpart TTTT has
                                                        or VE observations.                    no opacity or
                                                                                               visible emission
                                                                                               standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)..............  Reporting..........  Progress reports...  Yes.............  Applies if a
                                                                                               condition of
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               extension.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)..............  Reporting..........  Startup, shutdown,   No..............  See Sec.
                                                        and malfunction                        63.5420(b) for
                                                        reporting.                             reporting
                                                                                               requirements if
                                                                                               there is a
                                                                                               deviation from
                                                                                               the standard.
Sec.   63.10(e).................  Reporting..........  Additional CMS       No..............  See Sec.
                                                        reports.                               63.5360(a)(2) for
                                                                                               monitoring
                                                                                               requirements.
Sec.   63.11....................  Control device       Requirements for     Yes.............  Applies only if
                                   requirements.        flares.                                your source uses
                                                                                               a flare to
                                                                                               control solvent
                                                                                               emissions.
                                                                                               Subpart TTTT does
                                                                                               not require
                                                                                               flares.
Sec.   63.12....................  State authority and  State authority to   Yes.............
                                   delegations.         enforce standards.
Sec.   63.13....................  State/regional       Addresses where      Yes.............
                                   addresses.           reports,
                                                        notifications, and
                                                        requests are sent.
Sec.   63.14....................  Incorporation by     Test methods         Yes.............
                                   reference.           incorporated by
                                                        reference.
Sec.   63.15....................  Availability of      Public and           Yes.............
                                   information and      confidential
                                   confidentiality.     information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-01317 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P