Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/02/27/02-4064/national-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-for-leather-finishing-operations
Timestamp: 2017-11-19 03:57:50
Document Index: 354395475

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 63', 'art 63', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', 'art 63', 'art 9', 'art 63', '§\u200963', 'art 63', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', 'art 63', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', 'art 60', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', 'art 63', 'art 63', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963']

The effective date is February 27, 2002. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 27, 2002.
9155-9172 (18 pages)
FRL-7147-8
A. Product Process Operations
C. Product Process Operations
IV. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Rule?
Figure to Subpart TTTT of Part 63
Tables to Subpart TTTT of Part 63
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-4064 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-4064
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 9156
This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for leather finishing operations. The EPA has identified these facilities as major sources of emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), such as glycol ethers, toluene, and xylene. These NESHAP will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all leather finishing operations that are major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). We estimate the final NESHAP will reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from leather finishing operations by 375 tons per year (tpy). In addition, the final NESHAP will reduce non-HAP emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 750 tpy. The emissions reductions achieved by these final NESHAP, when combined with the emissions reductions achieved by other similar standards, will provide protection to the public and achieve a primary goal of the CAA.
Docket. Docket No. A-99-38 contains the information considered by EPA in developing the NESHAP. This docket is located at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Mail Code 6102), 401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500, Waterside Mall, Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
For information concerning applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or local agency representative. If no State or local representative is available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in § 63.13. For information concerning the analyses performed in developing these NESHAP, contact Mr. William Schrock, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division, (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5032; facsimile number (919) 541-3470; electronic mail address: schrock.bill@epa.gov.
Public Comments. The NESHAP for leather finishing operations were proposed on October 2, 2000 (65 FR 58702) and seven comment letters were received on the proposal. The comment letters are available in Docket A-99-38, along with a summary of the comment letters and EPA's responses to the comments. In response to the public comments, EPA adjusted the final NESHAP where appropriate.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's final NESHAP will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the NESHAP will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or final rules at http://www.epa.gov/​ttn/​oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. Not all facilities classified under the NAICS or SIC codes are affected. Other types of entities not listed could be affected. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.5285 of the final NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Judicial Review. The NESHAP for leather finishing operations were proposed on October 2, 2000 (65 FR 58702). This action announces the EPA's final decision on the NESHAP. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of these NESHAP is available by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by April 29, 2002. Only those objections to this rule which were raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment may be raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the subject of today's final NESHAP may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
D. Clarifications Start Printed Page 9157
The nationwide environmental and cost impacts for today's final rule are the same as for the proposed rule. For all affected sources, we determined the total capital cost associated with the MACT level of control is approximately $5.6 million, and a total annualized cost of approximately $440,000 per year. The total annualized costs include the annualized capital costs and the costs associated with compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
We determined the overall cost associated with the MACT level of control to be about $1,300 per ton of HAP emissions reduced. The MACT level of control will reduce HAP emissions from existing sources by approximately 375 tpy, a reduction of approximately 51 percent. We do not expect any significant secondary air emissions, wastewater, solid waste, or energy impacts resulting from the final rule.
Additional information on the costs and environmental impacts of control options are discussed in the following four documents, which can be found in docket A-99-38:
(1) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather Finishing Operations, proposed rule (65 FR 58702, October 2, 2000).
(2) “Public Comments and EPA Responses to the Proposed NESHAP for Leather Finishing Operations,” memorandum dated July 17, 2001.
(3) “Environmental and Energy Impacts for Leather Tanning and Finishing MACT Floor Regulatory Option,” memorandum dated September 30, 1999.
(4) “Cost Impacts Associated with HAP Emissions Reductions for Leather Tanning and Finishing Operations,” September 2, 1999.
