upon actual or allowable emissions, 105,000 people were exposed to
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum
chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the source category, based on
actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be less than 1. Based
upon actual and allowable emissions, respiratory risks were driven by
chlorine emissions from cellulose ether process equipment.

                                                   Table 3--CEP Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Estimated
                                                                              Maximum     population  at     Estimated        Maximum         Maximum
                                                             Number of      individual       increased     annual cancer      chronic        screening
                     Risk assessment                        facilities      cancer risk       risk of        incidence       noncancer         acute
                                                                          (in 1 million)  cancer  >=1-in-   (cases per       TOSHI \3\     noncancer HQ
                                                                                1 million         year)                            \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Baseline Actual Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.........................................               3              80         105,000            0.01            0.06             0.1
Facility-Wide...........................................               3         \2\ 500         570,000            0.04           \5\ 4  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                              Baseline Allowable Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.........................................               3              80         112,000            0.01             0.2  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual, allowable, and whole facility emissions.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to ethylene oxide emissions from outside of the source category identified as releases from
  holding ponds, storage tanks, tank truck unloading, and equipment/vent releases.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the CEP source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
  available acute dose-response value.
\5\ Maximum TOSHI from whole facility are from chlorine emissions from non-category sources (classified as other). The target organ with the highest
  TOSHI is the respiratory system.

b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there
is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum
refined off-site acute noncancer HQ value for the source category was
less than 1 from methanol emissions from cellulose ether process
equipment (based on the acute (1-hour) REL for methanol). It is also
important to note that the highest HQ is based on an hourly emissions
multiplier of 10 times the annual emissions rate. Acute HQs are not
calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    One facility within the CEP source category reported emissions of
multipathway pollutants of lead compounds, carcinogenic PB-HAP
(arsenic), and noncarcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury). Results of
the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that PB-HAP emissions
(based on estimates of actual emissions) emitted from the facility
exceeded the screening values for the carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic
compounds) by a factor of 2 and for the noncarcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium
and mercury) was equal to the Tier 1 screening value of 1. Based on
this Tier 1 screening assessment for carcinogens, the arsenic, cadmium,
and mercury emission rates for the single facility were below our level
of concern. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from
emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to
the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\). The highest annual
average lead concentration of 0.00001 [micro]g/m\3\ is well below the
NAAQS for lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of
concern due to lead.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the CEP source category.
The three facilities modeled in the source category reported emissions
of lead compounds and the above PB-HAP, as well as an acid gas (HCl).
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP, we did not find any
exceedances of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. For lead, we did
not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl, the
average modeled concentration around each facility (i.e., the average
concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling domain) did
not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition, each individual
modeled concentration of HCl (i.e., each off-site data point in the
modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all
facilities. Based on the results of the environmental risk screening
analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result
of HAP emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that
all three facilities modeled have a facility-wide MIR cancer risk
greater than 1-in-1 million (refer to Table 3). The maximum facility-
wide cancer risk is 500-in-1 million, mainly driven by ethylene oxide
from sources outside the source category, including holding ponds,
storage tanks, tank truck unloading, and equipment/vent releases. The
next highest cancer risk was 80-in-1 million, based on whole facility
emissions of ethylene oxide. The total estimated cancer incidence from
the whole facility is 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in
every 25 years, with 570,000 people estimated to have cancer risks
greater than 1-in-1 million and 2,000 people with risks greater than
100-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is
estimated to be equal to 4, driven by emissions of chlorine from non-
category sources.
3. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the MVP and CEP source categories, we
performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and
within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the MVP and
CEP source categories across different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.
    For the MVP source category demographic analysis, the results for
various demographic groups are based on the estimated risk from actual
emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the
facilities. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to
emissions from MVP facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI
greater than 1. The methodology and the results of the MVP demographic
analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Facilities, available in the docket for
this action.
    The results of the CEP demographic analysis are summarized in Table
4 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on
the

estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the CEP facilities.

                                 Table 4--CEP Demographic Risk Analysis Results
                  [CEP Source Category Demographic Assessment Results--50 km Study Area Radius]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Population
                                                                                with cancer     Population
                                                                                risk greater     with hazard
                                                                                than or equal   index greater
                                                                                to 1-in-1        than 1
                                                                                million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Nationwide          Source Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     317,746,049         104,572               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................              62              51               0
Minority........................................................              38              49               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................              12              37               0
Native American.................................................             0.8             0.3               0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................              18               7               0
Other and Multiracial...........................................               7               4               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................              14              12               0
Above Poverty Level.............................................              86              88               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................              14              16               0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................              86              84               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................               6               1               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the CEP source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
104,572 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and
approximately zero people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
The percentages of the at-risk population in three demographic groups
(African American, above poverty level, and over 25 without highs
school diploma) are greater than their respective nationwide
percentages. The methodology and the results of the CEP demographic
analysis are presented in the technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Cellulose Ethers Production Facilities, available in the docket for
this action.

