of any standards to which it becomes subject. The proposed amendment
covers situations where a source reclassifies from major to area source
status and where a source reclassifies from major to area and
subsequently reverts back to major source status. The EPA also proposed
to clarify that a source that reclassifies must notify the EPA of any
changes in the applicability of the standards to which the source was
subject per the notification requirements of 40 CFR 63.9(j).
    Most of the commenters supported the proposed amendments to the
notification provisions in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and (j), but a few disagreed
that the established General Provisions require notification when going
from being subject to not being subject. Other commenters requested
that the EPA reduce the number of duplicative notifications and
simplify the regulatory authorities that must review 40 CFR 63.9(j).
Other commenters requested clarification between notification
provisions within individual NESHAP that allow for 120 days for
notification versus the 15-day notification in the General Provisions
in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and (j). These commenters asked the EPA to clarify
the differences between these requirements, harmonize the reporting
requirements, and minimize duplicative requirements. The EPA disagrees
that the General Provisions do not require a notification when a source
is no longer subject to a standard. The provisions of 40 CFR 63.9(j)
are applicable to a change in information already provided. The change
in a source's status from major to area (or vice versa) is a change in
the information provided that determined the initial status of the
source as subject to the major or area source standards. This is
different from the initial notification required by 40 CFR 63.9(b), as
that provides the relevant information to the Administrator of the
newly governed provisions and is required to be submitted, per 40 CFR
63.9(b)(2), no later than 120 days after the source becomes subject.
The notification of a change in information already required within 15
days is a result of the previously applicable standard. There are cases
for which there is no applicable area source standard; the notification
required by 40 CFR 63.9(j) is the only notification that would be
submitted in those cases. These requirements in two provisions do not
require harmonizing, as they are due to different NESHAP subparts being
applicable and are not duplicative.
    The EPA is finalizing the reclassification provision in 40 CFR
63.1(c)(6) notification requirements as proposed for both major sources
that reclassify to area source status and area sources that revert back
to major source status. The EPA is also finalizing the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR 63.9(b) so that an owner or operator of a facility
must notify the Administrator of any standards to which it becomes
subject. Further, for clarity, the EPA has finalized at 40 CFR
63.9(j)(i)-(iv) the data elements that a reclassifying source must
provide in the notification of a ``change in information already
provided'' required under 40 CFR 63.9(j). Finally, the EPA is
clarifying that the notification requirement of 40 CFR 63.9(j) is an
existing requirement. Thus, the EPA requires any source that
reclassified after January 2018 (issuance of the 2018 MM2A Memorandum)
and before the effective date of this final rule that has not yet
provided the notification of a change in information per 40 CFR 63.9(j)
to provide such notification within 15 calendar days after the
effective date of this final rule.
    For the notification requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and (j), the
EPA also proposed to require sources that reclassify to submit the
notification electronically through CEDRI. The EPA proposed amending
the General Provisions to add 40 CFR 63.9(k) to include the CEDRI
submission procedures. Several commenters support using CEDRI for
notification of status changes. Some commenters requested the EPA to
clarify that the new requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(k) only apply when a
facility is reclassifying from a major source to an area source or from
an area source to a major source, so regulatory authorities could not
conclude that all notifications or reports should be done using CEDRI.
Some commenters strongly supported the Agency providing this
information to the public. While the EPA agrees that the provisions of
40 CFR 63.9(k) only apply when specifically directed there from another
provision, as stated in 40 CFR 63.9(k), ``[i]f you are required to
submit notifications or reports following the procedures specified in
this paragraph (k),'' (emphasis added), we do not believe that further
clarification within the regulatory language is necessary. We are
finalizing this provision as proposed requiring sources that reclassify
to submit the notification electronically through CEDRI. Additionally,
the EPA has clarified that sources that reclassify between January 25,
2018, and the effective date of this final rule also must submit the
notification through CEDRI. The EPA acknowledges the support for the
public availability of the notifications and notes that the submitted
notifications, along with any other notifications and reports submitted
through CEDRI, become available to the public through the WebFIRE
database (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/webfire) after time for review and approval by the regulatory agencies.
    Multiple commenters recommended that the EPA should clarify CEDRI
reporting. One commenter indicated that notification is not delegable
and

needs to adjust the language in 40 CFR 63.13 that requires submittal of
information to Regional offices at specific addresses. The commenter
pointed out that the proposed CEDRI reporting makes this requirement
excessive and the regulatory text should be fixed to remedy the
requirement of reporting in triplicate (Regional offices, CEDRI,
Administrator/state). The commenter noted that the last sentence of 40
CFR 63.12(c) does not address this issue and should be deleted/altered
to avoid reporting in triplicate. Another commenter indicated that a
separate notification to state agencies should be sent directly to the
permitting agency. The commenter requested that the following paragraph
be added to 40 CFR 63.9(k):

    ``If a state or local permitting agency has received delegation
for a Part 63 standard that requires you to submit notifications or
reports and that permitting agency requires, by way of statute,
rule, policy, guidance, permit, or other mechanism, that such
notifications or reports must be submitted also to the permitting
agency, then such notifications and reports must be submitted to the
permitting agency as well as to CEDRI.''

    The EPA agrees with the commenters that the language at 40 CFR
63.13 and 63.12(c) was not clear that submission to CEDRI, when
required by regulation, fulfills the obligation of submittal to the EPA
Regional office. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing at 40 CFR 63.13 a
clarifying statement that when required by 40 CFR part 63, the
submission of a report or notification to CEDRI fulfills the obligation
of reporting to the EPA Regional office. The EPA does not agree that
additional language to reflect that reporting to a delegated agency is
required in addition to reporting to CEDRI, as that is implicit in 40
CFR 63.12(c), which requires that all information required to be
submitted to the EPA be submitted to the delegated authority. The
manner of submission is at the discretion of the delegated authority,
but the reports and notifications that are required to be submitted to
the EPA electronically through CEDRI must be delivered to the EPA
through CEDRI. However, delegated authorities have the discretion to
consider the submission to CEDRI as meeting the requirement to submit
the report to them.
    In the MM2A proposal, the EPA identified two broad circumstances in
which extensions of the timeframe for electronic submittal may be
provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of
needing additional time to submit is within the discretion of the
Administrator, and submittal should occur as soon as possible. The EPA
provided these potential extensions to protect owners or operators from
noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a
notification by the submittal deadline for reasons outside of their
control. The situation where an extension may be warranted due to
outages of the EPA's Central Data Exchange or CEDRI that preclude an
owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting a required
notification is addressed in 40 CFR 63.9(k)(1). The situation where an
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or
operator from complying with the requirement to submit electronically
as required by this rule, is addressed in 40 CFR 63.9(k)(2). Examples
of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
Finally, the EPA also proposed to amend 40 CFR 63.12(c) to specify that
a delegated authority may not exempt sources from reporting
electronically to the EPA when stipulated by this part.
    One commenter recommended that the CEDRI late-notification language
in proposed 40 CFR 63.9(k)(1) and (2) should be stricken because air
pollution control agencies already have experience in using enforcement
discretion for addressing late notifications and that discretion should
not be codified or limited by regulation. The commenter also argued
that the full range of circumstances that could legitimately cause a
late notification cannot be covered by the regulation, and the
discretion to grant an extension should not be solely within the
discretion of the Administrator. Another commenter did not support the
proposed additional requirements detailing when late notifications are
forgiven for a force majeure event or federal EPA computer glitch but
not in other meritorious situations. Another commenter suggested that
time extensions for electronic reporting should be allowed for
circumstances other than CEDRI outage and force majeure events, which
allow for other situation-specific reasons that may impact the
reasonable ability of a facility to achieve timely electronic
reporting.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the reporting extension
allowance for force majeure and CEDRI outage should be stricken.
Granting an extension is at the discretion of the Administrator, which
is defined in 40 CFR 63.2 to be ``the Administrator of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency or his or her authorized
representative (e.g., a State that has been delegated authority to
implement the provisions of this part).'' The extension provision does
not remove the authority of an air pollution control agency to grant an
extension for those subparts for which they have been delegated
authority. Further, the EPA disagrees with the commenters that other
situations that are not included in these provisions are excluded from
obtaining an extension to their reporting deadline. The extension
provisions as proposed and finalized are limited to those circumstances
out of control of the facility and provide clear direction on the
process for requesting an extension. Facilities may still engage with
the Administrator on any delays in submittal not specifically covered
under the CEDRI outage or force majeure provisions. After consideration
of public comments, the EPA is finalizing the extension provisions as
proposed.
    The electronic submittal of the notifications addressed in this
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the notification; is in
keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency; will
further assist in the protection of public health and the environment;
will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of delegated state,
local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance and the applicability of major and area source
standards to a facility; and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic submittal
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected
facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic
reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \18\ to implement Executive
Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \19\
developed in response to the White House's Digital Government
Strategy.\20\ For more information on the

benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, ``Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules,'' available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The EPA's ``Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective
Reviews,'' August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \19\ ``E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations,''
September 2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \20\ ``Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People,'' May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 40 CFR 63.10 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    In the MM2A proposal, the EPA proposed to amend the recordkeeping
requirements for applicability determinations in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3) by
adding text to clarify that this requirement applies to an owner or
operator with an existing or new stationary source that is in a source
category regulated by a standard established pursuant to CAA section
112 but that is not subject to the relevant standard because of
enforceable limitations on the source's PTE. Specifically, the EPA
proposed removing the time limit for record retention in 40 CFR
63.10(b)(3) and requiring that the records be maintained until the
source becomes an affected major source subject to major source
requirements under 40 CFR part 63.
    Many commenters supported the proposed amendment to remove the time
limit for record retention such that sources that obtain new
enforceable PTE limits are required to keep the required record of the
applicability determinations for as long as the source continues to be
an area source based on PTE limitations. While many commenters agreed
with the removal of time limit in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3), some commenters
argued that major sources that reclassify to area sources should not be
subject to additional recordkeeping requirements that do not apply to
other area sources. These commenters argued that the EPA should not
revise the 5-year record requirement for the applicability
determinations because the EPA has not provided a proper justification
for adding this requirement for ``reclassified'' area sources. The
commenter noted that the EPA has not described any issue with respect
to compliance of PTE limits and emission-standard applicability that
arose from the existing 5-year recordkeeping requirement, nor has the
EPA explained why area source recordkeeping requirements should differ
based on temporal considerations. The commenters noted that title V
major sources are subject to a 5-year records requirement for all
applicability determinations used to support identification of
applicable requirements and application of the title V permit shield,
and this is consistent with the statute of limitations that generally
allows only a 5-year period to enforce against alleged violations. The
commenter argued that the EPA has not explained why area sources should
be subject to more stringent recordkeeping requirements. These
commenters stated that the change in the requirement would impose a
burden on the facility without additional environmental protection,
because 5 years is sufficient time considering that sources still need
to report annually that they are in compliance. Some commenters also
noted that if the EPA or an air pollution control agency has reason to
doubt any source's exempt status, they can take action under CAA
sections 113 and 114 or state/local/tribal ``Open Records'' analogs to
obtain the necessary information.
    The EPA disagrees that the extended recordkeeping requirement as
proposed applies disproportionately to reclassifying area sources or
has any temporal consideration. The requirement to retain the
applicability determination applies to all area sources that require an
enforceable limitation on the source's potential to emit to not be
subject to a relevant standard or other requirement established
pursuant to CAA section 112. The requirement for an applicability
determination is only relevant to these sources; the applicability
determination itself, rather than the recordkeeping requirement, is the
determining factor. The extension of the recordkeeping requirement is
in the best interest of the source relying on an applicability
determination to avoid CAA section 112 major source requirements, as
many sources will rely on such determination for an extended period of
time that can last beyond the 5 years. The EPA disagrees with the
commenters that the revised record retention requirements are
unnecessary due to annual reporting requirements. While many sources
may have annual or semiannual reporting requirements after
reclassifying into an area source rule, there are some major source
NESHAP that do not have a corresponding area source standard. For these
sources, the retention of the applicability determination enables the
source to easily demonstrate that the major source standard does not
apply without the potential additional burden of re-creating the
applicability determination. The EPA agrees with the commenter that the
EPA under CAA sections 113 or 114, and air pollution control agencies
under their analogs, have the authority to request the necessary
information; however, the retention of the applicability determination
while the source continues to be an area source based upon that PTE
limit and applicability determination provides a lesser burden to
facilities compared to potentially re-creating the applicability
determination. For the reasons presented above, the EPA is finalizing
removing the time limit for record retention in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3) and
requiring that the records be maintained for as long as the source
continues to be an area source based on PTE limitations.
    Other commenters requested clarification as to whether the amended
recordkeeping requirement applies to sources that became area sources
prior to the first substantive compliance date of a NESHAP standard or
that reclassified after the 2018 MM2A Memorandum. In the preamble of
the MM2A proposal, the EPA stated that this amendment was directed to
sources that obtain new enforceable PTE limits. The EPA agrees that the
proposed language was unclear as to the applicability of the
recordkeeping provisions on sources with applicability determinations
preceding the date of proposal. We have amended the regulatory text in
40 CFR 63.10(b)(3) clarifying that the owner or operator must keep a
record of the applicability determination on site at the source for a
period of 5 years or until the source changes its operation to become
an affected source subject to the relevant standard or other
requirement established under this part, whichever comes first if the
determination is made prior to January 19, 2021. For a determination
made on or after January 19, 2021, the owner or operator must keep a
record of the applicability determination until the source changes its
operations to become an affected source subject to the relevant
standard or other requirement established under this part. The EPA
does, however, strongly recommend that all facilities retain their
applicability determination for the time that the source continues to
be an area source based upon that PTE limit and such applicability
determination.
    In addition to the removal of the time limit for record retention,
the proposal amended the text that describes the record of the
applicability determination. In particular, the proposal clarified that
the record must include an ``emissions'' analysis (or other
information) that demonstrates the owner or operator's conclusion that
the source is not subject to major source requirements. The analysis
(or other

information) must be sufficiently detailed to allow the Administrator
to make an ``applicability'' finding for the source with regard to the
relevant standard or other requirements.
    With regard to the analysis for applicability determinations, some
commenters expressed concern with the language that the applicability
determinations ``should be performed in accordance with EPA guidance
materials.'' The commenters stated that the language is vague and could
create binding requirements that are not legislative rules and have not
gone through required notice[hyphen]and[hyphen]comment rulemaking. The
commenter suggested that the EPA should indicate that this is a
recommendation rather than a requirement by stating: ``EPA recommends
that the analysis be performed in accordance with EPA guidance
materials . . . .'' The EPA disagrees that further clarification is
necessary regarding the use of guidance documents in this context, as
the use of EPA guidance materials was an element of the existing
provisions of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(3). However, to avoid creating the
impression of additional requirements being imposed due to the proposed
edits to the language, the EPA is retaining the sentence of 40 CFR
63.10(b)(3), which states: ``If relevant, the analysis should be
performed in accordance with EPA guidance materials published to assist
sources in making applicability determinations under CAA section 112,
if any,'' as currently exists in the existing provision without
finalizing the changes proposed to it.
    The commenters also suggested that the EPA clarify the
applicability determination analysis for specific situations, and
others advised that additional guidance could be incorporated into the
regulation or the preamble to the final rule to recognize that sources
often need to use best engineering judgment to estimate emissions from
minor sources when assessing the PTE of a whole facility. The
commenters then recommended that the EPA indicate that the level of
detail and precision for potential to emit calculations can be lower
for operations that contribute a relatively small amount to total
facility HAP emissions. The wording in the proposed amendments are
intended to clarify and to promote better understanding of the current
recordkeeping requirements. The EPA did not propose a new view on how
to estimate PTE and, relatedly, on how to do major source applicability
determinations. In section VII of this preamble, we include references
to our PTE guidance that may be of help to parties with questions about
the EPA's views on these issues.
    The EPA also proposed to amend the recordkeeping requirements for
records submitted through CEDRI by adding 40 CFR 63.10(g) to clarify
that the records submitted through CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. As proposed, this provision does not remove the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request by a delegated air agency or the EPA. We are not
finalizing the proposed addition of 40 CFR 63.10(g) because the
provision is redundant with 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1), which allows for
storage of records on computer.

B. Amendments to Individual NESHAP General Provisions Applicability
Tables

    The EPA proposed to amend the General Provisions applicability
tables contained within most subparts of 40 CFR part 63 to add a
reference to a new reclassification provision contained in 40 CFR
63.1(c)(6) discussed in the section V.A of this preamble and add a
reference to reflect the proposed CEDRI submission procedures of 40 CFR
63.9(k) discussed above in section V.A of this preamble. We are
finalizing the amendments to the General Provisions applicability
tables as proposed. Additionally, the EPA identified four subparts
containing the General Provision applicability requirements which did
not properly reference the notification provisions. These subparts are
40 CFR part 63 subparts G, H, II, and YY. Accordingly, we are also
finalizing revisions to these applicability requirements of 40 CFR part
63 subparts G, H, II, and YY to account for the final amendments to the
General Provisions as described above in section V.A.

C. Amendments to Individual NESHAP

    At proposal, the EPA identified one general category of regulatory
provisions in several NESHAP subparts that reflect the 1995 OIAI policy
that requires revision pursuant to this action. This category of
provisions addresses the date by which a major source can become an
area source. We proposed to revise the following provisions: 40 CFR
part 63, subpart QQQ at 63.1441; 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ at
63.9485; 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR at 63.9581; and Table 2 of 40
CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. We solicited comment on whether there are
any other regulatory provisions in any of the individual subparts that
include OIAI provisions that should be revised pursuant to this action.
The EPA received comments regarding multiple provisions in 40 CFR part
63, subpart F at 63.100(b)(4); subpart I at 63.190(b)(7); subpart HH at
63.760(a)(1); and subpart HHH at 63.1270. The EPA reviewed the
provisions raised by commenters in these subparts and is including in
this final rule revisions to the provisions in subpart HH at
63.760(a)(1) and subpart HHH at 63.1270(a). The EPA is not making
changes with respect to the identified provisions in subparts F and I
at 63.100(b)(4) and 63.190(b)(7). The EPA sees these provisions as
expired exclusion provisions, not OIAI provisions, that do not prevent
a source from reclassifying to area source status.
    At proposal, we also identified several area source NESHAP
containing notification provisions (i.e., initial notification)
applicable to existing sources for which the dates have passed. We
proposed to amend the following area source NESHAP that contain
notification requirements for existing sources with specific deadlines
that are in the past: 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH at 63.11175; 40
CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX at 63.11519; 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYYY
at 63.11529; 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAAAA at 63.11564; 40 CFR part
63, subpart BBBBBBB at 63.11585; 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC at
63.11603. Consistent with other area source NESHAP notification
requirements, we proposed that, for an existing source that
reclassifies from major to area source status, the notification shall
be submitted no later than 120 calendar days after the source becomes
subject to the relevant area source NESHAP requirements. Regarding
whether there are any other individual subparts that would warrant
modification because initial notification requirements are in the past,
commenters pointed at the initial notification requirements in many of
the major source NESHAP subparts. They stated that if an area source
were to revert back to major source status, these initial notification
requirements would have been in the past. The EPA reviewed the initial
notification provisions of all NESHAP subparts and is including in this
final rule amendments to the initial notification requirements within
most NESHAP subparts to include additional language so that the
notification shall be submitted no later than 120 calendar days after
the source becomes subject to the relevant NESHAP requirements. The EPA
is amending the initial notification requirements in the following
subparts: 40 CFR part 63, subpart G at 63.151(b)(2) (i), (ii) and (ii);
subpart H at 63.182(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii); subpart L at 63.311(a);
subpart M at 63.324(g); subpart N at 63.347(c)(1); subpart Q at