The economic impacts of the MACT floor are discussed in the proposed rule and in the document, “Economic Impact Analysis of Leather Tanning and Finishing Operations NESHAP.” The major findings regarding the economic impacts of the rule have not changed as a result of public comments on the proposed rule. The total annualized costs associated with these final NESHAP are approximately $440,000 in 1997 dollars. This cost represents only 0.014 percent of total industry revenues based on 1996 value of shipments. Because the total annualized costs associated with complying with the final NESHAP are such a small percentage of total market revenues (value of shipments), it is unlikely that market prices or production will change as a result of these final NESHAP. As an alternative to performing a market analysis, we evaluated the cost impacts on facility and firm revenues. The calculation of cost-to-sales ratios projects that only one firm (owning one facility) will have an impact that is greater than 1 percent of revenues (1.52 percent). All other firms have impacts well below 1/10th of 1 percent and range from 0.00 percent to 0.09 percent of firm revenues. Given that overall costs represent a small fraction of industry revenues, and individual firm revenues experience minimal impacts, we conclude that economic impacts associated with this final rule will be negligible.
This section describes the major changes made in response to public comments and several clarifications that did not change any of the proposed regulatory requirements.
In the final rule, we have assigned the same HAP emission limit to the water-resistant leather product process operations and specialty leather finishing product process operations. Thus, the product process operation is now referred to as “water-resistant/specialty.” In the final rule, we have also added a definition for “specialty leather.” Under the proposed rule, specialty leather finishing had been categorized as a nonwater-resistant leather product process operation with a corresponding lower HAP emission limit.
In the final rule, we revised the MACT emission limits as follows:
(1) The MACT emission limit for existing sources with upholstery leather (less than 4 grams finish add-on per square foot) product process operations was decreased from 7.1 to 6.8 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed.
(2) The MACT emission limit for new sources with upholstery leather (less than 4 grams finish add-on per square foot) product process operations was decreased from 2.9 to 2.5 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed.
(3) The MACT emission limit for existing sources with water-resistant/specialty leather product process operations was decreased from 5.9 to 5.6 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed. The revised definition of water-resistant product process operations to include specialty leather increases the emission limit for specialty leather product process operations from 3.4 to 5.6 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed.
(4) The MACT emission limit for existing sources with nonwater-resistant leather product process operations was increased from 3.4 to 3.7 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed.
We have revised the definition of “leather finishing” to include dyes or other non film-forming coatings. We have also included a definition to describe a new term, “specialty leather.”
In the final rule, we have clarified the following points:
(1) Facilities that finish leather solely for research and development purposes are not subject to this rule.
(2) The quantity of leather shipped can be used as a surrogate for the quantity of leather processed in a particular month.
(3) The quantity of leather processed cannot be recounted when the leather needs additional finishing or reworking, unless the piece of leather is completely stripped of all applied finishes and reprocessed through the entire finishing operation as if it were a new piece of leather.
(4) Paper or cardstock may be used as a substrate material for determining the mass of finish add-on. Start Printed Page 9158
(5) We updated the Maeser Flexes standard testing method to ASTM Standard D2099-00.
(6) A total of 36 samples (i.e., three sections of leather substrate from at least 12 sides of leather) must be tested to determine the water-resistant characteristics of the leather.
This section presents a summary of our responses to significant public comments received on the proposed rule. A comprehensive summary of public comments and responses can be found in the document entitled “Public Comments and EPA Responses to the Proposed NESHAP for Leather Finishing Operations” (Docket No. A-99-38).
Comment: One commenter requested that provisions in the rule should clarify that the “once in, always in” policy for MACT standards will not apply in certain cases. Primarily, this provision would apply to sources that have subsequently implemented pollution-prevention techniques to reduce HAP emissions from the source. If the source is able to reduce its emission level such that the source is no longer considered a major source, the source can then be excluded from the MACT requirements.
Response: EPA has been working to develop regulatory options that would allow qualifying sources to satisfy the MACT requirements through innovative, streamlined approaches, if, after a source achieves compliance with an applicable MACT rule, it achieves HAP emissions reductions equivalent to or better than MACT levels of control through pollution-prevention measures. The regulatory options under consideration will include components that meet the legal requirements of the CAA and still resolve the issues regarding pollution prevention. We plan to develop rule language to propose to amend either the NESHAP General Provisions or existing MACT rules. We project proposing these amendments later in 2002.