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

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).
    In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and
allowable emissions from the MVP and CEP source categories. In
determining whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all
available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as
described above. The results for the MVP and CEP source categories
indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to
the individual most exposed are below the presumptive limit of
acceptability of 100-in-1 million.
    The results for the MVP source category indicate that both the
actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most
exposed are less than 1-in-1 million, well below the presumptive limit
of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The MVP source category also has
chronic noncancer inhalation exposures to HAP with health benchmarks
with TOSHI values less than 1 (0.05), 20 times below an exposure that
the EPA has determined is without appreciable risk of adverse health
effects. Exposures to HAP associated with acute noncancer health
effects also are below levels of health concern with no HAP exposures
resulting in an HQ greater than 1 (0.4) based upon the 1-hour REL.
    The results for the CEP source category indicate that both the
actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most
exposed are less or equal to 80-in-1 million, below the presumptive
limit of acceptability of

100-in-1 million. EPA estimates emissions from the 3 facilities in the
source category would result in a cancer incidence of 0.01 excess
cancer cases per year, or one case every 100 years based upon actual
emissions from the source category. This incidence rate is solely from
1 facility emitting ethylene oxide. We estimate 105,000 individuals are
exposed to an inhalation cancer risk equal to or greater than 1-in-1
million from this one facility. Inhalation exposures to HAP associated
with chronic noncancer health effects result in a TOSHI of 0.06 based
on actual emissions, 16 times below an exposure that the EPA has
determined is without appreciable risk of adverse health effects.
Exposures to HAP associated with acute noncancer health effects also
are below levels of health concern with no HAP exposures resulting in
an HQ greater than 1 (0.1) based upon the 1-hour REL.
    Multipathway screen values for the CEP source category are below a
level of concern for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PB-HAP as
well as emissions of lead compounds. Maximum cancer and noncancer risk
due to ingestion exposures estimated using Tier 1 health-protective
risk screening assumptions are below 2-in-1 million for cancer and
equal to 1 based upon Tier 1 noncancer screen values for mercury.
    Taking into account this information, the EPA proposes that the
risks remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standards for
the CEP and MVP source categories are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    The inhalation cancer risk from the MVP source category is less
than 1-in-1 million and the chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation
exposures is less than 1. Additionally, the results of the MVP acute
screening analysis showed that risks were below a level of concern.
Because we are proposing that risks from the MVP source category are
acceptable and below the thresholds of concern, we are proposing that
the current MACT standards applicable to the MVP source category
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the three modeled
facilities within the CEP source category are acceptable, the MIR for
actual and allowable emissions are 80-in-1 million caused by ethylene
oxide emissions from the HEC process. We considered whether the MACT
standards applicable to these emission points in particular, as well as
all the current MACT standards applicable to this source category,
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As directed
by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to determine if the
current emission standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated
the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other
measures (including those considered under the technology review) that
could be applied to the CEP source category to further reduce the risks
(or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk
assessment.
    The HEC production process utilizes purified wood pulp or cotton
linters to produce alkali cellulose by adding a caustic solution. The
alkali cellulose is then reacted with ethylene oxide to produce HEC,
which is a thickening agent used in cosmetics, cleaning solutions, and
other household products. This process utilizes extended cook-out
procedures to reduce the amount of ethylene oxide not consumed during
the HEC reaction in conjunction with an add-on control device. This
process is subject to standard 3 in Table 1 to Subpart UUUU of Part
63--Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards, which requires a 99-
percent reduction in HAP emissions.
    As discussed in section IV.C below and in the memo titled
Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Industry--
Proposed Rule in the docket for this rulemaking, we did not identify
any developments in processes, practices, or controls for the CEP
source category during our analysis for this proposal. CEP facilities
use scrubbers to control emissions of ethylene oxide, as well as other
HAP, and these devices are capable of achieving high levels of emission
reductions. We did not identify additional technologies capable of
further reducing emissions, or improvements to existing technologies
that would result in further reduction of emissions. Given that we did
not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies and the acceptable risks remaining after implementation of
the NESHAP, we are proposing that the existing standards for the CEP
source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, and revision of the standards is not required.
    Lastly, regarding the facility-wide risks due to ethylene oxide
(described above), which are due primarily to emission sources that are
not part of the CEP source category, we intend to evaluate these
facility-wide estimated emissions and risks further and may address
them in a separate future action, as appropriate. In particular, the
EPA is addressing ethylene oxide in response to the results of the
latest National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) released in August 2018,
which identified the chemical as a potential concern in several areas
across the country. (NATA is the Agency's nationwide air toxics
screening tool, designed to help the EPA and state, local, and tribal
air agencies identify areas, pollutants, or types of sources for
further examination.) The latest NATA estimates that ethylene oxide
significantly contributes to potential elevated cancer risks in some
census tracts across the U.S. (less than 1 percent of the total number
of tracts). These elevated risks are largely driven by an EPA risk
value that was updated in late 2016. The EPA will work with industry
and state, local, and tribal air agencies as the EPA takes a two-
pronged approach to address ethylene oxide emissions: (1) Reviewing
and, as appropriate, revising CAA regulations for facilities that emit
ethylene oxide--starting with air toxics emissions standards for
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities and commercial
sterilizers; and (2) conducting site-specific risk assessments and, as
necessary, implementing emission control strategies for targeted high-
risk facilities. The EPA will post updates on its work to address
ethylene oxide on its website at: https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    For the MVP source category, we did not identify emissions of any
environmental HAP. Because we did not identify any environmental HAP
emissions, we expect no adverse environmental effects and are proposing
that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect.
    For the CEP source category, our analyses showed no exceedances of
ecological benchmarks and, therefore, we do not expect there to be an
adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this
source category. We are proposing that it is not necessary to set a
more stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect.