63.405(a)(1) and (2); subpart S at 63.455(a); subpart T at 63.468(a),
(b), (c), and (d); subpart Y at 63.567(b)(2) and (3); subpart DD at
63.697(a)(1); subpart EE Table 1; subpart HH at 63.77(c)(1); subpart JJ
Table 1; subpart KK at 63.830(b)(1)(i), subpart CCC at 63.1163(a)(3);
subpart PPP at 63.1434(d) and (e), and at 63.1439(e)(3)(ii)(B) and (C);
subpart QQQ at 63.1454(b); subpart UUU at 63.1574(b); subpart VVV at
63.1591(a)(1) and (2); subpart DDDD at 63.2280(b); subpart EEEE at
63.2382(b)(1) and (2); subpart FFFF at 63.2515(b); subpart GGGG at
63.2860(a); subpart IIII at 63.3110(b); subpart JJJJ at 63.3400(b)(1);
subpart KKKK at 63.3510(b); subpart MMMM at 63.3910(b); subpart NNNN at
63.4110(a)(1); subpart OOOO at 63.4310(b); subpart PPPP at 63.4510(b);
subpart QQQQ at 63.4710(b); subpart RRRR at 63.4910(b); subpart SSSS at
63.5180(b)(1); subpart TTTT at 63.5415(b); subpart UUUU, Table 7;
subpart XXXX at 63.6009(b); subpart YYYY at 63.6145(b); subpart ZZZZ at
63.6645(b) and (d), subpart AAAAA at 63.7130(b) and (c); subpart BBBBB
at 63.7189(b); subpart CCCCC at 63.7340; subpart DDDDD at 63.7545(b)
and (c), subpart EEEEE at 63.7750(b); subpart FFFFF at 63.7840(b);
subpart GGGGG at 63.7950(b) and (c); subpart HHHHH at 63.8070(b)(1);
subpart IIIII at 63.8252(b); subpart JJJJJ, Table 8; subpart KKKKK,
Table 9; subpart LLLLL at 63.8692(b), subpart MMMMM at 63.8816(b);
subpart NNNNN at 63.9045(b), subpart PPPPP at 63.9345(b)(1); subpart
QQQQQ at 63.9535(c); subpart RRRRR at 63.9640(b); subpart SSSSS at
63.9812(b); subpart TTTTT at 63.9930(b); subpart BBBBBB at 63.11086(e)
and Table 3; subpart CCCCCC at 63.11124(a)(1), (b)(1), and Table 3;
subpart HHHHHH at 63.11175(a); subpart PPPPPP at 63.11425(b) and (c);
subpart QQQQQQ at 63.11432(b) and (c); subpart RRRRRR at 63.11441(a);
subpart TTTTTT at 63.11469(a); subpart WWWWWW at 63.11509(a)(3);
subpart XXXXXX at 63.11519(a)(1); subpart YYYYYY at 63.11529 (a);
subpart AAAAAAA at 63.11564(a)(2); subpart BBBBBBB at 63.11585(b)(1);
and subpart CCCCCCC at 63.11603(a)(1).

VI. Other Considerations

A. PTE Determination

    In the MM2A proposal, the EPA included a background discussion
associated with the HAP PTE determination. The discussion was intended
to provide context for evaluating whether the EPA should include in the
General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 certain elements of the Federal
Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country, which included
application content requirements in those rules as well as the proposed
hierarchy of acceptable data and methods a source seeking
reclassification would use to calculate and determine the source PTE.
We received many comments regarding PTE determinations, including
suggestions for clarification on how to do these calculations, which
are already addressed in guidance. See section VII of this preamble for
additional information regarding implementation of PTE limits and the
EPA guidance addressing related topics. Importantly, at this time, the
EPA is not taking final action on whether to include in the General
Provisions a hierarchy of data and methods for calculating PTE. The EPA
will continue to evaluate whether there is a need to issue guidance or
rulemaking for such hierarchy and methods in the future.
    In the MM2A proposal, the EPA requested comments on whether it
would be appropriate to include in the General Provisions of 40 CFR
part 63 the minimum requirements for the information that a major
source of HAP must submit to its regulatory authority when seeking to
obtain PTE limitations to reclassify as area sources under section 112
of the CAA, similar to the information included in a synthetic minor
source permit application under Tribal Minor New Source Review. Most of
the industry and state commenters asserted that regulatory authorities
should retain authority to determine what a major source must submit to
reclassify. They argued that these requirements already exist in
federal, state, and local rules, and asking state and local governments
to add new regulatory requirements onto programs that already provide
for the creation and enforcement of synthetic minor limits would be an
unnecessarily burdensome administrative resource drain. The EPA agrees
with commenters that the addition of minimum requirements for the
information that a major source of HAP must submit to its regulatory
authority when seeking to obtain PTE limitations to reclassify as area
sources under section 112 of the CAA ignores that permitting
authorities already have permit application requirements under their
programs. Also, the EPA has reconsidered that permit application
requirements for PTE programs would be more appropriate under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart E and is not including such requirements in the final
rule. See section VII of this preamble. This position does not,
however, alter how the EPA will apply the policy that the Agency has
been following since 1995, which allows for any physical or operational
limitation on the capacity of the stationary source to emit a pollutant
(such as air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of
operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or
processed), to be treated as part of its design if the limitation or
the effect it would have on emissions is federally enforceable or
legally enforceable by a state or local permitting authority and
practicably enforceable.

B. Reclassification Process and Permitting

    The proposal addressed questions from sources and permitting
authorities regarding permit process, mechanisms, and the requirements
for reclassifying to area source status for 40 CFR part 70 sources.
These questions were brought to our attention per our request in the
MM2A Memorandum about specific situations that may need to be
considered at proposal. The purpose of the discussion was to inform
stakeholders about our expectations on how the reclassification process
will work in those specific circumstances. The EPA did not propose
changes to any of the rules for the permitting programs or to their
interpretation. Below, we clarify the related proposal preamble
discussion, since it may have introduced ambiguity about our
interpretation of the regulations.
    Stakeholders asked the EPA to clarify whether a reclassified source
continues to have an obligation to comply with the major source
requirements in their title V permit that were included solely to
comply with the OIAI policy. These scenarios consisted of sources that
no longer have the maximum capacity to emit HAP in amounts that exceed
major source thresholds because of physical or operational limitations
but whose title V permit still includes major source NESHAP
requirements. (Often, the operational limitations are enforceable
limitations the source has taken to avoid major source requirements in
the future, in agreement with the OIAI policy.) The proposal's preamble
acknowledged that in that case the source is an area source under the
CAA section 112 definition, but it still must comply with its title V
permit terms and conditions until the permit is revised or revoked in
agreement with the title V permitting authority that issued the permit.
The proposal's preamble advised that sources must follow the permitting
authority's procedures for permit modification or closure. We continue
to stand by our view that the permitting

authority will be in the best position to help a source decide on the
appropriate procedures under the specific program rules to reconcile
permitting obligations.
    The preamble illustrated, with examples, how situations may differ
and that we expect those differences to require different procedures.
The proposal concluded that in a hypothetical situation when the major
source NESHAP permit terms are relied upon to demonstrate compliance
with some other applicable requirement (e.g., in the case of
streamlining the permit conditions), concurrently with their removal,
the permitting authority may need to reevaluate the MRR for applicable
requirements remaining in the permit and that the regulations in 40 CFR
part 71 would require a significant modification to add these
requirements to a title V permit. With regard to this advice,
commenters argued that the EPA misspoke in the proposal as to the
appropriate process for 40 CFR part 71 sources. The commenters argued
that revising the 40 CFR part 71 permit to reflect a change in
applicable requirements may not always require a significant
modification to a title V permit, and the EPA provided no explanation
in the proposal for this cursory conclusion relative to 40 CFR part 71.
The EPA first clarifies that the explanation in the proposal about the
procedures that apply to the changes in the scenarios presented reflect
the EPA's current view regarding the 40 CFR part 71 permitting
authority for a general case and does not imply that a particular
situation may not merit a different treatment based on the facts and
the 40 CFR part 71 regulations. The basis for the EPA conclusion in the
preamble is that removing non-applicable NESHAP requirements would
almost always involve significant changes to monitoring, recordkeeping,
and/or reporting, and, thus, the modification would not qualify as a
minor modification under 40 CFR 71.7(e)(1)(i)(2). This is especially
true if revised monitoring requirements must be added to substitute for
removed NESHAP monitoring requirements. However, we recognize that the
procedures will generally depend on the program regulations and the
facts of the situation. While the commenter does not provide a
compelling argument to change our view on the permit modification
procedures that would most likely apply for removing no-longer-
applicable requirements from a 40 CFR part 71 permit, a source is free
to show that in its situation the changes to existing monitoring,
reporting, or recordkeeping, etc., due to the removal of the no-longer-
applicable requirements are not significant. Importantly, the EPA did
not propose changes to, and this final rule does not make any changes
to, the 40 CFR part 70 or 71 rules and is not prejudging any future
proposed process for modifying any 40 CFR part 71 permits.
    The EPA received multiple comments regarding the public notice and
comment procedures associated with reclassification. As discussed below
in section VII, the EPA is not taking action on the proposed
effectiveness criteria for PTE limits at this time and is continuing to
consider the comments received on this aspect of the MM2A proposal. The
EPA intends to take final action on this aspect of the MM2A proposal in
a separate final action at a later date. Notwithstanding this, on the
issue of public notice and comment procedures currently in use for
reclassifications, the EPA reiterates that, consistent with our long-
standing policy, regulatory agencies implement public notice and
comment procedures for state, local, and tribal programs as required
under their regulations and statutes. The authority under which the PTE
limits are issued contain issuance procedures, including any procedures
for public notice and comment. Importantly, regulatory authorities use
different issuing mechanisms depending on the complexity of the PTE
limits required for the situation and the pollutants addressed.
Typically, states issue enforceable PTE limits for individual sources
in a SIP construction permit or a synthetic minor type of operating
permit (e.g., operating permits other than title V permit). States can
also utilize less burdensome mechanisms for limiting PTE, such as
general permits for source categories, permits by rule, or registration
programs, as appropriate. Regardless of the mechanism used to issue an
enforceable PTE limit, the regulatory agency must follow the applicable
procedures for that mechanism, including providing for public notice
and comment when required.
    Some commenters on the proposal asserted that the EPA had failed to
analyze federalism implications of the proposal. According to the
commenters, states also rely on title V permitting fees to support
permitting, monitoring, and enforcement of title V sources, and the EPA
had not considered how states will do so with the loss of title V funds
since area sources are frequently exempted from title V. The commenters
stated that the EPA had a duty to consult with state and local
governments for proposed rules with federalism implications and
substantial compliance costs. The EPA disagrees that this action
imposes substantial compliance costs to state and local governments. As
the EPA explained in section IV of this preamble, the OIAI policy
imposed a time constraint on the ability of a source to change its
status for purposes of applicability with CAA section 112 standards
that is not found in the statute. This action simply implements the
plain language reading of the statutory definitions of major source and
area source which contain no language fixing a source's status at any
particular point in time and contain no language suggesting a cutoff
date after which the source's status cannot change. This rule explains
what sources must do if and when they elect to reclassify and does not
change the standards established under CAA section 112 nor it changes
the permitting authority programs that are used for processing
reclassifications.