Comment: One commenter stated that the original HAP emission data submitted by the source for 1997 operations did not include ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate (EGBE) (CAS No. 112-07-2). The total HAP emissions including EGBE is nearly twice the value of their original HAP emissions submission. The commenter is concerned that other leather finishing operations may have excluded EGBE from their respective total HAP emissions estimated. The commenter also requested that the MACT floor be determined only from sources that have included EGBE in their total HAP emissions estimate.
Response: In 1999, we distributed a second industry survey to ensure that all leather finishing operations had reported all 1997 HAP emissions, including glycol ethers and specifically, EGBE. Initially, we decided not to use the glycol ethers data gathered from the second industry survey in the MACT floor determinations for the proposed rule because of some observed inconsistencies with the reported data. Upon further evaluation of the glycol ether data, we have been able to resolve the inconsistencies. As a result, the total HAP emissions reported from six sources have been adjusted. Four sources resulted in higher total HAP emissions and two sources resulted in lower HAP emissions. The total HAP emissions adjustments affected the MACT determination for existing sources with any of the following three product process operations: (1) Upholstery leather (less than 4 grams finish add-on per square foot), (2) water-resistant/specialty leather, and (3) nonwater-resistant leather. In addition, the total HAP emissions adjustments affected the MACT determination for new sources with upholstery leather (less than 4 grams finish add-on per square foot) product process operations.
We revised the MACT determinations for existing and new sources with upholstery leather (less than 4 grams finish add-on per square foot) product process operations as a sole result of adjustments to reported total HAP emissions. The MACT emission limit for existing sources in the upholstery leather (less than 4 grams finish add-on per square foot) product process operations decreased from 7.1 to 6.8 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed. The MACT emission limit for new sources in the upholstery leather (less than 4 grams finish add-on per square foot) product process operations decreased from 2.9 to 2.5 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed.
We revised the MACT determinations for existing sources with water-resistant/specialty leather and nonwater-resistant leather product process operations as a result of adjustments to the reported total HAP emissions and modifications to the definitions of these two product process operations. We reassigned specialty leather processes from the nonwater-resistant product process operation to the water-resistant product process operation based on greater similarities in applied coatings. Both specialty and water-resistant leather require the application of resins to produce the special color, texture, and water-resistant qualities.
Comment: Two commenters requested a recalculation of the MACT floor to exclude leather finishing operations that have closed since the initial survey of industry data in 1998. The commenters noted that four leather finishing operations have closed since 1998. One commenter also noted that one operation was recently sold to another company.
Response: The commenters are correct that four leather finishing operations have closed. The determination of a MACT floor is based on a single period in time. For the leather finishing operations NESHAP, the MACT floor performance levels are based on industry performance data for calendar year 1997. Emissions and production rates are dynamic and may change since the selected performance period. Since the data obtained from the industry were considered representative for calendar year 1997, we have decided to make no changes to the MACT floor HAP emission limits to account for recent facility closings. In this regard, we note that no commenter suggested that the emission information from these now-closed facilities was inaccurate or unrepresentative. We are not aware of any such deficiencies. Our view is the data are both accurate and representative, thus we do not see any technical reason for not including this information in a calculation of emissions reductions reflecting MACT.
Comment: Two commenters requested that we establish an additional leather product process operation and corresponding MACT floor performance level for “specialty” leather finishing. The commenters stated that no suitable method has been developed to replace the solvents necessary for the finishing of specialty leathers. At the sources' current HAP emission rates, the sources will be unable to achieve the MACT performance levels. In addition, one commenter requested that the additional product process operation be assigned a HAP emission limit of no less than 6.0 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed.