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

    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for control of HAP emissions from CEP and MVP
facilities.

In conducting the technology review, we reviewed sources of information
on practices, processes, and control technologies that were not
considered during the development of the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing NESHAP, as well as looked for information on improvements
in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred
since the development of the NESHAP. The review included reviewing the
industry responses to Part 2 of the sector survey, a search of the RBLC
database and the EPA's ADI, reviews of air permits, and a review of
relevant literature. After reviewing the information from the
aforementioned sources, we did not identify any developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies to reduce HAP emissions
from the CEP and MVP source categories. Therefore, we are proposing
that revisions to the NESHAP are not necessary based on our review
under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    While these searches did not result in a finding of any new
technologies, the results of the ADI search suggest that the EPA could
add biofilter effluent conductivity operating limits and parameter
monitoring as an alternative to biofilter pH operating limits and
monitoring. This is discussed in section IV.D below. Additional details
of our technology review can be found in the memorandum titled
Technology Review for the Cellulose Products Manufacturing Industry--
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also are proposing various other changes, including electronic
submittal of notifications, compliance reports, and performance test
reports; addition of periodic emissions testing requirements and
incorporation by reference (IBR) of three test methods (listed in
section IV.D.5 below); and various technical and editorial changes. Our
analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed
below.
1. SSM
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule
which appears at 40 CFR 63.5515 and Table 10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63
(Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart UUUU). Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply
at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 10 (the
General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail
below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of
the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM
plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption
as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate emission standards for those periods.
However, the EPA is proposing alternative operating limits for periods
of startup and shutdown for thermal oxidizers and scrubbers to address
issues with parameter monitoring during these periods.
    As discussed in the memorandum titled Summary of the Startup and
Shutdown Data for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, we requested data
regarding periods of startup and shutdown as part of the 2018 survey.
Facilities did not indicate difficulty meeting the emission standards
as a result of startup or shutdown events. However, facilities did
indicate difficulty meeting thermal oxidizer and scrubber operating
parameters during these periods. This is not unexpected because these
periods reflect non-steady state operations and production. For sources
equipped with thermal oxidizers, survey responses indicated that they
could not meet the setpoint temperature during periods of startup. This
is likely due to a temperature drop when the HAP-laden air stream is
initially added to the oxidizer. Survey responses indicated that, for
sources equipped with scrubbers (wet, water, and caustic), pressure
drop, liquid-to-gas ratios, and scrubber liquid flow rate parameter
limits could not be met during startup and shutdown. This is not
unexpected since pluggage can occur during non-stable conditions,
limiting the liquid flow rate and subsequently reducing the pressure
drop across the scrubber due to the lack of liquid flow. Consequently,
the EPA is proposing the following alternative operating parameter
options to demonstrate continuous compliance and ensure proper control
device operations during periods of startup and shutdown:
     Wet or caustic scrubber: As an alternative to pressure
drop, liquid flow rate, or liquid-to-gas ratio, confirm that the
scrubber is operating properly prior to emission unit startup and
continue operation until emission unit shutdown is complete.
Appropriate startup and shutdown operating parameters may be based on
equipment design, manufacturer's recommendations, or other site-
specific operating values established for normal operating periods. Do
not include these parameters when determining the daily average.
     Thermal oxidizer: As an alternative to the minimum firebox
temperature, confirm that the oxidizer is operating properly prior to
emission unit startup (e.g., firebox temperature has reached the
setpoint temperature established in the most recent stack test). Do not
include these parameters when determining the daily average.
    The survey responses for other control devices did not indicate any
issues meeting operating parameters during periods of startup and
shutdown. One additional survey response requested the addition of a
shutdown work practice for process lines and equipment venting. This
response suggested that, in the event of a shutdown, it would be
appropriate to purge the process gas and/or liquid to an emission
control device, recovery device, or return to the process.
Additionally, the response suggested that gas streams may be emitted if
they contain less than 50 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or
the lower explosive limit is less than 10 percent. The Agency is
requesting comment to determine if this

would be an appropriate work practice. Emissions from venting due to
shutdown should be accounted for in the compliance demonstration in the
semiannual compliance report.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved''
by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.''
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider
malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat
a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in
performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A
malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or
usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80
FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such
information.
    The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction will
result in a violation of the standard for this source category. For
example, facilities using thermal oxidizers as pollution control
equipment indicated in the 2018 survey that interlocks would shut down
the process if an oxidizer malfunction occurred, and facilities may
also have back-up oxidizers that could be used to treat the emissions.
The MACT standards are based on a percent reduction of HAP over a 6-
month rolling period per group of equipment. Therefore, the malfunction
of a singular piece of equipment in a single month over this period is
unlikely to result in an exceedance of the standard. The EPA is
soliciting information on the type of events that constitute a
malfunction event, and best practices and best level of emission
control during malfunction events. The EPA is also soliciting
information on the cost savings associated with these practices. In
addition, the EPA is soliciting specific supporting data on HAP
emissions during malfunction events for the MVP and CEP source
categories, including the cause of malfunctions, the frequency of
malfunctions, the duration of malfunctions, and the estimate of HAP
emitted during each malfunction.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in
fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable

and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless
operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) and (2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5515 that reflects the
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown,
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the
language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.5515 does not include that
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ``no''
in column 4. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.5515.
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a
``no.'' Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan
requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from
non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the
Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision
and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standard apply
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to
revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and
changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' The current language of
40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods
of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the
exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires
that some CAA section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent with
Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to
apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a
``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements.
The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement
at 40 CFR 63.5535. The performance testing requirements we are
proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing
provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The
proposed performance testing provisions do not allow performance
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often
not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing
to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e)
requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the
performance test'' available to the Administrator upon request but does
not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory
text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in
column 4. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA
is proposing to add to the rule at Table 9 that is identical to 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the
following sentence: ``The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
f. Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) through

(iv) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and changing the
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. We are instead
proposing to add recordkeeping requirements to Table 9. When a source
is subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will
be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and
end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard.
Thus, the EPA is proposing to add language to Table 9 requiring that
sources subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that
differs from the emission standard that applies at all other times must
report the date, time, and duration of such periods. The EPA is also
proposing that sources would be required to record information
supporting the operating parameter alternatives, including (1) an
indication that thermal oxidizers reach set point temperature prior to
emission unit startup, and (2) an indication that scrubbers are
properly operating prior to emission unit startup. The proposed records
are required to demonstrate that alternative operating parameter limits
have been met during periods of startup and shutdown.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ``no'' in
column 4. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such
requirements to Table 9. The regulatory text we are proposing to add
differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General
Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the
occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution
control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that this
requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is
requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the
failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to
add to Table 9 a requirement that sources keep records that include a
list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize
emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available,
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in
column 4. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record
actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with
their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM
plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable
under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions
and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to Table
9.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) to the entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv), which includes a ``no'' in column 4. When applicable,
the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM
events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan.
The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no
longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' in
column 4. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan or
records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also
satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA
is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no
longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by redesignating it as 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.''
Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the periodic reporting requirements
for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting
requirements to 40 CFR 63.5580 and Table 8. The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual
compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing
that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the
cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list
of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a ``no'' in
column 4. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for
startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an
applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer
require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not

consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
2. 5-Year Periodic Emissions Testing
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the testing and
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU and is
proposing the following change. The EPA is proposing to require
facilities that use non-recovery control devices to conduct periodic
air emissions performance testing, with the first of the periodic
performance tests to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date
of the revised standards and thereafter no longer than 5 years
following the previous test. Requiring periodic performance tests would
serve as a check on the accuracy of facilities' mass balance
calculations and on the efficiency of the control devices used to
achieve compliance with the standards. Periodic performance tests would
ensure that control devices are properly maintained over time, thereby
reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes. We specifically
request comment on the proposed repeat testing requirements.
3. Electronic Reporting
    Through this action, we are proposing that owners and operators of
cellulose products manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of
required initial notifications, notifications of compliance status,
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and
semiannual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A
description of the electronic data submission process is provided in
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-2018-0415. The proposed rule requires that performance test
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \24\ at
the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in
portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring
systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are
supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the
format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance
evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of
the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For initial notifications and notifications of compliance status,
the proposed rule requires that owners and operators submit
notifications as PDFs to CEDRI. For semiannual reports, the proposed
rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the
proposed template for these reports is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.\25\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the content,
layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Subpart_UUUU_Semiannual_Report.xlsx, available at
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The initial notifications, notifications of compliance status,
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and
semiannual reports are required to be submitted according to the
deadlines specified in 40 CFR 63.5580. Additionally, the EPA has
identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting
extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to
accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the
discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as
possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect
owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot
successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons
outside of their control. The situation where an extension may be
warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which precludes an
owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.5580. The situation where an
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.5580.
Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the
facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \26\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \27\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\28\ 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-2018-0415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \27\ 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.
    \28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Biofilter Effluent Conductivity
    On November 17, 2006, Viskase Companies, Inc., a company subject to
40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, which manufactures cellulose food
casings, submitted a request to the EPA to monitor biofilter effluent
conductivity as an alternative to effluent pH for the biofilter control
devices at their facilities in Osceola, Arkansas, and Loudon,
Tennessee. The request stated that pH is in a range such that effluent
conductivity would provide a more accurate operating limit:

    For strong acids and bases, pH values are not very meaningful
indicators of the concentration. The measurement uncertainty is
large because pH is a logarithmic scale. Conductivity measurements
are more suitable than pH measurements for producing accurate and
reproducible estimates of the concentrations of free acids and bases
because the relationship between conductivity and concentration is
almost linear over a range of concentrations.