VII. Interim Ministerial Revision of 40 CFR Part 63 PTE Definition

    The definition of PTE in 40 CFR 63.2 interprets the statutory term
``potential to emit'' found in the definition of a major source in
section 112 of the CAA and provides a legal mechanism for sources that
wish to restrain their emissions to avoid triggering major source
requirements. Under the PTE definition in 40 CFR 63.2 promulgated in
1994, any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the
stationary source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control
equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or
amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as
part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on
emissions is federally enforceable.\21\ In National Mining Association
(NMA) v. EPA, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995), the D.C. Cir. remanded the
definition of ``potential to emit'' found in 40 CFR 63.2 to the EPA to
justify the requirement that physical or operational limits be
``federally enforceable.'' The NMA decision confirmed that the EPA has
an obligation to ensure that limits considered in determining a
source's PTE are effective, but it stated that the Agency had not
adequately explained how ``federal enforceability'' furthered
effectiveness. 59 F.3d at 1363-1365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 40 CFR 63.2 definition of ``federally enforceable''
available at https://ecfr.io/Title-40/se40.11.63_12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the MM2A proposal, the EPA proposed specific criteria that PTE
limits must meet for these limits to be effective. The EPA also
proposed to amend the definition of ``potential to

emit'' in 40 CFR 63.2 accordingly by removing the requirement for
federally enforceable PTE limits and requiring instead that HAP PTE
limits meet the effectiveness criteria of being both legally
enforceable and practicably enforceable. The EPA also proposed to amend
40 CFR 63.2 to include the definitions of ``legally enforceable'' and
``practicably enforceable'' described in the MM2A proposal. The EPA
then took comment on the effectiveness criteria and the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR 63.2.
    The EPA received significant comments from many stakeholders on the
proposed effectiveness criteria and proposed amendments to 40 CFR 63.2.
One of the main concerns raised by stakeholders in their comments is
the interactions and effects of the proposed amendments with other CAA
programs, including prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), NSR,
SIP, and title V, and the impacts of the proposed amendments to
existing state, local, and tribal agency rules. The EPA is not taking
action on the proposed amendments to 40 CFR 63.2 at this time and is
continuing to consider the comments received on this aspect of the MM2A
proposal. The EPA intends to take final action on this aspect of the
MM2A proposal in a separate final action at a later date.
    In the meantime, the EPA is making an interim ministerial revision
to the definition of ``potential to emit'' in 40 CFR 63.2.
Specifically, the Agency is removing the word ``federally'' from the
phrase ``federally enforceable'' in the definition of ``potential to
emit.'' A few points need to be made to explain what this interim
ministerial revision is and what it is not. First, this revision is not
the EPA's final decision and should not be read to suggest that the EPA
is leaning towards or away from any particular final action on this
aspect of the proposal. This revision is simply an interim revision to
cover the period of time while the EPA continues to consider the
comments on this aspect of the proposal and until the Agency takes
final action with respect to the proposed amendments concerning the
proposed effectiveness criteria and proposed amendments to 40 CFR 63.2.
Second, this revision is ministerial because it merely reflects the NMA
decision, which held that the EPA had not explained why a PTE limit had
to be ``federally enforceable'' to be considered as the basis for
reclassifying a major source to area source status. See NMA v. EPA, 59
F.3d at 1363-1365.\22\ Again, this revision does not represent a final
decision by the EPA or signal any direction that the EPA is intending
to take in a future final action. It simply makes a ministerial change
to the regulatory text that appears in the CFR to reflect the NMA
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The EPA notes that in two subsequent decisions, the D.C.
Cir. relied on the NMA decision and presented no additional legal
analysis. In Chemical Manufacturers Assoc, v. EPA, 70 F.3d 637 (D.C.
Cir. 1995), the D.C. Cir. reviewed a ``federally enforceable''
limitation in the PTE definition in the PSD and NSR regulations and
both vacated and remanded the federal enforceability requirement in
those provisions with a three sentence decision that provided no
additional analysis and simply referenced the NMA decision:
``Petitioners challenge regulations of the Environmental Protection
Agency that define the term ``potential to emit'' to exclude
controls and limitations on a source's maximum emissions capacity
unless those controls are federally enforceable. We recently decided
a similar challenge in National Mining Association v. EPA, 313 U.S.
App. D.C. 363, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Accordingly, it is
ordered and adjudged that the regulations are vacated and the case
is remanded to the Environmental Protection Agency for
reconsideration in light of National Mining Association.'' In Clean
Air Implementation Project v. EPA, No 96-1224 1996 WL 393118 (D.C.
Cir., Jun. 28, 1996) (CAIP), the D.C. Cir. also vacated and remanded
the federal enforceability requirement in the title V (40 CFR part
70) regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, this interim ministerial revision does not alter any
rights or legal consequences and simply preserves the status quo that
has been in effect since the late 1990s. This revision will not change
how the EPA will apply the transitional policy that the Agency has been
following since 1995. By removing the word ``federally,'' the EPA hopes
to avoid any ongoing confusion about how the transitional policy is
applied. This transitional policy allows for any physical or
operational limitation on the capacity of the stationary source to emit
a pollutant (such as air pollution control equipment and restrictions
on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted,
stored, or processed) to be treated as part of its design if the
limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is federally
enforceable or legally enforceable by a state or local permitting
authority and practicably enforceable.
    For implementing reclassifications in the interim, state programs
may use PTE guidance they have developed for their programs and/or may
also continue to rely on the EPA PTE guidance. As noted in the proposal
preamble, there is a substantial body of EPA guidance and
administrative decisions relating to PTE and PTE limits.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ There is a substantial body of EPA guidance and
administrative decisions relating to PTE and PTE limits. E.g., see
generally, Terrell E. Hunt and John S. Seitz, ``Limiting Potential
to Emit in New Source Permitting'' (June 13, 1989); John S. Seitz,
``Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary
Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act'' (January
25, 1995); Kathie Stein, ``Guidance on Enforceability Requirements
for Limiting Potential to Emit through SIP and Sec.  112 Rules and
General Permits'' (January 25, 1995); John Seitz and Robert Van
Heuvelen, ``Release of Interim Policy on Federal Enforceability of
Limitations on Potential to Emit'' (January 22, 1996); ``In the
Matter of Orange Recycling and Ethanol Production Facility, Pencor-
Masada Oxynol, LLC,'' Order on Petition No. II-2001-05 (April 8,
2002) at 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

    In this section, the EPA summarizes the findings of several
analyses that we conducted to assess the cost, environmental, and
economic impacts of the final rule. It is important to restate that the
final rule does not require any source to reclassify to area source
status. Each source must assess its own circumstances to determine
whether it is feasible and advantageous to undergo the reclassification
process. The unique nature of each source's decision process makes it
difficult for the EPA to determine the number and type of sources that
may choose to reclassify under this rule. Because of this, the EPA can
only present illustrative analyses concerning the impacts of this final
rule.
    For the final rule analyses, based on comments received on the data
used for the overall analyses for the MM2A proposal, the EPA updated
the MM2A database, removed double counting of facilities, and expanded
the number of source categories evaluated for cost, environmental, and
economic impacts. The updated MM2A database contains data from the 2017
National Emissions Inventory (NEI), data collected to conduct residual
risk and technology reviews (RTR) under sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)
of the CAA (henceforth referred to as RTR modeling file data), and data
from the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History On-line (ECHO)
database. The EPA used the RTR modeling file data and NEI data to
estimate the number of facilities in each of 74 source categories and
the number of sources within those facilities that could be eligible to
reclassify from major to area source status. We used the ECHO data to
estimate the number of facilities in 27 additional source categories
for which we did not have RTR modeling file data, and we then used an
extrapolation methodology to approximate the number of facilities
within these 27 source categories that could be eligible to reclassify
from major to area source status.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ There are about 114 major source categories subject to
NESHAP. The EPA determined that 13 source categories are not
impacted by this rule and did not include these categories in the
costs or impacts analyses. For the remaining categories, 74 were
analyzed using RTR modeling file data while 27 were analyzed using
an extrapolation approach.

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

    As a result of updates to the MM2A database, the number of
facilities estimated to be subject to major source NESHAP has been
reduced from 7,920 at proposal to 7,187. The detailed methods applied
to update the MM2A database and estimate the number of facilities
subject to major source NESHAP for purposes of the final rule analyses
are described in the TSM titled ``Documentation of the Data for
Analytical Evaluations and Summary of Industries Potentially Impacted
by the Final Rule titled Reclassification of Major Sources as Area
Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,'' which is included in
the docket for this action.

A. Analytical Scenarios

    The potential costs and cost savings presented in the final cost
memorandum and RIA are the result of an illustrative assessment. It is
unknown how many major sources would choose to take enforceable PTE
limits to levels below the MST and reclassify to area source status. If
a source voluntarily chooses to reclassify to area source status, it
will no longer be subject to previously applicable major source NESHAP,
which may result in compliance cost savings for the source. However,
the source will be required to comply with any applicable area source
NESHAP in response to reclassification, which could result in some
compliance costs. Facilities will also have costs associated with
applying to modify the facility's operating permit when they reclassify
from major to area source status. Regulatory agencies will also have
costs to process those applications. Overall, the sum of costs and cost
savings of all actions taken to reclassify under this rule is expected
to be a net annual cost savings.
    To illustrate the potential emissions changes, costs, and economic
impacts of the final rule, we analyzed the same three illustrative
analytical scenarios as at proposal. The primary analytical scenario
analyzes the sources with actual emissions below 75 percent of the MST
(7.5 tpy of a single HAP or 18.75 tpy of all combined HAP). Alternative
scenario 1 analyzes facilities with actual emissions below 50 percent
of the MST (5 tpy for a single HAP and 12.5 tpy for all HAP).
Alternative scenario 2 analyzes sources with actual emissions between
75 percent and 125 percent of the MST (12.5 tpy for a single HAP and
31.25 tpy for all HAP).
    The primary analytical scenario considers that sources will
normally build a compliance margin into their operations to ensure that
their emissions remain below the MST and they do not revert to major
source status. Some commenters suggested that the EPA should conduct
its analyses based on the assumption that all sources will emit up to
the MST, or the Agency should analyze a scenario with a smaller
compliance margin (i.e., at 90 percent of the MST). The appropriate
compliance margin to apply is specific to each facility and its
operating experience. Some reclassified sources may choose to operate
10 percent below the MST while others may choose to maintain a larger
compliance margin to ensure they do not jeopardize their area source
status. In addition, some facilities operating slightly above the MST
may opt for reclassification to area source status by taking PTE
limitations and reducing emissions to a level below the MST. Therefore,
we provide illustrative analyses of potential changes in costs and
emissions at various compliance margins. The level of actual emissions
relative to the MST at which facilities may consider participating in
the MM2A reclassification process is actually a continuous line from
some level below the MST to a reasonable level above the MST, and our
illustrative analyses include three points on this continuous line to
estimate the potential impacts of different compliance margins on
participation under this final rule. In this section, we present the
primary illustrative scenario and two alternative scenarios, one above
and one below the primary scenario.
    While different compliance margins could be evaluated, the EPA has
greater confidence in the primary illustrative scenario where sources
at or below 75 percent of the MST can maintain emissions below the MST
and thus may be more likely to opt for reclassification. Sources in the
MM2A database operating between 50 and 75 percent of the MST, and those
operating between 75 and 125 percent of the MST, are also addressed in
our analyses, in the first and second alternative scenarios,
respectively. These alternative scenarios address the impacts of
sources at alternative compliance margins as suggested by commenters.
In addition to these analytical scenarios, the updates to the MM2A
database detailed in the TSM titled ``Documentation of the Data for
Analytical Evaluations and Summary of Industries Potentially Impacted
by the Final Rule titled Reclassification of Major Sources as Area
Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act'' presents the
incremental count of facilities at 90 and 100 percent of the MST to
illustrate a comparison of the difference between the number of
facilities in the database operating in the primary scenario and these
alternative views suggested by commenters.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See the Response to Comments document for a detailed
rationale for the selection of analytical scenarios for the final
rule and the EPA's reasoning for not evaluating impacts at 90
percent of the MST.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Cost Analysis