Response: Based on a review of additional information provided by one of the commenters on specialty leather processing operations, we have decided to modify and expand the definition of the water-resistant leather product process operations to specifically include specialty leather finishing. Start Printed Page 9159Under the proposed rule, we categorized specialty leather finishing as a nonwater-resistant leather product process operation. The two sources identified with specialty leather finishing operations have now shifted from the nonwater-resistant product process operation to the water-resistant/specialty product process operation. Thus, we have revised the MACT determination for these two product process operations to reflect the updated set of affected sources with each product process operation. However, we cannot arbitrarily assign a MACT performance level to a product process operation such as the 6.0 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed, as suggested by commenters, especially without providing any supporting information. The MACT floor for existing sources in each leather product process operation must be determined as the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent. In cases where 30 or fewer sources exist in a source category, or subcategory (the situation here for nonwater-resistant leather product process operations), the MACT floor is defined as the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five sources.
The MACT emission limits for the water-resistant/specialty and nonwater-resistant leather product process operations are based on the top five sources included in the revised definition of these two product process operations. The revised emission limits include all appropriate adjustments for variability and glycol ethers data from the second industry survey, as discussed in a previous comment concerning EGBE. As a result of the revised process definitions and adjustments for glycol ethers, the MACT emission limit for existing sources in the modified water-resistant/specialty leather product process operations has decreased from 5.9 to 5.6 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed. The MACT emission limit for existing sources in the nonwater-resistant leather product process operations increased from 3.4 to 3.7 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed. Under the proposed rule, specialty leather operations were established with an emission limit of 3.4 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed as a nonwater-resistant product process operation. Under the final rule, specialty leather operations are now established with an increased emission limit of 5.6 pounds of HAP per 1,000 square feet of leather processed as a water-resistant/specialty product process operation.
Comment: One commenter requested that the definition of leather “finishing” be expanded to include coatings, such as dyes and pigments, that are not film-forming materials.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and the final rule reflects a revised definition of leather finishing. The definition now states “Leather finishing adjusts and improves the physical and aesthetic characteristics of the leather surface through the multistage application of a coating comprising dyes, pigments, film-forming materials, and performance modifiers dissolved or suspended in liquid carriers.”
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that today's final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because it will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include rules that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a rule that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the rule. The EPA also may not issue a rule that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the rule.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the Agency's position supporting the need to issue the rule, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
Today's final rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This is because today's final rule applies to affected sources in the leather finishing industry, not to States or local governments. Nor will State law be preempted, or any mandates be imposed on States or local governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this final rule. The EPA notes, however, that although not required to do so by this Executive Order (or otherwise), it did consult with State Start Printed Page 9160governments during development of today's final rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include rules that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”
Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the rule. Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it establishes environmental standards based on technology, not health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, today's final rule has been determined not to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that this final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The total annual cost of this final rule for any 1 year has been estimated at $440,000 per year. Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
We have determined that today's final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
The RFA generally requires us to give special consideration to the effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. We must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless we determine that the rule will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent company has fewer than 500 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, we have determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are currently a total of 16 facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions and affected by this final rule. The industry is characterized as having some finishing operations that are relatively small, often specializing in the manufacture of leather with unique attributes, while others employ several hundred people and produce a wide variety of leathers. However, many of the smaller leather finishing operations are owned by ultimate parent firms that are classified as large corporations. Also, this industry typically operates with more than 300 establishments, so only a small fraction of the firms in the industry are impacted by the final rule. We determined that the 16 affected facilities are owned by 14 parent firms, and only three of these firms are classified as small by the previously mentioned definition. Nearly all of the firms (small and large) have very minimal impacts which range from 0.00 Start Printed Page 9161percent to 0.09 percent of firm revenues. Only one firm of the 14 will experience compliance costs that exceed 1 percent of firm revenues (1.52 percent), and this firm is a small business. This impact, however, is not considered significant for this industry. Typical profit margins for the leather industry average 3.5 percent.