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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

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

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

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

C. What are the cost impacts?

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

D. What are the economic impacts?

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

E. What are the benefits?

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

VI. Request for Comments

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

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

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

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

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

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 protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than April 13, 2018. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses. The Agency has determined that each of the three small
entities impacted by this action may experience an impact of less than
0.01 percent of sales. Details of this analysis are presented in the
memorandum titled Proposal Economic Impact Analysis for the
Reconsideration of the Risk and Technology Review: Leather Finishing
Operations Source Category in the docket for this action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  63.5380  How do I conduct performance tests?

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

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

Sec.  63.5420  What reports must I submit and when?

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

Sec.  63.5430  What records must I keep?

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

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

Sec.  63.5460  What definitions apply to this subpart?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20625-20629]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8200]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0211; FRL-9655-5]

Air Pollution Control: Proposed Action on Clean Air Act Grants to
the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; Proposed Determination
With Request for Comments; and a Notice of Opportunity for a Public
Hearing

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; Proposed determination with request for comments; and a
notice of opportunity for a public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. EPA has made a proposed determination that reduction
in expenditures of non-Federal funds for the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) in support of its continuing air program
under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 105 for the period of calendar year
2010 was not selective relative to the expenditures of all other
executive branch agencies in the State for the same period. This
determination, when final, will reset IDEQ's required recipient
maintenance of effort level for 2010 and 2011, retain its federal award
for the 2010 and 2011 grant years, and allow IDEQ to remain eligible
for a Sec.  105 grant for 2012 and beyond.

DATES: Comments and/or requests for a public hearing must be received
by EPA at the address stated below by May 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0211, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov, Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Michael McGown, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, 1435 North Orchard, Boise, ID 83706.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael McGown, Region 10, Idaho
Operations Office, 1435 North Orchard, Boise, ID 83706, phone: (208)-
378-5764, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
provides grant support for the continuing air programs of eligible
state, local and tribal agencies. Section 105 contains two cost-sharing
provisions to initially qualify for a Sec.  105 grant under Sec.
105(a)(1)(A). An eligible entity must meet a minimum match and to
remain eligible for Section 105 grant funds, an eligible entity must
continue to meet the match as well as meet a maintenance of effort
(MOE) requirement under Sec.  105(c)(1). The match requires that at
least \2/5\ of the total costs for approved Sec.  105 program
activities must be paid by the state/local recipient. Program
activities relevant to the match consist of both recurring and non-
recurring (unique, one-time only) expenses.
    The MOE provision requires that a state or local agency spend at
least the same dollar level of funds as it did in the previous grant
year but only for the costs of recurring activities. Specifically,
Sec.  105(c)(1) [42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(1)], provides that ``no agency shall
receive any grant under this section during any fiscal year when its
expenditures of non-Federal funds for recurrent expenditures for air
pollution control programs will be less than its expenditures were for
such programs during the preceding fiscal year. Pursuant to CAA Sec.
105(c)(2), however, EPA may still award a grant to an agency not
meeting the requirements of Sec.  105(c)(1), ``if the Administrator,
after notice and opportunity for public hearing, determines that a
reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-selective reduction
in the expenditures in the programs of all Executive branch agencies of
the applicable unit of Government.'' These statutory requirements are
repeated in EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 35.140 through
35.148.
    EPA issued additional guidance to recipients on what constitutes a
nonselective reduction on September 30, 2011. In consideration of
legislative history, the guidance clarified that a non-selective
reduction does not necessarily mean that each Executive branch agency
need be reduced in equal proportion. However, it must be clear to EPA,
from the weight of evidence, that a recipient's CAA-related air program
is not being disproportionately impacted or singled out for a
reduction.
    A Sec.  105 recipient must submit a final financial status report
no later than 90 days from the close of its grant period that documents
all of its federal and non-federal expenditures for the completed
period. The recipient seeking an adjustment to its MOE for that period
must provide the rationale and the documentation necessary to enable
EPA to make a determination that a non-selective reduction has
occurred. In order to expedite that determination, the recipient must
provide details of the budget action and the comparative fiscal impacts
on all the jurisdiction's executive branch agencies, the recipient
agency itself, and the agency's air program. The recipient should
identify any executive branch agencies or programs that should be
excepted from