    For the illustrative cost analysis conducted for the final rule,
the EPA analyzed: (1) Facilities with actual emissions below each
analytical threshold, (2) the costs that we estimated to be incurred by
the facilities associated with permitting actions necessary to obtain
area source status, (3) the costs that we estimated to be incurred by
permitting authorities associated with permitting actions necessary to
process permit applications for facilities requesting reclassification,
and (4) cost-savings estimates based solely on estimated reductions in
labor burden related to MRR requirements that would either no longer
apply or would change based on the specific requirements in the major
source NESHAP rules and any area source NESHAP rules that apply to a
particular source category. As part of the overall analysis of the 125-
percent alternative scenario, we examined the potential control costs
for major sources in eight source categories that may opt to further
reduce HAP emissions in order to reclassify to area source status.
Details of this potential control cost analysis are presented in the
TSM titled ``Analysis of Illustrative 125% Scenario for MM2A Final--
Potential Cost Impacts from HAP Major Sources Reducing Emissions as
part of Reclassifying to HAP Area Sources'' which is available in the
docket for this action. The details of the cost analysis are presented
in the TSM titled ``Documentation of the Compliance Cost Savings
Analysis for the Final Rulemaking Reclassification of Major Sources as
Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act'' and also are
summarized in the RIA. All of these documents are available in the
docket for this action.
    The illustrative cost analysis presents estimates of the final
rule's net costs (or savings) over two time periods. The first estimate
assumes that all potential reclassifications that might occur as a
result of this rulemaking with take place within 1 year of promulgation
(i.e., by 2021). The second estimate assumes that not all the
reclassifications will occur within 1 year after the MM2A rule is
finalized, and instead are assumed to occur over a more extended period
of time.

    For the first illustrative cost analysis, Year 1 costs include the
cost for each facility to apply for and obtain an area source or
synthetic minor permit or a title V permit modification and for the
regulatory agencies to review and approve those applications and issue
the permits. These permitting costs to the facilities and state
agencies are one-time costs and occur only in Year 1 when a facility
reclassifies. Then, in Year 2 and beyond, facilities do not incur the
cost to process a reclassification and the net costs (or savings) are
the sum of the projected annual cost savings from not having to comply
with the major source NESHAP MRR requirements and the estimated cost of
compliance with applicable area source NESHAP requirements. These
projected savings are expected to continue for each reclassified
facility each year beyond the second year, for there is no time
specified for review of reclassifications under the CAA. The permitting
costs to the facilities and the permitting costs to the regulatory
agencies are not included in the second year because it is assumed the
permitting changes are all completed in the year the source submits an
application for reclassification and no action is needed in subsequent
years in relation to this action.
    However, based on the number of potential reclassifications
discussed in this analysis, we can confidently conclude that not all of
the reclassifications will occur in the first year after the rule is
issued. The timing of a reclassification is influenced by several
considerations, including time for facilities to determine whether it
is in their best interest to reclassify, time to prepare applications
for reclassification, and time for permitting authorities to review
applications and process reclassification requests. There is also time
allotted for the EPA to review determinations by permitting authorities
and for public participation in the process. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that not all the reclassifications will occur
within 1 year after the MM2A rule is finalized, and instead the
reclassifications assessed in the cost analysis are assumed to occur
over a more extended period of time. To illustrate the spread of costs
over time, the EPA also presents a 5-year outlook of costs and cost
savings.
    A summary of the results of the potential costs and cost savings
across different types of source categories from the illustrative cost
analysis for Year 1 and Year 2 and beyond is presented in Table 2.
Results are presented for the 74 source categories evaluated using RTR
modeling data and the 27 source categories that were evaluated using
the extrapolation approach.

    Table 2--Illustrative Net Costs (or Cost Savings) of Final MM2A Rule for the Primary Analytical Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Potential net
                                                                                annual costs (or
                                                          Total number of    Facilities with    cost savings) in
                Source category coverage                     facilities      actual emissions  2017$ for Year  1
                                                          subject to major   below 75 percent   2 4 and Year 2 3
                                                           source NESHAP       of the MST 1       4 and beyond

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source categories with RTR data (74 categories)........              4,068              1,614        $10,147,526
                                                                                (56,137,515)
Extrapolated source categories (24 categories) \5\.....              1,294                266          1,680,049
                                                                                (9,030,684)
Industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and                1,821                687          4,319,300
 process heaters (3 categories) \5\....................                                             (25,456,533)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total (101 source categories)......................              7,183              2,567         16,146,875
                                                                                (90,624,732)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Results are for sources with actual emissions below 75 percent of the MST (i.e., 7.5 tpy for one HAP and
  18.75 tpy for combined HAP).
\2\ Costs incurred by sources and permitting authority assumed in year 1.
\3\ Year 2 impacts are also representative of annual impacts to all reclassified major sources in all subsequent
  years in the future. Numbers in parenthesis are negative and reflect cost savings.
\4\ The analytic timeline begins in 2021 and continues thereafter for an indefinite period. Year 1 impacts are
  those for 1 year after reclassification of a major source with reclassifications beginning in 2021, and year 2
  impacts are those for the second year after reclassification of a major source and annually afterwards.
\5\ Extrapolated using the EPA's ECHO data.

    Table 3 presents the illustrative potential cost (or cost savings)
impact of the final rule over time for the primary analytical scenario.
We present the impacts over a 5-year outlook that assumes all sources
in our analysis will reclassify over that timeframe and that the
reclassifications will be evenly distributed over that period.

                Table 3--Illustrative Net Costs (or Cost Savings) of the Final MM2A Rule Over Time for the Primary Analytical Scenario *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Distribution of costs (or cost savings) over a 5-year period ($2017)
                 Source category coverage                 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2021               2022               2023               2024              2025+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source categories with RTR data (74 categories)..........         $2,536,882      $(11,497,497)      $(25,531,875)      $(39,566,254)      $(56,137,515)
Extrapolated Source Categories (24 categories)...........            420,012        (1,837,658)        (4,095,329)        (6,353,000)        (9,030,684)

Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and              1,079,825        (5,284,308)       (11,648,441)       (18,012,574)       (25,456,533)
 Process Heaters (3 categories)..........................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (101 Source categories)........................          4,036,719       (18,619,464)       (41,275,647)       (63,931,830)       (90,624,732)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These results reflect the aggregate of costs and cost savings for all facilities by year of impact.
Estimates for 2025 are also representative of all subsequent years.

    The EPA also calculated the PV of the illustrative cost savings for
the main illustrative scenario. The PV is the value of a stream of
impacts over time, discounted to the current (or nearly current) year.
The PV of the cost savings for the primary illustrative scenario is
$0.86 billion (in 2017 dollars) at a discount rate of 7 percent, which
is discounted to 2020. At a discount rate of 3 percent, the PV is $1.50
billion (in 2017 dollars), again discounted to 2020. Another measure of
the annual cost savings to complement the estimates in Table 2 is the
EAV. This annual impact estimate is calculated consistent with the PV.
The EAV is $67 million (2017 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate for
the primary scenario. At a 3-percent discount rate, the EAV is $75
million (2017 dollars). The PVs and EAVs for each alternative scenario
and discount rate in 2017 and 2016 dollars can be found in the RIA for
the final rule.

C. Environmental Analysis

    At proposal, to assess the potential environmental emissions
impacts associated with the reclassification of sources, the EPA
reviewed permits and other information for 34 sources that had
reclassified to area source status consistent with the EPA's plain
language reading of the CAA section 112 definitions of ``major'' and
``area'' source since January 2018. The review of these
reclassifications provided a representation of the potential real-world
impacts on emissions by looking at the facts and circumstances of
actual reclassification actions. In addition to the evaluation of the
reclassification actions, at proposal the EPA also performed an
illustrative assessment for six source categories: Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations, Surface Coating of Metal Cans, Surface
Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production, Hydrochloric Acid Production, and Non-
Gasoline Organic Liquids Distribution. The analysis of these six source
categories was informative in some respects but was only illustrative
and speculative in nature and only presented a range of possible
outcomes dependent on the assumptions that we made in the assessment.
The EPA received numerous comments on the emissions analyses presented
at proposal. Many commenters argued that the EPA had failed to
adequately assess the effects of the rule on HAP emissions and did not
perform any health impact analysis. These commenters argued the EPA did
not include enough source categories in the emissions analysis at
proposal to draw reasonable conclusions. Commenters also opined that
the analysis of the actual reclassifications relied on a small sample,
and a few speculated that we had ``cherry picked'' permits to review.
    For the final rule, the EPA expanded the emissions impact analysis
in several ways to address these comments. We enhanced the MM2A
database to include more source categories with detailed data and
improved the methodology for analysis based on public comments. We also
expanded the review of reclassification actions to include the review
of 35 additional reclassifications received from March 2019 through
February 2020.\26\ This allowed us to more than double the number of
reclassifications reviewed for the final rule. The details and results
of the analysis of 69 reclassification actions are summarized below and
presented in detail in the Review of Reclassification Actions TSM for
the final rule, which is available in the docket for this action.\27\
The EPA received several comments on the permit reviews completed for
the proposal; we have considered the input from commenters in the
review of the reclassifications included in the final analysis.
Finally, we also expanded the illustrative analysis of impacts on the
program from the six source categories reviewed at proposal to 72
source categories. The 72 source categories included in the
illustrative analysis represent a broad array of the sources subject to
major source NESHAP requirements and the types of sources that could
seek reclassification to area source status under this final rule. We
discuss the reclassification actions reviewed and the illustrative
analyses of source categories in detail below. Our analysis indicates
that 68 of the 69 sources that have reclassified will not increase
emissions. In addition to this review of actual reclassification
actions, the EPA also prepared an illustrative analysis for 72 source
categories in the major source NESHAP program (114 total) to evaluate
the potential emissions impacts. After consideration of the information
and data available for the illustrative emissions analysis, we found
that 65 source categories will not change emissions as a result of the
rule. For the other seven source categories, there was a potential for
(but not a certainty of) emissions increases based on conservative
assumptions that are likely to overstate the change in emissions at
some facilities. As is discussed throughout this preamble and in the
TSMs and RIA, any analysis of impacts includes uncertainties, and each
subsequent level of analysis compounds the uncertainties to a much
greater level. Given the compounding of uncertainty and illustrative
nature of the analysis, further quantification of effects of these
emissions increases would not be reliable or informative. Instead, we
present a qualitative discussion of benefits and disbenefits in the
benefits/disbenefits subsection of impacts below. Further information
of the analyses and findings are presented below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The EPA obtained information about these reclassifications
through the normal course of business with the permitting
authorities that notify us of permitting actions within their
jurisdictions.
    \27\ See TSM titled ``Review of Reclassification Actions for the
Final Rulemaking ``Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act'' available in the docket of
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the potential for emissions impacts for the 69
reclassified sources, the EPA focused its review on the