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless have tried to reduce the impact of this final rule on small entities. We have worked closely with the Leather Industry of America in determining the form of the standard and establishing methods for minimizing the compliance burden. This outreach included a series of meetings over a 2-year period and our attendance at the industry's annual regulatory meeting of the Leather Industry of America. These meetings and outreach provided updates to the industry on the progress of the final rule and also forecasting the timeline for compliance with the final rule. In addition, these meetings provided us with useful information that we used in developing the final rule. For instance, currently no facilities use add-on control devices, and we anticipate that no facilities will need to install a device to achieve compliance with the final rule. This will minimize costs to achieve compliance as well as simplify demonstrating compliance since already maintained purchase and usage records are all that will be needed to demonstrate compliance. We are also requiring that compliance demonstrations be conducted monthly, rather than on a daily basis, which we believe will reduce the amount of records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the final rule. Furthermore, we require the minimum monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements specified in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
The information collection requirements in today's final rule will be submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 1985-02), and you may obtain a copy from Sandy Farmer by mail at the U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/​icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection for all affected facilities, as averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the rule, is estimated to be 485 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of $21,600. The total 3-year burden of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for this collection for all affected facilities is estimated at 1,455 labor hours at a total annual cost of $64,700. There are no required capital and operations and maintenance costs for the leather finishing operations NESHAP. This estimate includes a one-time plan for demonstrating compliance, annual compliance certificate reports, notifications, and recordkeeping.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's rules are in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113), all Federal agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted a search for EPA Method 311 (Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph) and found no candidate VCS for use in identifying glycol ethers, toluene, and xylene. This final rule references the National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices, and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process (40 CFR part 63, subpart SS). Since there are no new technical standard requirements resulting from specifying subpart SS in this final rule, and no candidate consensus standards were identified for EPA Method 311 (glycol ethers, toluene, and xylene), EPA is not adopting any VCS in today's final rule.
Section 63.5290(a) of today's final rule lists EPA Method 311. The EPA Method 311 has been used by States and industry for approximately 5 years. Nevertheless, under § 63.7(f) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, today's final rule allows any State or source to apply to EPA for permission to use an alternative method in lieu of EPA Method 311 listed in § 63.5290(a).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the SBREFA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), and therefore will be effective February 27, 2002. Start Printed Page 9162
2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding and reserving paragraphs (b)(19) and (b)(20), and adding paragraph (b)(21) to read as follows:
(21) ASTM D2099-00, Standard Test Method for Dynamic Water Resistance of Shoe Upper Leather by the Maeser Water Penetration Tester, IBR approved for § 63.5350.
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart TTTT to read as follows:
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a leather finishing operation that is a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions or that is located at, or is part of, a major source of HAP emissions. A leather finishing operation is defined in § 63.5460. In general, a leather finishing operation is a single process or group of processes used to adjust and improve the physical and aesthetic characteristics of the leather surface through multistage application of a coating comprised of dyes, pigments, film-forming materials, and performance modifiers dissolved or suspended in liquid carriers.
(b) The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of all equipment and activities used for the multistage application of finishing materials to adjust and improve the physical and aesthetic characteristics of the leather surface. This subpart applies to the leather finishing operations listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and as defined in § 63.5460, whether or not the operations are collocated with leather tanning operations:
(2) Upholstery leather with less than 4 grams finish add-on per square foot of leather; Start Printed Page 9163
(1) An area source that meets the criteria of a new affected source, as specified at § 63.5290(d), or a reconstructed affected source, as specified at § 63.5290(e), must be in compliance with this subpart upon becoming a major source.
(2) An area source that meets the criteria of an existing affected source, as specified at § 63.5290(f), must be in compliance with this subpart no later than 3 years after it becomes a major source.
(a) All affected sources must be in compliance with the requirements of this subpart at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(4) Keep a finish inventory log, as specified at § 63.5335(b), to record monthly the pounds of each type of finish applied for each leather product process operation and the mass fraction of HAP in each applied finish. You may be required to start recordkeeping prior to the compliance dates specified at § 63.5295.
(5) Keep an inventory log, as specified at § 63.5430(f), to record monthly the surface area of leather processed in 1,000's of square feet for each product process operation. You may be required to start recordkeeping prior to the compliance dates specified at § 63.5295.