    Based on the information provided by Viskase, the EPA conditionally
approved the monitoring request to establish and monitor an effluent
conductivity operating limit for the biofilter units and stated that
the effluent conductivity operating limit must be based on a
performance test and can be supplemented by engineering assessments
and/or manufacturer's recommendations.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Technology Review for the Cellulose Products
Manufacturing Source Category--Proposed Rule, Appendix E, available
in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to granting the alternative monitoring request per 40
CFR 63.8(f), the EPA is also proposing an amendment to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUUU, to add biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative
parameter to pH. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to revise the
operating limits table (Table 2 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add
biofilter effluent conductivity to the list of biofilter operating
limits, revise the performance testing requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535
to add biofilter effluent conductivity to the list of parameters for
which operating limits must be established during the compliance
demonstration, and revise the continuous compliance with operating
limits table (Table 6 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add biofilter
effluent conductivity to the list of parameters to monitor to
demonstrate continuous compliance.
5. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes IBR. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the following documents into 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses--Part
10, was previously approved for incorporation by reference for Table 4
to Subpart UUUU of Part 63.
     ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart
UUUU of Part 63.
     ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63.
     ASTM D6348-12e1, Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
Spectroscopy, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63.
    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/
and at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
6. Technical and Editorial Changes
    The following lists additional proposed changes that address
technical and editorial corrections:
     Revise the requirements in 40 CFR 63.5505 to clarify that
CS2 storage tanks part of a submerged unloading and storage operation
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, is not subject to 40 CFR part
60, subpart Kb. These types of tanks are not the type of storage
vessels in terms of their physical siting and operational design that
were intended to be regulated under NSPS Kb, even when these tanks meet
the vapor pressure and designed capacity under the rule. These tanks
are completely submerged in a common water bath and have no air space
within the tanks due to the continuous water layer above the CS2 layer,
therefore, the tanks do not have direct CS2 gaseous emissions.
     Revise the performance test requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535
to specify the conditions for conducting performance tests;
     Revise the performance test requirements table (Table 4 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to correct an error in the reference to a test
method appendix;
     Revise the performance test requirements table (Table 4 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to add IBR for ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved
2010), ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), and ASTM D6348-12e1;
     Revise the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.5580 and
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements tables (Tables 8 and 9 to
Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to include the requirements to record and
report information on failures to meet the applicable standard and the
corrective actions taken; and
     Revise the General Provisions applicability table (Table
10 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63) to align with those sections of the
General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    For the proposed rule revisions related to the removal of the
exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods
and the additional electronic reporting requirements, the EPA is
proposing that existing affected sources must comply with the
amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
September 9, 2019 must comply with all requirements of the subpart,
including the amendments being proposed unless indicated specifically
otherwise, immediately upon startup. All affected existing facilities
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart UUUU, until the applicable compliance date of the amended
rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUUU. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that initial notifications, notifications of compliance
status, performance test results, and the semiannual reports using the
new template be submitted electronically. We are also proposing to
change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the
requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing
the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan.
    Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert
reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary
software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance
test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new
electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic
reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different
time-reporting parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and more typically 180 days, is generally necessary to
successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and

understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to
ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and
shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments;
adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate
revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our
assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of
this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the
regulation's effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed
compliance period, and we specifically request submission of
information from sources in this source category regarding specific
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that
information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance
date.
    Additionally, we are also proposing new requirements to conduct
periodic performance testing every 5 years. Establishing a compliance
date earlier than 3 years for the first periodic performance test can
cause scheduling issues as affected sources compete for a limited
number of testing contractors. Considering these scheduling issues, we
are proposing that each existing affected source, and each new and
reconstructed affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after August 28, 2000, and on or before September 9,
2019 and uses a non-recovery control device to comply with the
standards, must conduct the first periodic performance test on or
before [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register] and conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no
later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance
test. For each new and reconstructed affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after September 9, 2019 and uses a non-
recovery control device to comply with the standards, we are proposing
that owners and operators must conduct the first periodic performance
test no later than 60 months following the initial performance test
required by 40 CFR 63.5535 and conduct subsequent periodic performance
tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous
performance test.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    There are currently eight facilities operating in the United States
that conduct MVP and CEP operations that are subject to the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU
affected source for the MVP source category is each cellulose food
casing, rayon, cellulosic sponge, or cellophane operation, as defined
in 40 CFR 63.5610. The affected source for the CEP source category is
each cellulose ether operation, as defined in 40 CFR 63.5610.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the MVP and CEP
facilities that are subject to the NESHAP are approximately 4,300 tpy.
Because we are not proposing revisions to the emission limits, we do
not anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as a result of the
proposed amendments. However, we anticipate that the proposed
requirements, including the removal of the SSM exemption and addition
of periodic emissions testing, may reduce emissions by ensuring proper
operation of control devices.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The eight facilities that would be subject to the proposed
amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised recordkeeping
and reporting requirements and would incur periodic emissions testing
costs for add-on control devices. The nationwide costs associated with
the proposed periodic testing requirements are estimated to be $490,000
(2018$) over the 5 years following promulgation of the amendments. For
further information on the requirement being proposed, see section
IV.D.2 of this preamble. For further information on the costs
associated with the proposed requirements, see the memorandum, Costs
and Environmental Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Cellulose
Products Manufacturing Industry--Proposed Rule, and the document,
Supporting Statement for the NESHAP for Cellulose Products
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU), which are both available
in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on these estimated
cost impacts.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the
proposed requirements and the distribution of these costs among
affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will
change in response to a proposed rule. Based on the costs associated
with the periodic testing requirements, no significant economic impacts
from the proposed amendments are anticipated.