enforceable conditions associated with the PTE limitations applicable
to the emission units previously subject to major source NESHAP
requirements. The EPA review focused on whether these emission units at
these facilities continue to have enforceable conditions that are
either the same as or consistent with the previous applicable major
source NESHAP compliance obligations. Summaries of the permit reviews
and emissions evaluations are presented in the Review of
Reclassification Actions TSM, which is available in the docket for this
action.
    The EPA's findings from its review of permits for the
reclassifications indicate that of the 69 sources that reclassified to
area source status, 68 achieved and maintain area source status by
operating the emission controls or continuing to implement the
practices they used to comply with the major source NESHAP
requirements; we expect no emissions increases due to reclassification
for these sources. While permitting authorities could allow for changes
in the enforceable conditions or practices that the sources used to
comply with major source NESHAP requirements that could lead to
emissions increases, this happened for only one source out of the 69
actual reclassifications. Below is an overview of the EPA's findings
from the permit reviews for these 69 reclassifications.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The analysis of the actual reclassifications includes
representation of some of the source categories subject to major
source NESHAP requirements. While the actual reclassifications
demonstrate a cross-section of the types of industries that have
reclassified, we are unable to determine if this cross-section of
industries is representative of all types of sources that may seek
reclassification in the future. The illustrative emissions analysis
includes a broader selection of source categories across similar
sectors of the economy as these actual reclassifications (i.e.,
chemical, energy, combustion, coatings, and heavy industry/
manufacturing). While the illustrative analysis is representative
with respect to a broader selection of industries in the major
source program, we are unable to definitively determine whether the
sources within those categories will seek reclassification. Thus, we
cannot make a determination of the representativeness of the actual
reclassifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 69 sources that have reclassified, 45 sources are in a
coating type source category; 11 are chemical sources; six are fuel
combustion/boiler sources; five are oil and gas sources and two are
heavy industry sources. (See Tables 3 and 4 of Review of
Reclassification Actions TSM available in the docket for this action).
Of the 69 reclassifications reviewed, 14 sources are classified as true
area sources because these sources are no longer physically or
operationally able to emit HAP above the MST. Of the 55 sources with
enforceable PTE limitations, 15 sources had obtained those enforceable
PTE limitations before January 2018 (pre-existing PTE limitations)
while 40 obtained the PTE limitations after January 2018 in order to
reclassify to area source status (new PTE limitations).
    Of the 45 coating sources reviewed, 39 used compliant materials
(low-HAP/no-HAP) to meet applicable major source requirements before
reclassification, and their continued use of compliant materials is an
enforceable condition after reclassification. Five sources relied on
the use of regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) to meet applicable
major source requirements and maintain enforceable conditions requiring
the operation of the RTOs after reclassification. As described in
detail in the TSM, the EPA does not expect emissions increases from
these sources due to reclassification to area source status. Finally,
one source used compliant materials to meet applicable major source
requirements, but after reclassification requested a change to use a
HAP-containing formulation with accompanying process limitations to
maintain area source status. Had the change in formulation happened
while the source was a major source, the source would have had to use
an add-on control device to comply with the applicable NESHAP. For this
source, the change in formulation after reclassification could lead to
emissions increases of 4.3 tpy of xylene or 18.75 tpy of combined HAP.
    Of the 11 chemical sources reviewed, four sources are miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing facilities; these relied on a variety of
control technologies (including RTOs, scrubbers, and flares) and work
practices to maintain compliance before reclassifying and continue to
have enforceable conditions requiring the control technologies after
reclassification. Three sources are gasoline distribution sources that
relied on vapor collection and vapor flare/vapor combustion to meet
applicable major source requirements before reclassification, and these
controls are enforceable conditions to maintain compliance after
reclassification. Three sources are off-site waste recovery facilities
that relied on control technologies such as vapor balance/recovery
systems, condensers, and scrubbers to meet applicable major source
requirements before reclassification. All these sources continue to
rely on the same (or additional) requirements as enforceable conditions
to maintain compliance after reclassification and the EPA does not
expect emissions increases due to reclassification to area source
status. Finally, one source is a former hazardous waste combustor and
cement facility that until 2015 fueled its cement kiln using collected
hazardous and non-hazardous waste, using various control technologies
to maintain compliance. This facility permanently removed all equipment
associated with Portland cement manufacturing and took on a new primary
role as a hazardous waste storage/transfer facility, using throughput
limits and a carbon adsorption system to maintain compliance.
    Of the six combustion/boiler sources reviewed, four made permanent
operational changes (ceased combustion of coal and/or ceased operation
of boilers) allowing the sources to reclassify to area source status.
Another source had material and operational limitations prior to
reclassification, both of which continue to be enforceable conditions
after reclassification, and one source took additional operational
restrictions on the usage of natural gas as the mechanism to constrain
their emissions and PTE and reclassify to area source status. Three of
these sources had emissions above MST before reclassifying; the
reclassification of these three sources resulted in a HAP reduction of
56.9 tpy single HAP and 78.8 tpy total HAP.
    All five oil and gas production and transmission sources reviewed
relied on the use of control technologies (oxidation catalyst [enclosed
combustion device] and flares) to meet applicable major source
requirements before reclassification, and their continued use is an
enforceable condition to maintain compliance after reclassification.
One of these sources took additional restrictions on the amount of gas
vented to the atmosphere to reclassify to area source status. Also, the
reclassification of this facility prevented additional emissions that
would have occurred if the source had remained a major source. As
described in detail in the TSM, the EPA does not expect emissions
increases from these sources due to reclassification to area source
status.
    Of the two heavy industry sources reviewed, one is a lime
manufacturing plant and the other is a flexible polyurethane foam
fabrication facility. The lime manufacturing facility, after
reclassification, remains subject to other regulatory requirements,
including PM emission limitations, the use of a baghouse, and monitored
opacity as an operating limit via operation of a continuous opacity
monitoring system. The flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facility
relied on compliant

materials, control technology (carbon adsorption systems), work
practices, and operational limitations to meet applicable major source
standards before reclassification and continues to rely on these as
enforceable conditions to maintain compliance after reclassification.
See the Review of Reclassification Actions TSM available in the docket
for the detailed permit reviews and emissions evaluations.
    In response to comments, for the final rule's illustrative
emissions impact analysis, we have also updated the assessment
conducted at proposal for six source categories and expanded our
assessment to numerous additional source categories. We identified
several source categories that are unlikely to experience a change in
emissions as a result of MM2A. We also conducted an in-depth analysis
of potential changes in emissions upon reclassification for many source
categories where we have information. We also reviewed the updated
operating permits for a variety of industrial processes to interpret
likely response to the final MM2A rule. The details and results of the
emissions analysis are summarized below and presented in detail in the
illustrative emissions impact analysis TSM titled, ``Documentation of
the Emissions Analysis for the Final Rule Reclassification of Major
Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,'' which
is available in the docket for this action.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See TSM, ``Documentation of the Illustrative Emissions
Analysis for the Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as
Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,'' available in
the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA considered many factors in assessing the potential
emissions impacts from the various NESHAP source categories if
facilities in these source categories were to reclassify to area source
status. These factors include backstop measures from regulatory and
technological limits, as well as limitations on growth for economic
reasons. As for regulatory reasons, the EPA assessed, if sources were
to reclassify, whether they would be subject to the same NESHAP
requirements as before reclassification (which would be the case where
the area source requirements are the same as the major source
requirements), whether new area source NESHAP requirements will be
applicable and how they impact emissions, whether there are NSPS
requirements that apply to the source and control emissions at the same
levels as the major source NESHAP requirements, and whether there are
PSD/NSR/SIP requirements the effect of which will continue to control
HAP emissions to the same extent. As for the technological and economic
reasons, the EPA reviewed whether the measures used by the source to
reduce emissions could be reversed or discontinued if sources were to
reclassify to area source status. This includes, but is not limited to,
changes in coating/adhesive formulations, fuel combustion technologies,
and some level of backstop for emissions from add-on control
technologies. Commenters stated that there are also other factors that
will prevent emissions increases, including environmental management
systems with which sources are engaged that require them to identify
environmental impacts, set performance objectives, implement of
standards for training and work practices, audit implementation of such
standards, and take corrective action when deviations occur. Other
commenters also mentioned that many sources are also required to meet
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards that
incentivize efficient operations to minimize waste and energy usage,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements that protect
workers from exposures to HAP and other pollutants, and toxics release
inventory requirements. The commenters pointed out that these
regulatory requirements continue to apply even if the source
reclassifies, providing additional incentives for sources to not
increase emissions. The EPA agrees with the commenters in that
environmental management systems, even though they are voluntary and
not regulatory in nature, will also provide additional incentive for
some sources to maintain compliance with environmental legal
obligations and not increase emissions.
    Based on the EPA's illustrative analysis of potential emissions
impacts from the 72 source categories, 65 source categories will either
not be impacted by MM2A or are unlikely to experience any emissions
changes for the reasons discussed in the above paragraph. After
considering the information available for this illustrative analysis,
we found that some facilities in seven source categories represented by
detailed information from RTR modeling files in the MM2A database could
increase emissions if they were to reclassify and were allowed to
reduce operation of adjustable add-on controls. These facilities
represent 7.9 percent of the facilities illustrated in the primary
analytical scenario (i.e., 128 facilities out of a total of 1,614
facilities in the primary analytical scenario), and 3.1 percent of all
the facilities included in the analysis of the 72 source categories
(i.e., 128 facilities out of a total of 4,068 facilities operating in
72 source categories). Several of the source categories have only one
or two facilities impacted, while three source categories have several
facilities impacted. The facilities that we were able to assess are
located in several states and are not clustered in close proximity to
each other. The EPA was unable to evaluate the source categories
included in the extrapolated approach used for the cost assessment due
to insufficient information. Under alternative scenario 2, we
determined that some facilities operating between 75 and 125 percent of
the MST might opt to decrease emissions to reclassify to area source
status as a result of the MM2A rule.
    The EPA made several conservative assumptions when estimating the
potential effect on emissions resulting from sources reclassifying from
area to major source status. By ``conservative,'' we mean that these
assumptions are likely to result in an overestimate of emissions
changes. We detail these assumptions in the TSM referenced above.\30\
Based on these conservative assumptions, the potential change in
emissions in the illustrative analyses for seven source categories
could be an increase ranging from 919 tpy to 956 tpy of HAP across the
NESHAP program under the primary scenario.\31\ In