Start Printed Page 9164
(2) For facilities using add-on emission control devices, the finish inventory log and the emission reduction efficiency of the add-on capture and control devices can be used to determine the net HAP loss in pounds. The emission reduction efficiency for a control device must be determined from a performance test conducted in accordance with §§ 63.5375 and 63.5380. Using the finish inventory log, multiply the pounds of each recorded finish usage by the corresponding mass fraction of HAP in the finish. The result is the gross HAP loss in pounds from each finish application prior to the add-on control device. Multiply the gross HAP loss by the percent emission reduction achieved by the add-on control device and then subtract this amount from the gross HAP loss. The result is the net HAP loss in pounds from each finish application. Sum the pounds of net HAP loss from all finish applications recorded during the previous month to determine the total monthly net HAP loss in pounds from your finishing operation.
§ 63.5340
(b) To determine the allowable HAP loss for your leather finishing operation, you must select the appropriate HAP emission limit, expressed in pounds of HAP loss per 1,000 square feet of leather processed, from Table 1 of this subpart, for each type of leather product process operation performed during the previous 12 months. Under the appropriate existing or new source column, select the HAP emission limit that corresponds to each type of product process operation performed during the previous 12 months. Next, determine the annual total of leather processed in 1,000's of square feet for each product process operation in accordance with § 63.5400. Then, multiply the annual total of leather processed in each product process operation by the corresponding HAP emission limit to determine the allowable HAP loss in pounds for the corresponding leather product process operation. Finally, sum the pounds of HAP loss from all leather product process operations performed in the previous 12 months. Equation 1 of this section illustrates the calculation of allowable HAP loss as follows:
Start Printed Page 9165
(b) To determine whether your product process operation produces water-resistant or nonwater-resistant leather, you must conduct the Maeser Flexes test method according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation D2099-00 (incorporated by reference-see § 63.14) or a method approved by the Administrator.
(c) To determine whether your product process operation produces specialty leather, you must meet the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section:
(2) The leather must be retanned through the application of greases, waxes, and oils in quantities greater than 25 percent of the dry leather weight. Specialty leather is also finished with higher solvent-based finishes that provide rich color, luster, or an oily/tacky feel. Specialty leather products may include, but not limited to, specialty shoe leather and top grade football leathers.
(a) To determine the density of a finish, the reference method is EPA Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. You may use EPA Method 24, an alternative method approved by the Administrator, or any other reasonable means for determining the density of a finish. Other reasonable means of determining density include, but are not Start Printed Page 9167limited to, an MSDS or a manufacturer's hazardous air pollutant data sheet. If the density is provided on a MSDS or a manufacturer's data sheet as a range of values, then the highest density value of the range must be used for the determination of compliance to this standard. This value must be entered on the finish log for each type of finish applied. You are not required to test the materials that you use, but the Administrator may require a test using EPA Method 24 (or another approved method) to confirm the reported density. However, if the results of an analysis by EPA Method 24 are different from the density determined by another means, the EPA Method 24 results will govern compliance determinations.
(2) By the fifteenth of each month, you must determine the quantity of leather processed in 1,000's of square feet for each product process operation during the previous month. After collecting data on the amount of leather processed for 12 months, you must also determine by the fifteenth of each month the annual total of leather processed in 1,000's of square feet for each product process operation by summing the monthly quantities of leather processed in each product process operation for the previous 12 months. The “annual total of leather processed” in each product process operation is used in Equation 1 of § 63.5340 to calculate your allowable HAP loss as described in § 63.5340. Your allowable HAP loss is then subsequently used to calculate your compliance ratio as described in § 63.5330.
(b) As specified in § 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected source before February 27, 2002, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than June 27, 2002.
(d) As specified in § 63.9(b)(1) and (2), if you startup your new or reconstructed affected source on or after February 27, 2002, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
(2) The physical address of the leather finishing operation. Start Printed Page 9168
(4) Each HAP identified under § 63.5390, in finishes applied during the 12-month period covered by the report.
(4) The compliance ratio comprising the deviation. You may reduce the frequency of submittal of the Deviation Notification Report if the responsible agency of these NESHAP does not object.
(c) If you have a source that becomes a major source of HAP emissions after February 27, 2002, then you must start recordkeeping to determine your compliance ratio immediately upon submitting your Initial Notification, as required at § 63.5415(g).