comparison and explain why. The recipient must provide evidence that
the air program is not being singled out for a reduction or being
disproportionately reduced. Documentation in two key areas will be
needed: Budget data specific to the recipient's air program and
comparative budget data between the recipient's air program, the agency
containing the air program and the other executive branch agencies. EPA
may also request information from the recipient about how impacts on
the its program operations will affect its ability to meet its CAA
obligations and requirements.
    In the case of IDEQ, EPA provides annual grant funding under the
authority CAA Sec.  105 to help IDEQ support the operation of its CAA-
related continuing air pollution control program. IDEQ's Sec.  105
annual grant period is based on the calendar year and as such is always
impacted by two State budget years since the annual Idaho state budget
cycle runs from July 1 of the current through June 30 of the following
year. For the 2010 grant year EPA awarded the IDEQ $1,497,516 in Sec.
105 funds. This represented 27.8% of the total approved program funding
based on IDEQ's stated prospective contribution of $3,891,016 in its
own non-federal funds to cover the costs of both non-recurring and
recurring activities. The State's portion of the total recurring costs
was to have been at least $3,842,589. This was the State's final level
of recurrent expenditures for the 2009 grant year and constituted the
required MOE level for the 2010 grant year.
    However, on March 8, 2011, IDEQ informed EPA in writing that due to
continued reductions in the State's overall budget for executive branch
agencies, particularly in the State's SFY2011 budget (which funded the
last 6 months of the calendar year 2010 grant), IDEQ would fall short
of its required MOE level by $452,789. The resulting contribution of
$3,389,800 would be 11.78% below the required level. EPA examined the
IDEQ's request and confirmed that its 2010 final financial status
report indicated a State contribution level of $3,389,800 of recurrent
expenditures.
    In its March 8, 2011 letter to EPA, IDEQ requested an adjustment of
its 2010 MOE level based upon a non-selective reduction. IDEQ also
sought to retain its 2011 Sec.  105 award based on this lowered
recipient contribution level. In support of its request IDEQ provided
legislative appropriations information on State general fund levels by
major departmental categories for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 budget years.
In June, July and October of 2011, EPA requested additional clarifying
information from IDEQ on the full range of state-only executive branch,
IDEQ and air program appropriations and expenses for the 2010 grant
period. IDEQ supplied additional information to EPA on July 21, July
25, October 17, October 27, and November 15th that further
distinguished general fund, dedicated fund and federal stimulus
resources. On November 28 and November 30, 2011 IDEQ further clarified
its direct and indirect air program expenditures compared to changes in
overall IDEQ environmental program expenditure levels, overall State
general fund levels and overall State appropriations levels for the
affected period. A summary of this information is shown in the tables
below.

                        Table 1--IDEQ General Fund Changes From SFY 2009 Through SFY 2010
                                              [Final amounts in $s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                IDEQ budget unit                       2009            2010         Difference       % Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration (Recurring Appropriation)*.......       3,115,800       2,823,700        -292,000           -9.37
Administration (One Time Appropriation)*........          47,700               0         -47,700         -100.00
Air Program (Recurring Appropriation)...........       3,075,700       2,769,200        -306,500           -9.97
Air Program (One Time Appropriation)............       1,023,700          32,000        -991,700          -96.87
Water Program (Recurring Appropriation).........       7,847,700       6,012,700       -1,835000          -23.38
Water Program (One Time Appropriation)..........          36,000         120,000          84,000          233.33
Waste Program (Recurring Appropriation).........       2,769,200       2,450,500        -318,700          -11.51
Waste Program (One Time Appropriation)..........               0               0               0             n/a
INL Oversight Program...........................         164,500         103,400         -61,100          -37.14
Coeur D'Alene Basin Commission..................          98,400         104,300           5,900            6.00
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total: Recurring Appropriation..............      17.071,300      14,263,800      -2,807,500          -16.45
    Total: One Time Appropriation...............       1,107,400         152,000        -955,400          -86.27
    Total: IDEQ.................................      18,178,700      14,415,800      -3,762,900          -20.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Table reflects comparison of general funds only. Dedicated state funds (e.g., non-Title V permit fees)
  are not included. Administration costs also need to be attributed to the various other program units. Addition
  of these funds would bring state recurring air totals for 2009 and 2010 to $3,842,589 and $3,389,800,
  respectively. Federal funds including ARRA funds are not included.

    Table 1 compares overall IDEQ general funds expenses for years 2009
and 2010. While this table only shows general fund dollars, the
inclusion of other dedicated funds by program unit shows similar
results. As noted earlier, maintenance of effort is based solely on
recurring program expenditures. The decline in recurring air program
costs of just under 10% is less than the overall IDEQ budget decline of
about 16.5% as well as the other individual program units of
administration, water and waste. Only the smaller Coeur D'Alene Basin
Commission showed any increase. Based on this information, a comparison
of air program funding levels to other IDEQ programs shows that the air
program was not singled out for a disproportionate or selective
reduction. Table 2 compares both IDEQ and IDEQ Air program funding
levels to the balance of other state agencies and programs. With only a
few exceptions, the change in the IDEQ air program general funding
level is consistent with changes in the budgets other state agencies
and programs from 2009 to 2010. Comparison with all state agencies'
aggregate budgets--totals that also include dedicated sources of funds,
i.e., inclusion of revenue streams or sources that may not be subject
to direct executive branch control--shows a more variable picture. EPA
considered the relative size of the agencies and their budgets, their
mission (e.g., public safety, health, education) and their sources of
funding. Based upon these considerations, EPA concluded that neither
the air program nor IDEQ overall was singled out for a disproportionate
or selective reduction when compared to all the other executive
agencies from 2009 to 2010.

    Accordingly, consistent with criteria set forth in CAA Sec.
105(c)(2) and consistent with the Agency's September 30, 2011 Guidance
on qualifying for a non-selective reduction, EPA has determined that it
is appropriate to approve IDEQ's request for a non selective reduction
in its level of recurring expenditures for the 2010 grant year for its
air program grant. The revised MOE level for 2010 and 2011 grant years
is $3,389,800.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP12.000

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

    This notice constitutes a request for public comment and an
opportunity for public hearing as required by the Clean Air Act. All
written comments received by May 7, 2012 on this proposal will be
considered. EPA will conduct a public hearing on this proposal only if
a written request for such is received by EPA at the address above by
May 7, 2012. If no written request for a hearing is received, EPA will
proceed to the final determination. While notice of the final
determination will not be published in the Federal Register, copies of
the determination can be obtained by sending a written request to
Michael McGown at the above address.

    Dated: March 22, 2012.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012-8200 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P