addition, we also include an alternative set of assumptions in the
coatings sector to reflect the findings from the review of
reclassification permits that shows one facility could increase
emissions. For this alternative coating scenario, we extrapolate those
findings to other facilities in the coatings sector using a percentage
that represents the portion of the reclassified facilities that might
increase emissions (i.e., 2.3 percent of the reclassified coatings
facilities are assumed to increase emissions). Using this alternative
assumption, we estimate a potential emissions increase of 302 tpy of
combined HAP. The total range of potential emissions increases is,
therefore, 919 tpy to 1258 tpy. Again, it is important to note that
this is likely an overestimate of actual emissions increases, as we
explain in more detail in the technical support memorandum. Under the
alternative scenario 2, we estimate a potential reduction in HAP
emissions of 183 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In general, the change in emissions is measured as the
difference between PTE with compliance with the major source NESHAP
and 75 percent of the MST (the maximum emissions assumed with a
compliance margin for the primary scenario). Where the EPA does not
have information on the PTE, we estimated the potential change in
emissions as the difference between actual emissions and 75 percent
of the MST. However, in some cases it is inappropriate to assume
changes from minimal amounts of HAP (i.e. less than 1 tpy) up 75
percent of the MST as it represents a 100 times to 1,000 times
increase in emissions (and production to the extent that production
and emissions correlate). Given the production capacities at
existing facilities along with economic constraints on growth, it is
highly unlikely a facility would seek to increase emissions (and
hence production) by 100-times to 1,000-times. Most mature
industries will not experience tremendous economic growth, and some
may experience a declining rate of production that impacts growth.
Therefore, we assume a conservative measure of increase for
facilities operating at very low levels of HAP of 10 times (e.g., a
facility operating at 0.5 tpy with not information on PTE would
increase to 5 tpy). The measure for emission change in these
instances could be higher or lower, but we selected 10 times to
demonstrate a conservatively high level of potential emissions
increase.
    \31\ The EPA also identified some facilities in the primary
scenario that have an estimated PTE that is above the MST, yet their
actual emissions are well below 75 percent of the MST. If these
facilities opt to reclassify by taking a limit on their PTE down to
a level below the MST, they will forego allowable emissions under
the major source program (i.e., the reduction in PTE that the
facility must take to modify their PTE to down to 18.75 tpy). This
reduction in emissions can be viewed as foregone emissions under
PTE. For the facilities analyzed where PTE (or allowable emissions)
were identified, the foregone allowable emissions totals a reduction
of about -227 tpy. Therefore, the potential change in emissions for
the seven source categories with potential increases is a net change
in emissions of 692-729 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to approximating the response to the MM2A rule, we
present information regarding the magnitude of potential changes in HAP
emissions and discuss changes in health impacts for benefit categories
of criteria pollutants. The combination of these evaluations represents
our assessment of benefits as defined in Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Circular A-4. Based on the results of the EPA's analysis
of the reclassifications of 69 sources and the illustrative emissions
analysis of 72 source categories, this final rule may potentially
result in both emission reductions and increases from a broad array of
affected sources. For the 69 sources that have already reclassified, we
conclude there are no potential emissions increases (except for one
source as discussed in section VIII above) and, therefore, no health
impacts associated with nearly all of the known reclassification
actions. For the one facility with a potential for an emissions
increase, the change in emissions would be modest and is not likely to
result in significant health impacts. Because the sources that the EPA
has identified as having a potential for some level of emissions change
(given the uncertainties stated throughout this preamble) are located
across the United States, we do not observe a concentration of
emissions changes in any particular location. However, to understand
the potential impact of this rulemaking on tribal and environmental
justice communities, we conducted two analyses on the 69 sources that
have reclassified to area source status as described above (from which
we found only one facility that could increase emissions).
    In the first analysis, we looked at sources that were within 50
miles of an area of Indian country. Of the 69 sources that we analyzed,
30 are within 50 miles of at least one area of Indian country. Eleven
of these are within 10 miles of an area of Indian country and three are
in Indian country. However, after reviewing the reclassification of
these sources, only one of these sources could have an increase in
emissions. The potential increase will be minimal because the source
has limited its emissions of and PTE HAP below the MST. Therefore, the
EPA expects there will be no additional impact from reclassification to
most areas of Indian country.
    Second, we conducted a demographic analysis of the populations
within 5 miles of these same 69 sources. We then compared the average
concentrations of low-income and minority populations within that 5-
mile radius and compared them to the national average to determine if
these populations will be disproportionality impacted. In this
analysis, we found that the 5-mile radius around 13 of the 69 sources
has a minority population above the national average, and the area
surrounding 39 sources has a low-income population above the national
average. Although these results would suggest that low-income
populations may be more impacted by this rule, as stated above, only
one of these sources could have an increase in emissions. Therefore,
the EPA expects there will be no additional impact to most of these
communities.
    Based on the results of the EPA's analysis of the reclassifications
of 69 sources and the illustrative emissions impact analysis of 72
source categories, this final rule could result in both emissions
reductions and increases from a broad array of sources located in
different geographic areas. Uncertainties in estimating the number of
sources that will seek reclassification, and the resulting permit
conditions that will impact emissions are discussed at length in this
section of this preamble. Therefore, we illustrate impacts using
certain assumptions to allow readers to better understand the potential
impacts of the MM2A rule associated with HAP pollutants. However,
changes in HAP emissions may also impact other pollutants as well.
    Benefits/disbenefits. Although the illustrative emissions analysis
suggests that there may be both emissions increases and decreases, we
are uncertain of the magnitude and geographic distribution of the
changes in emissions resulting from this rulemaking across the broad
array of sources that could reclassify. As discussed in the docket of
this final rule, the emissions from different sources will be impacted
in different ways, and small changes in certain non-HAP pollutants,
such as fine particulate matter, can lead to significant changes in
monetized benefits/disbenefits. Due to the voluntary nature of this
action, we are unable to quantify changes in non-HAP emissions across
these sources. In place of quantitative estimates of the number and
economic value of the non-HAP pollutant changes, we instead discuss
potential impacts in qualitative terms. Similar uncertainties related
to the potential distribution of changes in HAP emissions resulting
from this rulemaking also exist. As such, we also present a qualitative
assessment of the potential impacts to human health and the environment
from changes in selected HAP emissions. For more information on the
qualitative characterization of benefits/disbenefits, please refer to
the benefits analysis included in the RIA for this final action.

D. Economic Analysis

    The economic impact analysis (EIA), an analysis that is included in
the RIA, focuses on impacts at an industry level, and impacts are only
calculated for the scenario that includes facilities with actual
emissions below 75 percent of the MST. As part of the EIA, the EPA
considered the impact of this rulemaking on small entities (small
businesses, governments, and nonprofit organizations). Impacts are
calculated as compliance costs (savings, in this instance) as a
percentage of sales for businesses, and of budgets for other
organizations. For informational purposes, the RIA includes the Small
Business Administration's definition of small entities by affected
industry categories (defined as North American Industry Classification
System) and potential burden reductions from title V and other
permitting programs. Since this rule significantly lessens the
regulatory burden that resulted from the OIAI policy, no compliance
costs are directly imposed upon industry categories as a result of this
rule. We do, however, consider the potential costs some sources may
incur to show

compliance with applicable area source NESHAP after they reclassify to
area source status. These avoided costs accrue because some
reclassified sources will not be required to obtain or maintain a title
V permit or continue meeting major source administrative requirements
under section 112 of the CAA. Some of the facilities benefitting from
this action are owned by small entities, and these entities may
experience a more beneficial impact than the large entities that will
also experience a reduction in costs from the burden reductions that
would take place as a result of this rule.
    The results of the EIA for the primary scenario show that the
annual cost savings per sales for all affected industries is around
0.05 percent, using the median of these annual cost savings per sales
estimates calculated by industry, with sales averaging approximately
$9.3 billion per affected industry, to determine average impact. The
details of the EIA and impacts on employment, as well as results of the
EIA for the other two alternative scenarios, are presented in the RIA
of the final rule, which is available in the docket for this action.

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

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to OMB for review. Any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this
action. This analysis, the RIA for the final MM2A rule, is available in
the docket and is summarized in section I of this preamble.

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

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated potential net cost savings of this
final rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action (see the RIA for the final
rule, which is in the docket for this action).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information-collection burden
under the PRA. Specifically, this rule requires the electronic
reporting of the one-time notification already required in 40 CFR
63.9(j) in the case where the facility is notifying of a change in
major source status. OMB has previously approved the information
collection activities contained in the existing regulations. These
amendments would neither require additional reports nor require that
additional content be added to already required reports. Therefore,
this action would not impose any new information-collection burden.
Furthermore, approval of an Information Collection Request (ICR) is not
required in connection with these final amendments. This is because the
General Provisions do not themselves require any reporting and
recordkeeping activities, and no ICR was submitted in connection with
their original promulgation or their subsequent amendment. Any
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are imposed only through the
incorporation of specific elements of the General Provisions in the
individual NESHAP, which are promulgated for particular source
categories that have their own ICRs.

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.
    Small entities that are subject to major source NESHAP requirements
would not be required to take any action under this final rule; any
action a source takes to reclassify as an area source would be
voluntary. We expect that sources that reclassify will experience cost
savings that will outweigh any additional cost of achieving area source
status. The only cost that would be incurred by regulatory authorities
would be the cost of reviewing a sources' application for area source
status and issuing enforceable PTE limits, as appropriate. No small
government jurisdictions operate their own air pollution control
permitting agencies, so none would be required to incur costs under the
final rule. In addition, any costs associated with the reclassification
of major sources as area sources (i.e., application reviews and PTE
issuance) are expected to be offset by reduced reporting and
recordkeeping obligations for sources that no longer must meet major
source NESHAP requirements.
    Based on the considerations above, we have, therefore, concluded
that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all regulated small
entities that reclassify to area source status. We also note that a
small-entity analysis, prepared at the discretion of the EPA and
reflecting the relief in regulatory burden, was prepared for this final
rule and is included in the RIA, which is available in the public
docket for this rulemaking. The results of this small-entity analysis
show relatively small reductions in burden estimate annual costs (about
0.10 percent) as a percentage of sales using the median estimate as the
average of impacts.