You must satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section by the compliance date specified in § 63.5295.
(a) You must keep the plan for demonstrating compliance as required at § 63.5325 onsite and readily available as long as the source is operational. If you make any changes to the plan for demonstrating compliance, then you must keep all previous versions of the plan and make them readily available for inspection for at least 5 years after each revision.
(g) If you use an emission control device, you must keep records of monitoring data as specified at subpart SS of this part.
(c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record according to § 63.10(b)(1). You can keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Table 2 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
(a) This subpart can be administered by us, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to Start Printed Page 9169your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the primary authority to administer and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if the authority to implement and enforce this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
Compliance ratio means the ratio of the actual HAP loss from the previous 12 months to the allowable HAP loss from the previous 12 months. Equation 1 in § 63.5330 is used to calculate this value. If the value is less than or equal to 1.00, the source is in compliance. If the value is greater than 1.00, the source is deviating from compliance.
Specialty leather means a select grade of chrome tanned, bark retanned, or fat liquored leather that is retanned through the application of greases, waxes, and oils in quantities greater than 25 percent of the dry leather weight. Specialty leather is also finished with higher solvent-based finishes that provide rich color, luster, or an oily/tacky feel. Specialty leather products are generally low volume, high-quality leather, such as specialty shoe leather and top grade football leathers.
Start Printed Page 9170
Month:______ Year:______
Water- resistant/ specialty leather
Nonwater- resistant leather
As required in §§ 63.5305 and 63.5340(b), you must meet the appropriate emission limits in the following table:
As required in § 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 of Part 63
§ 63.5 Construction/reconstruction Applicability; applications; approvals Yes Except for paragraphs of § 63.5 as listed below.
§ 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) Application for approval Type and quantity of HAP, operating parameters No All sources emit HAP. Subpart TTTT does not require control from specific emission points.
§ 63.5(d)(1)(i) [Reserved]
Start Printed Page 9171
§ 63.5(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2), (d)(3)(ii) Application for approval No The requirements of the application for approval for new and reconstructed sources are described in § 63.5320(b). General provision requirements for identification of HAP emission points or estimates of actual emissions are not required. Descriptions of control and methods, and the estimated and actual control efficiency of such do not apply. Requirements for describing control equipment and the estimated and actual control efficiency of such equipment apply only to control equipment to which the subpart TTTT requirements for quantifying solvent destroyed by an add-on control device would be applicable.
§ 63.6 Applicability of general provisions Applicability of general provisions Yes Except for paragraphs of § 63.6 as listed below.
§ 63.6(b)(1)-(3) Compliance dates, new and reconstructed sources No Section § 63.5283 specifies the compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources.
§ 63.6(e) Operation and maintenance requirements Yes Except for subordinate paragraphs of § 63.6(e) as listed below.
§ 63.6(e)(3) Operation and maintenance requirements Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan requirements No Subpart TTTT does not have any startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan requirements.
§ 63.6(f)-(g) Compliance with nonopacity emission standards except during SSM Comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM No Subpart TTTT does not have nonopacity requirements.
§ 63.7 Performance testing requirements Schedule, conditions, notifications and procedures Yes Except for paragraphs of § 63.7 as listed below. Subpart TTTT requires performance testing only if the source applies additional control that destroys solvent. § 63.5311 requires sources to follow the performance testing guidelines of the General Provisions if a control is added.
§ 63.7(a)(2) (i) and (iii) Performance testing requirements Applicability and performance dates No § 63.5310(a) of subpart TTTT specifies the requirements of performance testing dates for new and existing sources.
§ 63.9 Notification requirements Applicability and State delegation Yes Except for paragraphs of § 63.9 as listed below.
Start Printed Page 9172
§ 63.9(h) Notification of compliance status Contents No § 63.5320(d) specifies requirements for the notification of compliance status.
§ 63.10 Recordkeeping/reporting Schedule for reporting, record storage Yes Except for paragraphs of § 63.10 as listed below.
[FR Doc. 02-4064 Filed 2-26-02; 8:45 am]