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as
a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if
finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to the rule.
Specifically, the proposed amendments revise the standards such that
they apply at all times. Additionally, the proposed amendments
requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications, performance
test results, and semiannual reports will increase the usefulness of
the data, is in keeping with current trends of data availability, will
further assist in the protection of public health and the environment,
and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community.
See section IV.D.3 of this preamble for more information.

VI. Request for Comments

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

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-
air-pollution/

cellulose-products-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. The data
files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point
for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/cellulose-products-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.

VIII. 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 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1974.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are essential in
determining compliance and mandatory for all operators subject to
national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C.
7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    We are proposing changes to the paperwork requirements for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UUUU, in the form of eliminating the SSM reporting and
SSM plan requirements, adding periodic emissions testing, providing
biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative to monitoring pH, and
requiring electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual reports,
and performance test reports.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include facilities
subject to the NESHAP for Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part
63, subpart UUUU).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUUU).
    Estimated number of respondents: Eight.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include initial notifications, reports of
periodic performance tests, and semiannual compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for this information collection, averaged over the first 3 years
of this ICR, is estimated to total 7,256 labor hours (per year). Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $954,000 per year, including $834,000 per
year in labor costs and $120,000 per year in annualized capital or
operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than October 9, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. No
small entities are subject to the requirements of this rule. As such,
this action will not impose any requirements on small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal

government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. No
tribal governments own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the
following risk reports titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and Residual Risk Assessment
for the Cellulose Ethers Production Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found in
the docket for this action.

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

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

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

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry,'' for the measurement of toluene and
total organic HAP. This method employs a direct interface gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometer to identify and quantify the 36
volatile organic compounds (or sub-set of these compounds) listed on
the ASTM website. This ASTM has been approved by the EPA as an
alternative to EPA Method 18 only when the target compounds are all
known and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as
measurable. This ASTM should not be used for methane and ethane because
their atomic mass is less than 35. ASTM D6420 should never be specified
as a total VOC method.
    The EPA also proposes to use ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012),
``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds
in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.''
This method covers the identification and simultaneous measurement of
purgeable volatile organic compounds. It has been validated for treated
drinking water, wastewater, and groundwater. ASTM D5790-95 is
acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 624 and for the analysis of
total organic HAP in wastewater samples. For wastewater analyses, this
ASTM method should be used with the sampling procedures of EPA Method
25D or an equivalent method in order to be a complete alternative. The
ASTM standard is validated for all of the 21 volatile organic HAP
(including toluene) targeted by EPA Method 624, but it is also
validated for an additional 14 HAP not targeted by the EPA method.
    The EPA proposes to use ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared
(FTIR) Spectroscopy'' as an acceptable alternative to using EPA Method
320 with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the
standard as mandatory. This test method provides the volume
concentration of detected analytes. Converting the volume concentration
to a mass emission rate using a particular compound's molecular weight,
and the effluent volumetric flow rate, temperature, and pressure is
useful for determining the impact of that compound to the atmosphere.
When using ASTM D6348-12e, the following conditions must be met: (1)
The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D
6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-
03, Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R)
must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order
for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater
than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If
the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the
test data are not acceptable for that compound and the test must be
repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical
procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each
compound must be reported in the test report, and all field
measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that
compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured
Concentration in the Stack))/(%R) x 100.
    The ASTM standards are reasonably available from the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post
Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See http://www.astm.org/.
    While the EPA has identified another 14 voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) as being potentially applicable to this proposed rule,
we have decided not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. The use of
these VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency,
documentation, validation date, and other important technical and
policy considerations. See the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, in the docket for this
proposed rule for the reasons for these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.3
of this preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Miscellaneous Viscose Processes Facilities and Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Cellulose Ethers Production Facilities, which are located in the public
docket for this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

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

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

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(72), (85), (89),
and (91) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (72) ASTM D5790-95 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 4 to
subpart UUUU.
* * * * *
    (85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved for Sec.
63.1571(a) and Table 4 to subpart UUUU.
* * * * *
    (89) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.5799 and 63.5850.
* * * * *
    (91) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR
approved for Sec.  63.670(j), Table 4 to subpart UUUU, and appendix A
to this part: Method 325B.
* * * * *

Subpart UUUU--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.5505 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.5505   What emission limits, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?

* * * * *
    (f) Carbon disulfide storage tanks part of a submerged unloading
and storage operation subject to this part are not subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Kb (Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
July 23, 1984).
0
4. Section 63.5515 is amended by revising paragraph (a), paragraph (b)
introductory text, adding and reserving paragraph (b)(2), and revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.5515   What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?

    (a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must be in
compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work
practice standards in this subpart at all times, except during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each such
source you must be in compliance with the emission limitations in this
subpart at all times. For new and reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, you
must be in compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and
work practice standards in this subpart at all times.
    (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must
always operate and maintain your affected source, including air
pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions
in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register] for each such source, and after September
9, 2019 for new and reconstructed sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019, you must always
operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution
control and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the
levels required by this subpart. The general duty to minimize emissions
does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source.
* * * * *
    (c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, you must
maintain a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan
according the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). For each such source, a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required after [DATE 180
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required for any new or
reconstruction source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after September 9, 2019.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.5535 is amended by revising paragraph (b), removing and
reserving paragraph (c), revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and (i)(7)
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.5535  What performance tests and other procedures must I use?