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. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. Since the impacts of this action are merely
illustrative of potential outcomes, it precludes identifying additional
costs to states as an unfunded mandate.

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 federal 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 has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. There are two tribes that
currently implement title V permit programs and one that implements an
approved TIP for minor source permitting, the latter of which also has
a major source. As a result, these tribes may have additional permit
actions if sources in their jurisdiction seek reclassification to area
source status. Any tribal government that owns or operates a source
subject to major

source NESHAP requirements would not be required to take action under
this final rule; the reclassification provisions in the final rule
would be strictly voluntary. In addition, achieving area source status
would result in reduced burden on any source that no longer must meet
major source NESHAP requirements. Under the final rule, a tribal
government with an air pollution control agency to which we have
delegated CAA section 112 authority would be required to review permit
applications and to modify permits as necessary. However, any burden
associated with the review and modification of permits will be offset
by reduced Agency oversight obligations for sources no longer required
to meet major source requirements.
    For sources located within Indian country, where the EPA is the
reviewing authority, unless the EPA has approved a non-federal minor
source permitting program or a delegation of the Federal Indian Country
Minor NSR Rule, the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR Rule at 40 CFR
49.151 through 49.165 provides a mechanism for an otherwise major
source to voluntarily accept restrictions on its PTE to become a
synthetic source, among other provisions. The Federal Indian Country
Minor NSR Rule applies to sources located within the exterior
boundaries of an Indian reservation or other lands as specified in 40
CFR part 49, collectively referred to as ``Indian country.'' See 40 CFR
49.151(c) and 49.152(d). This mechanism may also be used by an
otherwise major source of HAP to voluntarily accept restrictions on its
PTE to become a synthetic area HAP source. The EPA's FIP program, which
includes the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR Rule, provides additional
options for particular situations, such as general permits for specific
source categories, to facilitate minor source emissions management in
Indian country. Existing sources in Indian country may have PTE limits
that preceded the EPA's FIP for minor sources and, for that reason,
were issued in a 40 CFR part 71 permit or FIP permitting provision
applicable to the Indian reservation.
    At proposal, the EPA specifically solicited comment from tribal
officials and, consistent with EPA policy, offered to consult with the
potentially impacted tribes and other tribes upon their request. On
June 27, 2019, the EPA sent consultation letters to four tribes that
may be impacted by this action. The EPA also gave an overview of the
proposed action on a call with the National Tribal Air Association on
June 27, 2019, and held an informational webinar for tribes on July 24,
2019. In addition, we sent consultation letters to the 573 federally
recognized tribes on September 27, 2019, and held an informational call
with one tribe on October 21, 2019. The EPA did not receive any
requests for tribal consultation on this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it implements the plain reading of the
definitions of major source and area source as established by Congress
in section 112 of the CAA.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded that this final
action is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA 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)
because it does not establish an environmental health or safety
standard. The final amendments to the General Provisions are procedural
changes and do not impact the technology performance nor level of
control of the NESHAP governed by the General Provisions.

L. Determination Under CAA Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator determines
that this action is subject to the provisions of CAA section 307(d).
Section 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA provides that the provisions of CAA
section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may
determine.''

M. 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 a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Area sources, General provisions,
Hazardous air pollutants, Major sources, Potential to emit.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 63 as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Amend Sec.  63.1 by adding paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) A major source may become an area source at any time upon
reducing its emissions of and potential to emit hazardous air
pollutants, as defined in this subpart, to below the major source
thresholds established in Sec.  63.2, subject to the provisions in
paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) A major source reclassifying to area source status is subject
to the applicability of standards, compliance dates and notification
requirements specified in (c)(6)(i)(A) of this section. An area source
that previously was a major source and becomes a major source again is
subject to the applicability of standards, compliance dates, and
notification requirements specified in (c)(6)(i)(B) of this section:
    (A) A major source reclassifying to area source status under this
part remains subject to any applicable major source requirements
established under this part until the reclassification becomes
effective. After the reclassification becomes effective, the source is
subject to any applicable area

source requirements established under this part immediately, provided
the compliance date for the area source requirements has passed. The
owner or operator of a major source that becomes an area source subject
to newly applicable area source requirements under this part must
comply with the initial notification requirements pursuant to Sec.
63.9(b). The owner or operator of a major source that becomes an area
source must also provide to the Administrator any change in the
information already provided under Sec.  63.9(b) per Sec.  63.9(j).
    (B) An area source that previously was a major source under this
part and that becomes a major source again is subject to the applicable
major source requirements established under this part immediately upon
becoming a major source again, provided the compliance date for the
major source requirements has passed, notwithstanding any provision
within the applicable subparts. The owner or operator of an area source
that becomes a major source again must comply with the initial
notification pursuant to Sec.  63.9(b). The owner or operator must also
provide to the Administrator any change in the information already
provided under Sec.  63.9(b) per Sec.  63.9(j).
    (ii) Becoming an area source does not absolve a source subject to
an enforcement action or investigation for major source violations or
infractions from the consequences of any actions occurring when the
source was major. Becoming a major source does not absolve a source
subject to an enforcement action or investigation for area source
violations or infractions from the consequences of any actions
occurring when the source was an area source.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  63.2 by revising the definition ``Potential to emit'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source
to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the stationary
source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment
and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of
material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of
its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions
is enforceable.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  63.6 by revising paragraphs (b)(7) and (c)(1) and (5) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.6  Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) When an area source increases its emissions of (or its
potential to emit) hazardous air pollutants such that the source
becomes a major source, the portion of the facility that meets the
definition of a new affected source must comply with all requirements
of that standard applicable to new sources. The source owner or
operator must comply with the relevant standard upon startup.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) After the effective date of a relevant standard established
under this part pursuant to section 112(d) or 112(h) of the Act, the
owner or operator of an existing source shall comply with such standard
by the compliance date established by the Administrator in the
applicable subpart(s) of this part, except as provided in Sec.
63.1(c)(6)(i). Except as otherwise provided for in section 112 of the
Act, in no case will the compliance date established for an existing
source in an applicable subpart of this part exceed 3 years after the
effective date of such standard.
* * * * *
    (5) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, the
owner or operator of an area source that increases its emissions of (or
its potential to emit) hazardous air pollutants such that the source
becomes a major source and meets the definition of an existing source
in the applicable major source standard shall be subject to relevant
standards for existing sources. Except as provided in paragraph Sec.
63.1(c)(6)(i)(B), such sources must comply by the date specified in the
standards for existing area sources that become major sources. If no
such compliance date is specified in the standards, the source shall
have a period of time to comply with the relevant emission standard
that is equivalent to the compliance period specified in the relevant
standard for existing sources in existence at the time the standard
becomes effective.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  63.9 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (j) and
adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9  Notification requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) If an area source subsequently becomes a major source that is
subject to the emission standard or other requirement, such source
shall be subject to the notification requirements of this section. Area
sources previously subject to major source requirements that become
major sources again are also subject to the notification requirements
of this paragraph and must submit the notification according to the
requirements of paragraph (k) of this section.
* * * * *
    (j) Change in information already provided. Any change in the
information already provided under this section shall be provided to
the Administrator within 15 calendar days after the change. The owner
or operator of a major source that reclassifies to area source status
is also subject to the notification requirements of this paragraph. The
owner or operator may use the application for reclassification with the
regulatory authority (e.g., permit application) to fulfill the
requirements of this paragraph. A source which reclassified after
January 25, 2018, and before January 19, 2021, and has not yet provided
the notification of a change in information is required to provide such
notification no later than February 2, 2021, according to the
requirements of paragraph (k) of this section. Beginning January 19,
2021, the owner or operator of a major source that reclassifies to area
source status must submit the notification according to the
requirements of paragraph (k) of this section. A notification of
reclassification must contain the following information:
    (1) The name and address of the owner or operator;
    (2) The address (i.e., physical location) of the affected source;
    (3) An identification of the standard being reclassified from and
to (if applicable); and
    (4) Date of effectiveness of the reclassification.
    (k) Electronic submission of notifications or reports. If you are
required to submit notifications or reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph (k), you must submit notifications or
reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The notification or
report must be submitted by the deadline specified. The EPA will make
all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public
without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information
you claim as confidential business information (CBI). Anything
submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to

be CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if
persons wish to assert a CBI, submit a complete notification or report,
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. Submit the file on
a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium
to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's
CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (k). All CBI claims must be
asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under section 114(c)
of the Act emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment and
requires EPA to make emissions data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly
available.
    (1) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or
report by this paragraph (k) through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with
the electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system
outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1)(i)
through (vii) of this section.
    (i) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required notification or report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (ii) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the notification or
report is due.
    (iii) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (iv) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (v) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
    (A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
    (B) A rationale for attributing the delay in submitting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
submitting; and
    (D) The date by which you propose to submit, or if you have already
met the electronic submittal requirement in this paragraph (k) at the
time of the notification, the date you submitted the notification or
report.
    (vi) 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.
    (vii) In any circumstance, the notification or report must be
submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is
resolved.
    (2) If you are required to electronically submit a notification or
report by this paragraph (k) through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the
electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure,
you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through
(v) of this section.
    (i) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a
notification or 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).
    (ii) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in submitting through CEDRI.
    (iii) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (A) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (D) The date by which you propose to submit the notification or
report, or if you have already met the electronic submittal requirement
in this paragraph (k) at the time of the notification, the date you
submitted the notification or report.
    (iv) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the submittal deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (v) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
6. Amend Sec.  63.10 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.10  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) If an owner or operator determines that his or her existing or
new stationary source is in the source category regulated by a standard
established pursuant to section 112 of the Act, but that source is not
subject to the relevant standard (or other requirement established
under this part) because of enforceable limitations on the source's
potential to emit, or the source otherwise qualifies for an exclusion,
the owner or operator must keep a record of the applicability
determination. The applicability determination must be kept on site at
the source for a period of 5 years after the determination, or until
the source changes its operations to become an affected source subject
to the relevant standard (or other requirement established under this
part), whichever comes first if the determination is made prior to
January 19, 2021. The applicability determination must be kept until
the source changes its operations to become an affected source subject
to the relevant standard (or other requirement established under this
part) if the determination was made on or after January 19, 2021. The
record of the applicability determination must be signed by the person