* * * * *
    (b) You must conduct each performance test for continuous process
vents and combinations of batch and continuous process vents based on
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating
conditions) of the affected source for the period being tested,
according to the specific conditions in Table 4 to this Subpart UUUU.
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You
may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You
must record the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation.
Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such
records as

may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Viscose process affected sources that must use non-recovery
control devices to meet the applicable emission limit in table 1 to
this subpart must conduct an initial performance test of their non-
recovery control devices according to the requirements in table 4 to
this subpart to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery
control devices and incorporate this information in their material
balance. Periodic performance tests must be conducted as specified in
Sec.  63.5541.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Cellulose ether affected sources that must use non-recovery
control devices to meet the applicable emission limit in table 1 to
this subpart must conduct an initial performance test of their non-
recovery control devices according to the requirements in table 4 to
this subpart to determine the control efficiency of their non-recovery
control devices and incorporate this information in their material
balance. Periodic performance tests must be conducted as specified in
Sec.  63.5541.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (7) For biofilters, record the pressure drop across the biofilter
beds, inlet gas temperature, and effluent pH or conductivity averaged
over the same time period as the compliance demonstration while the
vent stream is routed and constituted normally. Locate the pressure,
temperature, and pH or conductivity sensors in positions that provide
representative measurement of these parameters. Ensure the sample is
properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.5541 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.5541   When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    (a) For each affected source utilizing a non-recovery control
device to comply with Sec.  63.5515 constructed or reconstructed before
September 9, 2019, a periodic performance test must be performed by
[DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE Federal Register], and
subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter.
    (b) For each affected source utilizing a non-recovery control
device to comply with Sec.  63.5515 that commences construction or
reconstruction after September 9, 2019, a periodic performance test
must be performed no later than 60 months after the initial performance
test required by Sec.  63.5535, and subsequent tests no later than 60
months thereafter.
0
7. Section 63.5545 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (e)(2)
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.5545   What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(3) and (4)(ii), and
63.5515(b), and 63.5580(c)(6);
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8, Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix F, and according to the applicable performance
specification listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.5555 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.5555   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards?

* * * * *
    (d) Deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
Sec.  63.5515(b). The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.5515(b).
0
9. Section 63.5575 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.5575   What notifications must I submit and when?

    You must submit each notification in Table 7 to this subpart that
applies to you by the date specified in Table 7 to this subpart.
Initial notifications and Notification of Compliance Status Reports
shall be electronically submitted in portable document format (PDF)
following the procedure specified in Sec.  63.5580(g).
0
10. Section 63.5580 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and paragraph (e)(2);
0
e. Adding paragraph (e)(14); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (g) through (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.5580  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submitting reports under Sec.  63.10, you must submit each compliance
report by the date in Table 8 to this subpart and according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6) Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent reports following
the procedure specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after June 11, 2002, but on or before September 9, 2019, if you had a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you
took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan, the compliance report must include the information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i). No startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required
for any new or reconstruction source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after September 9, 2019. After [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], this section
is no longer relevant.
* * * * *
    (e) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limit or operating
limit in this subpart (see Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart), you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1)
through (14) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *
    (2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
    (14) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over

any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate
the emissions.
* * * * *
    (g) Submitting notifications or reports electronically. If you are
required to submit notifications or reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph, you must submit notifications or reports
to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Notifications must be submitted as PDFs
to CEDRI. You must use the semi-annual compliance report template on
the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed
on the CEDRI website. The semi-annual compliance report must be
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the
method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business
information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information
claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the
appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph.
    (h) Performance tests. Within 60 days after the date of completing
each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the
results of the performance test following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively,
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (h) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (i) Performance evaluations. Within 60 days after the date of
completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance
evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2), you must submit the results of
the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under this paragraph (i) is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in this
paragraph (i).
    (j) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to
electronically submit a report or notification through CEDRI in the
EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to
timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA
system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(j)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is

solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (k) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim
of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
11. Section 63.5590 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.5590   In what form and how long must I keep my records?

* * * * *
    (e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part
of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
12. Table 2 to Subpart UUUU is revised to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart UUUU of Part 63--Operating Limits

    As required in Sec.  63.5505(b), you must meet the appropriate
operating limits in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     For the following control
          technique . . .                      you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. condenser......................  maintain the daily average condenser
                                     outlet gas or condensed liquid
                                     temperature no higher than the
                                     value established during the
                                     compliance demonstration.
2. thermal oxidizer...............  a. for periods of normal operation,
                                     maintain the daily average thermal
                                     oxidizer firebox temperature no
                                     lower than the value established
                                     during the compliance demonstration
                                    b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
                                     OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                     FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing
                                     sources and new or reconstructed
                                     sources for which construction or
                                     reconstruction commenced after June
                                     11, 2002, but on or before
                                     September 9, 2019, and immediately
                                     upon startup for new or
                                     reconstructed sources for which
                                     construction or reconstruction
                                     commenced after September 9, 2019,
                                     maintain documentation for periods
                                     of startup demonstrating that the
                                     oxidizer was properly operating
                                     (e.g., firebox temperature had
                                     reached the setpoint temperature)
                                     prior to emission unit startup.
3. water scrubber.................  a. for periods of normal operation,
                                     maintain the daily average scrubber
                                     pressure drop and scrubber liquid
                                     flow rate within the range of
                                     values established during the
                                     compliance demonstration;
                                    b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
                                     OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                     FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing
                                     sources and new or reconstructed
                                     sources for which construction or
                                     reconstruction commenced after June
                                     11, 2002, but on or before
                                     September 9, 2019], and immediately
                                     upon startup for new or
                                     reconstructed sources for which
                                     construction or reconstruction
                                     commenced after September 9, 2019,
                                     maintain documentation for periods
                                     of startup and shutdown to confirm
                                     that the scrubber is operating
                                     properly prior to emission unit
                                     startup and continues to operate
                                     properly until emission unit
                                     shutdown is complete. Appropriate
                                     startup and shutdown operating
                                     parameters may be based on
                                     equipment design, manufacturer's
                                     recommendations, or other site-
                                     specific operating values
                                     established for normal operating
                                     periods.
4. caustic scrubber...............  a. for periods of normal operation,
                                     maintain the daily average scrubber
                                     pressure drop, scrubber liquid flow
                                     rate, and scrubber liquid pH,
                                     conductivity, or alkalinity within
                                     the range of values established
                                     during the compliance
                                     demonstration;
                                    b. after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
                                     OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                     FEDERAL REGISTER] for existing
                                     sources and new or reconstructed
                                     sources for which construction or
                                     reconstruction commenced after June
                                     11, 2002, but on or before
                                     September 9, 2019, and immediately
                                     upon startup for new or
                                     reconstructed sources for which
                                     construction or reconstruction
                                     commenced after September 9, 2019,
                                     maintain documentation for periods
                                     of startup and shutdown to confirm
                                     that the scrubber is operating
                                     properly prior to emission unit
                                     startup and continues to operate
                                     properly until emission unit
                                     shutdown is complete. Appropriate
                                     startup and shutdown operating
                                     parameters may be based on
                                     equipment design, manufacturer's
                                     recommendations, or other site-
                                     specific operating values
                                     established for normal operating
                                     periods.
5. flare..........................  maintain the presence of a pilot
                                     flame.
6. biofilter......................  maintain the daily average biofilter
                                     inlet gas temperature, biofilter
                                     effluent pH or conductivity, and
                                     pressure drop within the operating
                                     values established during the
                                     compliance demonstration.

7. carbon absorber................  maintain the regeneration frequency,
                                     total regeneration adsorber stream
                                     mass or volumetric flow during
                                     carbon bed regeneration, and
                                     temperature of the carbon bed after
                                     regeneration (and within 15 minutes
                                     of completing any cooling cycle(s))
                                     for each regeneration cycle within
                                     the values established during the
                                     compliance demonstration.
8. oil absorber...................  maintain the daily average
                                     absorption liquid flow, absorption
                                     liquid temperature, and steam flow
                                     within the values established
                                     during the compliance
                                     demonstration.
9. any of the control techniques    if using a CEMS, maintain the daily
 specified in this table.            average control efficiency of each
                                     control device no lower than the
                                     value established during the
                                     compliance demonstration.
10. any of the control techniques   a. if you wish to establish
 specified in this table.            alternative operating parameters,
                                     submit the application for approval
                                     of the alternative operating
                                     parameters no later than the
                                     notification of the performance
                                     test or CEMS performance evaluation
                                     or no later than 60 days prior to
                                     any other initial compliance
                                     demonstration;
                                    b. the application must include:
                                     Information justifying the request
                                     for alternative operating
                                     parameters (such as the
                                     infeasibility or impracticality of
                                     using the operating parameters in
                                     this final rule); a description of
                                     the proposed alternative control
                                     device operating parameters; the
                                     monitoring approach; the frequency
                                     of measuring and recording the
                                     alternative parameters; how the
                                     operating limits are to be
                                     calculated; and information
                                     documenting that the alternative
                                     operating parameters would provide
                                     equivalent or better assurance of
                                     compliance with the standard;
                                    c. install, operate, and maintain
                                     the alternative parameter
                                     monitoring systems in accordance
                                     with the application approved by
                                     the Administrator;
                                    d. establish operating limits during
                                     the initial compliance
                                     demonstration based on the
                                     alternative operating parameters
                                     included in the approved
                                     application; and
                                    e. maintain the daily average
                                     alternative operating parameter
                                     values within the values
                                     established during the compliance
                                     demonstration.
11. alternative control technique.  a. submit for approval no later than
                                     the notification of the performance
                                     test or CEMS performance evaluation
                                     or no later than 60 days prior to
                                     any other initial compliance
                                     demonstration a proposed site-
                                     specific plan that includes: A
                                     description of the alternative
                                     control device; test results
                                     verifying the performance of the
                                     control device; the appropriate
                                     operating parameters that will be
                                     monitored; and the frequency of
                                     measuring and recording to
                                     establish continuous compliance
                                     with the operating limits;
                                    b. install, operate, and maintain
                                     the parameter monitoring system for
                                     the alternative control device in
                                     accordance with the plan approved
                                     by the Administrator;
                                    c. establish operating limits during
                                     the initial compliance
                                     demonstration based on the
                                     operating parameters for the
                                     alternative control device included
                                     in the approved plan; and
                                    d. maintain the daily average
                                     operating parameter values for the
                                     alternative control technique